THE lengthy stand-off over MPs\u2019 expenses was heading for the High Court last night after the House of Commons launched an eleventh-hour bid to keep the information secret.<\/p>\n
A Freedom of Information tribunal had told the Commons to publish details of claims made by 14 MPs \u2014 including Gordon Brown and David Cameron \u2014 for furnishing their taxpayer-funded second properties.<\/p>\n
But after a day of to-ing and fro-ing at Westminster, the Commons announced an appeal, citing security fears over one element of the FoI ruling which stated that the addresses of MPs\u2019 London homes should be made public.<\/p>\n
Last month\u2019s ruling came after a three-year battle to make the details of MPs\u2019 Additional Cost Allowance (ACA) available to the public.<\/p>\n
MPs with seats outside London can claim up to \u00a323,000 a year to maintain a second home. Most use that money to cover mortgage interest payments, but further claims for household items can be made from the so-called \u201cJohn Lewis list\u201d \u2014 including \u00a310,000 on a new kitchen and even \u00a350 on a shredder.<\/p>\n
Parliament already releases the total amount of ACA each MP claims every year, but the FoI ruling would require a detailed item-by-item breakdown to be made public too.<\/p>\n
The surprising ruling, by Information Commissioner Richard Thomas, that home addresses were covered by the Freedom of Information Act seems to have put the whole process on hold as both sides consult lawyers.<\/p>\n
The rising costs of the legal battle \u2014 funded by the taxpayer \u2014 could provoke further controversy. The Commons has already spent more than \u00a350,000 of public money fighting the release of MPs\u2019 expenses, a figure which will balloon if the case ends up in the courts.<\/p>\n
A spokeswoman for the House of Commons said MPs feared that if their second home addresses were published they would be less inclined to speak their minds, which would \u201cinhibit democratic debate\u201d.<\/p>\n
Commons Speaker Michael Martin, said to have been \u201cmindful\u201d of MPs\u2019 concerns, has taken advice from the security services.<\/p>\n
The Commons spokeswoman said, \u201cHaving received advice he\u2019s concerned that the information tribunal may have misdirected itself in law in deciding that home addresses of MPs should always be published subject to only limited exceptions.\u201d<\/p>\n
The Commons also considered that the tribunal gave \u201cinsufficient attention to the reasonable expectations\u201d of MPs.<\/p>\n
\u201cThe threats that MPs can face are unpredictable and subject to change,\u201d the spokeswoman said, adding that release of their home addresses could \u201cinhibit democratic debate\u201d on a range of sensitive issues.<\/p>\n
But campaigner Heather Brooke, who has been fighting for the information\u2019s release, said, \u201cThey have had 28 days to do this so why the last-minute theatrical farce?\u201d<\/p>\n
The decision to appeal comes amid heightened awareness of MPs\u2019 expenses regimes in the wake of the Derek Conway affair. Mr Conway was stripped of the Tory whip and expelled from the Commons for 10 days for overpaying his son out of his expenses.<\/p>\n
A separate FoI request to see the ACA expenses of another group of MPs, together with staff, office costs and IT has been given a new disclosure deadline of April 4.<\/p>\n
The Information Commissioner\u2019s Office said last night, \u201cThe matter now seems set to be considered by the High Court where, no doubt, all the arguments for and against will be heard.<\/p>\n
\u201cIt is, as yet, unclear how, if at all, this will impact on other decisions made recently by the Information Commissioner that further information about certain MPs\u2019 expenses should be disclosed.\u201d<\/p>\n
Jenny Willott, the Lib-Dem MP for Cardiff Central, said, \u201cOne of my concerns is the idea of publishing home addresses; I have real concerns about that for personal security reasons. In terms of other expenses, I wouldn\u2019t have any problem with that being published; I haven\u2019t used my allowance for anything I would be ashamed about.<\/p>\n
\u201cI\u2019ve always provided receipts for everything.\u201d<\/p>\n
Writing on his blog, Newport West MP Paul Flynn said, \u201cThe fairest way forward is to publish details of all MPs\u2019 expenses simultaneously.\u201d<\/p>\n
Liberal Democrat MP Norman Baker said the Commons was right to challenge the disclosure of addresses but suggested they should otherwise release the details of the ACA.<\/p>\n
\u201cI think it sends entirely the wrong signal that the House of Commons will appear in the public\u2019s eye to be resisting a tribunal decision and we will look as though we are trying to protect our own backs,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n
\u201cHaving said that, I am sympathetic to the point that MPs\u2019 addresses should not be made public. I think they have a right to query that point but no more.\u201d<\/p>\n
Matthew Elliott, chief executive of the TaxPayers\u2019 Alliance, said, \u201cIt\u2019s unforgivable that MPs are spending so much taxpayers\u2019 money to keep this information from the public.<\/p>\n
\u201cWe deserve to know how our money is spent. Taxpayers don\u2019t mind footing the bill for proper representation, but in return we should be told where the money goes.<\/p>\n
\u201cThis has been dragged out at vast expense for years now \u2014 instead of paying lawyers to take it to the High Court, they should just hand over the information.\u201d<\/p>\n