The purpose of Sir Christopher Kelly’s report into MPs’ expenses was to pull off the difficult task of enabling MPs to create a modern and robust payments system, while retaining public confidence.

Unfortunately, he has comprehensively fluffed it. The report is intellectually flawed and populist. Its starting point is that of a metropolitan mandarin who fails to understand Britain’s constituency system and the way of life that it (rightly) imposes on most MPs.

MPs are freestanding elected representatives whose first loyalty should be to the constituents who elect them. They are not simply the bottom rung in some hierarchy of office-seekers. This status underscores the nature of MPs’ lives in a constituency system.

There have been dramatic changes since the era when my predecessor as a Labour Cabinet Minister and Norwich MP, David Ennals, could survive by living with his family in London and making regular visits to the city, usually staying in a hotel.

Most MPs today run a split life, spending three to four nights a week in London (Monday to Wednesday) and three to four in their constituency (including Friday and Saturday). However, the family circumstances of each MP are unique. Consequently, defining the “family” or “main” home becomes a Jesuitical exercise. An MP’s living arrangements often vary from those of the rest of the family and they change as circumstances change: children leave home, divorces happen, MPs become ministers. The Kelly report simply fails to address this problem, which is at the core of the second homes controversy. Similarly, MPs’ offices resemble a small family business more closely than the large public sector organisations that appear to be Sir Christopher’s model.

Parliament has made an utterly disastrous mess of dealing with the expenses issues. Our failure has seriously damaged confidence in politics as a whole, reflected in an angry public baying in TV studios. We have strengthened the most nihilistic instincts of the media and, most dangerously, left a vacuum for anti-democratic forces, notably in the European Parliament elections.

All MPs have been shamed by our total failure to create and administer a system that commands public confidence. As a result, a handful face legal proceedings; others are, quite rightly, atoning by making repayments; others are refusing to co-operate with a process that they deem unfair.

Sir Christopher’s report emerged out of a catalogue of confusion as party leaders competed to prove their probity, issuing capricious and iniquitous proposals and counter-proposals. This was not leadership but unprincipled political gamesmanship. Casualties included my colleague Ian Gibson and the constituents of Norwich North.

This catalogue of confusion was followed by Sir Thomas Legg’s decision last month to impose a sequence of retrospective and arbitrary rule changes. Some MPs have been required to make repayments despite never having committed any impropriety. If they were constituents we might have fought their cases.

There is now guilt by association in the minds of constituents, who tar all MPs with the reputation of Derek Conway. In the absence of any defence of the integrity of their role, many experienced and competent MPs have decided to give up. Many more are considering doing so. Some people have been discouraged from entering politics, others threaten legal action. The political climate around Westminster is very unhealthy.

Sir Christopher’s report was intended to draw a line. Instead, his approach makes it far more difficult to reach a resolution, because MPs rightly feel that his recommendations have no rigorous foundation.

Regrettably, I don’t think MPs really have any choice but to approve them, inadequate as they are. Parliament has a responsibility to demonstrate that we MPs understand our errors and are committed to correcting them.

But this stance can only be properly demonstrated through a vote in Parliament. MPs should approve the Kelly recommendations as the basis for a new system and apologise for this whole episode.

This approach would minimise the number of MPs who are ready to protest in the courts or elsewhere. The Government’s current plan to refuse any parliamentary vote will only leave the sour and unjustified suspicion that MPs are not prepared to put their collective misconduct straight. It will also foster damaging dissent by MPs. The proposals should be supplemented immediately by decisions on MPs’ pay.

The Kelly recommendations are not stable in the long term and will end up being reformed, but that is an issue for another day. The danger now is that the whole debilitating and destructive process will drag on for months. That is the approach that brought Parliament to this sorry pass and we should not allow it to be repeated. Parliament must decide to vote on the Kelly report as soon as possible — and definitely before Christmas.

Charles Clarke is MP for Norwich South and a former Home Secretary

Times Recommends

• Remember the Crimea. Look after the Army
• Prepare for the fourth transport revolution
• If interest rates rise, our prospects plummet