As a pensioner who has the cheek to have a small extra income that is a matter of delight to the Inland Revenue, I view with a mixture of incredulity and fury the “goings-on” at Westminster.

The ever-growing lists of property scams and “essentials” listed in the national press, despite the efforts of Speaker Martin, has now resulted in a queue of MPs owning up the mistakes and oversights with cheques of repayment, in order to save their political skins. One wonders if they would be so forthcoming without the glare of public scrutiny.

If they think for a moment that the electorate will be taken in by this public wearing of the hair shirt then they are either fools or knaves, neither of which have a place in public life.

There are at Westminster many men and women of honesty and integrity, representing all parties, who are deserving of our trust as “honourable members”. It is to them that we must look for a future, if any, for our Parliament.

Just what happens next should not be up to those politicians who have presided over the descent of the Palace of Westminster into the gutter. It should reside with the local parties and, more importantly, with the electorate – a General Election, and now.

J A Whitmore, Springfield Road, York.

• I have not met anyone yet who is not incensed by the revelations concerning MPs' expenses claims. I find it difficult to come to terms with the idea that these people whom we elected and trusted to look after our interests were capable of fleecing us in such an outrageous way. Apart from the way they manipulated the second-home allowances, there are the little mean devices which they exploited to the limit, such as claiming up to their entitlement of £400 per month for food. How must our pensioners feel knowing this, when many have to survive on just that amount to cover all their living costs? Is the pay of more than £60,000, £80,000 or £145,000 per annum so low that they cannot afford to feed themselves?

This allowance apparently applies even when the House is in recess.

The worst culprits, which include a high proportion of New Labour ministers, readily admit that the rules are wrong and the system flawed but, nevertheless, it did not deter them from taking advantage of it for their own benefit.

The abuse is so widespread, it is not surprising that the British public has lost faith in the political system, and, of course, we do not yet know the full extent of the problem. Trudie Elliott, Hopgrove Lane North, York.

• About a year ago I suggested that in order to stop MPs robbing the taxpayers, the political parties should fund their MPs and councillors themselves.

The present scandal simply demonstrates the urgent need for a change.

I suggested funding the political parties from public funds on the basis of votes cast at elections. The parties would be free to pay their representatives what they wished, all subject to the same taxation and expenses rules that the Inland Revenue apply to the private sector.

This would stop the scandal, and give an incentive for people to vote. Even if they voted for a losing candidate, they would in effect be making a donation to the party of their choice.

A hybrid scheme would be possible. MPs could be paid their taxable salaries as at present, with all their expenses paid by the parties, again subject to the taxation rules which apply to mere mortals.

The amounts per vote are, of course, a matter for debate, and some simple mathematics. I would suggest £10 a vote at general elections, £5 at European, and say £1 at local.

Whatever the detail, the need for a change in the system has never been so clearly demonstrated.

David Rimington, Fairways Drive, Harrogate.