Speaker's bid to keep MPs expenses secret 'deals a hammer blow to Parliament's name'

He insisted the move was merely "delaying the inevitable" and called for the details of the second homes allowance to be released immediately.

His comments will increase pressure on Commons Speaker Michael Martin, whose management committee is already under fire from MPs for not consulting the House before deciding to appeal against publication of their expenses.

Commons authorities said on Tuesday they would contest a Freedom of Information order to publish details of expenses claims by 14 MPs, including Gordon Brown and David Cameron.

The House of Commons Commission - chaired by Mr Martin - claimed that any release of home addresses posed a security risk.

But Mr Clegg said today there was no reason why the expenses claims could not be released without the addresses, suggesting this had been the original plan.

"My understanding has been, when I was first told about this about a week ago, that the appeal on the very particular point about the confidentiality of addresses ... can be separated from the publication of details of the expenses," he told BBC Radio 4's Today programme.

Campaigners and some MPs suspect that the issue of addresses has been used as a "smokescreen" to prevent any publication of how MPs use their £23,000-a-year second homes allowance.

Mr Clegg added today: "The reason why this feels like a needless, additional hammer blow to public confidence in the House of Commons and what MPs do is - I think we all now accept - that there should be full declaration of all MPs' expenses.

"That will happen in the coming months once the arrangements are put in place, in any event.

"So it's not as though it's doing anything other than delaying the inevitable."

Campaigners have expressed anger that a legal challenge could cost the taxpayer more than £100,000 - on top of the £52,000 the Commons has already spent opposing freedom of information rulings.

Heather Brooke, a right-to-know campaigner, said: "The Speaker does not seem to realise the damage he is blatantly doing to the reputations of hard-working MPs.

"He is shamefully bringing politics into disrepute with his desperation to shroud the use of public money in secrecy."

Former minister Stephen Ladyman also warned that the Commons was being brought into "disrepute" and MPs needed to demonstrate they had nothing to hide.

Writing on his website, the Labour backbencher said: "MPs need to restore public confidence by being more open about their expenses and how they spend public money.

"I can understand that some MPs will want their addresses kept secret on security grounds but the fact is that some of the 'nonsense' being published in the media is bringing the House of Commons into disrepute and we need to act to demonstrate openness and show that we have nothing to hide."

Scroll down for more...

Dr Ladyman has provided links on his website to the published total amounts of expenses he has claimed under each subject heading, and has offered some explanation as to what the money is spent on.

The additional costs allowance, which is used by MPs to run a home near Westminster, costs taxpayers £11.7million a year.

MPs can furnish the property with top-of-the-range goods from the so-called "John Lewis" list, including spending £10,000 on a kitchen, £6,000 on a bathroom and £750 on stereos and televisions.

But Dr Ladyman said: "I have never claimed for kitchens, furniture, electrical goods or alterations for either property."

Liberal Democrat Mark Oaten, who is among the 14 MPs covered by last month's disclosure ruling by the Information Tribunal, said: "There was no consultation with me at all about deciding to appeal now to a higher court and I'm slightly confused about what's taking place.

"It does appear that the MPs involved, the 14 MPs involved, weren't consulted about this decision but we are getting all the flak this morning, as if we are trying to hide something. It's a very strange decision to take."

Scroll down for more...

Mr Martin yesterday refused to listen to MPs' concerns about the appeal against the decision in the chamber.

When Labour MP David Winnick raised concerns about the High Court move in the Commons he was silenced by the Speaker, who claimed any debate was sub judice.

Mr Winnick said later: "We are being gagged by the House of Commons. The concerns about the addresses is a smokescreen.

"Some people want to block any publication at all.

"What is being done in many MPs' names is being done without their consent. The danger is unfortunately that people get the impression that we have something to hide."

Last week the Commons Commission had indicated it was preparing to publish the expenses having run out of legal options.

But that appeared to have changed over Easter, leading to Tuesday's last-ditch High Court move.

Papers filed with the court challenged the tribunal's ruling in its entirety.

WE'LL LET COURTS DECIDE

Thirteen current and former MPs were asked by the Daily Mail why they had not freely published details of their second homes allowance between 2001 and 2006.

Gordon Brown's spokesman was asked the same question by political reporters yesterday.

He said the premier was "completely relaxed" about revealing his expenses but that the High Court action made it a matter for the Commons authorities.

David Cameron offered a "general" breakdown of his £21,359 expenses.

Tony Blair insisted it was a matter for the Commons as did Peter Mandelsonand Mark Oaten.

Sir Menzies Campbell was "thinking about" publishing while George Osborne said he would publish new expenses from next month.

William Hague said he would publish and was angry with the stance taken by the Commons authorities.

Labour's John Prescott, Margaret Beckett, Barbara Follett, Alan Keen and wife Ann Keen did not respond to calls. Ex-Tory MP John Wilkinson could not be contacted.

All the the politicians, including Mr Brown, were the target of the Freedom of Information campaign.