The government has found itself embroiled in a new row over MPs’ expenses after it emerged that a Minister and her husband had been making pornographic films and claiming the budgets from the tax payer. The antics of Jane Arbolister – a junior Home Office Minister – and her husband were brought to light after diligent research by Tory backbencher Hubert Hergenjerker. “I was bloody shocked, I can tell you,” says the sixty-two year old member for Cockshire, who also acts as a Parliamentary consultant to the British porn industry. “I was just getting into a good rhythm whilst watching State of Foreplay, which I thought was simply an erotic thriller, when the fat bird having the three line whip applied to her buttocks turned round and I recognised her as a Government Minister. It completely put me off my stroke and my upstanding member quickly lost his majority! It ruined my evening completely!” The backbencher – who is adamant that he didn’t charge his adult DVDs on expenses, although they might be considered legitimate research costs – was further shocked when a Freedom of Information request revealed that the Arbolisters had financed the film through the Minister’s expenses allowance. “It really was outrageous,” thundered the Tory backbencher. “As part of the claim they put in for thirty pounds for a vibrator and butt plugs – if they’d bought in bulk they could have got a twenty percent discount, representing a huge saving for the taxpayer!” A Parliamentary Select Committee set up to vet MPs’ expenses claims has also been highly critical of the Minister’s invoices, noting that the films themselves appeared to be extremely low budget, in no way justifying the amounts being claimed for. “They are clearly mainly filmed on location, more often than not in the Minister’s own house, obviating the need for sets,” said a spokesperson. “They can’t even claim that the on-screen ‘talent’ they were using was expensive – they played the leads themselves.” The Committee was also alarmed that at least one scene in the film Well Hung Parliament appeared to have been filmed in the House of Commons and involved a highly improper use of the Mace by a character called ‘Black Rod’. “This is a clear abuse of Parliamentary privilege by the Minister,” declared the Committee’s spokesperson. “This ‘Black Rod’ character’s activities are a mockery of proper Parliamentary procedure – particularly when he knocks on Arbolister’s ‘doors’ with his ‘rod’ after bending her over the Table of the House – which could give casual viewers a highly misleading impression as to what constitutes correct Parliamentary procedures.”

The Minister, whose brief includes the elimination of the sexual exploitation of women, has defended her actions, denying that the films were made as part of some bizarre sex game on the part of herself and her husband, claiming that they were actually research, and therefore could legitimately be claimed as expenses. “We were merely trying to fully understand the plight of the poor women who are exploited by appearing in such pornography,” she told the Commons. “Consequently, as eliminating such exploitation is central to my Ministerial brief, I feel that the making of these films constitutes a perfectly legitimate expense.” Indeed, most of the films made by the couple appear to involve women – usually the Minister herself – being chained up and variously humiliated in a variety of situations. This isn’t the first time that the Minister and her husband have courted controversy with their bizarre behaviour, most notably when her husband appeared on a live TV sex phone-in channel, dressed in fishnet stockings and a red basque, taking calls from viewers. “It was truly horrible,” recalls the station’s programme director, Ron Widdler. “I don’t know what we were thinking allowing him to go on there, but the Minister implied our licence would be revoked if we didn’t. It was a disaster – when he bared his man boobs and started squeezing them provocatively, viewing figures dropped to a record low!” Once again, the Minister defended the broadcast by claiming that she and her husband were merely trying to highlight the exploitation of women on such programmes. “Clearly, when a man is exploited in the same way people find it disgusting,” she told the press. “This merely underlines the inherent hypocrisy of the whole sex industry!” She has also claimed that she and her husband had every intention of repaying the money they had claimed, from the profits of their films’ sales. However, doubts have been cast on the ability of the movies to recoup even their modest costs. “Jesus Christ – who’d want to pay to see two flabby middle aged people grunting and groaning on their kitchen table?” asks Hergenjerker. “I don’t see why the taxpayer should be expected to finance the revolting home sex movies of government Ministers!”

The government can take some succour from revelations concerning the alleged abuse of expenses by opposition MPs. These include at least one Tory front bench spokesman who claimed for prostitutes as legitimate entertainment expenses, whilst one of his colleagues billed the taxpayer for a course of treatment for a serious venereal disease. “There’s even one senior Conservative backbencher who claimed the equipping of a private S&M dungeon in his London residence as home improvements,” says Labour MP Simon Pokewell. “At least the Arbolisters can claim some kind of public interest by subsidising their porn movies with Parliamentary expenses – they’re keeping thousands of sad single perverts off of the streets. These Tory bastards are simply defrauding the taxpayer for personal pleasure – they aren’t sharing any of their pleasurable activities with the wider public!” However, some errant opposition MPs are now using what has become known as the ‘Arbolister Defence’ in order to justify their expenditures. Liberal Democrat Junior Education Spokesperson John Wheaton, for instance, has claimed that his outlays on rent-boys to cane his bare backside whilst dressed in school uniform, constituted research into the long-term psychological effects of corporal punishment. Likewise, he claimed that it was perfectly legitimate for him to claim the costs of having a male prostitute tie him up and strangle him when he was Law and Order spokesperson, as he was researching whether hanging constituted a humane a form of capital punishment. Pokewell believes that a major reform of the current system of Parliamentary expenses is urgently required if further abuses are to be avoided. “This sort of thing simply reinforces the public’s perception of us as a bunch of sleazy crooked bastards,” he laments. “If we don’t act soon we’ll feel the backlash at the polls – I’d be very surprised if Arbolister keeps her seat after the thrashing she took in that DVD.”