The way to convince the electorate that with a new set of clear rules they can now be trusted is to adopt the reforms recommended by Sir Christopher Kelly.

Not all MPs are happy about them, however. In particular, spouses, mainly wives, who have been office managers and constituency secretaries, working hours that would not be tolerated in a purely professional relationship, are angry that their hard work and loyalty has been demeaned by the implication that they are milking the system. There is genuine substance in the argument that it allows them to maintain marriages which otherwise might crumble under the strain of the requirements of an MP’s job. Nevertheless, anyone who is employed by a member of their family at public expense is in a dubious position and, like Caesar’s wife, an MP’s spouse must be above suspicion. It may be that a wholesale ban is draconian and Sir Christopher acknowledged it might not stand up to legal challenge. However, the spouses have been given a five-year notice period, which in the current financial climate makes it difficult to argue that they have been hard done by.

The inevitable grumblings from the back benches have been relatively muted. That is overdue evidence that the majority of MPs recognise the extent to which the expenses scandal has damaged their reputations, and the need for a new system that is, above all, transparent. They should be as relieved as the taxpayer at the outlawing of “flipping” their designated second home, the end of claiming for mortgage interest and the need to pay back any capital gains from selling a house bought at public expense. Paying rent instead of a mortgage may not substantially reduce the overall bill, but will remove all suspicion of profiteering, while strict rules over which costs are allowed (utility bills but no cleaning, whether of houses or moats) ensures that the expenditure incurred is necessary for carrying out the job.

There may be a case for increasing MPs’ pay, but this is not the time to do it. It is a move towards transparency that parliamentarians’ pay and pensions, as well as their expenses, will be determined by the new Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority. Requiring publication of expenses claims and of outside earnings will also ensure a more accountable relationship between MPs and their constituents.

Tightening the rules may result in some minor injustices, but MPs have brought that on themselves. They must now recognise (as the party leaders do) that they cannot even begin to regain public confidence unless the recommendations are implemented in full by the next parliament.