Skip to the content

MPs behaviour towards members of IPSA staff
FOI076
Disclosure Date:24 Sep 2010
Categories: IPSA - STAFF
Exemptions Applied: Section 36 Section 40
Request

Under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 I request an uncensored copy of the document detailing the aggressive behaviour of Members of Parliament towards IPSA staff.

This document featured in the BBC article, which can be found at: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11085999

Response

I can confirm that IPSA holds the information that falls within the description specified in your request. A copy of the document that can be disclosed is attached. The remainder of the information that you requested is exempt under section36(2)(c) of the Freedom of Information Act and is therefore withheld.

The qualified person has conducted the public interest balancing exercise in relation to the engagement of the exemption at s.36(2)(c) (prejudice to the effective conduct of public affairs) of the Act, alongside consideration of the s.40(2) (personal information) exemption and our duties under the Data Protection Act, specifically paragraph 6 of Schedule 2. It is the opinion of the qualified person that certain forms of adverse effect would or would be likely to follow from a full disclosure of the information you request.

Individual names and place names have been redacted. It is the opinion of IPSA’s qualified person that this information is exempt in respect of MPs under s.36(2)(c) and in respect of IPSA staff under s.40(2) of the Freedom of Information Act. In short, although the information is personal information, there is a legitimate interest in the public knowing the details of the conduct to which IPSA staff have been subjected. However, it is also very important and in the public interest that there is a satisfactory and effective working relationship between MPs and IPSA in implementing the new expenses regime. This would, in the view of the qualified person, be damaged by making public the names of the individual MPs concerned. The qualified person has therefore concluded that there is a greater public interest in withholding this information than there is in its release.