UK

11° London Hi 14°C / Lo 8°C

U-turn over MPs' expenses secrecy

By James Tapsfield, PA

The Government staged a climbdown today over plans to conceal potentially embarrassing details of MPs' expenses.

Downing Street indicated that a motion to exempt Parliament from key parts of the Freedom of Information Act will not now be tabled tomorrow.

Speaking at Prime Minister's Questions, Gordon Brown hit out at the Tories for withdrawing their support from the controversial move.

"We thought we had agreement on the Freedom of Information Act as part of this wider package," he said.

"Recently that support that we believed we had from the main opposition party was withdrawn.

"So on this particular matter, I believe all-party support is important and we will continue to consult on that matter."

The turnaround came little more than an hour after the Prime Minister's spokesman reiterated the Government's intention to order Labour MPs to back the move - rather than give them a free vote.

Other votes on reforming the much-criticised allowances system and tightening audit procedures will still go ahead.

Leader of the House Harriet Harman slipped out a surprise bid to sidestep disclosure last week while attention was focused on the furore over expanding Heathrow airport.

The proposals were backdated to 2005, meaning they would have nullified rulings from the High Court and Information Tribunal that the public had a right to know exactly how MPs were using allowances for second homes.

In return, expenses would have been published under more categories than before - but still not fully itemised.

There has been speculation that the scheme emerged as a result of heavy lobbying from some Labour MPs who would be deeply embarrassed if details of their spending were made public.

The Commons authorities have spent some £1m since May scanning and redacting around a million receipts ready for publication - on top of the £150,000 bill for their failed legal battle.

Ms Harman issued a statement confirming that the motion was being dropped.

"As Leader of the House, I will seek further discussions on how to proceed," she said.

"In view of the lack of cross-party agreement, I can confirm that we will not proceed with the motion on FOI in the debate tomorrow."

She added: "I tabled the motion relating to FOI because it would provide a legal underpinning for a package of changes which would achieve greater transparency in the publication of what MPs spend."

Ms Harman said the motions on revising the Green Book, which sets out rules for MPs' expenses, and tightening audit procedures, would still be debated.

She went on: "I first discussed the proposed package of changes, including the FOI amendment, at a meeting with the Members Estimate Committee on December 15.

"There were further discussions with them earlier this month, and we will need to continue the discussions."

Sources close to Mr Cameron had originally indicated he was likely to instruct his MPs to abstain over the exemption.

However, the party confirmed last night that its members would be ordered to vote against the proposals on the grounds that they limited "transparency".

The Government was also facing the prospect of a rebellion from its own backbenchers, and significant opposition among peers.

A Lords Committee hit out at ministers this morning for trying to "rush through" the plans, and not being clear over why they were necessary.

Liberal Democrat Leader Nick Clegg said: "This is a humiliating climbdown for Gordon Brown after he was forced to accept that people will not tolerate MPs continuing to act like members of a secret society.

"It is also a victory for everyone who think that politicians should be open and accountable to the people who pay their wages."

A spokeswoman for Mr Cameron insisted there had been "absolutely no deal" over the exemption.

The leadership decided to oppose the move as soon as it became clear that did not mean scuppering the wider reform package, she said.

"David Cameron and the shadow cabinet and the Conservative Party has done absolutely no deals with the Government over this.

"They are trying to defend their decision to try to exempt MPs from the Freedom of Information Act by claiming there was some kind of bogus deal. There was not."

Maurice Frankel, director of the Campaign for Freedom of Information, welcomed the climbdown.

But he warned that similar plans could resurface in the near future.

"We are delighted that this proposal has been shelved," he said. "It was wrong in principle for MPs to try and conceal their expenses claims when all other public servants have to release theirs.

"It was improper for the Government to try and rush the measure through without the public noticing or having time to object.

"MPs should not be legislating on the quiet to remove an existing right of access to information about their own expenses in the hope that no-one will notice."

Mr Frankel went on: "Some MPs are clearly desperate to prevent the release of past expenses claims which are likely to have exceeded what could reasonably be justified to the public."

Matthew Elliott, chief executive of the TaxPayers' Alliance, said the Government should never have sought the exemption.

"The public have a right to see how their money is spent by their elected representatives, and it was wrong of anyone to try to stand in the way of that.

"This is a victory for accountability, democracy and taxpayers' rights."

Peter Facey, director of campaigning group Unlock Democracy, hailed a victory for "people power".

"We are delighted that the Government has finally seen sense and backed down on this measure," he said.

"If passed, this Order would have had a catastrophic impact on the reputation of Parliament.

"We now call on the Parliamentary authorities to publish MPs' expenses at the earliest opportunity.

"Fundamentally, the Government backed down because they knew they would lose even they won the vote. This was a clear victory of people power."

Labour MP John Mann (Bassetlaw) said he had spoken to a large number of MPs who were planning to oppose the move.

"It is therefore an excellent win for younger and more modern MPs that the Government has withdrawn the motion that would have exempted MPs from Freedom of Information Claims," he added.

Post a Comment

View all comments that have been posted about this article.

Offensive or abusive comments will be removed and your IP logged and may be used to prevent further submission. In submitting a comment to the site, you agree to be bound by the Independent Minds Terms of Service.

Comments

[info]frigalo wrote:
Wednesday, 21 January 2009 at 01:30 pm (UTC)
Yepp, we taxpayers get the picture. Members of Parliament are usually very good at "getting together" and putting aside "political differences" if it means smoothly7 voting through a big increase in their salaries or expenses - or the hiding of them.

What happened? Tories and LIb Dems broke ranks. It must be almost election time..................
Even when I'm wrong
[info]pilsden wrote:
Wednesday, 21 January 2009 at 01:46 pm (UTC)
So it's a u turn and not a whipped vote but presented as the opposition's fault.When will this man start being straight or has it reached the stage when he doesn't know any better
Fat-Guts Prescott
[info]neil_mcgowan wrote:
Wednesday, 21 January 2009 at 01:50 pm (UTC)
will be telling us again what a poor wee soul he is. Fed on thousands of pounds-worth of food shopping from top-end supermarkets, all claimed as "expenses" - then forced to live with his mistress in a luxury grace-and-favour apartment at Admiralty, for which he didn't pay a cent.

And the Two Jags, of course.

It's a tough life doing a part-time job as an MP, eh?
Re: Fat-Guts Prescott
[info]rjc18 wrote:
Wednesday, 21 January 2009 at 02:27 pm (UTC)
Fat Guts Prescott? I think you are flattering the blubber bellied waste of space with a name like that. Let me think of a better description and I'll get back to you.
volte face
[info]vhawk1951 wrote:
Wednesday, 21 January 2009 at 02:36 pm (UTC)
plainly having only 498 days left before he has to go to the polls (barring a spring deletion) concentrates old Gordo's mind something powerful. i wonder if the real PM - Peter Mandelson-now there's a coincidence-told him to allow a free vote
MP's expenses
[info]rfarley wrote:
Wednesday, 21 January 2009 at 03:10 pm (UTC)
As a tax payer I DEMAND to know how my money is being squandered by thedse MP's. They must all have a lot to hide if they are reluctant to present their expense accounts for scrutiny. I think I might refuse to declare ALL my earnings on my next tax return. Hopefully this shameful lot will be thrown off the gravy train soon
Re: MP's expenses
[info]vhawk1951 wrote:
Wednesday, 21 January 2009 at 04:44 pm (UTC)
in fairness not all MPs claim expenses, mine, Michael ancram claims no expenses at all and he is an excellent constituency MP.
mp's expenses
[info]wsstewart wrote:
Wednesday, 21 January 2009 at 05:01 pm (UTC)
If he can't make up his mind on a simple issue like expenses, why should we be surprised that he has messed up the UK economy. Brown, the historian, can tell us all about the past, unfortunately he has no ideas for "the here and now" Brown keeps asking Cameron to tell him what he would do, and when he gets an answer, he only uses half the answer, to make it Government policy. The expenses issue clearly illustrates that he is back to his dithering best.

150 grand wasted
[info]vhawk1951 wrote:
Wednesday, 21 January 2009 at 05:06 pm (UTC)
while nobody can get legal aid, some fool wasted 150 grand on a totally hopeless legal battle to cover up the truth


how long Zanulabour's 498 remaining days will be.Fortunately Gordo is now more unpopular than Bush
Mr Brown is wrong from every point of view
[info]polyjester wrote:
Wednesday, 21 January 2009 at 06:45 pm (UTC)
Brown is wrong on principle, wrong on policy, wrong in practice, wrong in personality and wrong in popularity. He must go and go now.
Transparency? No, we want abolition.
[info]barrie_redfern wrote:
Wednesday, 21 January 2009 at 08:26 pm (UTC)
It's not transparency the public really wants but abolition of these mind boggling privileges.


Humiliation reaches new heights.
[info]rickitickitavi wrote:
Wednesday, 21 January 2009 at 10:13 pm (UTC)
How utterly humiliating for Harriet Harperson. Contrary to the recent advertising campaign, it would appear that there is indeed a God after all.
only 498 days left
[info]vhawk1951 wrote:
Wednesday, 21 January 2009 at 11:11 pm (UTC)
unless Gordo calls an election in the spring he only has 498 days left, but they will be such long tedious days for us.It is like watching Napoleon's retreat from Moscow in slow motion

Most popular in UK News



Article Archive

Day In a Page

Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat

Select date