MPs' parental leave

I can confirm that IPSA holds information relevant to these requests.

Copies of these documents can be accessed via this link.

Some information has been withheld or redacted from the documents provided. The reasons for this are set out below.

Section 21 – information accessible by other means

Section 21 exempts IPSA from providing copies of information which is already accessible.

In addition to the information disclosed with this letter, IPSA was sent pre-publication copies of the report of the House of Commons Procedure Committee on proxy voting and an associated press release.

These contain information relevant to part 3 of your request and may be accessed at Committee calls for proxy voting scheme for parental absence to be made permanent

Information of relevance to part 4 of your request in the IPSA Bulletins is available on the IPSA website through the following links:

• Letter, IPSA Support for Parental Leave, 11 February 2021

• Letter, Cover for MP parental leave and MP staff reservist leave consultation, 15 February 2021

• Bulletin, 25 February 2021

• Bulletin, 18 March 2021

Parental leave was also discussed at the IPSA Board meeting on 10 September 2020. The minutes have been published on our website.

Section 40(1) – the personal data of the person making the request

Disclosure of names and personal information under the FOIA is considered to be disclosure to “the world at large” and made without an obligation of confidence. For this reason, personal information has been redacted from the documents disclosed unless it is information which is already in the public domain, for example, in a press statement.

Sections 40(2) and 40(3A)(a) – personal data

This exemption applies to information which IPSA considers to be personal data within the meaning of Article 4(1) of the UK General Data Protection Regulation 2016 (UK 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.

IPSA considered that the following are personal data within this definition: banking and financial information; personal information of the MPs and other third-party information.

We then considered whether disclosure of this personal data would breach any of the Principles relating to the processing of personal data in the UK GDPR.

The relevant principle is Article 5(1)(a):

Personal data shall be:

a. Processed lawfully, fairly and in a transparent manner in relation to the data subject

The lawful bases supporting Article 5(10(a) are set out in Article 6 of the UK GDPR. The Information Commissioner’s (ICO) guidance suggests that public authorities answer three key questions when considering this issue, namely:

• What is the legitimate interest in disclosure (or what is the purpose)?

• Is it necessary to disclose staff names for that purpose?

• Does the legitimate interest outweigh the interest and rights of the individuals concerned?

Deciding this involves a balancing exercise between the likely impacts or consequences that disclosure will have on the individuals and the legitimate interests of the requestor, taking into account the reasonable expectations of the individuals. Even if the requestor already knows the names of the individuals concerned and indicates they have no intention of publicising the information, the information provided under the FOIA is regarded as released into the public domain, and the public authority loses control of the information once it is disclosed.

The ICO guidance advises:

The more senior an employee is and the more responsibility they have for decision-making and expenditure of public money, the greater their expectation should be that you disclose their names.

Similarly, if someone acts as a spokesperson or senior representative of an organisation, disclosure of their name is more likely to be reasonable. This is particularly the case when the other organisation is lobbying a public authority in order to influence it. However, there is no blanket presumption in favour of disclosure of the names of senior officials; each case is considered carefully and with regard to the legitimate interests inherent in the request.

For these reasons, and because IPSA was unable to identify a lawful basis under Article 6, the names of individuals other than members of the IPSA Board and Executive Leadership Team, and senior officials and representatives, have been withheld under FOIA section 40(2).

Section 41 – information provided in confidence

Some information provided to IPSA in confidence has been withheld under section 41(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.

This is an absolute exemption and therefore not subject to a public interest test.

Section 42 – legal professional privilege

Communications between IPSA and its lawyers is exempt from disclosure under section 42 and has not been provided.