why secret? What is there to hide?

M.Mourik, DORDRECHT, The Netherlands

I hope if this does go to court after being advised that it will fail, and the Speaker loses that the Judge insists he pay for the costs of all involved out of his own pocket.

barbara, north east,

Dont worry, the MPs that vote with their conscience will release their figures voluntarily - wont they ?

robert everitt, wolverhampton,

All members of parliment are employed by the people of this country and as such we their employers demand that they the M.Ps are transparent in all matters and especially those of a financial nature.Otherwise it can safely be presumed that they have something to hide,furthermore on assuming the mantle of power,their saintly leader at the time gave an undertaking on the steps of No.10 and in front of the world press that New Labour would free from sleaze and transparent in all things.

owen, gateshead,

Sack him....NOW!

judy, Liverpool, England

If I was Mr.Martin's lawyer and knew he had access to unlimited public funds to pursue a High Court appeal then I would probably give Mr.Martin sufficient encouragement to pursue an appeal too, however hopeless the prospects. Bit of a no brainer really.

Andy, Cambridge, UK

'MPs are unhappy because the tribunal’s decision requires the disclosure of their addresses'

There are many ways of finding out who lives where and MP's are no less secure in this way than any other member of the public. To the diligent an address anywhere in the UK and elsewhere can be traced within minutes.

Peter, Norwich, UK

So WE as usual pay ; I wonder what else that £100,000 could pay for to ease OUR burden ?

Jim, Sidcup/Kent,

Working in the private sector, I am used to submitting my expense claims and having them verfiied, scrutinised and being called to account if there are any suspected variances from company policy. My employer has the right, even the duty, to examine my claims.
Why should our MP's work under different rules? They are elected by us, the people, to work for us. We have a right to know they are spending our money wisely and according to the rules.

Michael Moulsley, Overton, Hampshire

The second lawyer is very clever business man. The second lawyer, suddenly realised there is money to be made so just agree to represent. The second lawyer is going to earn £100,000, nice monies even if the case is lost. It is only tax payers monies not the MP's. Please remember MP's and employees and the public are employers. We the public pays the salary of MP's and it is time they begin to appreciate the concept, which they seem to have forgotten. Elections are not far and those MP's including Mr Martin should be made aware of the timeline.

YT, London, UK

If the Speaker really wants to ensure that democratic debate is not stifled he should ensure that the Whips do not have MPs home addresses. And that he personally works to re-assure MPs that they need not fear not being called should they upset him.
While this shameful challenge is played out someone must ensure that all of the relevant records are retained. MPs will spin that all that matters is the 'way forward' and seek to 'draw a line under what has happened' - this must not be allowed.
Cameron and Brown have to get involved if Parliament is to retain any respect. This means speaking and acting personally and clearly about the issues - not second hand sound-bites. And doing it now.

cj, nottinghamshire,

There is a debate to be had about how and to what extent MPs should be remunerated. It should be balanced and informed , with prejudiced or overtly political views playing no part.

There are, however, two issues of fundamental importance.
First, there must be a proper system of accountability by MPs for all of their expenses, with no exceptions.

Secondly, any legal or other action launched by MPs to prevent disclosure of information about their remuneration should not be paid for from public funds. (What budget is it coming from?).

It seems the lawyers MPs are using will not be on fixed fees. At an estimated cost of £100,000 to the taxpayer (who thus pays whatever the outcome - if each MP paid an equal share it would be less than £200), Mr Martin and his colleagues must ensure their lawyers account for every penny, as MPs require in all legal aid cases.

Stephen Mannering, Nottingham,

The Queen accounts for her expenditure. What would these Mps say if she had refused to do so, or if she had hired lawyers to attempt to prevent disclosure?

Sam Bartlett, Sousse, Tunisia

It is outrageous that we taxpayers should be made to pay £100,000 so that the "impartial" Speaker of the House of Commons can prevent us from knowing how MPs spend our money. There are many people in the country who do not even earn the equivalent of the additional cost allowance in a year! Why is Mr Martin so determined to keep things secret?

Des, Edinburgh,

Let them keep the secrecy of all their addressess if they wish; no one cares about politicians anymore, although we should all care about the contempt with which they treat their employers, the public!

Now's the time to completely review the system.

A basic salary, like everyone else, declarable and taxable expenses, like everyone else; use trains, buses, walk, like everyone else, and spend YOUR money (after tax and NI of course) to buy anything you want, like everyone else!

I remember something called 'cost benefit analysis' to establish value, so how about all our politicians being assessed on this basis?

Terry, Bagneres, France

All the rest of us have to declare our expenses to the tax man - information which then enters the public domain. Why are those who are 'serving' us so determined not to let us know how they spend the money THEY have awarded themselves out of OUR pockets?

And another £100,000 to lose in the courts - of our money? The man must resign, it is obscene.

dominic, Teddington, Middlesex,

It's time to remove from every public office, all those who who bend the rules to suit themselves, and fail to honour their election pledges.
At the very least, remember exactly who they are, and never vote for them again because you will only have yourselves to blame. If you put a Fox in charge of a Hen House, you must expect problems.

Clive Burghard, LANCING, ENGLAND

If its open house for politicians then how about us being able to see the expense claims of BBC workers as well? Knowing some that work at the BBC and how well they look after the public purse you might be amazed.

Whilst we are at it lets have a look at everyones expenses - or is it just the few people in government that everyone blames for the entire ills of the country that we want to villify?

Dont forget everybody, we yes WE pay Johnathan Ross more than the entire cabinet put together is that a reasonable basis for running the country?

Dave , Newbury,

A good start. Now when can we bring Tony Blair in for taking Al Qaeda into and causing the mess that is Iraq?

Farrukh, Woking, UK

This is quite typical arrogance, not just of this man, but of his ilk. Chosen by a Party machine to be selected as a candidate, no academic or other particular qualifications being necessary, they immediately assume the mantle of 'those who know' as opposed to 'those [of us] out there'! You DARE to question them? They are HONOURABLE MEMBERS, so who are YOU to question them! Apathy? No! Disgust!

S. Barraclough, Huddersfield, W. Yorkshire

The argument that politicians always use for things like ID cards and DNA testing is that if you are innocent then you have nothing to hide, saying 'these measures are designed to detecct criminals', well isnt this just the same. There is an air of corruption which needs lancing not the speaker who has apready been called to account tryting to use the law to cover it up, is he on the list to be disclosed?

James, Southampton,

If your MP does not disclose, don't vote for him next time

Bill Bailey, Newmarket, Suffolk

Must all MPs be tarnished by those amongst them who are trying to prevent the taxpayers from finding out about their shifty deals?

Are there any honest ones left?

A pity Martin Bell restricted himself to just one term.

Stephen Russell, Maidstone, UK

The Speaker has proved without any doubt that "he is not fit for purpose". "Honourable Members" Ha Ha.
After every election these fat cats debate how much they are going to pay themselves . This is wrong. If I apply for a job I know what the salary is to be, Their salaries and expense allowances should be decided PRIOR to the General Election so the electors know how much their member is to be paid.
As for the disgraceful John Lewis list. Abolish it. Service families are allocated Married Quarters the same should apply to M.P's.
As for their pensions make them buy their own. I had to.
Compensation for loss of office, compensation for failure more like. No way.
The heat is slowly being turned up on these free loaders,everyone must continue making a fuss until Martin's head is on a pole on London Bridge!!

Hinchwick, Riberac, France

It's clear that Martin is desperate to avoid MPs expenses being made public. Clearly he wouldn't do the Tories or Liberals any favours, so one can only assume that he has been gorging on our money for so long that he's terrified of the prospect of disclosure; either that or he's covering up for his pals in the Labour party.

Ian, London,

let's build a large studio appartment block in westminster to provide all MP's with a second home. Surrounded by a secirity wall with 24/7 guards. Furnishing would be to Home office standards. This would put a stop to MP's frittering our money away and in times of crisis could double as a home for all those Rapist/murderers/robbers/non council tax paying pensioners ( collectively known as criminals!!)

GWakem, born, luxembourg

1000.000 Plus of tax's payers money. Michael Martin is an embarressment not only to himself but to politics, Can't waite till may when the british people show the true feeling of the country

John, Lancaster, England

Why are MP's not on PAYE as any other employee or sub-contractor would be. How do they justify claiming to be self employed.

Bob Head

Bob Head, Sawbridgeworth, Herts

These payments are should be taxed. Why is the tax man not beating the door down, as he would with any other citizen?

Dave, Paris, France

Thought MPs were elected to serve not fleece the public. Obviously got it wrong.

Simon Marshland, bath, somerset

The last desperate gasp of a con man?

A spokeswoman for the commission said MPs feared that if their second home addresses were published they would be less inclined to speak their minds, which would “inhibit democratic debate”.

And this is based on? A fear that the when the truth is out, MPs will garner even less respect? I think you'll find that and MPs right to speak their mind is protected by law.

If there's nothing to hide, why try and hide it?

ws, Manchester,

Mr. Martin's position was in question earlier in this debate. It is definitely untennable now. He cannot waste yet another £100,000 of our money trying to protect the few when his advisors have already said he cannot win. These people talk about £100,000's as though they are smarties and these greedy MP's are happy to gobble them up. The man in the street cannot afford to live let alone eat smarties!!!

barbara, north east,

No taxation without representation!

Tim, Sheffield, UK

Let the speaker challenge the decision BUT WITH HIS OWN MONEY & not the tax payers. Then see how he would change his mind. very quickly indeed.

They spend OUR money & have the audacity to try and hide the Truth. The greed just oozes out like an open wound. Should be called the House of Criminals

al, London, UK

What a shower...

It beggars belief what some people will do for money and how little money it takes to corrupt...

Jeff, Surrey,

These people are public servants and as such are paid for by the electorate and all their running costs should be made available for public scrutiny.
Also if they resort to the courts for protection they should be made to contribute to the legal costs from personal funds and not expect the taxpayer to subsidise another nefarious practice. The everyday UK citizen is expected to pay for his/her day in court. Why should MP's be any different?

Mike O' Connor, Plymouth,

As the government keeps telling the rest of us, "If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear." If it's a good enough argument to justify foisting ID cards on the rest of us, it's a good enough argument in this case as well. What's wrong? Are they finally beginning to recognise the importance of privacy?

E Burgess, Slough,

Another disgraceful example of this Government's contempt of moral decency.

Graham , Littlehampton,

OK, keep the home address confidential - now show us the payments and receipts. One could wonder what the Speaker himself is do desperate to hide!

Jonathan Mills, Brighton,

No surprises!
Gorbals Mick has brought the office of Speaker into disrepute.
I can only imagine it is because HE has most to fear from this exposure of expenses claims.

Bob Christie, Burntisland, Scotland

Its an utter disgrace that taxpayers money is used to hide how MP's personally spend tax payers money. It really is beyond belief.

Gregor, Edinburgh,

When the Speaker finds that he is not above the law, he attempts to use the law to bully others into submission, bringing the once respected position of Speaker into disrepute.

Eric Scott, Carlisle, UK

MP's from all parties fail to realize that their perks and fiddles come out of the public purse. It is little wonder that they want none of this to come to light. They are certainly over paid, and under worked for the exorbitant salaries that they have given themselves annually. No private firm could, or would compete on their level annually without having some financial and cash flow problems.

RC Kennedy, Skegness, Lincs

mick it's tax payer's money. The public has a right to know how.

nick, london,