EVEN Tony McNulty, the London minister who claims a second-home allowance for his parents' home while living eight miles away in Hammersmith, has admitted that there are "anomalies" in the system of allowances that MPs enjoy which need to be sorted out. Members of the public may well take the less charitable view, that parliamentarians' perks, pay and allowances do indeed need reform because of the apparent tendency of MPs of all parties to ratchet up whatever benefits they can get away with. The row over Mr McNulty's interesting arrangements comes soon after a similar controversy about the Home Secretary using her sister's house, rather than an official residence, as her main base, enabling her to claim a second home allowance on her constituency house.

Now it seems the independent Committee on Standards in Public Life may launch an investigation into MPs' expenses, which is likely to begin in the autumn. It should do so - and report as soon as possible. Its working premise would, unfortunately, have to be that MPs, by and large, do not try to minimise their expenditure in order to save taxpayers' money; rather they try to maximise their income and keep it within their family as far as the rules allow. Some MPs are models of integrity; others see the complex system of benefits as an opportunity to be exploited.

The committee might, for instance, consider a flat-rate remuneration package for MPs, with an extra percentage for those outside London. A single sum, which they could allocate at will between housing, income, travel and staff would be a powerful incentive to contain their expenditure. There must anyway remain strict rules about transparency when it comes to employing family members.

It is dispiriting to reflect that our rules need reform to reflect the reality of greed and opportunism on the part of many MPs. But that is the only conclusion after the recent revelations.

Taxing questions

ONE OF the reasons for Ken Clarke's appointment as shadow Business Secretary was his refreshing outspokenness. David Cameron, the Tory leader, cannot complain too much if Mr Clarke turns out to be more outspoken than is strictly expedient. Mr Clarke suggested yesterday that plans for scrapping inheritance tax on homes worth less than £1 million was an "aspiration"; he has now back-tracked.

Yet the confusion highlights how hard it is for Mr Cameron to paper over the differences within his party over tax. Likewise, Mr Cameron and the shadow Chancellor, George Osborne, have in the past few days appeared to concur with government plans to increase the top rate of tax - provoking London's Mayor, Boris Johnson, to warn against "clobbering the rich".

The truth is that, however uncomfortable the Tories may feel about it, the extent of public debt incurred by the Government is such that there will be little scope for tax cuts after the next election. As the CBI says today, a big fiscal push in the coming Budget would be unaffordable and imprudent. Any government after the next election will have to tighten its belt: anything other than token tax cuts will have to wait.

Only in London

CITY Hall's new "Only in London" tourism campaign deserves to succeed. London's uniqueness and variety is its joy, embodied in hundreds of lesser-known sites and pleasures. Only in London can you visit the grave of the founder of Marxism before descending on the mecca of capitalism for cocktails in the City. Only in London can one day take in miles of parks and quirky markets interspersed with meals of dim sum, mezze and salt beef bagels. We know our city is the only place to be. And we will do our best to convince any visitor of that truth.