Public 'think Commons has something to hide'
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.*The House of Commons's legal challenge to the publication of MPs' expenses suggests they have something to hide, Westminster's anti-sleaze chief said yesterday. Sir Christopher Kelly, the chairman of the Committee on Standards in Public Life, described the appeal to the High Court as "unfortunate".
He also said he had raised concerns with Michael Martin, the Commons Speaker, about the lack of independent input into a review by MPs of their expenses. His committee is threatening to conduct its own inquiry if it is not satisfied with the internal review headed by Mr Martin.
Asked whether the Speaker understood public concern about the parliamentary allowances regime, Sir Christopher told the BBC: "I have no reason to think otherwise. On the other hand, the decision to appeal against the information decision about disclosure of expenses was unfortunate ... because it does suggest that there is something to hide."
The Commons authorities faced criticism when they launched the appeal against a freedom of information ruling last month. It is expected to cost the taxpayer more than £100,000. On the Members' Estimate Committee's review, Sir Christopher said he could think of no similar example of "self-interested" individuals overhauling their own allowances.
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments