Bid to keep MPs’ expenses under wraps

Mar 26 2008 by Tomos Livingstone, Western Mail

THE lengthy stand-off over MPs’ expenses was heading for the High Court last night after the House of Commons launched an eleventh-hour bid to keep the information secret.

A Freedom of Information tribunal had told the Commons to publish details of claims made by 14 MPs – including Gordon Brown and David Cameron – for furnishing their taxpayer-funded second properties.

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’ London homes should be made public.

Last month’s ruling came after a three-year battle to make the details of MPs’ Additional Cost Allowance (ACA) available to the public.

MPs with seats outside London can claim up to £23,000 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 “John Lewis list” – including £10,000 on a new kitchen and even £50 on a shredder.

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.

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.

The rising costs of the legal battle – funded by the taxpayer – could provoke further controversy. The Commons has already spent more than £50,000 of public money fighting the release of MPs’ expenses, a figure which will balloon if the case ends up in the courts.

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 “inhibit democratic debate”.

Commons Speaker Michael Martin, said to have been “mindful” of MPs’ concerns, has taken advice from the security services.

The Commons spokeswoman said, “Having received advice he’s 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.”

The Commons also considered that the tribunal gave “insufficient attention to the reasonable expectations” of MPs.

“The threats that MPs can face are unpredictable and subject to change,” the spokeswoman said, adding that release of their home addresses could “inhibit democratic debate” on a range of sensitive issues.

But campaigner Heather Brooke, who has been fighting for the information’s release, said, “They have had 28 days to do this so why the last-minute theatrical farce?”

The decision to appeal comes amid heightened awareness of MPs’ 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.

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.

The Information Commissioner’s Office said last night, “The matter now seems set to be considered by the High Court where, no doubt, all the arguments for and against will be heard.

“It 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’ expenses should be disclosed.”

Jenny Willott, the Lib-Dem MP for Cardiff Central, said, “One 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’t have any problem with that being published; I haven’t used my allowance for anything I would be ashamed about.

“I’ve always provided receipts for everything.”

Writing on his blog, Newport West MP Paul Flynn said, “The fairest way forward is to publish details of all MPs’ expenses simultaneously.”

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.

“I think it sends entirely the wrong signal that the House of Commons will appear in the public’s eye to be resisting a tribunal decision and we will look as though we are trying to protect our own backs,” he said.

“Having said that, I am sympathetic to the point that MPs’ addresses should not be made public. I think they have a right to query that point but no more.”

Matthew Elliott, chief executive of the TaxPayers’ Alliance, said, “It’s unforgivable that MPs are spending so much taxpayers’ money to keep this information from the public.

“We deserve to know how our money is spent. Taxpayers don’t mind footing the bill for proper representation, but in return we should be told where the money goes.

“This has been dragged out at vast expense for years now – instead of paying lawyers to take it to the High Court, they should just hand over the information.”