The Guardian, James Ball, 17/5/2008

Campaigners for freedom of information have won a significant victory with yesterday's High Court ruling on the secrecy that has surrounded MPs' expenses. The verdict may be welcome, but by opposing greater transparency Commons authorities needlessly risked undermining any remaining public trust in the expenses system.

The campaigners requested details of spending on second homes by 14 MPs, including relevant receipts and the addresses of properties requested. After a three-year battle, the Information Tribunal ruled these details should be released - a ruling which followed a series of scandals about use of this allowance and other expenses benefits.

These included the revelation that 24 MPs living within an hour's commute of Westminster collectively claimed £400,000 for second homes, and that two MPs had managed to claim £40,000 in expenses without submitting a single receipt. These were overshadowed by other example of expenses abuses, most notably when Derek Conway was ordered to pay back £13,161 for "misuse" of public money which he used to employ his son while at university.

The appeal against the release of information argued that disclosing details of MPs' addresses would pose a significant security risk. The judge had little sympathy with this case, saying in his ruling: "An individual who is determined to discover the residential address of an adult, law-abiding citizen is likely to be able to do so by one legal means or another." Address details are essential for scrutinising such expenses, in order to ensure the property claimed for is indeed used regularly as a second home by the person claiming.

In the wake of an embarrassing flurry of expenses stories, and public anger at perceived misbehaviour, appealing against greater accountability and scrutiny of payments on second homes seems perverse. Yet it is even more perverse than it seems at first glance. The committee which decided to oppose the release of this information - the Members' Estimates Committee, led by Commons speaker Michael Martin - is in charge of delivering the review on MPs' expenses due to report this summer.

Even Sir Christopher Kelly, the standards watchdog for the Commons, called the committee's decision to appeal "unwise", adding it "suggest[s] that there is something to hide".

Party leaders have spoken on the importance of restoring trust in parliament and its members, and in the political process in general. Making information on MPs' expenses public is the best way to do this: since members of the Scottish parliament made available detailed expenses information - down to each taxi journey - there have been no Scottish expenses scandals.

One of the committee's members, David Maclean, was behind an attempt in 2007 to exempt parliament from the Freedom of Information Act entirely, by making the first bid to weaken FOI legislation since its introduction in 2005. The bill was passed through the commons after informal support from party leaders, but was defeated in the Lords. Maclean was the joint top claimant of Additional Costs Allowance in two out of the last five years. He was also subject to scorn in the media for purchasing a quad bike on expenses.

Many MPs are aggrieved at perceived public curiosity into their expenses, when the vast majority claim only for exactly what they are entitled to and need in order to carry out their duties correctly. However, the best way to end such curiosity, and any lingering suspicion from members of the public, is simply to make this information easily and routinely available. MPs are public figures, elected for their reputation as honest citizens. It's not unreasonable to allow electors to verify they have made the right choices - especially given we pay their wages.

The Members' Estimates Committee has until Tuesday to decide whether to appeal against the court's ruling. Their decision will say much about how much they truly value an open and accountable parliament. It's time for them to start repairing the damage.