Expenses for MP's accommodation

Request

This request follows on from my previous request reference RFI-202104-09, a response to which was sent to me on 15th October 2021. This new request is a fresh request, not an appeal against the exemptions applied in that previous request, but it does seek to address points raised in IPSA’s response to that earlier request.

The information I am requesting concerns MPs who are currently (i.e. at any time in the three most recent months for which information is available) also recipients of rental payments by other MPs, where those rental payments are claimed as accommodation expenses. IPSA’s response to request RFI-202104-09 stated there were five such MPs, but this number may have changed since then.

Please state the name of the MPs who are recipients of such rental payments
Please state whether each of the MPs in question 1 is themselves currently (i.e. at any time in the three most recent months for which information is available) claiming (a) accommodation rent and/or (b) associated accommodation costs on expenses (please state whether (a), (b) or both apply in each case)
Please state how many MPs each of the MPs in question 1 is receiving rental payments from (for illustration, most of the MPs may only be renting property to one MP, but one of them might be renting properties to two MPs)
Please state the party that each of the MPs in question 1 represents in parliament
Please state the party of the MPs who rent properties from the MPs in question 1 (so, if a Labour MP is renting a property from a Liberal Democrat MP, the question 4 response regarding that transaction would be ‘Labour MP renting from Liberal Democrat MP’)
For the most recent month for which information is available, please state how much rent was claimed on expenses in relation to each tenancy agreement in which an MP in question 1 is the payee. This information should be provided within £1,000 brackets – so, either £0-1,000, £1,001-£2,000, £2,001-£3,000, or £3,001+. Therefore, if an MP claimed £1,500 in expenses in the most recent month in order to pay rent to a payee MP, the response should be that £1,001-£2,000 was claimed under that arrangement

Please note that these six questions are separate – the application of an exemption against one question does not preclude responses to other questions. In particular, even if IPSA applies an exemption to question 1, the other questions that refer to ‘MPs in question 1’ still stand and should still be responded to – it is simply that IPSA would be providing information relating to payee MPs without naming payee MPs.

That said, I have formulated this request to address the exemptions applied to request RFI-202104-09. If IPSA responds to question 1, then question 2 would be covered by the section 21 exemption; otherwise, section 21 does not apply to any of these questions.

I have not asked for the names of the renting MPs in this request, and they are unlikely to be identifiable from the requested information unless they are from very small parliamentary parties (e.g. SDLP, Plaid, Green). Question 6 asks for the information to be supplied in bands rather than as a specific amount in order to hinder identification of renting MPs. Question 1 identifies payee MPs, but it is impossible to identify the specific location of rented properties from this without individually purchasing the registration details for potentially millions of properties from the Land Registry to see which is owned by the MP in question, as Land Registry records are not freely available and not searchable. Therefore 38 does not apply.

In terms of section 40, for disclosure to be lawful it must satisfy the following tests:

(i) Purpose: what is the legitimate interest in the disclosure of the information (ii) Necessity: is disclosure necessary for that purpose? (iii) Balancing test: does the legitimate interest outweigh the interests and rights of the individual?

The legitimate interest is knowing which MPs are making money from the expenses scheme by renting property to other MPs – and particularly if they are also claiming their own rent on expenses at the same time, thus being paid twice by the expenses regime. The fact this is within the rules does not preclude public interest in the arrangements that are allowed by the rules.

Disclosure is necessary to know which MPs are doing this.

Given that the MPs are receiving taxpayers’ money in this way, the rights of the MPs to privacy are lower than would be the case were the rent payments privately funded. MPs are required to disclose via the parliamentary register of interests if they earn more than £10,000 a year from renting out property, and it is unlikely any of the rental arrangements covered by this request are for a lower sum than that, so their status as landlords has already been publicly disclosed. Therefore, the MPs’ right to privacy is again reduced.

Response

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

1. Please state the name of the MPs who are recipients of such rental payments

We have assumed that your request is related to residential property and can confirm that this figure has dropped from 5 MPs to 3 MPs. The names of the recipients are subject to a Refusal Notice under sections 38 and 40 of the FOIA, the explanation of which is below.

2. Please state whether each of the MPs in question 1 is themselves currently (i.e. at any time in the three most recent months for which information is available) claiming (a) accommodation rent and/or (b) associated accommodation costs on expenses (please state whether (a), (b) or both apply in each case)

1 of the 3 MPs rents residential property themselves and another has a registered accommodation for associated costs.

3. Please state how many MPs each of the MPs in question 1 is receiving rental payments from (for illustration, most of the MPs may only be renting property to one MP, but one of them might be renting properties to two MPs)

Due to the low numbers involved, we are unable to provide a breakdown. We can tell you that the range is 1-4 MPs. The actual breakdown is subject to a Refusal Notice under sections 38 and 40 of the FOIA, the explanation of which is below.

4. Please state the party that each of the MPs in question 1 represents in parliament

Due to the low numbers involved, we are unable to provide any further information. The information is therefore subject to a Refusal Notice under sections 38 and 40 of the FOIA, the explanation of which is below.

5. Please state the party of the MPs who rent properties from the MPs in question 1 (so, if a Labour MP is renting a property from a Liberal Democrat MP, the question 4 response regarding that transaction would be ‘Labour MP renting from Liberal Democrat MP’)

6. For the most recent month for which information is available, please state how much rent was claimed on expenses in relation to each tenancy agreement in which an MP in question 1 is the payee. This information should be provided within £1,000 brackets – so, either £0-1,000, £1,001-£2,000, £2,001-£3,000, or £3,001+. Therefore, if an MP claimed £1,500 in expenses in the most recent month in order to pay rent to a payee MP, the response should be that £1,001-£2,000 was claimed under that arrangement

Two MPs received in the range £1,001-£2,000.

One MP received in the range £0-£1,000

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 relies on this exemption because the numbers are so low that if the full information was disclosed then there is a risk of individuals being identified. As we considered that the information is personal data within the above definition, we then considered whether disclosure 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.

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 personal data as we maintain that the disclosure of this information carries a high risk of endangering the MPs concerned.

IPSA understands how disclosure would enable the public to understand the circumstances surrounding the renting of property by MPs to MPs, but in considering disclosure IPSA also has to consider its duty of care to the MPs and any consequences which may arise from our response.

In the first six months of 2021, there was 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 recent death of Sir David Amess MP has highlighted the impact when the threat of physical attack becomes a reality.

MPs 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.

Is this page helpful?

Ref:
RFI-202111-08: Disclosure:
17 January 2022: Categories:
IPSA - FINANCIALMPs' ACCOMMODATION: Exemptions Applied:
Sections 40(2) and 40(3A)(a), Section 38(1)(b)