As the row over MPs’ expenses escalates, Middlesbrough MP Sir Stuart Bell, who has called for a reform of the system, tells Robert Merrick how the ‘Westminster gravy train’ began its journey.

SOME MPs are said to be in a state of panic as the clock ticks down to the publication of every receipt for every expenses claim they have made for the past three years. Just what suspicious purchases will be revealed – of widescreen TVs, antique fireplaces and, perhaps, the odd 88p bath plug – when the Commons finally complies with a High Court order, probably in July?

If Westminster rumours are to be believed, the receipts have the power to ruin careers – triggering humiliating resignations from Parliament and a string of autumn by-elections.

Already, a number of Cabinet ministers, including Home Secretary Jacqui Smith, Chancellor Alistair Darling and Transport Secretary Geoff Hoon, have been engulfed by allegations that they are ripping off taxpayers.

And a huge public backlash has damaged everyone in politics, even before the box of secrets is opened. Two-thirds of voters think most MPs abuse the system, according to a survey this week.

However, according to one senior MP from the region, who says his attempts at reform were blocked at every turn, MPs should look to only one quarter when apportioning blame – themselves.

Sir Stuart Bell, the veteran Middlesbrough MP, hit the headlines last week when he revealed that the infamous receipts were being touted for sale for £300,000. Now he has attacked his colleagues for refusing to change their high-spending habits, long after it was crystal clear that public anger was bubbling up.

Sir Stuart sits on the Commons estimates committee, which proposed what he called “root-and-branch” reform of the widely-condemned expenses system last year, but MPs voted out its proposal to scrap the now-notorious second home allowance for London MPs whose constituencies are within easy commuting distance of Westminster.

Worse, Sir Stuart says, his plan for a private firm to scrutinise all expenses claims, to end the cosy “Commons culture”, never even reached a vote, after other committee members rejected it.

The 70-year-old Labour rightwinger said he was not attacking any particular MP for their expenses claim, insisting it was the rules that should have been changed long ago.

But he says: “After six months reviewing the allowances system, it seemed obvious to me that we needed root-and-branch reform to meet with public opinion. But, much to my surprise, MPs turned down our suggestions.

“I wanted an independent company to review all claims, to get away from this House of Commons culture which has encouraged MPs to make claims, by interpreting the rules liberally on their behalf.

“The culture is that we are all honourable members, therefore no claim will be made that would not come from an honourable member. The onus is entirely on the MPs.”

Sir Stuart was unable to persuade fellow committee members, including Commons Speaker Michael Martin and Commons Leader Harriet Harman, to back the plan, which means the inhouse fees office remains in charge of claims.

It is that fees office which cleared the Home Secretary to claim £116,000 in second home expenses on her constituency residence, on the grounds that her main home is the spare room she rents from her sister, in London.

Last weekend, it was revealed that both Mr Hoon and Mr Darling were allowed to claim similar allowances, despite living in grace-and-favour accommodation in the capital.

Sir Stuart says: “MPs should have caught up with what the public wanted much quicker. If the proposals had been accepted last year, we would not be where we are today.”

The comments are unlikely to make the Middlesbrough MP popular with his colleagues, who insist they have simply been following the rules.

It is also necessary to point out that Sir Stuart claimed £133,933 in Parliamentary allowances last year, including £22,934 for his rented London home.

However, asked if there any skeletons in his closet of receipts, the MP replied: “My office is confident that there isn’t anything like that.”

The controversy is now in the hands of the Commons committee on standards in public life, which is expected to publish its report before Christmas.

Sir Stuart urged all three main party leaders to accept its recommendations and put them in their election manifestos, to ensure they were adopted next year. However, providing further evidence of what a minefield the issue is, he criticised the Prime Minister’s proposal to scrap the second home allowance for all MPs and replace it with a nightly allowance.

That would be no good for the many MPs who have, quite legitimately, bought properties in London and have mortgages to pay, Sir Stuart says.

To illustrate how long MPs have been wrestling with the issue, former Newcastle East MP Mike Thomas has claimed to have been present at the “birth of the expenses regime” – back in 1976.

Shocked to discover that he was earning less at Westminster than he had been working for a charity, Mr Thomas joined a delegation that met Michael Foot, then Labour’s Commons leader.

It was judged untimely to hike pay, but new allowances were promised and “nobody would ask too many questions”. A bomb was primed – to explode more than 30 years later.

Such is the scale of public anger over the socalled “Westminster gravy train”, that forcing all MPs to live in hotels, or rent cheaply, may now be the only way to satisfy it.

Sir Stuart said that would be a throwback to the Sixties, when scores of Northern MPs stayed in hotels near the British Museum, close to King’s Cross and Euston stations.

He also remembered hitchhiking from London to the North-East as a teenager, adding wearily: “The public might quite like MPs to do that as well.”