This article is from the source 'bbc' and was first published or seen on . It will not be checked again for changes.
You can find the current article at its original source at http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/rss/-/1/hi/uk_politics/7265744.stm
The article has changed 7 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
| Version 0 | Version 1 |
|---|---|
| MPs' expenses 'must be published' | MPs' expenses 'must be published' |
| (30 minutes later) | |
| The House of Commons has been ordered to provide a more detailed breakdown of MPs' expenses, following a three-year Freedom of Information battle. | |
| Claims made under the Additional Costs Allowance (ACA) must be published in detail, the Information Tribunal ruled. | Claims made under the Additional Costs Allowance (ACA) must be published in detail, the Information Tribunal ruled. |
| MPs can claim up to £23,000 a year each to cover the cost of staying away from home, including food and rent payments. | MPs can claim up to £23,000 a year each to cover the cost of staying away from home, including food and rent payments. |
| Commons resources boss Andrew Walker had argued publishing more details could intrude on MPs' private lives. | Commons resources boss Andrew Walker had argued publishing more details could intrude on MPs' private lives. |
| But the Tribunal ruled in favour of Freedom of Information campaign Heather Brooke and two journalists - and ordered the Commons to release the information within 28 days. | |
| 'Lack of clarity' | |
| The tribunal noted that the guidance available to MPs on what they can claim is "incomplete", that MPs are not trusted to have access to the list of acceptable costs "lest the maximum allowable prices become the going rate" and there are no "additional" checks on what MPs claim. | |
| "If an MP claims the weekly shopping bill, his department assumes that, because it is claimed, it is additional expenditure necessarily incurred for Parliamentary duties," it said. | |
| In its ruling, the tribunal said: "The laxity of and lack of clarity in the rules for ACA is redolent of a culture very different from that which exists in the commercial sphere or in most other public sector organisations today." | |
| Stalker threat | |
| But it said some details should not be published, including "sensitive personal data" such as MPs' health matters, MPs' bank, loan and credit card statements, individual numbers on itemised phone bills and details of contractors who had regular access to MPs' homes. | |
| Security details will also be kept private, as will addresses of MPs who have a good reason - for example a known stalker, terrorist or "other criminal threat". | |
| The ruling came on the same day that the Commons Members Estimate Committee said its own review of MPs' expenses will be completed several months earlier than planned - by July. | |
| The tribunal heard appeals by both the Commons authorities and campaigners against the Information Commissioner's ruling on the cases of 14 MPs - that more details should be published under broad headlines. | |
| The Commons argued it went too far while the three campaigners said it did not go far enough and claims should be submitted with receipts. | |
| In a ruling on Tuesday evening, the Tribunal dismissed the Commons' appeal and allowed the campaigners' appeal. |