Our Parliamentarians usually get a little fractious towards the end of the Parliamentary term, when they’re all ready for their holidays and the closing out of the session combines with the dog days of summer to produce a general grumpiness.

This year, the heat was replaced by the relentless rain of July, but that didn’t stop our Members of Parliament from both displaying their grumpiness and getting themselves in a right pickle towards the end of the term. The reasons? Well, there were quite a few, but the reason I want to highlight is the tangle our MPs made for themselves over the thorny subject of expense allowances.

You will recall the general air of public exasperation at the revelation of the so-called ‘John Lewis list’ – more properly referred to as part of the detail within Parliamentarians’ Additional Costs Allowance (ACA). This allows MPs to buy household fixtures and fittings to help them maintain a second home in London whilst representing a constituency outside London. In a debate early in July, a combination of 33 Ministers and backbenchers from all parties voted to maintain the household allowance, to considerable public uproar.

The Opposition, spotting a PR opportunity, called a debate on the issue and proposed the elimination of the ‘John Lewis list’. However, this led the government to respond with hurried measures to cap the element that could be spent on furniture and household goods to 10 per cent of the total allowance – £2,400 – and after a poorly attended debate, this was approved by the House of Commons in a low turnout vote.

And so, the infamous ‘John Lewis list’ became, in the words of Shadow Leader of the House Theresa May, the ‘IKEA list’, and the matter was put to rest; no doubt with all concerned hoping this will all be forgotten by the public by the time they come back from Summer recess.

But I wonder if Members of Parliament from all sides missed a trick here. Was this a golden opportunity to ensure that those MPs who have to maintain two homes in order to do their job properly can do so with function, comfort and the environment in mind? I think it was, and so the ‘John Lewis list’ could have been replaced by the ‘FRN list’.

What a grand gesture that could have been – to say, yes we need to keep body and soul together in the London flats we have to inhabit from Mondays to Thursdays, but we can do this modestly and reduce carbon emissions at the same time by acquiring the extra fridges, wardrobes, beds and furniture we need from our local reuse projects and charity shops.

Recent work by WRAP has estimated the value of reuse in carbon reduction as considerable, with every tonne of furniture reused saving up to 2.7 tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent gases and every tonne of electronic goods reused saving between four and seven tonnes. The total amount of CO2 saved by MPs might not be a massive amount, but every tonne counts now, doesn’t it?

And the money saved in the reduction of MPs expenses bills? Well, channelled across to our hard-pressed third-sector reuse projects, it could help steer them towards financial stability and ensure that more services are provided to those in real social need of household goods.

Fanciful? Perhaps. A bit of a gimmick? Well, maybe. But the carbon clock is ticking and I doubt that the subject of MPs expenses will disappear from view, so I am looking forward to applauding the brave Member of Parliament that takes up this challenge in the, hopefully, not too distant future.