Skip to the content

The number of MPs elected in 2015 who have claimed Start-Up Expenditure
CAS-15643
Disclosure Date:28 May 2015
Categories: START-UP
Exemptions Applied: Section 22
Request

The names of MPs elected in the 2015 General Election who had made claims under the Start-Up Expenditure budget.

Response

IPSA holds the information that you request.

Start-Up Expenditure is designed to meet the costs of setting up one or more constituency offices as a new MP. It is available for MPs elected to Parliament for the first time for a particular constituency. It is intended to meet the costs of ‘big-ticket’ start-up items such as computers, desk, re-decoration etc.

The Start-Up Expenditure budget limit is set at £6,000 and lasts for 365 days from the day after the date of election of the MP.

All claims for expenditure are published on our publication website, which you can access via the following link: http://www.parliamentary-standards.org.uk/.

Details of claims for expenses are published in a two month cycle, three months after they have been processed and validated by IPSA. Details of claims made under the Start-Up Expenditure budget will be published as part of our regular publication, as and when such claims are made.

The following instructions may assist you in filtering the information, when it is published.

  1. Select ‘Search Function’ via the menu bar at the top of the page.
  2. Under ‘Select MP(s), Constituencies, Postcode or Region’ select all MPs by clicking on the check-box.
  3. Under ‘Select a year and, optionally, month(s)’ select the financial year 2014-15.
  4. Under ‘Select category(s) of Business Cost or Expense’ select ‘Start-Up’.
  5. Under ‘Select type(s) of Business Cost or Expense’ select all options.
  6. Click ‘Find’ to retrieve the information.
  7. This information may be exported into a spreadsheet.

Section 22(1) of the FOIA states that information intended for future publication is exempt from release. We have considered whether the public interest in releasing the information outweighs the application of the exemption. It is our opinion that the public interest is best served by publishing a full list rather than on an ad hoc basis, as in this way a clear and complete set of information is published, avoiding any potential confusion. It is for this reason that the application of the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosure at this stage.