Senior officers/staff expenses

Freedom of information request reference no: 01.FOI.22.023223

I note you seek access to the following information:

1. Details of any hotel accommodation expenses incurred since 01/01/2020 for the following persons:
Commissioner: Cressida Dick
Deputy Commissioner: Steve House
Chief of Corporate Services: Robin Wilkinson Frontline Policing: Assistant Commissioner Nick Ephgrave Specialist Operations: Assistant Commissioner Matt Jukes Met Operations: Assistant Commissioner Louisa Rolfe
Professionalism: Assistant Commissioner Helen Ball Chief Digital & Technology Officer: Director John Clarke And any other person(s) holding the above roles since 01/01/2020.
To include:
i. Name of hotel.
ii. City/town of stay.
iii. Total cost.
iiii. Number of nights accommodation.
v. Cost per night.
vi. Justification of expense.
vii. Any reason given for deviating from the expenses policy.

2. A copy of any expenses policy the applies to officers/staff of the MPS.
To include:
i. Any general policy for officers.
ii. Any general policy for staff.
iii. Any policy that applies specifically to the management board.”

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 21 – Information readily accessible by other means
Section 31(a)(b) – Law Enforcement

Reason for decision

With reference to your question 1, I am pleased to be able to inform you that all Management Board Expenses are published by the MPS and can be found on the Publication Scheme on the MPS website. Section 21 of the Act, which provides an exemption for information readily accessible by other means has therefore been applied to refuse disclosure.

Section 21 – Information Accessible by other means - The information requested has been identified as being accessible via other means as it is already published. Where information is already in the public domain we are not required to re-publish the data; instead public authorities are required to direct you to the information, which we have done in this instance.

Please access the link below which will take you direct to published MPS Manangement Board Expensesn from January 2020 up to December 2021 (the most recent published data)

With reference to your question 2, I have made the decision to disclose the located policy documents, however, the documents included an external telephone number which if disclosed would prejudice law enforcement. Section 31(a)(b) of the Act has therefore been applied and the exempt information is disclosed with some redaction.

Section 31(1)(a)(b) – Law Enforcement - In order for the exemption provided under Section 31(1) to be engaged in this case, the MPS must show that disclosure under the Act would, or would be likely to, prejudice law enforcement functions, namely Section 31(1)(a) the prevention and detection of crime, or, Section 31(b) the apprehension or prosecution of offenders.

In this case, this the Section 31 exemption has been applied to the located documents because they include external contact telephone numbers for an MPS department and disclosure could compromise law enforcement. Please see below an outline of the harm that could be caused if the telephone numbers were to be disclosed and subsequently published.

Under the Act, we cannot, and do not request the motives of any applicant for information. We have no doubt the vast majority of applications under the Act are legitimate and do not have any ulterior motives, however, in disclosing information to one applicant we are expressing a willingness to provide it to anyone in the world. This means that a disclosure to a genuinely interested applicant automatically opens it up for a similar disclosure to anyone, including those who might represent a threat to individuals, or any possible criminal and / or civil process.

Disclosing the telephone numbers of specialist MPS departments would cause operational harm to the MPS and affect our ability to fulfil our core function of law enforcement as individuals’ intent on causing disruption could use the telephone numbers provided to disrupt operational policing.

It is not in the public interest to disclose sensitive operational information. Disclosure would hinder the ability of the MPS to prevent and detect crime and apprehend and prosecute offenders. Release of the redacted telephone numbers may be of use to those with criminal intent which would have the effect of compromising and disrupting law enforcement processes.

The strongest reason favouring disclosure of the requested information in full is to show the MPS’ commitment to openness and transparency.

The strongest reason favouring non-disclosure is that the disclosure would interfere with operational policing as a whole, as operational officers or police staff might need to be redeployed to deal with any disruption caused.

The benefit that would result from the information being disclosed in full does not outweigh the arguments favouring exemption.

Disclosure

Q2 - A copy of any expenses policy the applies to officers/staff of the MPS.

To include:
i. Any general policy for officers.
ii. Any general policy for staff.
iii. Any policy that applies specifically to the management board.

Please find information relevant to your question 2(i)(ii) attached. Please note there is no separate policy that applies specifically to the management board. As outlined in the reasons for decision section above, the documents have been disclosed but external telephone numbers have been redacted.

Please also access the link below for Section 35 (2)(a)(b) of The Police Regulations 2003 - Regulation 35 for legislation relating to police force expenses which may be of interest to you.