Dear Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority,

I am writing to you as a concerned citizen of the United Kingdom regarding the recent decision by the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (IPSA) to increase pay-offs for Members of Parliament (MPs) who lose their seats or voluntarily step down. In light of the challenges that many members of the public are facing, including financial difficulties in putting food on the table, I am seeking to better understand the decision-making process behind this policy change.

Under the Freedom of Information Act 2000, I kindly request access to the following documentation:

1 Any and all records, minutes, reports, memos, or correspondence related to the decision to increase pay-offs for MPs who lose their seats or voluntarily step down, including details about the discussions, considerations, and rationale leading to this decision.

2 Documentation outlining the specific factors and considerations that IPSA deemed to be in the public interest when making the decision to increase pay-offs, given the current economic challenges and financial difficulties experienced by many members of the public.

3 Any internal assessments, analyses, or impact evaluations conducted by IPSA or other relevant parties regarding the potential effects of this pay-offs increase on the broader public perception, government spending, and the financial well-being of citizens.

4 Information about any consultations or public engagement activities conducted by IPSA or involving stakeholders and experts in the field of government transparency, fiscal responsibility, and public finance before reaching this decision.

I believe that access to the above-mentioned documentation is in the public interest, as it will contribute to a better understanding of the decision-making process and the factors that were considered when increasing pay-offs for MPs. Given the financial hardships faced by a significant portion of the population, including challenges in affording basic necessities like food, transparency in this matter is crucial for maintaining public trust in the democratic process.

I understand that there might be certain exemptions under the Freedom of Information Act that could prevent the release of certain information. However, I kindly request that you provide as much relevant information as possible, and if any exemptions are applied, please provide clear explanations for their application.

Please supply the requested information in electronic format.

I look forward to your prompt attention to this matter and the release of the relevant documentation. Thank you for your assistance in addressing my concerns.

Yours faithfully,

Amanda Hart
for Stop UK lies and Corruption.

Dear Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority,

I am writing to request an internal review of the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority's handling of my Freedom of Information (FOI) request titled 'Documentation Regarding Decision by IPSA to increase MP payoffs' dated 25th August 2023. Despite the statutory obligation to respond within the designated time frame, I have not received any communication regarding my request.

I understand that delays in providing information may occur; however, it is important to note that there have been no changes to the time limits for requesting an internal review. Therefore, I kindly request that the internal review process be initiated without further delay, commencing from the date of this correspondence.

Regrettably, it appears that the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority has breached Section 10 of the Freedom of Information Act (FoIA). Section 10 outlines the time frames within which a public authority must respond to an FOI request. Specifically, it applies when the public authority has the duty to confirm or deny the existence of requested information, provide the information to the requester if it is held, or issue a refusal notice along with the reasons for the denial.

As stipulated in the Act, public authorities are required to respond promptly and no later than the twentieth working day following the receipt of the request. Please note that a "working day" refers to any day other than a Saturday, Sunday, Christmas Day, Good Friday, or a bank holiday under the Banking and Financial Dealings Act 1971 in any part of the United Kingdom. Although an authority may claim a reasonable extension of time to consider the public interest test, such extensions beyond an additional 20 working days should be exceptional.

I would also like to draw your attention to the fact that the Information Commissioner recommends that internal reviews be requested when authorities fail to comply with the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act. This is an opportunity for you to assess and rectify any shortcomings that may have occurred. Undertaking this review is considered "good practice" and can help you avoid further breaches. In the event that you choose not to conduct an internal review or claim that there is "nothing to review," please be advised that we will proceed to escalate the matter directly to the Information Commissioner's Office.

I trust that you will treat this matter with the utmost urgency and ensure that the internal review is conducted promptly and in accordance with the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act. I look forward to receiving a response within the statutory time frame.

A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is available on the Internet at this address: https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/d...

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Yours faithfully,

Amanda Hart
for Stop UK lies and Corruption.

Dear Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (IPSA),

I am writing to request an internal review regarding the Freedom of Information request RFI 202308 14. While I deeply appreciate the information provided, we still require the information held pertaining to:

"3 Any internal assessments, analyses, or impact evaluations conducted by IPSA or other relevant parties regarding the potential effects of these increased pay-offs on the broader public perception, government spending, and the financial well-being of citizens."

Respectfully, we are not satisfied that IPSA's need to keep the information hidden outweighs the public need to view this information - this is why:

1 Draft Status and Potential Inaccuracies: While draft documents might change, the public interest in accessing these materials above outweighs any potential confusion. The public should have access to
"3 Any internal assessments, analyses, or impact evaluations conducted by IPSA or other relevant parties regarding the potential effects of these increased pay-offs on the broader public perception, government spending, and the financial well-being of citizens." We are willing to work with you by stating we especially need the impact evaluations that we asked for. This is information is of a factual nature and its provision would increase transparency, enhances public trust and underscore accountability, even if the data is preliminary.

2 Duty to Advise and Assist, Data Protection Concerns: We understand the nature of the information that we are requesting. The release of this data, even if preliminary, would not contravene data protection principles if handled correctly. For example private information such as peoples names may be redacted.

3 Free and Frank Advice, Trust in Deliberations: While protecting free and frank advice is important, the public's right to know how decisions impacting them are made is paramount. Stakeholders' ability to express viewpoints can coexist with public transparency. The relationship between IPSA and MPs should withstand scrutiny for robust decision-making.

4 Impact on IPSA-MP Relations: The public interest in transparency, especially regarding decisions with significant financial implications, should take precedence over concerns about potential communication breakdowns. Maintaining trust and accountability in public institutions is crucial, especially in the context of decisions impacting government spending and public perception.

Overall, the public interest in transparency and accountability in governmental financial decisions, particularly those affecting MPs, justifies challenging the exemption under section 36. Transparency in these processes is vital for maintaining public trust and ensuring responsible governance.

Public Interest Statements to Support Disclosure:

1 Transparency in Government Decisions: Understanding the rationale behind financial decisions is crucial for public trust in government processes.
2 Accountability for Public Spending: Detailed assessments would clarify how public funds are utilized, ensuring accountability.
3 Public Scrutiny of Impact on Financial Well-being: Insight into how these decisions affect the financial health of citizens is essential, especially during economic hardships.
4 Enhanced Public Confidence: Disclosure supports public confidence in the fairness and appropriateness of government actions.
5 Democratic Engagement: Information empowers citizens to engage meaningfully in democratic processes.
6 Informed Public Debate: Access to full information allows for a more informed public debate on government policies.
7 Scrutiny of Economic Priorities: Understanding government priorities in economic decision-making is in the public interest.
8 Government Transparency: Transparency is a fundamental principle of good governance.
9 Public Understanding of Government Priorities: Citizens have a right to understand the basis of government priorities, especially regarding financial decisions.
10 Assessment of Policy Impact: Understanding the impact of policies on different sections of society is crucial.
11 Clarity on Decision-making Processes: Disclosure provides clarity on how decisions were reached.
12 Building Public Trust in Government Institutions: Trust in government institutions is enhanced when decisions are open to scrutiny.
13 Evaluating the Fairness of Policies: It is in the public interest to evaluate the fairness of government policies.
14 Insight into Economic Challenges Faced by Citizens: Information on how government decisions consider citizen's economic challenges is vital.
15 Public Oversight of Government Actions: Public oversight is a key aspect of a democratic society.
16 Understanding the Role of Government in Economic Management: Insight into government's role in managing the economy is in the public interest.
17 Promoting Fiscal Responsibility: Understanding how fiscal decisions are made promotes fiscal responsibility.
18 Evaluating Impact on Public Perception: How government actions affect public perception is a key concern.
19 Informed Public Opinions: Access to information helps form more informed public opinions.
20 Balancing Government Efficiency with Public Interest: Disclosure helps balance the need for efficient governance with the public's right to know.

I request that IPSA reconsider the application of the exemption under section 36 of the Freedom of Information Act in this case and provide the requested detailed internal assessments, analyses, or impact evaluations.

I trust that you will treat this matter with the utmost urgency and ensure that the internal review is conducted promptly and in accordance with the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act. I look forward to receiving a response within the statutory time frame.

A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is available on the Internet at this address: A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is available on the Internet at this address: https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/d...

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Yours faithfully,

Amanda Hart
Stop UK lies and Corruption.

Dear IPSA Internal Review Team,

RFI-202308-14 | 22nd January 2024

We acknowledge your response to our request for an internal review. However, it is important to emphasise the purpose of such reviews: to thoroughly address the concerns and questions raised within the request for internal review. Regrettably, your response falls short of this expectation.

In your reply, there is a conspicuous absence of any counterarguments to the specific points we have raised. Instead, it appears that your response aligns with the conclusions drawn by your colleagues, without a comprehensive examination of the issues at hand. This omission raises concerns about the validity of the legal reasons for withholding information regarding the decision to increase MP payoffs from public scrutiny.

Given the lack of substantive engagement with our request, we find ourselves with no choice but to escalate this matter to the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) for further review and resolution.

Yours faithfully,

Amanda Hart
Stop UK Lies and Corruption