COLNE Valley MP Kali Mountford has opened up her expenses to scrutiny - after pressure from the Examiner.

The MP, who will be standing down at the next election, performed a U-turn after the Examiner revealed other MPs would be publishing their expenses.

Our story will be published on Tuesday.

Miss Mountford's change of heart came at the same time as the Commons Speaker Michael Martin said he wanted to tell  "the men and women of the United Kingdom'' that the Commons had let them down "very badly indeed''. He said he was "profoundly sorry''.

In an eagerly awaited Commons statement, Mr Martin said he was "profoundly sorry" for the public anger over MPs’ expenses claims.

"We all bear a heavy responsibility for the terrible damage to the reputation of this House.

"We must do everything we possibly can to regain the trust and confidence of the people."

Mr Martin said he was calling a meeting of all the party leaders to discuss proposals for reform of the system.

His statement came after a motion of no confidence in Mr Martin was tabled by Tory MP Douglas Carswell, and signed by 15 MPs from the three major parties, after Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg urged him to resign.

The Speaker refused to say whether he would be stepping down before the next general election.

The House was unusually packed and tense, with both the Prime Minister and Mr Clegg present, as Mr Martin rose to make his statement.

He said: "Please allow me to say to the men and women of the UK that we have let you down very badly indeed.

"We must all accept the blame and, to the extent that I have contributed to the situation, I am profoundly sorry.

"Now each and every Member including myself must work hard to regain your trust."

Mr Martin announced he was convening ``as a matter of urgency and within 48 hours'' a meeting between the House of Commons Commission and the Prime Minister and party leaders.

"Leaders of all parties have made announcements on what should be done.

"Some of their proposals are very similar to those put down to the House on July 3 last year by the Members’ estimates committee, which I chair.

"I want discussion to centre on the additional costs allowance and all those matters that have caused the greatest controversy and most anger with the public.

"I include in that early publication of additional costs allowance, office costs and travel material."

Mr Martin said that while the Commons awaited the report of the Committee on Standards in Public Life ``we must search for agreement'' so Commons Leader Harriet Harman could bring forward resolutions to deal with the issue.

"In the meantime I do urge all Members not to submit claims for approval."

The Speaker said he had last week held a "most productive" meeting with standards watchdog Sir Christopher Kelly, who said he hoped to bring proposals forward in the autumn on MPs’ expenses and allowances.

"While we await the outcome of his work it is imperative that we continue to improve our accounts and practice in the interim and get in place measures that work and are seen to be working."

Backbench anger at the Speaker's handling of the crisis was revealed in a string of points of order.

Labour’s Gordon Prentice (Pendle), one of the signatories of the motion of no confidence, asked whether he was "right in thinking that it will be debated tomorrow and voted upon?"

Mr Martin said "this is not a point of order" but was interrupted by Mr Prentice who insisted "oh yes it is".

The Speaker continued: "These are matters for debate on an appropriate motion."

There was confusion over the procedures that would be followed on Mr Carswell’s motion.

Mr Carswell said: "Members on all side have now tabled a substantive motion calling for a vote of no confidence in you.

"When will Members be allowed to choose a new speaker with the moral authority to clean up Westminster and the legitimacy to lift this House out of the mire?"

The Speaker initially said Mr Carswell’s motion was an Early Day Motion and therefore unlikely to be debated, telling the Tory: "Please give me credit for having some experience in the chair".

But following a series of interventions from MPs, he said the motion would be listed in the "remaining orders" which could only be proceeded with if it became a substantive motion.

In response to Labour’s David Winnick (Walsall N), Mr Martin refused to say whether he would step down before the next general election.

Mr Winnick, who clashed with the Speaker in the Commons last week, said: ``There is great public anger outside which undoubtedly has harmed the reputation of this House.

"We all bear responsibility, I take my share of responsibility like every other Honourable Member.

"But can I put this to you, and I’m not associated with the motion, Sir, would you bear in mind that it would be very useful to the reputation of this House - and I say this with reluctance, but I say it all the same - if you gave some indication of your own intention to retire.

"Your early retirement, Sir, would help the reputation of the House."

Mr Martin pointed out that the veteran MP had served "under more speakers than I have" and would know "that’s not a subject for today".

Liberal Democrat frontbencher David Heath sympathised with Mr Martin's "impossible situation'' but said his statement had come too late.

He said: "I have a great deal of personal sympathy for the impossible situation that you find yourself in.

"But I have to say, the statement you have made, had it been made a few weeks or months’ ago would have been extremely welcome.

"But I have very grave doubts, given the appalling situation we find ourselves in, this midden of the House’s own making, that any action taken by Members of this House will actually restore the trust that we need."

The Commons should "accept unequivocally" Sir Christopher’s recommendations, he added.

Mr Martin said he could not give any assurance that the proposals would be accepted by the House - it was for MPs to decide.

Sir Christopher will not report until the autumn, so "steps have to be taken within this House".

Mr Heath continued that it was important to remove "the remaining barriers to transparency".

He said: "Those Honourable and Right Honourable Members who put us into this position by resisting reform cannot possibly be the right people to lead us out."

Mr Martin said: "Anything about transparency can be on the agenda at the meeting within 48 hours."

This could then lead to resolutions for MPs to vote on.

Veteran Tory Sir Patrick Cormack (S Staffordshire) said the current situation was as serious as the crisis which led to Neville Chamberlain's ousting as prime minister after the failure of British efforts to liberate Norway in 1940 during the Second World War.

Chamberlain faced a substantial rebellion on a motion which was effectively treated as a vote of no confidence in his premiership.

Sir Patrick said: "The times that we are living in are unprecedented as far as Parliament is concerned.

"What is at stake is the institution of Parliament and its integrity.

"Could I just say that I very much hope you will take account of the fact that there is profound concern, voiced in this motion that is to go down tomorrow.

"Could I ask you to bear in mind that the condition of the House today is rather like the condition of the country at the time of the Norway debate.

"Could you reflect on that?"

The Speaker did not respond to Sir Patrick.