FactCheck: declaring MPs' expenses
Updated on 11 May 2009
Senior Conservative MP Alan Duncan says he was the first MP to publish receipts for expenses, but is his claim as transparent as it seems? FactCheck finds out.
The claim
"I am in favour of total transparency...I was the first MP ever to publish my receipts, which started in 2003/04, so I'm in favour of transparency and these allowances have got to be got rid of."
Alan Duncan, shadow leader of the House, 11 May 2009, ITN.
The background
Another day; another set of controversial MPs' expenses.
Duncan, responsible for overseeing the Tories' policy on expenses, was alleged to have claimed almost £4,000 over three years for his garden. He called it "maintenance" work, and said he had done nothing wrong.
During his defence, Duncan today boasted of being the first MP to start publishing expenses receipts, and said he was in favour of “total transparency”. FactCheck looks at how transparent Duncan has been, and what he published.
The analysis
A trawl of cached web pages reveals Duncan's opening attempt to publish his accounts in 2003. It promised "a break down of Alan's salary and how he spends his parliamentary allowances".
Indeed, it outlines Duncan's salary, incidental expenses, and the additional costs allowance (ACA) - the latter being the source of so much recent controversy. It is commonly known as the second home allowance.
Salary was straightforward: £55,118 for an MP in 2003. The incidental expenses - generally associated with the running costs of an MP's office - were listed, including, for example, a £1,672.70 phone bill.
But under the ACA, Duncan just confirmed a total of £19,722. Unlike the less controversial incidental expenses, there was no breakdown of the "receipts". Any theoretical gardening bill could have been hidden.
It is worth noting that Duncan's ACA claim in 2003 was very close to the £20,000 maximum limit. But despite his stated desire for transparency, constituents could not see what he had spent it on. As the past week has proved, the nitty gritty is often in the individual ACA receipts
The next set of expenses were published in 2004, but again just related to receipts for incidental expenses - office equipment, telephones etc. Details of the ACA remained under cover. There was only a reference to a total, and that seemed to be a repetition of the £19,722 figure.
At this point the cached web trawl runs dry, and with Duncan's new site under construction, it's difficult to work out what other expenses disclosures have been made.
FactCheck called Duncan's office to find out what has been published since 2005 but did not receive a response at the time of publication. This analysis will be updated if we do.
It is also worth noting that MPs' expenses totals have been published in the public domain since 2001, so all Duncan seems to have added is a the receipts related to day-day running costs of an office.
Of course, it has to be acknowledged that Duncan had no requirement to publish any expenses on his website. After all, the majority of other MPs choose not to.
The verdict
In answering questions about his garden today Duncan created the impression he was a trailblazer in terms of transparency. He claimed to have been the first MP to publish expenses.
But the fact he never published his ACA receipts pours cold water on such boasts. Perhaps if he had everyone would have been asking questions about his garden bill long before now.
FactCheck rating: 3
How ratings work
Every time a FactCheck article is published we'll give it a rating from zero to five.
The lower end of the scale indicates that the claim in question largerly checks out, while the upper end of the scale suggests misrepresentation, exaggeration, a massaging of statistics and/or language.
In the unlikely event that we award a 5 out of 5, our factcheckers have concluded that the claim under examination has absolutely no basis in fact.
Your views
You've read the article, now have your say. We want to know your experiences and your views. We also want to know if there are any claims you want given the FactCheck treatment.
Email factcheck@channel4.com
FactCheck will correct significant errors in a timely manner. Readers should direct their enquiries to the editor at the email address above.
