Copies of receipts for hotel claims by Lee Anderson MP

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

Copies of the receipts for claims 60079537-1 and 60079532-1 have been attached to the email accompanying this letter.

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.

Details of the exemptions have been provided below.

Claims 4001273-705 for £29.30 and 4001273-474 for £29.62 were paid directly by IPSA to the supplier, Banner. The ‘Scheme of MPs’ Staffing and Business Costs’ sets out a series of fundamental principles and rules that MPs must operate within when claiming business and staffing costs.

MPs may claim for hospitality costs from their office costs budget. This can include things like tea and coffee to offer visitors to the constituency office or refreshments at a meeting or event. It does not cover routine meal costs for the MP, staff members or others.

Under the Scheme MPs can buy supplies online using accounts IPSA generated for them with nominated suppliers, including Banner. IPSA pays these suppliers directly, meaning that MPs do not need to complete a form, reconcile the expense, or send any receipts – IPSA receives information directly from the suppliers when the MP orders online. IPSA then allocates these costs to the MP’s Office Costs Expenditure budget. This means that IPSA does not hold invoices or receipts for these claims.

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 the banking details of the hotel and other transactional information. 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 in recent years.

This exemption is subject to a public interest test. IPSA does not consider that withholding this information would have a negative impact on understanding 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 company name and contact details; hotel address and room number, and the personal address of the MP. IPSA maintains that the disclosure of this information carries a high risk of endangering the MP, connected parties and any dependents.

It is our opinion that were a disclosure to be made into the public domain it is likely that this information could be used to endanger the safety of the individuals who use or work at these locations.

Over recent years there has been an increase in media reporting of threats made to MPs and their staff. MPs and their staff continue to operate in an environment in which they receive threats and, in some cases, actual attacks on their offices. Even the fear of a potential attack can have an impact on an individual’s physical and mental health.

There would be an increased risk of attack on an MP if IPSA were to disclose details of locations where MPs stay, such as hotels or private residences. There is a further risk to hotel staff and guests if information which could lead to the identification of a hotel in which an MP has stayed is disclosed.

Although we recognise the public interest in transparency surrounding the publishing of this information, there is also a strong public interest in ensuring that as an organisation we are able to protect our service users from threats to their safety.

In our opinion, the public interest in protecting the personal safety of MPs, their staff, families and the public outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information.

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:

• personal address of the MP

• information which could be used to identify supplier staff

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 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

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.