2009/1/26 Julian Burgess <[email protected]>: > Now that we have a fair degree of confidence that MPs expenses will be > released. Do we have any clue about what format the information will > take? presumably the receipts have been through OCR? >
<<http://www.theyworkforyou.com/debate/?id=2009-01-22a.921.5>> Harriet Harman: The House authorities have been scanning [1.2 million] receipts since last summer [...] 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. According to this, the scanning is being done by the TSO. <<http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/research/briefings/snpc-04732.pdf>> "The Committee agreed that the Stationery Office should be employed to scan documents and carry out initial editing work, subject to House staff doing the final editing" In addition, the MPs are being given an additional month to double-check the redactions against them. As it stands, I don't have any confidence that receipts will be published at all. Judging by the following, it's appears very likely they'll appeal receipt FOI requests back to the IC & IT for a new ruling once their new publication scheme & summary expense detail is out: <<http://www.theyworkforyou.com/debate/?id=2009-01-22a.925.2>> "[...] the High Court [decided] that in the absence of rules with sufficient clarity and of audit with the necessary independence, the balance of public interest lies in publication of information down to receipt level. If the House accepts the resolutions today [ie the revised, more detailed publication scheme], the legal position may change. The House must comply with its legal obligations, and having complied with past legal obligations, including information down to receipt level, the view may be taken that although we might not be under a legal obligation to provide that information in the future, we may as well do so as we have done it in the past. Such a decision would be over and above the legal obligations, if the view were taken that the legal obligations can be satisfied with 26 categories, and a strong Green Book and audit. Two decisions are involved—the legal decision, and the public policy decision on whether, having published receipts once, it is sensible to go back on that and not publish them in future. Alan Duncan said in his closing speech: <<http://www.theyworkforyou.com/debate/?id=2009-01-22a.933.1>> "[about publishing receipts] That decision will be different if the [publication scheme] proposals before us are supported at the end of the debate, and the Information Commissioner might say that going down to the receipt level is disproportionate and unnecessary. He may conclude that the new categories meet the highest imaginable standards compared with any other public body and that they will therefore suffice" Cheers Alex _______________________________________________ Mailing list [email protected] Archive, settings, or unsubscribe: https://secure.mysociety.org/admin/lists/mailman/listinfo/developers-public
