The saga continues ...
The fuss over MPs' expenses is set to carry on for longer, following a series of twists today in what's expected to happen next.
Despite earlier indications that they would release information about spending by 14 MPs on their second homes by Thursday afternoon, the House of Commons authorities have to appeal to the High Court.
The appeal against the Information Tribunal decision requiring disclosure is is on two grounds. First, that the Tribunal misdirected itself in deciding that the MPs' home addresses should be in general be published (this prospect has caused particular dismay in the Commons). Second, that the Tribunal paid insufficient attention to the reasonable expectations of the MPs that personal information about them should be kept private. This is one of the criteria normally assessed when personal data is considered for release under FOI, and is a wide-ranging ground that could relate to any of the information involved.
The Commons has also backtracked today in another case, which concerns a wider range of expenses (from travel to postage costs) for six MPs. This stems from a freedom of information request submitted by the 91Èȱ¬. Earlier in the day the Commons told the Information Commissioner that it would comply with his ruling to release further (although not complete) details of this spending. The Commissioner's office then put out a statement announcing this. But the Commons now says that this has been overtaken by events and it does not intend to make any of this material public until after the High Court case on the other set of FOI requests. It has missed the deadline for appealing to the Tribunal, and whether it can really maintain this position on information, most of which has nothing to do with the issues of second homes, remains to be seen.
However it all suggests it will be months while the controversy continues over what MPs are entitled to keep secret. This must be disappointing news for those MPs and others like my colleague Nick Robinson who hoped that the focus of publicity about MPs would return to some other aspects of their activities. (Incidentally, as reports, the 91Èȱ¬ has turned down a request for Nick's expenses. But you can see the expenses of the Director General, Mark Thompson).
A 
°ä´Ç³¾³¾±ð²Ô³Ù²õÌýÌý Post your comment
I'm not surprised about these legal grounds for further appeal "after all", which Nick Robinson is currently blogging about. "After all" these people are citizens first, like the rest of us and they are entitled to a private and secure home life, like the rest of us. Perhaps it would be better to start afresh with the way expenses are provided so that in future everybody knows what kinds of stuff they will normally be expected to disclose as citizens,who are also employed as representatives of the people. I think this is very important from other perspectives eg medical records and confidentiality and also with respect to the children of M.P's eg if they have special needs.
Did the 91Èȱ¬ reject the request for Nick Robinson's expenses before or after the IC ruled that Alan Yentob's expenses *should* be disclosed?
See