Details of MPs' payment cards suspensions between 2015-2022

Background

I have provided some background information to assist with the interpretation of the information we are providing.

Payment card suspension policy and process

Our payment card policy may be accessed online. MPs must sign a form agreeing to these conditions when taking ownership of a card.

A summary of the main points is provided below.

IPSA provides a Government procurement card, known as a payment card, to MPs. This can be used to pay for any eligible business costs incurred as part of an MP’s parliamentary functions and in accordance with the rules set out in The Scheme of MPs’ Staffing and Business Costs. Payment cards are not intended for personal use.

Each month IPSA makes payment in full to the supplier, Barclaycard. MPs are then provided with a list of the expenditure that they have incurred and are required to account for that expenditure and ensure that all supporting evidence as required by the IPSA: Evidence requirements reaches us by the deadline.

If this process is not completed in full by the deadline, access to the card is temporarily suspended on the first working day after the deadline for seven calendar days or until reconciliation is completed unless there are exceptional circumstances which explain why the expenditure has not been reconciled. Once completed and all costs have been correctly accounted for access to the card is restored in full.

Response

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

Some of the information you have requested is not held by IPSA, and some is subject to refusal notices under FOIA sections 21 and 38. Details about these exemptions are provided below.

Amount on the card at the time of suspension

We do not hold the details of the amounts on the cards at the time of the suspension, as this is not recorded when the suspension takes place.

Payment card suspensions, May 2015 to August 2018

This information is subject to a refusal notice under FOIA, s 21 as it is already accessible on our website.

A spreadsheet listing details of payment card suspensions for the period from 2015 to 2018/19 may be downloaded from the FOI disclosure log on at Details of MPs' payment cards suspended since the 2015 General Election.

The FOIA states that information that is accessible by other means is not subject to release. Therefore, as the information you have requested is already available on our website, it is exempt from disclosure under section 21 of the FOIA (information accessible to applicant by other means).

Payment card suspensions from September 2018 to May 2019

Following a search of our records we have been unable to trace a suspension log for this period.

Payment card suspensions from June 2019 to September 2022

The spreadsheet attached to the email accompanying this letter lists individual suspensions and the period during which the card was suspended, by month.

From April to June 2020 we did not suspend any cards. This was in recognition of the need for MPs to buy additional equipment to move quickly to home working during the pandemic, coupled with the fact that providing evidence may be more difficult during the pandemic. The names of individual MPs have been withheld from the data for 2019-2022 under FOIA s. 38.

FOIA, section 38(1)

Section 38(1) states information is exempt if its disclosure under this act would, or would be likely to:

(a) endanger the physical or mental health of any individual, or

(b) endanger the safety of any individual

Disclosure through freedom of information is deemed to be full disclosure to the public domain.

Section 38(2) provides that:

The duty to confirm or deny does not arise if, or to the extent that, compliance with section 1(1)(a) would, or would be likely to, have either of the effects mentioned in subsection (1).

IPSA does not find that the duty to deny applies in this case that confirming that we hold some of the information requested would not have any of the above effects.

FOIA, section 38(1)(a)

Since the time of the release of the 2018 payment card data there has been an increase in reports in the media of threats made to MPs and their staff. Although not all reports lead to physical attacks, the fear which can be felt from receiving such abuse can be mentally and physically damaging. The significant levels of psychological distress and impact on the mental health of MPs, their staff and their families have been widely reported in national media.

FOIA, section 38(1)(b)

The murder of Sir David Amess MP in 2021, and more recent criminal convictions for stalking, harassment and attacks on MPs since 2018 has highlighted that threats had led to actual attacks. Even after an individual ceases to work as, or for, an MP the risk may remain. Some former MPs and staff have moved on to other roles which keep them in the public spotlight with continuing risks to themselves, their families and those associated.

While the information withheld by itself does not comprise sensitive or security-related details, such as private addresses or personal contact details, as disclosure is to the wider public domain, the information may be exploited and misrepresented by individuals with malicious intent to foment aggression towards MPs and their staff by equating payment card suspension with debt or over-spending at a time of national cost-of-living crisis.

IPSA takes its transparency obligations under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and the Parliamentary Standards Act 2009 very seriously. We recognise that disclosing the names of the MPs whose payment cards had been temporarily suspended would potentially allow the public to gain a better understanding of how effectively public finances were being managed. It may also be argued that publication could encourage more efficient reconciliation of payment cards by MPs’ offices.

Disclosing individual incidences of payment card suspension and duration for each (unidentified) MP’s office on the enclosed spreadsheet, provides the public with information about the overall rates and duration of the suspension, without exposing MPs and their staff to the risks outlined above. In general, most suspensions are for relatively short periods resulting from administrative deadlines being missed and are likely to have been since resolved.

IPSA finds that the contribution to public understanding and transparency when taken in combination with information already published is outweighed when balanced against the strong likelihood that individuals named would nevertheless be subjected to heightened risks arising from disclosure.

IPSA, therefore, maintains that the public interest in withholding this information outweighs the public interest in disclosure at this time.

Download the response data.