So much for transparency on MPs expenses

[Gromit]

Gordon Brown is refusing to publish the independent report which Downing Street says clears Labour MP Shahid Malik over his housing arrangements.

Mr Malik stepped down as Justice Minister from the Government last month amid suspicions that his rental arrangements over his designated main home may have breached the ministerial code of conduct.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/mps -expenses/5485793/Gordon-Brown-refuses-to-publ ish-report-into-finances-of-Labour-MP-Shahid-M alik.html

Will they ever learn?

[Julnar]

There is a tendency in the British establishment to keep everything secret and it just leads to a lack of confidence of their motives in the minds of the public. Personally, I think matters of national security need to be kept secret and that is all.

[jake-the-peg]

I think that should be taken up with Mr Malik not Gordon Brown

I wouldn't be very impressed if my employer published a report like that about me.

Would you?

[Gromit]

jake-the-peg

This was an independent investigation, not one by his employer. And it has cleared Mr Malik,

He had whinged

reporting of the case had been "lazy" and had damaged his reputation.

Publishing this document (with personal information deleted) could have put the 'trutth' into the public domain.

[jake-the-peg]

Then they should take it up with Malik.

The temptation these days seems to Whip Brown for absolutely anything.

MPs Expenses are a matter for MPs and the House of Commons.

The report is into Malik's behaviour - If he want's it published to show he's clean then it should be published.

Malik's expenses, his personal details his decision. Not Brown's

[jno]

if Brown himself claimed the report cleared Malik, then refusal to publish leaves a cloud hanging over him too even though he's not technically involved. He could have told Malik he wouldn't get a new job unless he agreed to publication; that he didn't will just add to public suspicion and cynicism, which suggests that, despite Brown's assurances that he has learned from the scandal, he hasn't.

[ludwig]

"MPs Expenses are a matter for MPs and the House of Commons" - hilarious - you're not an MP are you Jake?

Will they ever learn - no, not unless they're made to.

[flip_flop]

MPs expenses most certainly are not a matter between MPs and the House of Commons.

As we pay their expenses they should be in the public domain.

The Telegraph published details that were absolutely in the public interest.

[ludwig]

..flip_flop, which is why after all that's happened I thought it was hilarious for Jake to come out with a comment like that.

It's exactly the attitude MPs had, and probably still do - 'what we claim is a matter for us alone, and you lot (the taxpayer) should keep your nose out of it'

[jake-the-peg]

Here you go:

Here's the report - fill your boots

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/telegraph/multimedi a/archive/01421/Edited_version_of__1421412a.do c

53. To conclude my consideration of the position in respect of [property1] and 60 Daisy Hill, I am satisfied that Mr Malik has not breached the requirements of Sections 7.1 and 7.7 of the Code in relation to either of these two properties ...

It is not therefore been shown that Mr Malik has breeched the Ministerial Code in respect of [property2] the house he currently occupies in Dewsbury.