MPs' expenses: watchdog to publish details of recent claims
Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority to release details of 22,000 claims submitted by MPs between 7 May and 31 August
Details of the first tranche of MPs' expenses of this parliament are to be published today, a day after the head of the parliamentary expenses watchdog defended the new expenses regime as he was forced to publish details of £116,000 of erroneous claims made by MPs.
The details, which will be posted online at at 10am, cover the first round of payments made under new rules introduced in the wake of the expenses scandal last year.
For each claim, the watchdog will publish the name and constituency of the MP, the budget the claim was made from – such as general administrative expenditure – the type of expense (such as travel), and a description of the claim.
It will not, however, be publishing receipts, arguing that the cost of preparing them for publication – in excess of £1m a year – would not provide "value for taxpayers' money".
The publication comes amid continued unrest among MPs over the way the system is being run by Ipsa, with the Commons today debating a backbench motion condemning "unnecessarily high costs and inadequacies" and calling for the introduction of a "simpler" alternative.
The motion was tabled by Adam Afriyie, a millionaire Tory who reportedly does not claim expenses. It has been signed by senior backbenchers from all three main parties, underlining the strength of feeling in Westminster.
Yesterday, Ipsa was forced to disclose a list of rejected claims between May and August under the Freedom of Information Act. The authority had previously argued that the rejected items should not be made public until the new system had settled down.
Most of the rejected claims were for office bills and travel costs, but they included £338 for a paper shredder, £1,057 for advertising and £1,085 for "contingencies". The names of the MPs who made the claims have been removed from the list.
The Ipsa chair, Sir Ian Kennedy, said there was "bound to be some error" in the new system and insisted the vast majority of the 1,574 claims turned down since the election were the result of "teething problems" rather than MPs attempting to exploit the system.
"It's our assessment that MPs are being thoughtful and careful in the use of the system," he said.
"Where we've queried a claim or haven't paid it, it's been the result of a misunderstanding or innocent error – for example, accidental submission of duplicate claims or attaching the wrong paperwork to the wrong claim.
"We had decided not to publish in the first batch claims which were not paid for the very reason that there was bound to be error made as the system was bedding down and people were getting used to it ... nobody would expect it to be perfect immediately.
"It was set up in very short order with very little lead-in time. There were bound to be teething problems. As it happens, our administrative errors amounted to 0.5% of all claims – 99.5% were handled correctly."
Ipsa has faced intense criticisms from MPs amid claims of an inadequate services and a system that left many members struggling financially while awaiting repayment. Ipsa said MPs had been rude and aggressive to its staff.
About 7% of claims made were denied, but some of those were after mistakes by Ipsa rather than MPs.
There were 160 successful appeals against the refusals.
The Labour MP John Mann, who complained about the old expenses system for several years, said Ipsa should fully disclose all details of claims.
"It's misguided to do anything else," he added. "We should have nothing to hide now. Our constituents deserve to know what we're doing with public money. If you can't defend it, don't spend it."
David Chaytor, the first of three ex-MPs to face criminal trials over their expenses claims, is due in court on Monday.
The information commissioner, Christopher Graham, backed Ipsa's publication, including the decision not to publish individual receipts for financial reasons. He said people could make FOI requests for individual receipts, which Ipsa could then choose to redact the names on.
