FOI win may give more details of MPs’ expenses
Posted by
Martin Stabe
on 15 June 2007 at 12:35
Tags: Freedom of Information, Sunday Telegraph
The Information Commissioner has ruled that more details of MPs’ expenses must be disclosed under the Freedom of Information Act, in a move that is likely to raise a few eyebrows in Westminster, given the recent failure of David Maclean’s “squalid little bill” to exempt Parliament from FOI.
The decision notice (PDF) states that the total amounts claimed by some MPs under the “additional cost allowance”, which is used to reclaim expenses of running a home closer to Westminster than their constituency, must be disclosed under specific headings including “mortgage costs”, “hotel expenses” and so on.
The decision, made earlier this week, but only released today, followed requests from the various journalists. Ben Leapman of the Sunday Telegraph writes that an appeal by the Commons authorities to the Information Tribunal is likely, however.
Had it passed, the Maclean bill would have blocked precisely this sort or request to the House of Commons.
The Commissioner said that the public has a right to know expenses claimed by MPs in relation to their public duties.
In a press release about the decision, the ICO said: “The Information Commissioner does not believe it is necessary to disclose the full itemised details of expenditure on the running of a MP’s private household. To do so would invade the privacy of MPs and their families.”
Meanwhile, another private members bill is worth keeping an eye on: tabled by Lib Dem MP Tom Brake, the Freedom of Information (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill would actually strengthen the FOI Act. The Campaign for Freedmom of Information’s blog has full details, and Robert Verkaik wrote it up in the Indy this morning.
Update: More context on this decision from Martin Rosenbaum at the BBC
Update 2.10pm: Heather Brooke is not impressed with the ICO’s “regulation by press release” and says the decision resulted from an appeal that she had filed with the ICO. It certainly seems as though she’s been scooped on the decision affecting her own request because of the way it was released — by registered mail to her and by e-mail and RSS to the rest of the media. Martin Rosenbaum has had similar experiences.
