Pressure on Michael Martin, the Commons Speaker, intensified last night after the House authorities lost their High Court battle to stop the disclosure of MPs' expenses.
Pressure on Michael Martin, the Commons Speaker, intensified last night after the House authorities lost their High Court battle to stop the disclosure of MPs' expenses.
Back benchers condemned the Commons move led by the Glasgow MP as a waste of taxpayers' money - possibly as much as £100,000 - with one MP calling on the Speaker to set a date for stepping down.
"He now needs to set a timetable for his departure," declared Douglas Carswell, Conservative MP for Harwich, adding: "In the age of Google, what MPs spend public money on should be posted online. We don't need any more shifty attempts to maintain the gentlemen's club system."
David Winnick, Labour MP for Walsall North, condemned the appeal as a "near farce".
The TaxPayers' Alliance welcomed the ruling, which has followed a three-year battle to get full disclosure of MPs' expenses. Matthew Taylor, its Chief Executive, said: "This is a victory for taxpayers and democracy in Britain."
He added: "It's a shame the Speaker has wasted so much of our money trying to keep this information secret. When he should have been improving the standing of Parliament, he has instead brought it into even greater disrepute."
The ruling was also a victory for Heather Brooke, the freedom of information campaigner, who said: "This ruling will wrest control from the old boys' club and put it back where it belongs - with the constituents."
At Westminster, Gordon Brown's spokesman said the Prime Minister was "relaxed" about the publication of his own expense details but stressed "this is a matter for the House authorities".
They had challenged the Information Tribunal's "unlawfully intrusive" demand that a detailed breakdown of MPs' Additional Costs Allowances must be provided under the Freedom of Information Act. The ACA of up to £23,000 a year covers spending for when members are away from home on parliamentary duties. These include running a second home in London and paying for general household bills.
They have come under criticism in recent months following publication of the "John Lewis list" of household items MPs can purchase under their ACA. The list includes £10,000 kitchens and £6000 bathrooms.
However, three judges concluded they could not interfere with the tribunal's decision and dismissed the challenge.
The tribunal ruled in February that Commons authorities must provide a detailed breakdown of the ACAs of 14 named MPs, including Mr Brown, David Cameron, the Conservative leader, and Sir Menzies Campbell, the former Liberal Democrat leader.
Nigel Giffin, QC, appearing for the Commons authorities, argued that the tribunal's decision - requiring breakdowns to include receipts and addresses of properties bought - meant there would be "a substantial unlawful intrusion" into the lives of MPs and their families, which could threaten their security at the hands of the "mad and bad".
However, the judges said: "The expenditure of public money through the payment of MPs' salaries and allowances is a matter of direct and reasonable interest to taxpayers."
Last night, a spokeswoman for the Commons Members Estimate Committee, chaired by Mr Martin, which challenged the tribunal's ruling, said no decision had been made whether to appeal against the judges' ruling.
The committee will meet next week and has until noon on Tuesday to appeal, if it does not then it must publish details of the MPs' expenses by Friday.
