Harvey, Horwood , Barrett, Heath and Swinson quiz Harman on MPs' expenses

10.15.00am GMT Sat 24th Jan 2009

• NICK Harvey (North Devon, Liberal Democrat): I was interested by the answer the Leader of the House gave to Natascha Engel that if freedom of information requests seek to go further than her 26-category scheme, the House will accede to those requests.

The House announced last July after the High Court ruling that we would publish down to receipt level. Today, the right hon. and learned Lady is introducing a 26-category scheme. If we are to be compelled to answer queries going down to receipt level in the way she has described, will we not in fact be leaving randomly in the hands of freedom of information applicants the decision as to which Members' information comes out to receipt level and which Members' information simply comes down to a category level? Has not this House previously always taken the view that the rule for one is the rule for all?

Harriet Harman: If, as I hope, we pass this motion on the publication scheme, every year the public will be able to see this information on every Member without there being any freedom of information request. As a matter of routine, information on what each Member has actually spent in any year will be brought forward and published, and broken down into 26 detailed categories.

There is also a question to do with Freedom of Information Act requests-both those that have already been made and have not yet been complied with and also those that might be made in the future. The House authorities, the data holders, will decide, according to the law as it stands, what their obligations are in responding to those requests for information.

• David Winnick (Walsall North, Labour): According to the law.

Harriet Harman (Lord Privy Seal, House of Commons; Camberwell & Peckham, Labour): Precisely so. Nick Harvey is a long-standing member of the Members Estimate Committee, to which I pay tribute. He rightly points out that the MEC has said that if it is fair for information to be given out in respect of one Member because somebody has requested it, the same information should be given out in respect of every Member. It is my understanding that nobody need worry that any Member will be left out, because the 180 Freedom of Information Act requests in the pipeline cover every Member of the House. We will decide the publication scheme and the House authorities will implement it. It is important that the public are able to see the information according to these categories.

The other aspect is the request for receipts down to individual receipt level. I understand that 1.2 million such receipts have been the subject of Freedom of Information Act requests. The House authorities have been scanning the receipts since last summer the receipts have been in the process of being scanned so that they can be disclosed. The scanning-a massive task-has not yet been completed, but it will be soon. Of course, the receipts have to be redacted before they are published. Before anybody thinks that there is any sort of cover up in relation to the redaction-redaction means crossing out things with a black felt tip pen or with the electronic equivalent-may I point out that the receipts contain information that it would not be right to put into the public domain? For example, an hon. Member might buy a ream of paper from a stationer's and at the same time purchase a Valentine's card. Of course they would pay for that themselves, but the receipt showing "purchased: one lurid Valentine's card" should not be put into the public domain. The claim for a ream of paper on the allowances, however, should be put into the public domain. Information about things that Members have paid for themselves must be crossed out on these receipts.

Indeed, we identified that need when we saw the claims made by the hon. Member for North Devon. The House authorities gave us an example, from which we could see where he shopped-he is a man of regular habits-and how he paid, and at what time and on what day. That information need not be put into the public domain-unless one wants to meet him at one of his regular shopping venues. Intriguingly, we were also able to learn what shampoo and hair conditioner he buys; clearly he was not claiming those purchases on the parliamentary allowance, but they caught my eye when I saw the unredacted receipts. The serious point is that the House authorities have been hard at work making sure that the public are given the information to which they are entitled under the freedom of information provisions, but we must not tip into the public domain a load of personal and private information in respect of which no claim has been made.

• Martin Horwood (Cheltenham, Liberal Democrat): If the new regime that the Leader of the House is describing is to be as open as we want it to be, presumably there will be no reason to exempts MPs in future from freedom of information legislation. I think she has been asked twice about that, without giving a clear answer. Will she simply say that no future attempt will be made to exempt Members of Parliament from freedom of information legislation?

Harriet Harman: The House fully supported the freedom of information statutory instrument that we introduced last summer, and I am glad that no Minister at had made a grandiose commitment from the Dispatch Box never to provide any exemption; otherwise, we could not have introduced that statutory instrument providing an exemption for the sake of security, with which the House agreed.

If I may, I want to discuss what I am introducing today. I am not introducing the statutory instrument on freedom of information, and I shall deal with that in my speech. If any hon. Member intends to ask that same question, perhaps they will desist, but I am happy to give way to hon. Members who want to ask a different question.

John Barrett

• John Barrett (Edinburgh West, Liberal Democrat): It was said that hon. Members would have a month to go through 1.2 million receipts. Will the Leader of the House assure us that when Members' feedback has gone back into the system, they will have an opportunity to check that the corrections have been made before the receipts go into the public domain? If a mistake is made the first time round, hon. Members should have the opportunity to check that it has been corrected before publications, especially for issues such as credit card numbers, telephone numbers and home addresses.

Harriet Harman: In the first instance, there will be an opportunity to raise mistakes with the House authorities, who will understand that something may have been evident to hon. Members and to people in their local area, but not to the House authorities or those working under contract to them. If there is a dispute about whether the House authorities were right to insist on not redacting, I think I am right that the next port of call is the Members Estimate Committee and, ultimately, the Speaker. I hope that there will be as much discussion and flexibility as possible, and I am sure that that is how the House authorities will want to deal with the matter.

• David Heath: What the right hon. and learned Lady has just said is of great interest. Many of us believe that if the scheme and the audit proposals had been in place three years ago, the matter would not have gone to the tribunal and the High Court, and we would not have the unholy mess that we now have. However, the fact is that the right hon. and learned Lady is proposing a scheme of publication that falls short of that full disclosure that the High Court has determined is correct-[Hon. Members: "It does not."] I am sorry, but it falls short of the full disclosure that the High Court has determined must be the case under the existing scheme. Is the right hon. and learned Lady suggesting that that should be tested again through the information tribunal and the courts, or does she plan to introduce an alternative scheme of full disclosure to full receipt level? If she intends to leave the matter where it is, and if someone makes an application, whether that goes to the tribunal and what the decision is will be left to fate.

Harriet Harman: I shall make the position absolutely clear for the hon. Gentleman. Nothing in the resolutions alters the legal obligations on the House authorities in respect of freedom of information requests under the old regime. Nothing in the resolutions affects that. Dr. Lewis said that the court made its decision about the balance of public interest requiring full disclosure down to receipt level because of the lack of clear rules and the absence of audit, and asked whether there would be a requirement in future to produce receipts when the matter has been sorted out. What I said is that I think that, in its own right and irrespective of anything that the court might say or any FOI request that might be made, the regime that I am proposing to the House today-which has been the subject of discussion by the APMA and the Members Estimate Committee-is a good regime. But there remains the question of whether this regime will satisfy the obligations under the Freedom of Information Act. I contend that there is a good legal argument that it might do so, but we are not bound to do just the minimum that the law requires: we might think that, having revealed the receipts for past expenditure, it might not be appropriate to stop producing receipts even though the legal obligation has been superseded by the new motions that I have tabled.

I have spoken for some 40 minutes, and I am anxious to answer hon. Members' questions, but I do not want to try the patience of the House. From all the meetings and discussions that I have had, I know that this speech could go on for 40 hours. Like the 1.2 million receipts, this is a marathon, not a sprint, but I do not want to deprive other hon. Members of the opportunity to speak. I urge hon. Members not to repeat questions that have been asked. If they are struggling to understand my answers, they can ask me after the debate, and I will try to be as helpful as I can.

• Jo Swinson: Will the Leader of the House give way?

Harriet Harman: The hon. Lady asked a question on this issue in business questions, so I am cancelling her out on this occasion.