Over the summer the House of Commons will publish MPs� expenses online, and thanks to the co-operation of a group of Glasgow members we can now get a flavour of what�s to come.

BRIAN CURRIE, ROBBIE DINWOODIE and STEWART PATERSON

Over the summer the House of Commons will publish MPs' expenses online, and thanks to the co-operation of a group of Glasgow members we can now get a flavour of what's to come.

But if your appetite has been whetted by the exotic purchases and practices which have dominated the headlines in recent weeks, don't hold your breath for the big Freedom of Information bang.

It was enforced by the High Court, and looking at the details - or lack of them - it still looks like a grudging and minimalist exercise by the Commons authorities.

The expenses claims listed by Glasgow MPs have revealed nothing shocking nor anything that contravenes the rules, and their willingness to make them public is commendable. It suggests that, unlike many of their Westminster colleagues who have brought politicians into such disrepute, they have nothing to hide.

There seems little chance of MPs representing some of the poorest communities in the United Kingdom claiming expenses to build a duck house in the middle of an ornamental pond at their moated and chandeliered home in Maryhill.

In truth, it's really quite hard to tell in the heavily- edited versions that the Commons authorities plan to put out. This all smells of something they thought they could have got away with weeks ago, before all the excruciating detail of the last fortnight. Now it looks like too little, too late.

A supposed exercise in transparency will be shattered by instant comparison with the full details that we were never meant to know.

The removal of so much information, including every detail of every address or third party involved, wrecks any attempt to create the kind of narrative that has been so compelling, if repugnant, to voters in recent weeks. There is just so much missing here, that some MPs may feel it has done them a disservice in terms of clearing their names and distancing themselves from colleagues whose conduct has been inexcusable.

So what have we got? We can see how much MPs have claimed to live in a second home, though not necessarily where that home was, which means it is difficult to detect the discredited practice of flipping - switching between main and secondary residences which has been at the heart of most recent scandals. We are happy to accept that all the Labour MPs involved in assisting our preview exercise have not engaged in flipping.

With the apparent exception of the Chancellor, Alastair Darling, few Scots MPs appear to have engaged in this practice, which allows serial claims for refurbishing and furnishing different properties.

This snapshot of five Glasgow Labour MPs tell us that their second home allowances came to more than £100,000 in 2007-08, the most recent year available. The biggest claimant was Glasgow South's Tom Harris, with a mortgage of £11,400 and monthly food claims of £400 contributing to a total of £26,706. In 2005, as he was appointed a junior transport minister he had switched from renting to buying, he claimed the stamp duty on his new home and £1000 towards fitting it out.

In 2007-08 Glasgow Central's Mohammad Sarwar claimed £22,385, with the bulk of that being accounted for by the £16,400 mortgage on his £407,000 second home in London. He claimed nothing for food.

The pattern for Ian Davidson in Glasgow South West was similar - a total of £21,124 with the main factor being a mortgage of £13,013 and no food claims, although he had made these in previous years.

Glasgow North West MP John Robertson has never bought a London property but his rent of £14,789 and claims for food of £3100 contributed to a total of £20,808.

The smallest claim for 2007-08 was that of £13,014 by Ann McKechin, Glasgow North MP and Minister of State at the Scotland Office. Mortgage payments of £9259 on her £140,000 London flat accounted for most of that.

Much of the juicy material uncovered by the Daily Telegraph related to the claims for items that were turned down by the fees office or in the correspondence haggling over claims. However, that information will remain hidden - "redacted" as the politicians like to call it, using a word unfamiliar to most people until the last few weeks and in itself an attempt to disguise what they've been up to.

Public anger about the excesses of some MPs must drive Sir Christopher Kelly's reform of the system. His homework must include a long conversation with the expenses office at the Scottish Parliament. Some bad mistakes were made by Holyrood, particularly over the Edinburgh Accommodation Allowance, but moves have been made to rectify that.

The system is now so tight, as MSPs know to their cost and sometimes embarrassment, even charging for a pint of milk must be accompanied by a receipt if they want the money back.

Compare that to the £400 a month which MPs can claim without any proof the money has been spent.

As well as a tightening of the Commons' rules, however, there must be a review of MPs' salaries. The £64,766 is not a fortune for those of them who genuinely work hard for their constituents and have long distances to travel.

With public anger, disgust and disillusionment with MPs so high, a transparent system which is not open to abuse must be put in place if MPs ever hope to redeem themselves.