Do some MP's have a fair point on expenses?

There have been a lot of anger from MP's regarding the Sir Thomas Legg investigation into expenses. The reason behind this is that Sir Thomas has gone back five years and retrospectively changed the interpretation of the rules. Claims that were looked at by the Fees Office at the time and signed off as being 'within the rules' has been re-examined and, in some cases, reversed. This has caused a number of MP's (including the Prime Minister) who believed they were in the clear, being asked to pay back a lot of money (in Mr Brown's case, he has been asked to pay £12,000).

The newspapers and much of the public are, to say the least, unsympathetic. They claim that MP's made the rules and they should have made rules that were stricter.

In my opinion this is a little unfair. If claims were signed off as being within the rules at the time, it is a little rough to retrospectively examine the claims with a new set of criteria. Imagine the Government changing a law today (such as raising the retirement age), then writing to every pensioner and telling them they should have know the age was going to go up, and they need to pay back any pension the got for those years. There would be a justifiable outcry. There is little difference to what is now happening to MP's, in some cases to the tune of tens, or even hundreds of thousands of pounds. For all that we can laugh at how much MP's are paid, they are not actually that well off (unless they are well-heeled Tories). Asking them to stump up with that sort of cash is completely unreasonable.

By all accounts punish those who broke the rules - even have the Police investigate sorts like Jacqui Smith who appear to have acted corruptly by mis-claiming or those caught 'flipping' houses - but to retrospectively change the rules and demand repayment seems a little rough.