FOI from Strathclyde Police - BAA contract

8/7/2019 FOI from Strathclyde Police - BAA contract

1/5

NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED


15 February 2011

Your Ref:

Our Ref: 0050/2011

Matilda Gifford

Email: [email protected] Force Disclosure Unit

Police Headquarters

173 Pitt Street

GLASGOW

G2 4JS

Tel: 0141 435 1205

Fax: 0141 435 1218

Dear Ms Gifford

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION REQUEST REFERENCE NUMBER 0050/2011

I refer to your request for information dated 18 January 2011, which was received by

Strathclyde Police on the same date.

Your request for information has now been considered and on 14 February 2011, a decision

was made to provide some of the information requested by you. Some of the information

requested by you is, however, considered to be exempt in terms of the Freedom of

Information (Scotland) Act 2002 (the Act). Section 16 of the Act requires Strathclyde Police

to provide you with a notice which: (a) states that it holds the information, (b) states that it is

claiming an exemption, (c) specifies the exemption in question and (d) states, if that would

not be otherwise apparent, why the exemption applies. Where information is considered to be

exempt, this letter serves as a Refusal Notice and an explanation of the appropriate exemption

is provided.

For ease of reference, I have provided a response to each of the questions posed by you, as

detailed below.

Please send me all documents, emails or other written information confirming that the

two officers Matt Clark and Stuart Wood were serving officers of Strathclyde Police andon duty as Strathclyde Police officers at the times of their dealings with Ms Gifford in

April 2009.

I note that you have requested documentation, however, I would draw your attention to a

recent decision by the Court of Session (a link to this is provided below) where both the

meaning and definition of the term information under the Freedom of Information

(Scotland) Act 2002 (the Act) has been clarified. Further information on this issue can be

obtained from the Scottish Information Commissioners own website.

http://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/opinions/2009CSIH73.html

The Court held that while the Act provides access to information recorded in any form, theirdecision made it clear that there is a distinction between the information itself and the

document in which it is contained, for example a memo, e-mail, minutes, etc. While the act


2/5



provides a right of access to information, it does not follow that an applicant has a right of

access to the documentation in which it is contained. The Court took the view that if an

applicant has the right to be given information then it would be that data, rather than the

document that it is contained within that is disclosed. This could be, for example the

provision in a summary of what is contained within a document, rather than providing a copy

of the record that contains the information.

With the above in mind I have interpreted your request as seeking information that the two

officers who dealt with you in April 2009 were serving officers of Strathclyde Police and on

duty as Strathclyde Police Officers at the time.

I also take into account the fact that albeit confirmation of police interest in you would

confirm your involvement with the force, and that if asked the force might normally neither

confirm nor deny this information in a public disclosure, you have made and given numerous

public statements and interviews to this effect. Accordingly, my interpretation is that in terms

of the Data Protection Act 1998 you have no objection to this fact being made public

knowledge.

I also take into account the Scottish Information Commissioners recent Decision, Ref177/2010 (and enclose a link to this Decision involving you and where you are identified),

and in particular to paragraphs 34 and 35, replicated below:

34. Having considered the submissions of both parties, the Commissioner considers it

possible to envisage alternative means of meeting the legitimate interest identified by Ms

Gifford while interfering less with the privacy of the relevant data subject. It appears to the

Commissioner that a straightforward confirmation of the officer's employment status at the

relevant time, which he would consider less intrusive in the circumstances, would suffice.

35. While acknowledging that there may have been aspects of earlier communications with

Strathclyde Police which affected the applicant's confidence in any subsequent

communications on the matter, it appears to the Commissioner (having considered all

relevant submissions) that the roots of any uncertainty in this matter lie in administrative

error rather than any intention to confuse or deceive. In the course of the investigation, on 25

August 2010, Strathclyde Police confirmed to Ms Gifford that the named officer "was a

serving officer of Strathclyde Police, and on duty at the time of his dealings with Ms

Gifford. While noting that Ms Gifford remains dissatisfied with this response (and while

noting that it might have been provided earlier), the Commissioner finds that it meets her

legitimate interest without the disclosure of any further information. On a reasonable

interpretation, it provides the confirmation she requires. He does not, therefore, find

disclosure of the commission date to be necessary for the purposes of Ms Gifford's legitimate

interests.

http://www.itspublicknowledge.info/applicationsanddecisions/Decisions/2010/200901680.asp

I also take into account previous correspondence provided to your solicitor confirming that

the two officers involved were Strathclyde Police officers and were on duty at the time of

these incidents.

For the avoidance of any more doubt, I again confirm that the two officers were serving

officers of Strathclyde Police and on duty in that capacity at the times of their dealings with

you.

I would advise that should any other request be received from you on this subject then

consideration will be given to deeming it to fall under Section 14(1) and or Section 14(2),FOISA- vexatious or repeated requests.
http://www.itspublicknowledge.info/applicationsanddecisions/Decisions/2010/200901680.asphttp://www.itspublicknowledge.info/applicationsanddecisions/Decisions/2010/200901680.asp


3/5



Please send me a break-down of the amount that Strathclyde police were paid by BAA

during 2009-2010

BAA paid Strathclyde Police a total of 2,633,130 in 2009/10, broken down as follows:

Police Costs 2,156,444

Police Staff Costs 218,306Direct Overhead Costs 36,549

Indirect Overhead Costs 221,831

2,633,130

Please send me all emails, minutes of meetings and any other correspondence and

documents relating to Strathclyde's contract with BAA between 2008 and 2010, in

particular what percentage of police time is spent on and off the airport perimeter?

I would again draw your attention to the recent Court of Session ruling concerning requests

for documents.

In this case and for the avoidance of doubt I enclose a letter dated 20 December 2007confirming a Police Services Agreement (PSA) is in place. I also enclose a copy of the

Obligations of Police Authority and Chief Constable within that Agreement. The relevant

information contained in the PSA (including the policing plan) is exempt under the following

Sections of the Act.

Section 31(1) National Security

Section 35(1)(a) & (b) Law Enforcement

Section 39(1) Health, Safety and the Environment

Harm

Police Forces are required under Section 26(3)(a) of the Aviation Security Act 1982 toprovide policing at airports within their area, the Act also states that the operators of such

airports are to make payment to those Forces in respect of this policing service. Glasgow

Airport comes under this arrangement.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1982/36/contents

To provide you with all of the information you seek would compromise the Force's ability to

prevent and detect crime, including serious crimes, such as terrorism, as details of the number

of officers based at the airport and their shift patterns would allow criminals and those intent

on committing crime to make educated decisions about when the airport would be more

susceptible to an attack. This would give them a greater chance of success and would

compromise the Force's efforts to prevent such incidents.

Airports are major transport hubs and security at these locations must be closely monitored.

Details of the level of policing provided at Glasgow Airport and specifically where in the

airport this presence is located, if released, could assist terrorists and other criminals in

planning and executing criminal activities at the airport, which would have serious and

harmful consequences.

All of the exemptions listed above are subject to the public interest test, which is detailed

below, for each exemption.

Section 31 (1) National Security

Considerations Favouring Disclosure
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1982/36/contentshttp://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1982/36/contents


4/5



Public Debate/Re-assurance

Release of the requested information could help inform the public about the measures

employed at the airport to ensure passengers and staff are kept safe and re-assure them that

the measures are adequate. It would also re-iterate the reasons why maintaining tight security

at airports is necessary to protect national security. It would also ensure that any public

debate on the matter was based on accurate information.

Considerations Favouring Non Disclosure

Public Safety and Prevention of Crime

Police Forces act in concert with other agencies and stakeholders to ensure public safety

throughout the national infrastructure, it has been shown that airports are major hubs that have

attracted terrorist activity. Damage to the infrastructure affects the UK economy and

therefore the well being of UK citizens, endangers the interests of the UK abroad and leads to

the loss of life or injury.

Section 35 (1) (a) & (b) Law Enforcement

Considerations Favouring Disclosure

Public Re-assurance

The provision of the requested information would provide re-assurance to the public that the

police, the airport authorities and airlines are doing all in their power to prevent criminal

activities at the airport and that there is an adequate level of staffing and preparedness to deal

with any such incidents, if they occur.

Considerations Favouring Non Disclosure

Prevention and Detection of Crime

There is a need for a policing presence at the airport, to provide a deterrent to criminals and

those intent on committing crime. Furthermore, when a criminal act does occur within the

airport, the officers are needed to deal with the matter and ensure that the safety of staff and

other passengers is not compromised by the incident. The disclosure of the information you

request could lessen the deterrent and allow criminals more opportunity to try and circumvent

the security measures in place.

Section 39 (1) Health, Safety and the Environment

Considerations favouring Disclosure

Informing the Public

The release of information on this subject would contribute to the quality and accuracy of

public debate on the matter and would further emphasise the public of the need for police

presence at airports.

Considerations favouring Non Disclosure

Public Safety

Strathclyde Police and the police service as a whole has a duty to protect and defend

passengers and employees who use the countrys airports. Revealing the policing levels at the

airport, their specific duties, the types of policing tactics employed and the risks that might beencountered would compromise the Force's ability to ensure the safety of the public.


5/5



Police Safety

The Force has a responsibility to take all reasonable steps to ensure the health and safety of its

staff. Disclosing the number, duties and specific tactics employed by officers working in this

environment would increase the likely dangers they might be called on to address or to

prevent.

Balancing Test

The Force is charged, under the provisions of the Police (Scotland) Act 1967, as amended,

with enforcing the law, preventing and detecting crime and protecting the communities it

serves. Furthermore, the security of airports is of paramount importance to the national

infrastructure and economy of the country and the travelling public expect to go about their

business knowing that the police will protect them. Releasing this information will dilute the

Force's ability to ensure this continues.

Whilst there is a public interest in transparency and accountability, the amount of money the

Force receives from BAA is provided above and it is acknowledged here, on the force website

and elsewhere that a policing service is provided at the airport, therefore, I feel that some

level of accountability and transparency has already been achieved.

Furthermore, there is clearly no public interest in providing information which will hamper

the Force's ability to prevent and detect crime, ensure public and officer safety and protect the

national infrastructure and economy. Therefore, the balance lies in withholding the requested

information.

What exactly is the remit and main security tasks of the contract both on and off

airport perimeter?

Please see the response to question 2, which explains why specific details of the level of

security provided at the airport is not suitable to be placed into the public domain. The

disclosed information, however, clearly outlines the police obligations in this matter.

I hope this information is helpful, however, if you are not satisfied with the way in which

your request has been dealt with, you are entitled in the first instance to request a review of

the decision made by the Force. Should you wish to request such a review, please write to

Mrs Sheena Brennan, Disclosure Manager at the above address within 40 working days of

receiving this letter. Once informed of the Review Panels decision, if you are still not

satisfied, then you are entitled to apply to the Scottish Information Commissioner within six

months for a decision. Contact details are; Office of the Scottish Information Commissioner,

Kinburn Castle, Doubledykes Road, St Andrews, Fife, KY16 9DS, telephone 01334 464610.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank you for your interest in Strathclyde Police.

Should you require any further assistance concerning this matter please contact me directly on

0141 435 1205 quoting the reference number given.

Yours sincerely

Inspector Graeme Cuthbertson

Force Disclosure Unit

FOI from Strathclyde Police - BAA contract

Documents

Transcript of FOI from Strathclyde Police - BAA contract