Who is the real hero of the MPs’ expenses saga? The Daily Telegraph for buying the unredacted discs? Or maybe Heather Brooke, whose investigative journalism triggered the past fortnight’s political earthquake? It’s neither. No, the real hero is Labour’s greatest constitutional success, the Freedom of Information Act.

The full details of MPs’ claims have come to light only thanks to the act. Once the High Court struck down Michael Martin’s disgraceful (taxpayer-funded) attempts to obstruct the release of MPs’ expenses, the game was up, and it was only a matter of time before their claims were exposed.

We heard a lot of warm words about reform last week, but the real change that needs to come from this episode is the expansion and strengthening of the act. The legislation is still not fulfilling its potential. There are too many people and organisations, dependent on taxpayers’ money, which are not subject to freedom of information (FoI) law. There are also too many ways for organisations to avoid answering requests that might reveal embarrassing information.

The TaxPayers’ Alliance is committed to ensuring taxpayers get value for money, and we were curious about how much the Carbon Trust spent on a huge advert at Bank Underground station in London. Unfortunately, while the Carbon Trust is almost entirely funded by the taxpayer – to the tune of nearly £100m – its nominal status as an independent company means it isn’t subject to the act.

Similarly, an excellent website – Fakecharities.org – has revealed that a number of campaigning charities are now underwritten by the taxpayer. Alcohol Concern, for example, gets 57% of its funding from the Department of Health, yet FoI requests can’t be used to discover how it spends our money.

Finally, the public sector makes huge use of consultancies, but the details of their work, including how much a consultant working exclusively for the public sector earns, are withheld from public scrutiny.

Any organisation that receives taxpayers’ money should be expected to account for how it was spent, and has to respond to requests related to its use. If they are given unrestricted grants, as Alcohol Concern and the Carbon Trust are, then the taxpayer is underwriting their operations and they should be subject to the act.

The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO), which adjudicates in disputes on FoI requests, has to balance defending the privacy of public sector staff with releasing information that is in the public interest. It tends to rule that details such as salaries and expenses should be released for directors and elected politicians but not for junior staff.

That works in most circumstances, but many organisations, from NHS trusts to the BBC, have staff who are nowhere near the top of an organisational chart but who are just as important to the organisation as the directors, and often better paid. The public has a clear interest in knowing how much Jonathan Ross is paid, and if he doesn’t think an £18m contract is worth that level of scrutiny then he is free to take his talents elsewhere.

If a public sector organisation refuses to answer an FoI request, then the only recourse is to appeal to the ICO. Unfortunately it is overwhelmed by work and doesn’t have the funding to get through all its cases.

At the TaxPayers’ Alliance we pursued a dispute with Kent county council over its refusal to release the details of senior staff remuneration. We waited a year for a response from the ICO, which was in our favour. Nearly a third of cases submitted to the ICO take more than a year to reach a ruling. That will often mean information is out of date by the time a dispute is resolved.

The ICO costs just £5.5m a year, yet, perhaps unsurprisingly given the trouble its work causes the government, it is at risk of having its income cut despite a projected 15% rise in its workload. This is perhaps the only public sector organisation that needs and deserves more money.

The commissioner also needs the power to punish bodies delaying through intransigence. Earlier this year The Economist reported that Transport for London had delayed a request for two months, then turned it down. We’ve had similar experiences. It would take only the threat of small fines for those organisations breaking the law by delaying beyond the 20-day limit set down in the act, to ensure that the deadline was taken seriously.

If politicians want to show Whitehall is putting the culture of secrecy behind it, they should strengthen the most powerful tool that the public has at its disposal to hold the public sector to account. That way, MPs can demonstrate to the public they now take the responsibilities that come with spending taxpayers’ money more seriously.

Matthew Elliott is chief executive of the TaxPayers’ Alliance

Times Recommends

• In Margot Fonteyn's footsteps
• Forget beautiful people, let's have wonky Brits
• Fundamentalist brew: faith and power