Amount of marked PaDP vehicles
Freedom of information request reference no: 01.FOI.24.035181
I note you seek access to the following information:
Is it possible to have an amount of marked PaDP currently run by the Met Police from 2015-2024?
Details:
1. Make of Vehicle
2. Model of Vehicle
3. Role (e.g. Minibus, Car)
4. Fuel Type
5. Year of Vehicle
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 - Law Enforcement
Reason for decision
Section 31 - Law Enforcement - 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 an applicant, to disclose details of the fleet used by PaDP, whether marked or not, would not only allow genuine law abiding members of the public to be able to identify these vehicles, especially if located at a police building, but also those with a criminal and terrorist intent.
The responsibility of this OCU falls under the Specialist Operations business group. It is therefore recognised that the work of PaDP is sensitive as it relates to the static protection of prominent buildings and estates. As such, the disclosure of their assets, namely details relating to their marked vehicles’ during the time period 2015 – 2024 (including those which now may no longer be in use), would provide offenders with valuable information about police fleet and may adversely compromise our policing operations. Disclosure would allow those who may wish to cause harm with the knowledge of the type of vehicles used by this OCU and thus assist with any planning to undertake criminal acts. An example being cloning a vehicle to assist with gaining access to private areas of the parliamentary estate.
Any disclosure of information which could be to the detriment of providing an efficient policing service and would put members of the public and police officers/staff at risk, as well as hinder the MPS’s law enforcement functions, in its ability to prevent and detect crime and apprehend offenders, cannot be in the public interest.
As I have explained above, disclosure of the make, model, role and year of these vehicles, which are considered to be operationally sensitive assets, would be likely to inform criminals of the location of police vehicles. This may prejudice our ability to prevent crime and enforce the law and may enable offenders to take steps in order to avoid apprehension or prosecution.
Clearly it would not be in the best interests of the public to publish such information as it would also be likely to reduce the effectiveness of policing deterrents as a source for preventing and detecting crime. If criminals were to have details of the vehicles in use through a disclosure of the requested information, they could use this to assist with their criminal activity or for terrorist attack planning, Any disclosure which causes disruption and/or harm to members of the public, would subsequently result in a loss of confidence in the MPS.
I have determined that the disclosure of the make, model, role and year of vehicles used by PaDP would include operationally sensitive assets and this would not be in the public interest. Public money has been invested to make improvements to police efficiency and effectiveness in the use of their resources. Disclosure of this information would put these benefits at risk encouraging criminals to carry out surveillance of police vehicles, which could be used to their advantage and disrupt the role performed by this OCU.
The MPS has a duty to protect the citizens of London as well as those who are visitors from overseas. In order to do this care must be taken as to what information is placed in the public domain. Where right to do so the MPS will always disclose information under FOIA, however, where a disclosure has the potential to cause harm the application of exemptions will be applied.
Therefore, for the reasons outlined above I consider that the benefit that would result from the disclosure of the requested information does not outweigh the arguments favouring non-disclosure.
The role of PaDP is to provide static protection to designated prominent buildings. By the nature of this role performed, the vehicles in use could be classified as sensitive operational assets. Therefore, to disclose any details relating to the make, model, role and year of their vehicles could be of intelligence value to those with a criminal or terrorist intent. This would allow them the ability to build up a picture of this Operational Command Unit’s (OCU) capability and thus the opportunity to undermine law enforcement by prejudicing the prevention and detection of crime and apprehension of offenders.
Disclosure
In relation to Question 4, from 2015 – 2023 PaDP have used vehicles which require(d) either petrol or diesel fuel.
DUTY TO ADVISE AND ASSIST
Under Section 16 of the Act, there is a duty to advise and assist those that have made, or intend to make, a request for information. In accordance with this duty, I can confirm that the MPS has disclosed information about its fleet under FOIA which is published on its website. I have provided a link to the list in 2022 and 2023 below.
MPS Publication Scheme
2023 - Fleet Allocation.xlsx