MPs' expenses: the John Lewis list in full

After Freedom of Information requests by The Times and the Press Association, Parliament has reluctantly agreed to publish the so-called John Lewis list, which officials use when deciding whether furnishings bought by MPs for their second home can be put on expenses. It was so named because staff used the John Lewis website as their guide to "reasonsable prices". Rather than Matalan.

And it begs the question: how is an air-conditioning unit and £750 stereo justifiable at the taypayers' expense?

The FOI request says:

Staff are instructed to use the list as a guide when assessing whether purchases are allowable under Green Book section 3.14.1 – non-allowable expenditure: “furnishings (inc white goods, TV/DVD) or fittings which are antique, luxury or premium grade”, and section 3.10.1 – allowable expenditure: “Members should avoid purchases which could be seen as extravagant or luxurious.”

Air-conditioning unit
£299.99  Max

Bed
£1,000.00 Max

Bedside cabinet
..... continued below.........

£100.00 Max

Book case/shelf
£200.00 Max

Bookcase/cabinet
£500.00 Max

Carpet
£35.00 Sq. Mtr.

Carpet fitting
£6.50 Sq. Mtr.

Coffee maker/machine
£100.00 Max

Coffee table
£250.00 Max

Dining arm chairs each
£150.00 Max

Dining chairs each
£90.00 Max

Dining table
£600.00 Max

Dishwasher
£375.00 Max

Drawer chest (5)
£500.00 Max

Dressing table
£500.00 Max

Dry cleaning both personal and household are allowable within reasonable limits

Food mixer
£200.00 Max

Freestanding mirror
£300.00

Fridge/freezer combi
£550.00 Max

Gas cooker
£650.00 Max

Hi Fi/stereo
£750.00 Max

Installation of new bathroom
£6,335.00 Max

Installation of new kitchen
£10,000.00 Max

Lamp table
£200.00 Max

Nest of tables
£200.00 Max

Recordable DVD
£270.00 Max

Rugs
£300.00 each

Shredder
£50.00 Max

Sideboard
£795.00 Max

Suite of furniture
£2,000.00 Max

Television set
£750.00 Max

Tumble dryer
£250.00

Underlay (basic)
£6.99 Sq. Mtr.

Wardrobe
£700.00 Max

Washer dryer
£500.00 Max

Washing machine
£350.00 Max

Wooden flooring/carpets
£35.00 Per Sq. Mtr.

Workstation
£150.00 Max

Personal items not allowed, for example: hairdryers or hairstylers; shavers; toothbrushes; toiletries and bathrobes 05/06
Any form of payment protection or illness cover is not claimable from ACA in relation to mortgage payments. 05/06
In order for a member to claim the mortgage interest against his ACA home his/her name must appear on the mortgage. Feb 05/05
Garden furniture such as patio sets, loungers and barbecues are not allowed 04/05
Basic garden maintenance is allowed, but plants, shrubs, flowers, hanging baskets or other decorations etc are not. 04/05

Comments

[tam]

this is sickening.

[tam]

this is sickening.

[Mad Max]

What about those very expensive suits that our humble MP's have taken to wearing. Were are they getting the money from? It makes some look downright shoddy.

Perhaps we should insist that they all wear some sort of uniform, a sort of team levelling exercise.

[Teesbridge]

Is this against a one-off allowance each Parliament, or is the limit annual?

(I suppose I mean is this just an outrage or is it a monstrous scandal beyond all description?).

And where do MPs go to get their blush glands removed?

[David Boothroyd]

Will commenters please note that no MP has seen this list until today.

[Gerard Ambrose]

Over the years I have come to realise that all political Party's are about the same quality i.e. Rubbish and that the vast majority are only in it to further their own aims or gains. My protest has been to stand against all of the party's at the last 5 Council Elections as an Independant. You too could do the same. The only downside is that I am disliked by all the Political party's and now they just about acknowledge me, I have spoilt their exclusive club. Gerard Ambrose

Regards Gerard Ambrose

[Chuck Unsworth]

David Boothroyd:

"no MP has seen this list until today".

How much would you like to bet?

That's simply a moronic statement. How on earth can Mr Boothroyd say that and, more to the point, would he stake his life on it?

I'll wager that copies of that list were pretty much circulated freely amongst the congnoscenti, but, when the expenses are published in full we'll have confirmation one way or another.

The only question arising might be whether those who have not claimed to the maximum did so out of a sense of morality - or because they are thick?

[David Boothroyd]

The existence of the list wasn't known about until the FOI tribunal on 7 February, when Andrew Walker (Director of Administration) referred to it in evidence. He told the tribunal that it was not disclosed to MPs because it might be used by MPs deliberately spending up to the maximum. (Source: Ben Leapman, Daily Telegraph, 2 March 2008, p. 14) He also said that the list was on an Excel spreadsheet and had not been printed out. (Source: Sam Coates, The Times, 8 February 2008, p. 8)

Against this unimpeachable source, accepted by everyone as accurate, we have your unsourced and unsupported opinion in the form of a "wager". Who's really being moronic here?

[Stephen]

It has come to the point where the British have to decide whether we want to continue living in this country. We work so hard and for our labour we can only watch the fat cats getting richer while we the grafters get inflated Poll Tax bills. I love my country but I am finding it difficult to cope with this British system. Why can`t our beloved MP`s (what a joke) pay for their for there personal goods out of their bumper salaries and give us workers some tax relief. Well that`s me folks. I could have wrote in an academic way but sometimes we need to take the gloves off and say it as it is.

Peace Stephen.

[Andrew]

My MP is 571st on the 2006/7 additional expenses list…come and play expenses ‘top trumps’ if yours beats that… http://dispatchoftheday.blogspot.com/

Sad that an MP can deck out thier second home with more luxury than many of their constituents can manage on thier only home.

[Andrew Irvine]

When my son got married I gave him the best advice possible, emigrate I rest my case

[Chuck Unsworth]

@ David Boothroyd

Just how trusting are you? 'Unimpeachable', eh? Nice to have your personal guarantees there. 'Accepted by everyone' - not by me, my friend, nor by a good many others, so I'd be interested in whom your 'everyone' is.

So, no one knew of this list before February - really? How extraordinary. What about those who were required to use it and apply it? What about those who were affected by rulings based on its use? Do MPs not chat and swap information in the bars and elswhere? What about those who drew up, and those who approved this list and its use? How many people knew of its existence, then?

Walker (who is the House of Commons Director General of Resources, actually) says that this Excel spreadsheet had not been 'printed out' - so blinking what? You don't have to print something out to read it - or has that entirely escaped Mr Walker? How much information is shunted around electronically these days? How long has this list been kicking around? Just how secure is Mr Walker's little empire really?

I think that was the substance of Sam Coates' comment, and I certainly believe that Walker chose his words extremely carefully. Why would he find it necessary to defend a position of not acceding to an FOI request? Is this the action of a Public Servant who is charged with open government and answerability? Maybe you can also clarify whether Walker gave his evidence on oath, but his published evidence and the Tribunal's view of his evidence makes for interesting reading. Scathing is not an unreasonable description. Take a look at: http://www.informationtribunal.gov.uk/Documents/decisions/HOCfinaldecisionwebsite260208.pdf

In conclusion, why does an opinion have to be 'sourced'? It's my view based on lengthy and salutary experience. Still, we shall see what happens (and happened) when the figures are published, won't we?

[David Boothroyd]

The only person who has disputed that the 'John Lewis list' remained confidential within the Fees Office is Chuck Unsworth, and he has based his opinion on supposed "lengthy and salutary experience" which he does not outline but evidently has nothing to do with the subject at hand.

In any dispute on the facts we look at the sources of information and their motivation. Andrew Walker is an unimpeachable source because he is actually in charge of paying the claims. He gives a good reason why the list was never circulated.

My own experience of working in Parliament is that getting money out of the Fees Office was never easy and got increasingly difficult as public scrutiny of MP's allowances increased. The Information Tribunal makes clear that Andrew Walker was sworn before giving evidence, and to the extent the judgment is 'scathing' is on disagreeing with his opinions. The Tribunal said "We found him to be a candid and reliable witness on matters of
fact."

That the John Lewis list was never seen by an MP before its disclosure this week is unimpeachable fact. You have not been able to justify your disbelief of it and your opinions are manifestly irrational.

[Chuck Unsworth]

@ David Boothroyd

First you say "The existence of the list wasn't known about until the FOI tribunal on 7 February". Now you say "the John Lewis list was never seen by an MP before its disclosure". Is this yet another shift in position?

What's your definition of 'unimpeachable'? The OED: "giving no opportunity for censure; beyond reproach or question"

The Tribunal says the following:
"Mr Walker considered that Members were well aware of the limit on food, but was unable to say by what means they were made aware"

and
"Mr Walker was unable to offer any explanation for the drop in 2003/4, but conceded it was possible that the tighter procedures were “part of the explanation”."

and
"Although not stated in quite these terms by Mr Walker, it was clear from his evidence that expenditure incurred for dual purposes is routinely allowed in full and that, subject to reasonableness limits, all second home expenditure is allowed in full."

and
"Mr Walker’s department does not check ‘additionality’ on an on-going basis. If an MP claims the weekly shopping bill, his department assumes that, because it is claimed, it is additional expenditure necessarily incurred for Parliamentary duties. If an MP becomes a Minister and is provided with grace and favour accommodation, the department does not make any inquiry whether a second home is still needed."

and
"Mr Walker was unable to think of an example of a formal investigation into an MP’s expense claims which had been initiated other than as a result of a tip-off or other unauthorised leak of information."

and - of destruction of supporting documentation
"Here, the destruction occurred because of incompetence rather than intent. Mr Walker proffered an apology. Certainly it was regrettable. Given the role of the House of Commons in passing FOIA into law, the House might reasonably have been expected, even more than other public bodies, to give assiduous attention to all its provisions."

and - of some submitted evidence
"Moreover we noted a letter in the closed bundle, dated in May 2002, in which Mr Walker’s office reminded a particular MP of the importance, in view of FOIA, of providing a breakdown of expenses requested by the office. We take this as an illustration that the possibility of a freedom of information request was something which was taken into account in the handling of MPs’ allowance claims long before the Act was brought fully into force on 1 January 2005.

and
"Mr Walker asserted that increased disclosure would deter able people from putting themselves forward for election. This was mere speculation, and no evidence was adduced that any such effect has been experienced in jurisdictions where high levels of detail of elected members’ expenses have been published."

and
"One element of the appropriate exceptions is information that would prejudice the personal security of MPs if placed in the public domain. We were troubled by the paucity of evidence to enable us to make informed judgments on this aspect. Mr Walker in his open witness statement said no more than that personal security of MPs was a factor which needed to be taken into account. When cross-examined on this he was almost dismissive: ‘all I am saying is, it is a factor to take into account ... [the information] might be useful to someone wishing them harm’. In answer to questions from the Tribunal he said that the House and MPs had access to a number of sources of security advice: the Home Office for Ministers and senior politicians in relation to major issues of national security, within the House the Serjeant at Arms, and in addition the Parliamentary security co-ordinator, who had relevant specialist experience. No advice or evidence from any of these sources was produced to us. In Mr Walker’s closed written evidence there was a brief comparison of security expenditure by different MPs on domestic burglar alarms and other measures. During the closed session he also gave brief oral evidence that he had received advice against disclosing any details of MPs’ expenditure on security measures."

I'd regard those comments as being scathing. That Walker may have been candid and reliable on "matters of fact" does not preclude his total unreliability on matters of opinion or judgement.

Then again, "Andrew Walker is an unimpeachable source because he is actually in charge of paying the claims". So you cite his job as being a proof of his 'giving no opportunity for censure and being beyond reproach or question'. Indeed the evidence above demonstrates quite the opposite.

Finally "getting money out of the Fees Office was never easy and got increasingly difficult as public scrutiny of MP's allowances increased". A very telling view as to the attitudes (and change of attitudes under the growing threat of external overview) within that Office. Who was responsible for that Office?

[David Boothroyd]

Chuck, please try reading it again: the existence of the list was not known outside the Fees Office until 7 February, and its contents were not known outside the Fees Office until it was disclosed this week.

You accept that Andrew Walker was candid on matters of fact. Whether the list was known about, or circulated, outside his office is a matter of fact and not of judgment. The Fees Office is run by the House of Commons Administration. Decisions on its day-to-day administration have never been under the control of Members of Parliament.

[Chuck Unsworth]

@ David Boothroyd

"The Department of Finance and Administration, under the Directorship of Andrew Walker, is responsible for the provision of financial services to Members, the House of Commons Commission, Board of Management, Departments and staff of the House."

If we are to accept your assertion it's clear that Walker or one of his subordinates has been drawing up his own rules and applying them - without the knowledge and/or specific approval of MPs. Does Mr Speaker Martin know of this arrangement? Who is this public servant Mr Walker answerable to?

Has Mr Walker been entrusted to run things in such a manner? I'd like to take a close look at his job description - and those of Terry Bird and, possibly, Chris Ridley.

Day to day decisions are one thing, determination of policy is another. This list and how it is applied are a matter of policy.

[Dave Martin]

We are told that "second home" expenses are paid to to MPs so that they can reside close to their place of work. Where is this exactly?