Request for copy of a lease signed by Andrew Rosindell MP for his constituency office

I can confirm that we hold information relevant to your request.

Please find accompanying this letter a copy of the lease. As this is being disclosed under the FOIA a small amount of personal data, names and signature, has been removed and is subject to a Refusal Notice under sections 40(2) and 40(3A)(a) of the legislation.

We also found correspondence which falls within the scope of your request. However, while they do relate to the constituency office, we consider that this information is the personal data of Mr Rosindell and is also subject to a Refusal Notice under sections 40(2) and 40(3A)(a), and additionally exempt from disclosure under section 41(1) of the FOIA.

Sections 40(2) and 40(3A)(a)

The Refusal Notice under sections 40(2) and 40(3A)(a) applies to information which IPSA considers to be personal data within the meaning of Article 4(1) of the General Data Protection Regulation 2016 (GDPR) which states:

‘personal data’ means any information relating to an identified or identifiable natural person (‘data subject’); an identifiable natural person is one who can be identified, directly or indirectly

In considering the exemption under FOIA, IPSA must determine whether any of the information comprises personal data under the GDPR and then assess whether providing the personal data would contravene any of the data protection principles.

The names of third parties and their signatures fall within the definition of personal data, but also the discussions between Mr Rosindell and IPSA relating to the constituency office. IPSA then considered whether disclosure of this personal data would breach any of the principles relating to the processing of personal data in the GDPR.

The relevant principle falls at Article 5(1)(a)

Personal data shall be: a. Processed lawfully, fairly and in a transparent manner in relation to the data subject

In considering the application of the exemption, IPSA was mindful that a disclosure under the FOIA is technically a disclosure to the world at large. We do not routinely seek consent from third parties to disclose their data in response to a request under the FOIA and, on this occasion, we were unable to find another lawful basis on which we could rely.

To turn to the information relating to Mr Rosindell and the constituency office, I would remind you that, when I wrote to you for clarification, I explained that IPSA would be advising Mr Rosindell that a request had been received, that we would be providing him with copies of the information which had been requested, and that we would not provide any information about who had made the request. IPSA has not received a reply from Mr Rosindell and again we have been unable to find another lawful basis on which we can rely.

For all the personal data in question IPSA therefore relies on the exemption at sections 40(2) and 40(3A)(a) of the legislation.

Section 40(1)

This exemption applies where disclosure of information which has been received by a public authority, in response to a request under the FOIA, would constitute a breach of confidence and where a legal person could bring a court action for the breach and that court action would be likely to succeed.

Notwithstanding disclosures under the legislation, MPs corresponding with IPSA have a reasonable expectation of confidentially proportionate to the nature of the content of any correspondence. Having reviewed the correspondence, we consider it to be exempt from disclosure under FOIA section 41(1). This is an absolute exemption and therefore not subject to a public interest test.