Information/data sharing agreements with the MPS

Freedom of information request reference no: 01.FOI.22.023817

I note you seek access to the following information:

1. The number of Data Sharing Agreements (DSA’s) notified to the Information Sharing Support Unit (ISSU) between the MPS, BCRP’s (Business Crime Reduction Partnerships) and BID’s (Business Improvement Districts) since 2019 to date.

2. If retrievable within the cost limit, please provide a list of the names of all the DSA documents located in response to question 1.

3. A copy of all completed Data Sharing Agreements located in relation to question 1.

4. A copy of any and all completed information/data sharing agreements the Met Police has with company Littoralis in relation to the DISC (Database and Intranet for Safer Communities) platform, held within the ISSU since 2019 to date.

Decision

I have today decided to disclose some of the requested information. Some data has been withheld as it is exempt from disclosure and therefore this response serves as a Refusal Notice under Section 17 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act) by virtue of the following exemptions:

Section 31(1)(a) Law Enforcement
Section 40(2) - Personal Information
Reason for decision

The MPS is able to provide full recorded information held for Questions One (1) and Two (2)

In respect to Question Three (3), information has been redacted from the documents disclosed today by virtue of the following exemptions;

Section 40(2) - Personal Information
In respect to Question Three (3), information has been redacted from documents Named Wood Green and Edmonton by virtue of the following exemptions;

Section 31(1)(a) Law Enforcement
A Freedom of Information Act request is not a private transaction. Both the request itself, and any information which may be disclosed, are considered suitable for open publication. This is because, under Freedom of Information Act, any information disclosed (or confirmed as held or not) is released into the wider public domain, effectively to the world and not just to one individual.

In most cases Personal Data is exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act as I will explain below.

To confirm or deny whether information exists in response to your request could publicly reveal information about an individual or individuals, thereby breaching the right to privacy afforded to persons under the Data Protection Act 2018 (DPA) and the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR).

Where an individual is or wants to request his or her own personal data the information is always exempt. Such information can be requested under other legislation (please see the advice and assistance section below). The MPS would not confirm to the public at large that the MPS held information relating to you or a third party under FOIA.

Where an individual is requesting third party personal data which may or may not be held in this case, the MPS must ensure that any action taken adheres to the principles of the Data Protection Act 2018 and the GDPR. To clarify, the Freedom of Information Act only allows disclosure of personal data if that disclosure would be compliant with the principles for processing personal data. These principles are outlined under section 34 of the DPA 2018 and under Article 5 of the GDPR.

Section 31(1)(a) - (Law enforcement) - Operational policing capability and resources would be compromised with the disclosure of certain details relating to specific teams, public disclosure of which may impact on the MPS’s ability to assist the public.

If information regarding policing teams are hindered by disclosure of information recorded to assist the public, this places the community at increased unnecessary risk of harm and impacts on police resources if additional resources and tactics need to be put in place to counter any harm caused by an adverse FOIA disclosure.

Full disclosure could provide and enable targeted malicious actions against teams who have put their details on paperwork to ensure they can undertake policing smoothly with their partners.

It is not in the public interest for law enforcement tactics and operational capability to be compromised with the disclosure of full requested information (for example, in regards to email addresses and phone numbers). This is because there is often individuals who wish to use such information to undermine policing in a vexatious way, which in turn detrimentally impacts on our ability to prevent and detect crime. The public interest is met by the ability of the public to make contact with certain units via a usual centralised online route.

Disclosure is not in the public interest as it places the community at increased unnecessary risk of harm and impacts on police resources. This is especially the case if additional resources need to be put in place to counter harm or vexatious behaviour caused by an adverse FOIA request. The public interest is met by the disclosure of the actual requested information disclosed today, rather than details relating to individual teams and partners.

In respect of Question Four (4), no information held in the ISSU re completed information/data sharing agreements with Littoralis in relation to DISC. For information only, it is noted that Littoralis is mentioned within the love Wimbledon, Safer Sounds, Wood Green Data Sharing Agreement disclosed for Questions Two (2).

Disclosure

Q1 - The number of Data Sharing Agreements (DSA’s) notified to the Information Sharing Support Unit (ISSU) between the MPS, BCRP’s (Business Crime Reduction Partnerships) and BID’s (Business Improvement Districts) since 2019 to date.

Since 2019, the ISSU has been notified of five (5) DSAs relating to BCRPs and BIDs.

Q2 - If retrievable within the cost limit, please provide a list of the names of all the DSA documents located in response to question 1.

- 01/DPA/19/000230 Love Wimbledon BID
A purpose specific Data Sharing Agreement between the Metropolitan Police Service and Love Wimbledon BID

- 01/DPA/19/000374 CPIC
A purpose specific Data Sharing Agreement between the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) and The Safer Sounds Partnership

- 01/DPA/20/000483 Wood Green BCRP
A purpose specific information sharing agreement between the Metropolitan Police Service and Wood Green Business Crime Reduction Partnership (WGBCRP)

- 01/DPA/21/001827 CPIC (a re-submission of 01/DPA/19/000374 above)
A purpose specific Data Sharing Agreement between the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) and The Safer Sounds Partnership

- 01/DPA/22/2002 NA-CU
A purpose specific Data Sharing Agreement between the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) NA-CU and Safer Edmonton

Q3 - A copy of all completed Data Sharing Agreements located in relation to question 1.

Copies of the sharing agreements completed by the Basic Command Unit’s (BCU), with necessary redactions, are attached to this response.

The documents include redaction of information which engages the Section 40(2) (Personal Information) exemption.

In Question One (1) the MPS has confirmed that since 2019, the Information Sharing Unit (ISSU) has been notified of five (5) DSAs relating to BCRPs and BIDs (two of which refer to Safer Sounds).

To avoid confusion, it is relevant to note that in respect of Safer Sounds, the MPS ISSU only holds one (1) MPS DSA completed which is why only four (4) DSA documents have been sent to you today.

Additionally, the MPS comprehend your request for Question One’s “completed DSA’s” to mean DSA’s that have been ‘written up’/drafted by the BCU and held by the ISSU.

Lastly, please note a completed DSA does not necessarily mean they are currently active at the present time.