MERSEY MPs turned their fire on the “sell the home, sack the spouse” expenses crackdown unveiled yesterday – but said they would accept it reluctantly.

They criticised proposals that will force them to make wives and husbands redundant, although not for five years – and warned of the danger of creating a "Parliament of the wealthy".

But the MPs also accepted they had no choice but to accept the recommendations, if Westminster was to finally put the damaging expenses scandal behind it.

The backlash came after Sir Christopher Kelly's Committee on Standards in Public Life recommended a hard-hitting shake-up that will save the taxpayer up to £10m annually – but cost individual MPs thousands of pounds.

MPs would be banned from buying second homes with taxpayer help and barred from employing family members, although both changes would be delayed for one full Parliament.

Instead, they would be expected to rent homes from a commercial agency – claiming expenses only for essential costs such as council tax and utility bills.

Only MPs staying in hotels would be allowed to claim for the cost of food – scrapping the £25-a-day unreceipted “subsistence” allowance – and generous “golden goodbyes” would be phased out.

Peter Kilfoyle (Walton) said: "I recognise that there have to be changes, but I wonder whether we are in danger of throwing the baby out with the water.

"My fear is that we will end up with a Parliament of wealthy men, because they will be the only people able to afford to do the job, and that they will only visit their constituencies rarely."

Jane Kennedy (Wavertree), who would be forced to sack her partner Peter Dowling, her Parliamentary assistant, said: "Westminster will be a harder place for women and people of a less professional background, but we have to move on."

And Andrew Miller (Ellesmere Port and Neston) said he was "relaxed" about renting, although he believed it would cost the taxpayer more than his mortgage interest.

He suggested the ban on employing spouses was illegal, adding: "If my wife decided, as my employee, to take me to court, it would be Kramer vs Kramer all over again."

Some MPs are expected to argue for a longer transition period before the second homes and spouses' changes are implemented.

The reality is the new Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (IPSA) – not MPs – will decide whether to accept the Kelly report in full.

But yesterday, Sir Christopher expressed fears his report could yet be watered down.

Explaining why buying second homes should be banned, he said: "MPs should be supported to live in two places, but not to acquire a valuable asset at public expense.”.