MPs expenses

Alex Skene made this Freedom of Information request to House of Commons

House of Commons did not have the information requested.

From: Alex Skene

20 January 2009

Dear Sir / Madam

For the purposes of the Freedom of Information Act, this request
will have been received on the 20th January 2008. Please
immediately confirm the receipt of this request.

I would like to request all receipts, expense claims, payments and
associated meta-data that have been scanned and redacted ready for
release as part of the budgeted £950,000 work to make Members'
expenses available at receipt-level following on from the
Information Tribunal decision EA/2007/0060-63,0122,0123,0131 [1] &
subsequent High Court appeal [2]. To be clear, I'm not interested
in the specific information related to ACA that was released
following this judgement, but of the work that the Commons
authorities has been doing to make this information freely
available via your publication scheme.

Parliament Standard Note SN/PC/04732 [3] (page 7) says that work is
underway on behalf of the House by the Stationery Office and House
staff in both scanning and editing/approving the information ready
for release. I am only therefore only interested in the individual
items of "work" that have been completed and cleared for release.

My preferences for receipt of the data is for electronic data
transfer at a mutually agreeable date, location & file transfer
mechanism.

I envisage that you may want to apply exceptions to release of this
data. I would therefore ask you to carefully consider the following
points.

__ Section 77(1) Destruction of records

IMPORTANT - I would like to draw your attention to the Freedom of
Information Act Section 77(1) relating to the destruction of
records -

77 Offence of altering etc. records with intent to prevent
disclosure (1) Where— (a) a request for information has been made
to a public authority, and (b) under section 1 of this Act or
section 7 of the [1988 c. 29.] Data Protection Act 1998, the
applicant would have been entitled (subject to payment of any fee)
to communication of any information in accordance with that
section, any person to whom this subsection applies is guilty of an
offence if he alters, defaces, blocks, erases, destroys or conceals
any record held by the public authority, with the intention of
preventing the disclosure by that authority of all, or any part, of
the information to the communication of which the applicant would
have been entitled.

In addition, the Information Commissioner guidelines [4] state:

* "If information is held when a FOIA request is received, you may
be able to lawfully say that you do not hold it if it would
normally be destroyed before the deadline for responding. However,
you should as a matter of good practice suspend any planned
destruction and consider disclosure as usual."

* "Destroying requested information outside of your normal policies
is unlawful and may be a criminal offence if done to prevent
disclosure."

* "As a matter of good practice, you should keep all requested
information for at least 6 months to allow for appeals to the
Information Commissioner."

The Freedom of Information Act legislation as it stands today does
not include the Freedom of Information (Parliament) Order 2009 that
is being voted on in Parliament on 22 January 2009. There can
therefore be no plans for destruction of these records today beyond
your normal record retention policy. I therefore demand that none
of the records requested are destroyed.

__ Section 22 - Information intended for future publication

I understand that FOI requests received since the High Court
decision have been rejected using FOI exemption Section 22 -
Information intended for future publication - for example, see the
reply made via the WhatDoTheyKnow.com website [5]

Section 22 is a qualified exemption, and given the High Court's
view of the Public Interest in favour of disclosure, and given the
risk of the FOIA being changed to exempt this information, there
can be now be no reason for witholding the requested, vetted
information as it currently stands.

In addition the work requested would already have been vetted to be
suitable for release under FOIA Section 1(1)(b).

__ Section 12 - Excessive costs

If you are considering applying Section 12 (Excessive costs),
please provide a breakdown of your estimated costs in line with
official guidance. I understand that this data has been scanned
into a document management system, and that redaction/editing would
take place in this system, and those records which had been cleared
for release also flagged as such in the system. Therefore I do not
believe that it would take more than £600 (3.5 man-days) to write a
query to extract and dump the required data to disk.

-- Section 1(1)(a) - Information held

If you consider that the information would not be "held" at the end
of the 20 working day period, then I would ask you to check Section
1(4): "The information [...] is the information in question held at
the time when the request is received, except that account may be
taken of any amendment or deletion [to the information] made
between that time and the time when the information is to be
communicated under subsection (1)(b), being an amendment or
deletion that would have been made regardless of the receipt of the
request."

Today the information is "held", so Section 1(4) only applies if
the destruction of the records is planned. As at today, there can
therefore be plan for destruction of the information (the Order may
not get approved), only that the information is intended for future
publication.

The ICO says "Destruction outside of retention and disposal
schedules: If information is held when a FOIA request is received,
destroying it outside of your normal records management policies
will result in a breach of the Act." [4]

I have copied this request to the Information Commissioner, as I am
extremely worried that Section 77 may be breached before the
statutory 20 working day limit you have to reply to this request.

Yours faithfully

Alex Skene

[1]
http://www.informationtribunal.gov.uk/Do...

[2] http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admi...

[3]
http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/res...

[4]
http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/l...

[5]
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/br...

Link to this

From: FOICOMMONS
House of Commons

20 January 2009

Dear Alex Skene,

Thank you for your email which was dated and received today, 20 January 2009.

Your request will be dealt with promptly and you should receive a response by 17 February 2009.

If you have any queries about your request, please contact me.

Mandy Kelly
Freedom of Information Assistant

show quoted sections

Link to this

From: CASTLE, Bob
House of Commons

11 February 2009

Dear Mr Skene

Thank you for your request which is copied below.

You clarify your request by asking only for the individual items of "work" that have been completed and cleared for release. At the bottom of this response I have appended three recent responses to Parliamentary Questions that demonstrate the House of Commons' intentions to publish detailed information in due course but also confirm that the work is ongoing and that no individual items of work have been completed and cleared for release. Therefore the information you asked for is not held by the House of Commons.

Hansard 3 Feb 2009 : Column 1102W Members: Allowances

Jo Swinson: To ask the hon. Member for North Devon, representing the House of Commons Commission pursuant to the answer of 27 January 2009, Official Report, columns 542-43W, on Members: allowances, (1) what timetable was given to the contractor brought in to assist with the process of publishing the details of hon. Members' expenses; and whether there are penalties in the contract for any delays that occur; [254039]

(2) when the process of scanning and redacting receipts for hon. Members' expenses will be completed and passed to hon. Members for checking. [254040]

Nick Harvey: The process of scanning and redacting claims, receipts etc has been undertaken in two stages. The first stage included the scanning of all relevant documentation and the initial editing and was concluded in October 2008 within agreed deadlines. The second

stage has involved further editing to take account of privacy and security concerns apparent on completion of stage 1. This work is currently in hand and will be completed in March within agreed time frames. There have been no delays in the fulfilment of the contract. On completion of the scanning and editing work, hon. Members will need to check the records relating to them, and further editing may then be required. A date for sending out this information has not yet been set, but Members will receive advance notification of what they will need to do and how to raise matters of concern.

Hansard 28 Jan 2009 : Column 543W

Norman Baker: To ask the hon. Member for North Devon, representing the House of Commons Commission for what reason backdated details of hon. Members' expenses have not yet been published; what factors account for the delay; and if he will ensure that all relevant information will be placed in the public domain by the end of February 2009. [249218]

Nick Harvey: The task of scanning and editing for publication a very large amount of information has proved more difficult than originally envisaged when the proposed arrangements for disclosure of Members' expenses down to receipt level were announced last summer. Ensuring that hon. Members' legitimate security and privacy concerns were taken into account has been complex and has required careful attention to over 700,000 individual records. Once scanning and editing has been completed, individual hon. Members will need to check the records relating to them, and further editing may then be required. This process will not be complete by the end of February 2009 and a date for publication cannot yet be set.

You may, if dissatisfied with the treatment of your request, ask the House of Commons to conduct an internal review of this decision. Requests for internal review should be addressed to: Freedom of Information Officer, Department of Resources, House of Commons London SW1 OAA or [House of Commons request email]. Please ensure that you specify the nature of your complaint and any arguments or points that you wish to make.

If you remain dissatisfied, you may appeal to the Information Commissioner at Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow, Cheshire SK9 5AF.

Yours sincerely,

Bob Castle
_______________________________________________

Bob Castle
Head of Information Rights and Information Security

show quoted sections

Link to this

Things to do with this request

Anyone:
House of Commons only: