Expenses Claims of John Leech MP
To: House of Commons
Subject: Freedom of Information request - Expenses claims of Paul Rowen MP
Dear Sir or Madam,
On 6 February I made the following request to the DCLG referring to Paul Rowen MP and also to John Leech MP. They replied to the former but not yet to the latter, in essence saying they did not have the information but that you probably did.
Please provide a detailed schedule of all items of office and premises costs, staff costs broken down by recipient and printing and other communications costs by item as claimed in expenses by John Leech MP from his election in 2005 to date, giving both the claim and the amount allowed where there is any difference.
Yours faithfully,
Chris Paul
Dear Mr Paul
Thank you for your emails of 14th February 2009 which were received on
16th February 2009.
These will be treated as one request and we will provide a response by
16th March 2009.
If you have any queries about your requests please contact me
Mrs Rosalind Bolt
Freedom of Information Assistant
Dear Mr Paul,
Thank you for your requests which are copied below.
You asked us to provide a detailed schedule of all items of office and
premises costs, staff costs broken down by recipient and printing
and other communications costs by item as claimed in expenses by
two MPs from election to date, giving both the
claim and the amount allowed where there is any difference.
The information you requested in relation to offices and premises costs
and printing and communication costs, etc, since 2005 for the two MPs is
held by the House of Commons in the form of paper copies of claims forms
and receipts and which also record payments made. There is a clear
intention to publish this information in the future so it is exempt from
the obligation to provide you with a copy by virtue of the exemption set
out in section 22 (1) of the FOI Act (information held with the intention
of future publication) and your request is refused. While there is a
public interest in providing access to information relating to MPs such as
those covered by your request, this interest is outweighed by the public
interest in providing access as soon as possible to information about all
MPs. Therefore, the balance of the public interest rests with maintaining
the exemption while this information is being prepared for
publication. See below for further information about the
intended publication of this information.
Your request for information about staff costs broken down by
recipient is refused . While this information is held by the House of
Commons, it is the House's view that disclosing the identity of the staff
employed by MPs together with details of payments received would be a
breach of the data protection principles in the Data Protection Act 1998
(DPA). The information is therefore exempt from the obligation imposed by
section 1(1)(b) of the FOI Act (the obligation to provide information) by
virtue of section 40(2) of the same Act (the exemption for personal
information). This is an absolute exemption and the public interest test
does not apply. In relation to the intended publication of detailed data
about expenditure to receipt level, information about staffing costs will
be limited to the aggregate sum paid out on behalf of each MP or each
month during each year including the number of staff members this pertains
to but excluding any reference to named staff members. This level of
disclosure accords with decisions reached by the Information
Commissioner. E.g.,
[1]http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/d...
I am sorry that I am not in a position to give a more detailed response
about the timing of the publication but the following answers to recent
Parliamentary Questions set out the latest position.
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
Head of information Rights and Information Security
Dear Sir or Madam,
Please pass this on to the person who conducts Freedom of Information reviews.
I am writing to request an internal review of House of Commons's handling of my FOI request 'Expenses Claims of John Leech MP'.
A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is available on the Internet at this address:
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/ex...
In particular I am finding the reason of "intended future publication" sine die is being used to unfairly deny requests. It seems to me that MPs subject to this future publication could spin this out for a good long time. Possibly including long enough to avoid publication ahead of the next General Election.
Yours sincerely,
Chris Paul
Dear Mr Paul,
Thank you for your email dated 20 March 2009 and received today, 23
March 2009, in which you request an internal review of the handling of
your Freedom of information request.
Our internal target for deling with internal reviews is thirty working
days. We will therefore endeavour to provide a response no later than 7
May 2009.
If you have any queries about this review, please contact me.
Mandy Kelly
Freedom of Information Assistant
Information Rights and Information Security
Dear FOICOMMONS,
Thanks Mandy, though given the nature of the matter I'm raising I'd not expect the full time to be required. This generic rationale for refusal has been used repeatedly. Has this not been internally reviewed before?
Yours sincerely,
Chris Paul
Francis Irving left an annotation ()
Blog post about this request:
http://chrispaul-labouroflove.blogspot.c...
Dear Mr Paul,
Thank you for your request for an internal review. Please accept our
apologies for the delay in addressing your internal review, as the
pressure of current events has meant that all staff have been very busy.
Documents and receipts relating to MPs' allowances will be published on
the morning of Thursday 18 June on www.parliament.uk. In the light of
this, please can you confirm what you would like us to address in your
internal review and specify whether you are asking for a review for one
or both the Members who were the subject of your original requests.
Yours sincerely,
Bob Castle
Head of Information Rights and Information Security
Dear Sir or Madam,
We're still waiting ... Please provide full details as requested for the MPs John Leech and Paul Rowen.
We note that the government's redacted arrangements for publication of expenses - which publication has been used as an excuse for not providing the information requested - DO NOT satisfy this inquiry, and that in particular the redactions go far further than any reasonable person would require to protect interests that deserve protecting.
Deleting credit card details and bank account details is one thing. Deleting much of the meat of the claims is clearly completely unacceptable.
As is the failure to respond by 7 May 2009 as you indicated. Please respond quickly and internally review the performance on this to date.
Yours sincerely,
Chris Paul
F09-059
Dear Mr Paul,
Please find attached our response to your request for an internal review
of your request reference F09-059. Please accept our apologies for the
delay in responding.
Yours sincerely,
Bob Castle
Head of Information Rights and Information Security
Dear Mr Paul,
I am writing to you regarding your request for information F09-059. As a
result of the internal review of your request, it was agreed that you
would be supplied with a table showing where the amounts paid to MPs John
Leech and Paul Rowen differed to the amounts claimed for the Incidental
Expenses Provision and Communications Allowance. We have now considered
all unpublished information and have copied below our findings for each
MP.
Mr John Leech MP
We do not hold any unpublished information showing a difference between an
amount claimed and an amount paid for the Incidental Expenses Provision or
the Communications Allowance for 2004/05 to 2007/08 for John Leech MP.
Mr Paul Rowen MP
The following claims were not met:
o One claim for £1693.65 made under the Incidental Expenses Provision
in 2005/06. This is shown on the published documentation at page 134.
o One claim for £865.07 made under the Incidental Expenses Provision in
2006/07.
o Two claims under the Communications Allowance in 2007/08 were not paid
as they were for expenses that were not allowable under the allowance
criteria. The amount claimed for has not been retained.
Yours sincerely,
Bob Castle
Head of Information Rights and Information Security
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: FOICOMMONS
Sent: 27 July 2009 15:36
To: 'Chris Paul'
Subject: F09-059 Internal review - Expenses Claims of John Leech MP and
Paul Rowen MP
F09-059
Dear Mr Paul,
Please find attached our response to your request for an internal review
of your request reference F09-059. Please accept our apologies for the
delay in responding.
Yours sincerely,
Bob Castle
Head of Information Rights and Information Security
Dear FOICOMMONS,
Thanks for this reply which represents great progress.
I note that the first incident is documented:
* One claim for £1693.65 made under the Incidental Expenses Provision in 2005/06. This is shown on the published documentation at page 134.
I shall check this. I hope that the nature of the claim and the reason for refusal will be plain to see.
I note that the second claim is quantified but with no reference to any documentation.
* One claim for £865.07 made under the Incidental Expenses Provision in 2006/07.
Could there be any opportunity to improve this and tell us what the claim was for and why it could not be paid.
Finally on the third and fourth attempted claims I am disappointed that there is no information whatsoever on the quantum or nature of the claim. Could this be improved please? Can you please explain how it can be that there is no record of an attempted claim of MPs allowances and expenses?
As you may know Mr Rowen was an outspoken proponent of complete openness on allowances, though it must be said that so far he hasn't quite achieved the transparency he called for himself!
* Two claims under the Communications Allowance in 2007/08 were not paid as they were for expenses that were not allowable under the allowance criteria. The amount claimed for has not been retained.
You mention that the amount claimed has not been retained and I have questioned that above. But there is no implication in your carefully chosen words that the nature of the items is not retained.
Can you please tell me what these not allowable claims in 2007/8 were for?
Thanks for your help to date. I look forward to more help in the not too distant future.
Yours sincerely,
Chris Paul
Dear Chris Paul
Thank you for your request for information dated 21 September 2009 , received by us on the same day, which is copied below.
We will endeavour to respond to your request promptly but in any case within 20 working days i.e on or before 22 October 2009.
If you have any queries about your request, please use the request number quoted in the subject line of this email.
Yours sincerely
Vanessa Cubillo
Freedom of Information Assistant
Dear Mr Paul
Thanks for you request for information which is copied below. You asked for details concerning claims made by Mr Rowen MP.
In relation to the claim for £865.07 made under the Incidental Expenses provision in 2006/07, this claim was for office requisites and was not paid as no invoice/receipt had been provided.
With regards to two claims under the Communications Allowance in 2007/08, one claim was for the constituency website and another one was for printing the Member's annual report and neither were found to be compliant with the rules governing the use of the Communication Allowance.
No other information relevant to your request has been located.
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
Katarina Ndrepepaj
Freedom of Information Co-ordinator
We work to defend the right to FOI for everyone
Help us protect your right to hold public authorities to account. Donate and support our work.
Donate Now
John Cross left an annotation ()
Some expenses information has been published here:
http://www.parliament.uk/about_commons/h...