MPs forced to divulge further details of expenses

The Information Commissioner has made a ruling today concerning the issue of MPs expenses (HERE). The effect of this is that further general details of sums paid to MPs as Additional Costs Allowance, such as the total amounts piad for such things as mortgages, ulitiy bills, insurance and so on, must be disclosed, although, as we argue below, the ruling does not go far enough.

“The complainant asked for copies of original submissions with copies of receipts, rental agreements, or mortgage interest statements from six named MPs in 2001/2, 2002/3 and 2003/4 under the Additional Costs Allowance. The House of Commons refused the request on the grounds that it was personal data and that disclosure would be unfair. The Commissioner found that the House does not hold rental agreements or mortgage interest statements in respect of all the six named MPs. The Commissioner decided that the requested information is personal data and that its fully itemised disclosure would be unfair. However he has decided that it would not contravene the data protection principles to disclose information showing the totals paid under specified headings within the Additional Costs Allowance. He has therefore ordered disclosure of the total amounts claimed by reference to each of these headings.”

The linked PDF file says this:

“The Information Commissioner’s decision strikes the right balance between transparency and accountability for public expenditure and the private lives of MPs and their families. The Information Commissioner has ruled that the total amounts claimed by some individual MPs under the additional cost allowance - the regime for MPs to reclaim expenses for running one home close to Westminster and one in their constituency - should be released under specific headings. These include: mortgage costs; hotel expenses; other food; service charges; utilities; telecommunications charges; furnishings; maintenance & service agreements; cleaning; insurance; basic security measures; other. The Commissioner ruled that, as expenses are claimed directly by MPs in relation to their public duties, the public has a right to know the total amounts claimed under these specific headings.”

With great respect to the Information Commissioner, the generality of this decision is wrong in principle. There is a legitimate public interest in some of the details that he has concluded should remain private being subject to full disclosure.

We do not include amongst these items an MP’s telephone or gas bills, nor is there any legitimate interest in the furnishings he or she may have or what steps to insure and secure the premises may have been taken or what his arrangements are with Mrs. Mopp the cleaning lady.

There is, however, we submit, a legitimate and overriding interest in the nature of the ownership of any house or flat in respect of which the additional cost allowance is being made. In addition there is also a legitimate interest in who the Mortgagor of any property is.

Suppose, for example, the MP is claiming mortgage expenses when the house or flat is not in his or her name? Or the house or flat is jointly owned with another person, in particular a member of his immediate family? There is a legitimate interest in examining this information so that the MP can demonstrate that the allowance is being made for the purpose for which it is intended, namely reimbursing a payment he would not need to make unless he was an MP, rather than simply enriching his family’s coffers.

Alternatively, suppose that the mortgagor of a house he or she is ostensibly buying is a company of which the MP is a major shareholder. Then it would be legitimate to have this information so that the electorate can see that the whole transaction is open and above board and that the Taxpayer is getting genuine value for money. Similarly if the MP was the shareholder of a company owning a block of flats, one of which was leased by the MP, there is a legitimate public interest in having full details of this so that a check may be kept on whether the rental claimed represents a genuine a transaction rather than one which was deliberately inflated so as to cause an unjust financial benefit to the MP.

We also have a quibble concerning allowances made for food. On what possible basis can a claim for food be made? MPs have to eat, come what may and is not forced to eat extra because he is away from home. We ought to have full details of why he needs to be recompensed for food.

For complete transparency details of mortgage and rental payments ought to be placed Online, together with all other expenses claims, so that an MPs claims for expenses can be seen to be entirely above board. Appropriate redactions can be made to protect sensitive details such as those of bank account details, of course, but there is, we feel, no reason why most of this information should not be in the public domain.

The bad, but utterly predictable news is that The House of Commons is almost certain to appeal against the Information Commissioner's ruling.

When passing laws for ID cards or new powers of ‘stop & search’, MPs are the first to say “if you have done nothing wrong, then you have nothing to hide”. Well then, MPs surely have nothing to worry about in being open and above board about their expenses, do they? So, what is sauce for the goose, is sauce for the gander.

Instead they seem determined to resist at every turn the reasonable and legitimate desire of the Taxpayer to ensure that their money is being properly spent. Even if all is above board, they seem quite bent on raising the strong suspicion that some of them, at least, do have something to hide.