The High Court's damning judgement on MPs' expenses

The Speaker and MPs on the House of Commons Commission have lost, and lost badly, attempts to prevent disclosure of details of the second home allowance, receipt by receipt.

So unimpressed were Lord Justice Latham and Mr Justice that they awarded costs, thought to be up to £200,000, against Parliament. On the issue of whether MPs have the "right" for such information not to appear, they said:

Once legislation which applies to Parliament has been enacted, MPs cannot and could not reasonably expect to contract out compliance with it, or exempt themselves, or be exempted from its ambit. Such actions would themselves contravene the Bill of Rights.

On whether MPs addresses should be made public, the judges pointed out that those MPs potentially under threat could withhold their address already, but:

The reality is that an individual who is determined to discover a 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 the holder of a public office and in the public eye, such an inquiry is likely to be easier.

This was a case which Michael Martin's original lawyer said they couldn't win. So Martin replaced him.

The only question now is whether the Speaker and MPs spend more public money taking this to the Appeal Court.

Comments

[Chuck Unsworth]

No doubt that Jock git will go on spending our cash until he gets the result he wants.

And I think that applies to both - maybe all - of them, come to think of it

[KWC]

Imagine turning up to your employer asking for reimbursement of unreceipted expenses. Even if the employer was dumb enough to agree, HMRC would be VERY interested and slap an assessment for tax and national insurance.

[George Manley]

We the public have to disclose everything for tax purposes. If the tax man thinks we are cheating he can invade out privacy to an incredible level including searching our dustbins to see what we eat and drink.
MPs should be treated as normal people even though we know their expenses are rediculously high and they are an over privileged bunch of cads. Put a stop to it now.

[Steven Carrigan]

I have been posting on this regularly so one summary comment will not do. Try the following:
http://www.stevencarrigan.com/blog/2008/05/attempt-by-london-mps-to-block.html

[Phil A]

Does anyone remember Tony Blair going on about "Sleaze" and how it would all be cleaned up??.... well here's New Labours real response... .."Snouts in the trough boys!" and of course the taxpayer will pick up our tab.....
Your vote counts! Mine will. Goodby Gordon and cronies.

[manchanwong]

why is it that those that appear to be in positions of authority can (unlike the lower classes) steal and get away with it with impunity, and better still have increases in their salaries of £25,000 or more and yet their object to other people living on the financial edge getting a bit more to get by, look after their families and pay their mortgages without the aid of taxpayers' money (unlike MP's already well-paid) who can't legally fiddle their expenses and have everything paid for them.Ordinary crooks are sent to prison for some of the things that MP's and MEP's do.

[Bob Head]

AS MP's are employees of the state, not withstanding they will claim they are not, as did builders, city dealers, computor consultants etc. then put them on PAYE with a Pay Dept. for ex's etc. That will sort the problem.

Bob Head

[Mike]

It is nice to see costs were awarded against Parliament but the taxpayer still picks up the tab irrespective of outcome,doesn't he/she?

Those who saw fit to take legal action should like the poor devil in the street be accountable for the costs of such litigation and be made to pay out of their own pockets.

Oh! I forgot, the pay for MP's is so poor they would be entitled to Legal Aid!

[S. Barraclough]

Such a shame that the judge didn't award costs against the instigators of the action, instead of Parliament. But then, we 'have to play the game' don't we. [Not them of course, just 'we'!]

[jd.sheppard]

everyone should take note of their mp,s expenses when revealed just to see who is honest or not.if they are shown to have no integrity then you have the opportunity to deselect or not reelect them in due course.whilst generalisations are dangerous,i neverthless give none of them the benefit of the doubt and hold them all in contempt.

[Simon Marshland]

If the Speaker insists on expensive court cases to hide MPs expenses from the public who pays for them, then the costs of such cases should be paid from MPs expenses.