Sam Coates, Chief Political Correspondent of The Times
Win tickets to the ultimate village fete with welly wanging and more
The Speaker of the Commons is facing a revolt over his decision to fight the release of MPs expenses in the High Court after the Liberal Democrats formally declared their opposition to the appeal.
Nick Clegg is calling for the immediate publication of the data relating to 14 MPs — including the Liberal Democrats Sir Menzies Campbell and Mark Oaten — after the disclosure order by the Information Tribunal. Details about other MPs' expenses would follow in October
Michael Martin revealed yesterday that he wanted to mount a legal challenge against the tribunal's order to reveal details of every item MPs spent under their £23,000 second-home allowance.
Although initial legal advice was that such a court action could not be won, Mr Martin found a second lawyer over the weekend who suggested that there was a chance of an appeal being successful.
Today the Liberal Democrats urged the Speaker to publish all the details, minus MPs' addresses, as soon as possible. They said that they did not believe it merited a costly High Court action.
Paul Burstow, the party's chief whip, contacted Mr Martin to raise concern over the issue and to ask when the expenses details would be released.
A spokeswoman for Mr Clegg said: “We agree with the appeal about the publication of addresses, but that doesn't mean that the rest of the expenses cannot be published now.”
This came after Mr Martin told MPs that they could not raise the High Court battle over their expenses in the House. Amid signs of a backlash from some MPs over the decision to appeal against the release of their second-home allowance claims, Mr Martin said the matter was sub-judice.
His comments came as David Winnick, the Labour MP, raised concerns in the chamber about the surprise move, announced yesterday at the 11th hour. The MP was cut off by Mr Martin, who said: “This matter is before the court and therefore it is sub-judice for the House of Commons.
“I know that the media can talk about it, but for the House of Commons the rules are quite clear.”
Speaking outside the chamber shortly after the exchange, Mr Winnick criticised the decision by the Commons Commission, which is chaired by Mr Martin, to begin an appeal without consulting MPs.
He said: “The House of Commons Commission was wrong to take this case to the appeal court, except on the question of addresses, without consulting Members. It's been done in a way that suggests this is the unanimous view of the House of Commons, and that is not the case.
“The danger is, unfortunately, that people get the impression that we have something to hide.”
The legal challenge is expected to cost more than £100,000 — on top of the £52,000 the Commons has already spent opposing Freedom of Information rulings.
Follow our three athletes' progress in their preparations for the London Triathlon, and pick up training tips and more
Enjoy screenings of all the classic films you love, plus take advantage of two-for-one tickets
We explore leisure activities that are safe and suitable for all of the family
Times Online's new TV show helps you make the right decisions for your pet
Read our exclusive 100 Years of Fleming and Bond interactive timeline, packed with original Times articles and reviews
The latest travel news plus the best hotels and gadgets for business travellers


A treasure trove of baubles, booty and stylish quests


Overseas contacts and local business information

2002/02
£59,995
The Midlands
F/1989
£36,000
Hollingworth At Ombersley
2007/57
£35,000
South East England
Great car insurance deals online
90K plus bonus plus options
Confidential
London
To £28k
Barclaycard
Various (outside London)
£
£40,000 - £50,000 + benefits
Lloyds Pharmacy
Coventry
£38k
Barclaycard
Various Locations
Live in One of London's Most Vibrant Areas
From £249,950
Beautiful Gardens w/ stunning Thames Views
Studios £33K, 1 Beds £60K, 2 beds £79K
Mortgages, bank acc & money transfers to help you buy abroad
Explore mystical Jordan
From £1030 for 7nts 4*
to USA's Most Cosmopolitan City; San Francisco!
£POA
Book Now for Winter 08/09 and Get 10% off!
Great travel insurance deals online
Contact our advertising team for advertising and sponsorship in Times Online, The Times and The Sunday Times. Search globrix.com to buy or rent UK property. Visit our classified services and find jobs, used cars, property or holidays. Use our dating service, read our births, marriages and deaths announcements, or place your advertisement.
Copyright 2008 Times Newspapers Ltd.
This service is provided on Times Newspapers' standard Terms and Conditions. Please read our Privacy Policy.To inquire about a licence to reproduce material from Times Online, The Times or The Sunday Times, click here.This website is published by a member of the News International Group. News International Limited, 1 Virginia St, London E98 1XY, is the holding company for the News International group and is registered in England No 81701. VAT number GB 243 8054 69.
The outcome will determine the extent of one law for MP's and another for the constituents....shame, shame, shame.
Mr Greenwood, Reading, Berks
I notice that the speaker did not get the legal advice that he wanted he went elsewherte for advice. Pity it was not Goldsmith he could have been persauded to change his own mind to fit the situation required.
allen, Leeds, England
I don't want to know WHERE any of them live. I do want to know upon what my taxes are frittered away.
When I claimed travel expenses (before retirement) the Inland Revenue was VERY keen to know how much, and to the last penny. Sauce for the goose ----?
Douglas Rolph, Dereham, Norfolk, ENGLAND
The Inland Revenue should demand receipts for expenses, if they can not be produced or not acceptable, the money should be taxed as income. The same as they do everyone elses expenses.
Mike, cyprus,
It is little more than a milch cow for somme of them. What has happened to integrity and decency? In any walk of life expenses must be supported by receipts. Do the decent thing.
Francis cunningham, OLDHAM, LANCS
They should have to do what the rest of us do ie account for every penny that we claim for on expenses. They make this ridiculous claim that it is too onerous to bother accounting for anything less than £250. If that is the case could they remove such an onerous task from the rest of us.
charlie clark, london,
This may seem cynical but I wonder how much of the excellent quality John Lewis chinaware, cutlery, bedding, carpets, cooking accessories and whatever went to their principal homes ... while their London pads were furnished with the unwanted items the new purchases replaced.
I wonder ???
Maurice Smith, Medway, Kent
If the "The Abuse of Expenses Issue" cannot be cleared up by parliament, then how can the public expect any other delicate matters to be resolved in a timely, transparent and just manner. The credibility of the British Parliamentary System is at stake with this issue. The world is watching!
Jim Wills, Brisbane, Australia
I heard a lady in Burma talking about her government on radio 4 this week.
She said we have always despised our government but now we feel real hatred.
I am at the depising stage for 99% of our politicians ( except Frank Field )
Massive reform of the system in this country is required.
John Flack, Beaumaris, Wales
Michael Martin is a mockery of everything The Commons Speaker should be; a man promoted way above his ability but protected by that other incompetant, Gordon Brown. When is the tax payer going to finally get a "sleaze free" House??
Chris, Aberdeen, UK
if youve had your hand in the cookie jar . Emty your pockets!
If not ,dont be afraid.
ernie middleton, washington , tyne&wear England
This particular Speaker is a law unto himself. His P45 should be in the 1st class post by recorded delivery.
Mac, Oban, Argyll
The problem could be easily solved in the manner of Iolanthe. If the offending problem is the MP's address then just don't publish it. Otherwise give the electorate/taxpayers the information, Government has all of ours apart from our DNA etc. but that seems you will get with or without agreement
Nick, Cardiff, Wales
Just a thought. As a way of concentrating Mr Martin's mind how about: if the case is proven, fair do and I, as a taxpayer, help to cough up; however, if the case fails, he becomes liable for the bill? These people are great at taking risks with other people's money but never their own! Time for a change, methinks.
James, Alcanar, Spain
- 1
- 2
- 3
Next