While the public shaming of MPs over expense claims continues, some of their more petty deeds remain hidden. Revelations of ministers who claimed thousands of pounds for interest on mortgages they had already paid off have sparked widespread anger. A lesser-known fact is that, under social security regulations passed in January, help with mortgage interest payments for the unemployed will stop after two years.

But this is the real insult. In a note to the Social Security Advisory Committee (SSAC), the Government explains: "The two-year time limit for JSA [jobseekers allowance] claims is an essential measure to ensure customers are clear about what is expected of them by way of meeting their responsibilities to find work."

While ministers have been shameless in claiming generous amounts for their second homes, hapless "jobseekers" (including, from next year, single mothers with children under the age of seven), will be living under the threat of having their only home repossessed - for no better reason than to put them under extra pressure to find a job.

Passing this legislation was no more difficult than filing a second home expense claim. This is how it works. Usually, social security regulations have to be referred to the SSAC for comment and consultations, and then to Parliament, before they can become law. However, under an "urgency" provision in the Social Security Administration Act 1992, ministers can bypass these democratic measures if they appear "inexpedient". The regulations can then become law before the SSAC gets to comment on them - and without ever being debated in parliament.

What is the nature of this "urgency"? It's the economy, stupid. The same economic crisis that makes long-term unemployment and poverty a virtual certainty for many has also provided the Government with the justification it needed to bring in further welfare cuts.

And there may be more ticking time bombs in the corridors of power. The latest Welfare Reform Bill, which legalises "workfare", forced drug testing for addicts and compulsory therapy for the sick backed by "sanctions" for non-compliance, received its second reading in the House of Lords just days before the MPs' expenses scandal broke.

It was criticised for being one of the vaguest ever bills presented to peers, because it contains phrases such as "regulations may make provision for". In fact, the bill refers to "regulations" an incredible 387 times.

Mental health charity Mind said: "It is difficult to welcome without reservation a bill which leaves many of the details of the proposed reforms to be set out in as yet unpublished regulations."

Baroness Thomas of Winchester summed up the legislation: "It is about taking a power to keep options open later".

Of course, certain safeguards are supposed to be built into the system, including the SSAC - the body set up to guide the Department for Work and Pensions. But the Government, having ticked the appropriate box and "consulted" the SSAC, is then free to ignore its advice. And if that's too controversial, there is still the "urgency" clause, which permits bypassing even this ineffectual safeguard.

While most of the media and much of the public have been supportive of "tightening up" the welfare system to catch the "work shy", it's time to think again. Under regulations that can be passed with little fuss, ministers who have been caught with their hands in our till will have endless power to make further cuts to welfare just when it is most needed. And taxpayers could be none the wiser until they need help from the Government and find it is no longer available.

If there is one thing the expenses scandal should teach us, it is that blind trust in ministers is most unwise. Let's treat politicians' policies with the same scrutiny we are now applying to their expenses claims.

Carola Becker, Tribune

This article appears in this week's Tribune, (http://www.tribunemagazine.co.uk) every week Compass publishes two to three articles from Tribune for people to make comment and debate. Subscribe to Tribune on 01635 879385.