Copies of documents for claims by Andrew Rosindell MP

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

Please find attached to this email copies of the documents.

Some information has been redacted and is subject to a Refusal Notice under sections 31, 38 and 40 of the FOIA and in accordance with Section C of IPSA’s Publication Policy.

Section 31(1)(a) – law enforcement

This exemption applies where the disclosure of information would or would be likely to prejudice the prevention of crime. IPSA relies on this exemption to withhold financial information and other transactional references. IPSA believes that the disclosure of these details could leave those concerned more vulnerable to financial crime, in particular fraud and electronic crime, especially with the increase in cyber attacks.

This exemption is subject to a public interest test. IPSA does not consider that the withholding of this information has a negative impact on the understanding of these claims.

We therefore find that the public interest in withholding this information outweighs the public interest in disclosure at this time.

Section 38(1)(b) – health and safety

This exemption applies where disclosure of information would, or would be likely to, endanger the safety of any individual.

IPSA relies on this exemption to withhold any information which could identify the supplier, including the company name and the personal address of the MP. IPSA maintains that the disclosure of this information carries a high risk of endangering the MP and his staff.

IPSA understands how disclosure would enable the public to understand more about the organisations with which MPs do business and to whom taxpayers’ money is paid. In considering disclosure we also have to consider our duty of care to MPs, their staff and connected parties, including any dependants and other members of the public, and any consequences which may arise from our response.

Since 2020 there has been an increase in media reporting on the threats made to MPs and their staff. Not all reports relate to physical attacks on MPs and their staff, but the fear which can be felt from receiving a threat can be mentally and physically damaging. The death of Sir David Amess MP has highlighted the impact when the threat of physical attack becomes a reality.

MPs and their staff have difficult jobs, and IPSA is aware that the decision to disclose certain categories of information could make it more difficult for them to fulfil these. This would have a knock-on effect on those whom MPs and their staff try to help. IPSA, therefore, maintains that the public interest in withholding this information outweighs the public interest in disclosure at this time.

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

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 considers that the following are personal data within this definition: financial information; personal information of the MP. 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

As IPSA was unable to find a lawful basis on which it could rely, within Article 6 of the UK GDPR, it therefore finds that the information is exempt under section 40.