Wolverhampton MP Rob Marris today insisted he was in favour of openness on expenses – as he again refused to reveal details of the £4,600 he had paid back.

Mr Marris said he understood the public’s frustration at the “cover-up” of details of many politicians’ claims. And he said some receipts submitted by his colleagues had been “rather odd, to say the least”, while admitting he himself was “no saint”.

Mr Marris is not revealing why he had paid back the cash – one of the 30 highest amounts in the country.

Talf Thomas, Mr Marris’ constituency chairman, said today he was in the dark about the money being paid back, adding: “He’s a man of great principle. Hopefully I will get an explanation later this week, if it’s needed. I have full trust in Rob.”

On being asked whether he felt the public would think the worst because of his silence, Mr Marris said: “I’ve got nothing further to add. I’m just trying to do what I regard as the right thing. I’m not going to comment further.”

On Saturday, it emerged that Mr Marris, who has represented Wolverhampton South West since 2001, had voluntarily repaid £4,600 to the Fees Office.

Writing on his website, yesterday, the Labour backbencher said: “I suspect that, within the next few weeks, there will be greater openness, because the public is annoyed. Indeed, that is precisely why, when offered the choice three months ago, I did not ask for any redactions (i.e. blackings out) on any of the papers at all.”

The 54-year-old said having reviewed his claims he believed they were “reasonable, allowable, and relatively modest.”

But he added: “When I re-examined those figures by the standards of today, I realised that some people might now consider the amounts to be too high.

“So I decided that the proper thing to do would be to re-pay a small proportion, with full interest, which I did in May 2009.”

Full transcript of the statement which appears on Mr Marris’ website.

All MPs, including me, bear a responsibility for collectively allowing such a lax expenses system to flourish. For that I apologise. I keep bearing in mind “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone”. That said, some of my colleagues have been submitting some rather odd claims, to say the least.

Painful as it is for some MPs at the moment, I think that it is great for democracy that all this is coming out into the open, thanks to a free press (not that they are always quite as accurate as they should be).  No country can call itself a proper democracy unless it also has a free press.

So I welcome the publication of details of MPs’ expenses. I understand the frustration at the “censorship”. I suspect that, within the next few weeks, there will be greater openness, because the public is annoyed at this latest apparent cover-up. Indeed, that is precisely why, when offered the choice about 3 months ago, I did not ask for any redactions (i.e. blackings out) any of the papers at all. Whatever was blacked out from my claims was done by the Fees Office without my knowledge or agreement.

I have always tried to claim only those expenses which are reasonable and allowable. It is for others to judge whether I have done so.

MPs living far London do need some kind of pay/expenses for staying in London for work.  After all, the House usually sits until at least about 10:15 pm on Mondays and Tuesdays. It would take me 5 hours a day to commute back and forth to London, as well as being pretty tiring.

My own London accommodation arrangements are quite straightforward: I share a three-bedroom, one living-room, terraced, ex-council house in disadvantaged Lambeth, in south London, with Ken Purchase MP and Lord Bilston (until 2005, he was plain Dennis Turner MP). This is quite adequate, but it is not the high life: my bedroom is about 7 foot by 7 foot. Almost all of the furniture in the house is second hand. We bought the house in 2001. The mortgage interest (not: the capital) and running costs are paid for by the taxpayer.

My claim for accommodation in London is each year usually about half the allowable maximum; and my home has always been in Pennfields, the one we’ve lived in since 1984. I have only ever nominated that Lambeth house as a second home.

My one third of that house costs the taxpayers less per year than if I stayed in a hotel every night that I am in London; and the amount of the London accommodation allowance which I claim puts me in the bottom 15% of those MPs who claim it – which is almost all of those who are eligible to claim, most of whom have been MPs a lot longer than me, and so could have bought property more cheaply, with consequently relatively smaller mortgages now to pay.

I think that the whole idea of ever allowing anything at all for furnishings etc. is now dead.  It has been too abused by a minority of MPs. Instead, perhaps an MP should get an accommodation allowance (payable upon production of receipts) which can only cover mortgage interest, council tax, and utilities; and that accommodation allowance should not each year exceed about £13,125 – i.e. 35 sitting weeks X 3 nights per week X £125 (= the approximate cost of an Inner London hotel room).

Then the MP has a choice:  either buy somewhere the running costs of which are less than that annual sum (or only claim a proportion of the running costs, up to that annual limit, and pay the rest out of the MP’s own pocket), producing receipts; similarly with rent, producing receipts; or stay in a hotel, producing receipts.  Alternatively, Parliament could buy a block of flats (perhaps the Olympic Village). I’d be quite happy with that.

Different MPs have different ways of doing things. I am not a saint. For example, I do eat well when away from home in London. I have claimed at the same level and in the same way as I had done when I worked in the private sector, which I did for many years before entering Parliament.

I always try to bear in mind that it is taxpayers’ money. So, for example, I travel second class on the train, usually using Saver tickets, and I do not claim for my own mobile ‘phone (two of my staff do claim for theirs, used for work) because – like virtually everyone else these days – I’d have one anyway.

I have always tried to make sure that I claim within the rules and procedures. However, it is clear that what is regarded as claimable has changed over a period of time. This is in part because of changing social mores, and in part because what used to be regarded as allowances (the Additional Costs Allowance, for a second home) are now regarded as expenses. The difference is quite simple. When one claims an allowance, any doubt about whether the claim is permitted is resolved in favour of the person receiving (the MP), whereas when claiming an expense any doubt is resolved in favour of the body paying (Parliament).

Having reviewed my claims for the eight years since I became an MP, I believe that those claims were reasonable, allowable, and relatively modest (see Table below). Nevertheless, when I re-examined those figures by the standards of today, I realised that some people might now consider the amounts to be too high.

So I decided that, for the avoidance of doubt, the proper thing to do would be to re-pay a small proportion, with full interest, which I did in May 2009.

It saddens me that the many good things being done by Parliament (often with all-party consensus) are getting overlooked in all this.  I fear that our country may end up with a legacy wherein good people are dissuaded from trying to improve things in our society, because they will not risk the probable opprobrium of public life:  it is so devalued.  Conversely, because of that vacuum, too many of those who will still seek a role in public life may not have the tolerance and generosity of spirit which I would wish.