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/7404031.stm

The article has changed 12 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 2 Version 3
Commons loses MPs' expenses fight Commons loses MPs' expenses fight
(20 minutes later)
The House of Commons has lost its High Court battle over an information watchdog's decision to force disclosure of MPs' expenses.The House of Commons has lost its High Court battle over an information watchdog's decision to force disclosure of MPs' expenses.
The Commons challenged the Information Tribunal's "unlawfully intrusive" demand that a detailed breakdown of second home allowances must be given.The Commons challenged the Information Tribunal's "unlawfully intrusive" demand that a detailed breakdown of second home allowances must be given.
It also tried to overturn the tribunal's decision that MPs' addresses should be published.It also tried to overturn the tribunal's decision that MPs' addresses should be published.
It is now expected to appeal against the High Court ruling.It is now expected to appeal against the High Court ruling.
The Freedom of Information request at the centre of the case relates to 14 MPs and former MPs, including Prime Minister Gordon Brown. The Freedom of Information (FOI) request at the centre of the case asks for a detailed receipt-by-receipt breakdown of expenses for 14 MPs and former MPs, including Prime Minister Gordon Brown and Tory leader David Cameron.
'Public eye''Public eye'
The Commons authorities argued that MPs' addresses should be kept secret on security grounds. The Commons authorities argued that full disclosure would lead to MPs' home addresses being released which it said should be barred on security grounds.
But this was rejected by the High Court, which said such information was already in the public domain. This ruling makes clear that in a democracy it is the people who are the masters and politicians must be directly accountable to them Heather BrookeFOI campaigner
In its ruling, the High Court said: "An individual who is determined to discover the residential address of an adult, law-abiding citizen is likely to be able to do so by one legal means or another. But this argument was rejected by the High Court in its ruling.
It said: "An individual who is determined to discover the residential address of an adult, law-abiding citizen is likely to be able to do so by one legal means or another.
"And where the person concerned is a holder of public office and in the public eye, an inquiry is likely to be easier.""And where the person concerned is a holder of public office and in the public eye, an inquiry is likely to be easier."
The Commons members' estimates committee is to meet on Tuesday to decide whether to launch an appeal. The High Court has given the Commons authorities until 1600BST on Friday to release the information - and until 1300BST on Tuesday to launch an appeal.
The Commons authorities have also been ordered to pay at least £33 500 in costs.
'Victory for democracy'
The members' estimates committee is to meet on Tuesday to decide whether to take the case to the Court of Appeal.
The ruling is a victory for journalists and information freedom campaigners Heather Brooke, Ben Leapman and Jonathan Ungoed-Thomas.
Giving her reaction, Ms Brooke said: "This ruling makes clear that in a democracy it is the people who are the masters and politicians must be directly accountable to them.
"Anyone making a claim on the public purse must be prepared to put forward their receipts to justify their expenses and to make those receipts public."
It was also welcomed by pressure group The Taxpayers' Alliance.
Chief executive Matthew Elliott said: "This is a victory for taxpayers and democracy in Britain."
Under their "additional costs allowance", MPs can claim up to £23,000 a year towards the cost of maintaining a second residence, normally in their constituency.Under their "additional costs allowance", MPs can claim up to £23,000 a year towards the cost of maintaining a second residence, normally in their constituency.
The allowance covers expenditure incurred when an MP is away from home on parliamentary duties, such as the cost of furniture and household bills.The allowance covers expenditure incurred when an MP is away from home on parliamentary duties, such as the cost of furniture and household bills.
'John Lewis list''John Lewis list'
The original demand for a detailed breakdown of the additional costs allowances of 14 MPs and former MPs was made under the Freedom of Information Act.The original demand for a detailed breakdown of the additional costs allowances of 14 MPs and former MPs was made under the Freedom of Information Act.
The Information Tribunal said the breakdown should be given, but the battle was then taken to the High Court by the Commons Commission.The Information Tribunal said the breakdown should be given, but the battle was then taken to the High Court by the Commons Commission.
MPs were criticised when the so-called "John Lewis list" of household items was published earlier this year.MPs were criticised when the so-called "John Lewis list" of household items was published earlier this year.
All of them could be bought using the second home allowance, and included £10,000 kitchens and £6,000 bathrooms.All of them could be bought using the second home allowance, and included £10,000 kitchens and £6,000 bathrooms.
Commons Speaker Michael Martin was himself criticised when it emerged that his wife had claimed £4,139 on taxis - largely for shopping trips.Commons Speaker Michael Martin was himself criticised when it emerged that his wife had claimed £4,139 on taxis - largely for shopping trips.
But on Wednesday, Parliament's standards chief John Lyon ruled Mary Martin's claims were "reasonable".But on Wednesday, Parliament's standards chief John Lyon ruled Mary Martin's claims were "reasonable".