The House of Commons is considering whether to launch an urgent appeal after losing its High Court battle to keep secret details of MPs' expenses.
Three senior judges have ruled that the Information Tribunal acted within its powers when it demanded that a detailed breakdown of MPs' additional costs allowances (ACA) must be provided under the Freedom of Information Act. Sir Igor Judge (President of the Queen's Bench Division), Lord Justice Latham and Mr Justice Blake, also ruled that the addresses of MPs' second homes should be disclosed.
In what was hailed by information seekers as "a victory for democracy", they said full disclosure was necessary because the Tribunal had concluded that the ACA system was "deeply flawed" and lacked accountability.
At stake was "public confidence in our system at its very pinnacle, the House of Commons itself", said the judges. They said there was no evidence that revealing addresses would give rise to specific security risks, and exceptions could be made "in the most pressing cases" if that were to occur.
The judges granted a "stay" on their decision pending a possible urgent appeal to the Court of Appeal next week.
The Members Estimate Committee, chaired by Speaker Michael Martin, which challenged the Tribunal's decision, will consider its position next week.
Members' expenses have come under sustained criticism in recent months following the publication of the "John Lewis list" of household items MPs can purchase under their £23,000-a-year second homes allowance. The list includes £10,000 kitchens and £6,000 bathrooms.
The Information Tribunal ruled in February that the Commons authorities must provide a detailed breakdown of the ACAs of 14 named MPs, including party leaders Gordon Brown and David Cameron, and former Liberal Democrat leader Sir Menzies Campbell.
Nigel Giffin QC, appearing for the Commons, argued that the Tribunal's decision, which requires breakdowns to include receipts and the addresses of properties bought, meant there would be "a substantial unlawful intrusion" into the lives of MPs and their families that could threaten their security at the hands of the "mad and bad".
Rejecting the QC's arguments, the judges said it was "highly significant" that none of the MPs subject to applications had suggested that they claimed allowances on the basis that detailed information would not be disclosed.
