IT is inevitable after the revelations about some MPs’ use of their expenses and the appalling, invented spin stories that have emanated from Downing Street that MPs and the Government are held in such low esteem at the moment.

While there is no defence for dishonest and obnoxious stories, readers will not be surprised if I attempt a defence of the large number of MPs whom I believe are not abusing the system.

The major allowance for any MP is that for salaries for staff in their offices in London and the constituency. This never touches an MP’s bank account but is paid directly to staff at a rate agreed with the parliamentary fees office on a scale comparable with similar highly responsible staff in London or the provinces.

That allowance cannot be used for anything else. I have no objection to an MP employing a family member provided that this individual has a job description and contract, just as any other member of staff has, and actually does all the work expected.

This is the arrangement between some MPs and their partners and can be beyond reproach. The awful examples of family members being paid for doing very little if anything have been widely condemned.

The allowance for accommodation in London for MPs living outside London is sufficient to rent a one-bedded flat near Westminster or larger accommodation further out. I believe it is wrong for that to be allowed to be used for mortgage payments for the purchase of a flat or house unless the taxpayer has, by some mechanism, a share in the eventual value of the property.

This allowance has fallen into disrepute as the rules are not nearly tight enough on how far from London you have to live to qualify for a second home and also the definition of a main and a second home, unbelievably, needs clarifying.

Travel costs are not limited as MPs living in Scotland will have greater costs than those from the Home Counties. However these have always been subject to control and one is only allowed to claim travel from one’s home to Westminster and mileage around the constituency.

There are smaller allowances to cover constituency office premises and running expenses including stationary, postage and communication costs.

Already the rules have been tightened and receipts now have to be presented for scrutiny for purchases over £25.

MPs are just the same as other people. There will be some who only claim what they need and some who claim the maximum that they are allowed within the rules.

The review of pay and allowances for MPs must alter these rules to limit the amount claimed to that actually needed to do the job to which they have been elected.

I belong to a self-appointed group of MPs of all parties, dissatisfied with the way a Government with a large majority and powerful whipping system can disregard the House of Commons and with the behaviour of some MPs, particularly regarding allowances.

I hope this group will be the first to produce a plan for rules to make MPs’ pay and allowances appropriate, open and acceptable to the taxpayer.