Receipts and invoices submitted by politicians in support of their expenses claims must be disclosed, following a test case ruling by leading judges.

The regulatory body set up after the MPs’ expenses scandal lost a court of appeal challenge against an order that it must release copies of documents.



Three judges in London dismissed the case of the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority, which oversees expenses payments.

The outcome of the case could have wide and enduring consequences – not only for Ipsa, but for all public authorities, the court heard. Government departments, councils and quangos may also be challenged in court over the release of receipts, one solicitor said.

Ipsa, which does not currently routinely publish individual receipts, has been given time to consider taking the case to the supreme court.



The legal action centred on whether copies of original documents should be disclosed, rather than a summary of the information they contained.



During proceedings last month, the master of the rolls, Lord Dyson, sitting with Lord Justice Richards and Lord Justice Ryder, heard that the case stemmed from a freedom of information request by a Sunday Telegraph journalist to Ipsa in 2010. It was related to the disclosure of three specific receipts submitted by MPs in support of their claims.

The reporter, Ben Leapman, wanted copies of the originals, but was provided with a typed-up transcript. He complained to the information commissioner, who ruled in his favour in 2012, ordering that the receipts be disclosed. After that decision, Ipsa lost its case at two tribunal hearings.

Richards said after the ruling on Tuesday that the order for copies of the original documents to be released would be put on hold pending any application by Ipsa to the supreme court for permission to appeal.

Ipsa was set up to restore public confidence after the 2009 expenses scandal, which resulted in a number of MPs being sent to jail.

In that same year, parliamentary authorities published more than 1m receipts online, but with details such as addresses and account numbers hidden.

In 2010, Ipsa decided not to publish receipts routinely, restricting its regular releases to a summary of each claim, saying there was “insufficient public benefit” in detailed publication.

In a letter to the information commissioner, Ipsa said: “Primarily, a trial of extracting and redacting receipts and invoices for the purposes of publication showed that the cost would be in excess of £1m for additional staffing and IT costs alone, compared to the approximate £250,000 cost under the chosen model.”

It said that on balance it took the view that providing images of receipts or invoices would be “disproportionate in terms of costs, insufficiently beneficial in terms of transparency and represented a higher risk in terms of data protection”.

But the newspaper argued there was a public interest in viewing the requested receipts in their original form as extra details could be seen which would not be provided in a summary.

An Ipsa spokesman said after the ruling: “We need to study the judgment carefully. The court made clear that this is an important test case with implications not just for Ipsa but for all other public bodies.



“We were right to test the point of law through an appeal to see whether images of receipts add anything additional to all the information about MPs’ expenditure that we already release.

“We remain completely committed to openness and transparency and already publish a detailed breakdown of every claim made by every MP.”

The information commissioner concluded in 2012 there were four types of detail which Ipsa’s summary of a claim could not convey: additional text, logos and letterheads, handwritten comments, and layout.

The information commissioner’s office welcomed Tuesday’s decision. Graham Smith, the deputy commissioner, said: “Our view has always been that there are additional details in the documents over and above the information already disclosed and that there is a clear public interest in this information being released.”

Ipsa’s spokesman said the body, which was set up to aid the scrutiny of public money, was unable to say how much had been spent fighting the case through three court cases, although it was claimed by one media outlet that the bill could be as much as £500,000.

John Mann, who is standing for Labour in Bassetlaw, said it was time for Ipsa to drop the case. “This is a total waste of money. They should never have opposed the information commissioner’s ruling.

“Journalists and members of the public should be able to go through and see the expenses of every MP. The idea of appealing [against] this decision is absurd,” he said.





