Lots in the press today about how the leaker of MP expense receipts is only in it for the money - a tidy £300,000 if we are to believe Sir Stuart Bell (and what possible reason could he and the House of Commons authorities have to move the focus away from MPs? Or to smear the whistleblower?)

If the person responsible for giving the information to the press is making some money out of it, do we really care? He or she is likely to face the sack and so to ask for cash is less to do with greed and more to do with sensible financial planning.

Besides, £300,000 of a newspaper group's money is insignificant when we consider that MPs spent £1m of taxpayers' money trying to prevent us seeing the receipts at all. I know which I think is better value for money.

What's more, the leaker may well be acting in direct response to a move by MPs to hide any embarrassing details by blacking out sensitive items from expense claims. These include items that weren't billed for by the taxpayer (which is obviously completely fine - if we don't pay for it we don't need to know about it), but more worryingly also "details that identify individual suppliers":

It emerged yesterday that MPs will be given the chance within days to edit receipts submitted to justify their expense claims before they are made public. Details that identify individual suppliers, as well as any items on bills not paid for by the taxpayer, can be blacked out by MPs during the next month, Commons officials said.

Commons search for mole offering MPs expense records for £300,000 by Francis Elliott and Emily Gosden, The Times

Whether the leaker is an unsavoury character or not is irrelevant. It's MPs that created the problem by abusing the public's trust and then trying to cover it all up, and its MPs that need to face the music.