Corporate Officer of the House of Commons v The Information Commissioner & Ors

Factual and Procedural Background

This appeal concerns the right of access under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) to information relating to the Additional Costs Allowance (ACA), an allowance payable to Members of Parliament (MPs) representing constituencies outside London or outer London constituencies. The ACA reimburses MPs for expenses incurred when staying overnight away from their main UK residence for Parliamentary duties, excluding personal or political expenses.

The House of Commons published total sums paid annually for ACA to fourteen MPs identified in the proceedings. However, further detailed information such as claim forms and supporting documents were requested by several applicants. These requests were refused, leading to complaints under section 50 of FOIA to the Information Commissioner (the Commissioner).

The Commissioner ordered disclosure of a breakdown of the total annual amounts claimed by each MP by reference to twelve categories of expense. The House of Commons, through its Corporate Officer, appealed to the Information Tribunal (the Tribunal), which dismissed the appeal and allowed the applicants' cross-appeals for fuller disclosure. The Corporate Officer then appealed to this court under section 59 of FOIA, on a point of law, challenging the Tribunal's decision.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the detailed information relating to ACA claims by MPs is subject to disclosure under FOIA, notwithstanding claims of parliamentary privilege.
2. Whether the exemption under section 40 of FOIA, relating to personal data and the Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA), applies to the requested information.
3. Whether the reasonable expectations of MPs regarding the confidentiality of their ACA claims, based on the House of Commons' publication scheme and communications, should limit disclosure.
4. Whether disclosure of MPs' residential addresses connected to ACA claims is justified, considering privacy and security concerns.

Arguments of the Parties

Corporate Officer's Arguments

• Parliamentary privilege limits judicial scrutiny, and MPs had a reasonable expectation that only aggregated totals of ACA claims would be disclosed, based on the House's publication scheme and the Speaker's letters.
• Disclosure of detailed claims, including addresses, would infringe MPs' privacy rights under the DPA and FOIA section 40 exemptions.
• Disclosure could lead to unfair criticism, misunderstanding, and discourage capable individuals from seeking election.
• Security concerns justify withholding certain address information beyond those MPs with known special security reasons.

Applicants' and Commissioner's Arguments

• FOIA creates a general right of access to information held by public authorities, including the House of Commons, and the publication scheme expands rather than restricts this right.
• The reasonable expectation argument is without merit because MPs, as legislators, should be aware of FOIA's provisions and the possibility of further disclosure beyond the publication scheme.
• The public interest in transparency and accountability regarding public expenditure on MPs' allowances outweighs privacy concerns.
• The Tribunal properly balanced the competing interests and was entitled to reject the Corporate Officer's arguments.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court began by affirming that parliamentary privilege does not exempt the House of Commons from FOIA, as no certificate under section 34(3) had been issued to claim privilege. The right of access under FOIA includes information held by the House, subject to statutory exemptions such as personal data under section 40.

The court analysed the interplay between FOIA's right of access and the DPA's protection of personal data, focusing on whether disclosure would contravene data protection principles, particularly the first principle of fair and lawful processing. The Tribunal found the ACA system to be deeply flawed, lacking transparency and accountability, which justified disclosure in the public interest despite MPs' privacy concerns.

The court addressed the argument that MPs had reasonable expectations, based on the House's publication scheme and the Speaker's letters, that only aggregate totals would be disclosed. It held that the Tribunal properly considered and rejected this argument, noting that MPs, as legislators, should have been aware of FOIA's provisions and that the publication scheme did not restrict FOIA's broader access rights.

Regarding disclosure of addresses, the court acknowledged that residential addresses constitute personal data but noted that many addresses were already publicly available through electoral registers and land registries. The Tribunal allowed limited exceptions for security concerns but found no sufficient basis to withhold addresses generally, given the significant public interest in scrutinising MPs' claims amid the flawed ACA system.

The court emphasised that if the ACA system were revised with stronger oversight, privacy considerations might warrant a different approach, but it could not interfere with the Tribunal's decision based on hypothetical future changes.

Holding and Implications

The court DISMISSED the appeals by the Corporate Officer of the House of Commons.

The direct effect is that detailed information relating to MPs' ACA claims, including supporting documents and addresses (subject to limited security exceptions), must be disclosed under FOIA. This decision reinforces the principle that public authorities, including Parliament, are subject to FOIA obligations and that transparency in the use of public funds by MPs outweighs privacy concerns in this context. No new legal precedent was established beyond affirming the application of existing FOIA and DPA principles.