MPS’s gifts and hospitality register

Freedom of information request reference no: 01.FOI.22.025670

I note you seek access to the following information:

In a June entry of the force gifts and hospitality register there was an entry about £12,500 being received in cash in envelopes by a police sergeant from an overseas partner.

Please can you identify when this payment was made and who the police sergeant was.

Please also identify which country the overseas partner was from.

Please identify which overseas partner provided the money and what the reason was given for the money being provided.

Please also identify any and all charities/benevolent funds which received the money.

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 24(1) – National Security
Section 27(1)(a)(c) – International Relations
Section 31(1)(a) – Law Enforcement
Section 38(1)(b) – Health and Safety
Section 40(2)(3) – Personal Information

Reason for decision

To provide the full details requested would reveal individuals or country representatives who have engaged with RaSP whilst within the UK. Protection is provided by the MPS to a number of people where it is in the national interest or where intelligence (information) suggests protection is necessary. Specific protection arrangements are applied in order to safeguard national security by ensuring that appropriate safety and security is provided to key figures such as the Queen and the Prime Minister.

The disclosure of any other information relating to the role of RaSP, including with overseas partners, would ultimately increase the risk of harm to those afforded personal protection and to the general public within their vicinity. This would therefore, not only undermine our law enforcement functions, but also hinder international relations and could negatively affect national security.

In addition, disclosure of the identity of the officer or the individual(s) involved in the giving or receipt of this gift would be a breach of our data protection obligations.

In considering whether or not the MPS should disclose whether the information requested is held, I have considered the potential harm that could be caused by such a disclosure.

A Freedom of Information Act request is not a private transaction. Both the request itself, and any information disclosed, are considered suitable for open publication. This is because, under the Act, any information disclosed is released into the wider public domain, effectively to the world, not just to an individual. Whilst not questioning the motives of the applicant, the release of all details sought in requests such as these would reveal individuals or country representatives who are subject to protection. This information would be of use to those who seek to cause harm to members of the public or individuals in receipt of protection by gaining an understanding of areas of interest to the MPS in relation to overseas matters.

Disclosure would therefore compromise the MPS’s ability to accomplish its core function of law enforcement on a local, national and international scale.

It is important to note that the UK does face a serious and sustained threat from violent extremists and this threat is greater in scale and ambition than any of the terrorist threats in the past. Government reports suggest that at any one time the police and security agencies are contending with many terrorist plots, terrorist groups or networks and individuals who are judged to pose a threat to the well-being of the UK and or UK interests. While the plots may not necessarily all be directed at attacks on the protected individuals, the MPS bear in mind that an attack on individuals afforded protection would be of national significance to our country.

As explained above, in this current environment of an increased threat of terrorist activity, the disclosure of information that could assist an extremist faction would undermine the safeguarding of national security.

ICO guidance emphasises there is no definition of national security and refers to the Information Tribunal (EA/2006/0045) who summarised:

“National security” means the security of the United Kingdom and its people;

The interests of national security are not limited to actions by an individual which are targeted at the UK, its system of government or its people;

• The protection of democracy and the legal and constitutional systems of the state are part of national security as well as military defence;

• Action against a foreign state may be capable indirectly of affecting the security of the UK;

• Reciprocal co-operation between the UK and other states in combating international terrorism is capable of promoting the United Kingdom’s national security.

The ICO guidance also states ‘safeguarding national security also includes protecting potential targets even if there is no evidence that an attack is imminent…the Commissioner also recognises terrorist can be highly motivated and may go to great lengths to gather intelligence. This means there may be grounds for withholding what seems harmless information on the basis that it may assist terrorists when pieced together with other information they may obtain.’

Based on this definition national security encompasses a wide spectrum and it is our duty to protect the people within the UK. Public safety is of paramount importance to the policing purpose and must be taken into account in deciding whether to disclose any requested information.

The British Government develops and maintains a robust relationship with other nation states which can promote mutual interest in trade, defence, environmental issues, human rights and the fight against terrorism and international crime.

To disclose the identity of overseas partners that RaSP have engaged with, would have a detrimental effect on the UK government’s relationship with that country and as a consequence other states or international organisations would reconsider their affinity with the UK. This would consequently affect the UK's international abilities relating to its overseas citizens, consular and commercial interests and could lead to a lack of trust and undermine law enforcement agreements in the future. It could also influence the sharing of information provided during the course of political and diplomatic exchanges.

Section 24 - National Security - Disclosing those who have, or have not, been in receipt of protection would render security measures less effective. In order to safeguard national security, there is a need for the MPS to protect information held as to release it would likely have a detrimental effect on policing resources, particularly in the sensitive area of national security.

Policing resources would be negatively affected should those with the necessary intent try to obtain an operational advantage over the MPS or manipulate the disclosed information.

Section 27 - International Relations - The effective conduct of international relations depends upon maintaining trust and confidence between Governments. To disclose full details of the identity of those who interact with RaSP would undermine relations between the UK and others. If the United Kingdom does not maintain this trust and confidence, its ability to protect and promote UK interests through international relations will be hampered. The disclosure of information detailing our relationship with other countries could potentially damage the bilateral relationship between the UK and other states. This would reduce the UK government's ability to protect and promote UK interests through its relations with those other states.
To release some of the information requested may therefore hinder and undermine the partnership approach between countries in respect of law enforcement and international cooperation.

Section 31 - Law Enforcement - The public interest is not what interests the public but what will be of greater good if released to the community as a whole. It is not in the public interest to disclose information that may compromise the MPS' ability to accomplish its core function of law enforcement.

Disclosure would technically be releasing sensitive operational information into the public domain which would enable those with the time, capacity and inclination to try and map how resources are used by the MPS and therefore gain an understanding of how to plan and prevent their crime from being detected.

Section 38 - Health and Safety - To disclose specific details relating to the officer involved in receiving this gift and the identity or nationality of the individual(s) who made this gift, would enable those with a criminal intent to seek to cause harm by targeting these individuals. The health and safety of an individual’s wellbeing is of paramount importance to the MPS. Any disclosure which endangers this cannot be in the public interest.

Section 40(2) and (3) - Personal Information - Public Authorities are able to withhold information where its release would identify any living individual and breach the principles of the Data Protection Act 2018 (DPA). I have applied this exemption in that the identity of the police officer or individual involved in the giving or receipt of this gift would constitute personal data. Release of such data would be in breach of the rights provided by the DPA.

The six principles of the DPA govern the way in which data controllers must manage personal data. Under principle one of the DPA, personal data must be processed fairly and lawfully. I consider that providing information that identifies individuals constitutes personal data and the release of this information would be unfair as the persons concerned would have no reasonable expectation that the MPS would make this information publicly available.

In reaching my decision, I have, in each case, given due regard to the condition at Article 6(1)(a) and 6(1)(e) of the GDPR. Condition one of the GDPR requires that consideration is given to whether consent for disclosure has been given whilst Condition six requires that consideration is given to performance of a public task in the public interest.

The security of the country is of paramount importance and the Police service will not divulge whether information is held if to do so would place the safety of an individual or people at risk, undermine law enforcement or be prejudicial to international relations. Whilst there is a public interest in transparency and providing assurance that the police service is appropriately and effectively engaging with the threat posed by various groups or individuals, there is a very strong public interest in safeguarding the integrity of police partnerships in the highly sensitive area of crime and terrorism prevention.

The Police Service is charged with enforcing the law, preventing and detecting crime and protecting the communities we serve. As much as there is public interest in knowing that policing activity is appropriate and balanced, this will only be overridden in exceptional circumstances. The area of police interest is a sensitive issue that can reveal local, national and international intelligence. It is for these reasons I have determined that the balance test favours non-disclosure of any further information.

Disclosure

Regarding the specific questions raised in your request I can confirm that the payment referred to was logged in the Gifts and Hospitality Register on 22 April 2022.

The monies received were donated to The Commissioners Fund and The Metropolitan Police Benevolent Fund. More details of these charities can be found at the following links:

In addition, I can provide the following contextual information that may be of relevance to your request.

Due to the unique nature of the work carried out by officers in the Royalty and Specialist Protection (RaSP) Command and the persons and stakeholders they come into contact with, both in the UK and abroad, officers will sometimes be offered gifts.

The default position is that officers will decline any gifts or hospitality offered to them. However, officers do, on occasion, take receipt of gifts as to refuse would potentially cause serious offence or damage working relations. All gifts are formally recorded and some low-value, appropriate items (valued at under £25) may be retained by officers, if given approval by the RaSP Commander. In line with MPS policy, and where possible, all other gifts are donated to charity – typically the MPS Benevolent Fund.

RaSP officers of all ranks are regularly reminded of the MPS Gifts and Hospitality Policy and a list of all gifts and hospitality offered to RaSP officers is regularly published on the MPS website. Should any officers fail to declare receipt of a gift or hospitality, then they are liable to be subject to misconduct proceedings or criminal proceedings under the Bribery Act 2010.

RaSP also regularly works with its partners and stakeholders to outline the MPS policy in this area to try and reduce occasions where officers are offered gifts in the first instance.