HOUNSLOW'S two MPs this week refused to issue a breakdown of their expenses claims, despite a ruling by watchdogs that they should be made public.
Ann and Alan Keen have repeatedly brushed aside calls to explain publicly how nearly £100,000 of allowances claimed over three years has been spent.
They are entitled to claim the additional costs allowance, for overnight stays in central London when on parliamentary duties. But opponents say it is 'morally wrong' for them to claim the money when they live only nine miles from Westminster.
The couple have consistently refused to be drawn on allegations the allowance pays for a second home in Covent Garden.
But now Information Commissioner Richard Thomas has ruled that the claims, for a three-year period between 2001 and 2004, should be further broken down under certain headings.
These would include the Labour husband and wife team's mortgage costs, hotel expenses and furnishings bill.
The decision has been welcomed by residents who have called for greater transparency.
"It's morally wrong and totally hypocritical of the Keens to claim this allowance. They have never properly justified it or explained why it is necessary," said Brentford resident, and Conservative Party member, David Giles, 55.
In 2002/03 Ann Keen - who last Friday became parliamentary under-secretary at the Department for Health - claimed the highest additional costs allowance of all 657 UK MPs, at £19,722.
In the three-year period under review, the Brentford and Isleworth MP claimed £51,681, while husband and Feltham and Heston representative Alan claimed £47,024.
Prospective candidates for her Brentford and Isleworth seat, Tory Mary Macleod and Lib Dem councillor Andrew Dakers (pictured left), have both pledged they will not claim the allowance if selected at the next election.
Ms Macleod said: "People in public life should be open to scrutiny. It's important people understand how their money is used."
This week a spokesman for the Keens said the information has been properly supplied to House of Commons authorities, but refused to issue a breakdown to the Chronicle.
"The disclosure of details relating to the additional costs allowance is a matter for the House of Commons authorities, not individual MPs," he said.
The House of Commons has 28 days to appeal against the Information Commissioner's ruling. If not, it has 35 days in which to publish the information.
