For all the scandal over moats, duck houses and flipped mortgages, there is one aspect of MPs' expenses row which baffles most of us.

They are allowed to claim up to £400 per month for food – much more than an average family might spend in a month.

The idea that one person could spend £400 per month on food is remarkable, bearing in mind the fact that, as an MP attending meetings, events and conferences, for them there is undoubtedly such a thing as a free lunch.

And this allowance is intended to cover the time when the MP is at Westminster, which is not all year.

But the idea of cash for food at all really sticks in the throat.

Most of us pay for our food with our salary – and now it seems we are also paying for our MPs' food.

The MPs in our region have claimed wildly differing sums in the past year – from Dan Norris's hefty £4,000 to Dawn Primarolo and John Penrose who claimed nothing at all.

We have to assume Ms Primarolo and Mr Penrose still eat. If two MPs are able to pay for their food from their salary, then why not all?

Some people would say there are occasions when it is justified for an MP to make a claim for food, such as after a late-night vote.

But how many nurses, firefighters or security guards are able to claim large sums for food after night shifts?

It is hard to see beyond this as just a means to top up salaries. Especially when no receipts are produced and the majority of the claims are in round figures.

To allow such a casual system for spending public money is exactly why trust has been lost and why reform cannot come soon enough.