NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED

15 February 2011

Your Ref:

Our Ref: 0050/2011

Matilda Gifford
Email: tilly.gifford@gmail.com 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 and
on 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 Commissioner’s 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, their
decision 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
NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED
 NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED

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 Commissioner’s recent Decision, Ref
177/2010 (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.

NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED

 NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED

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 218,306
Direct 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 2007
confirming 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 to
provide 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

NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED
 NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED

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 country’s airports. Revealing the policing levels at the
airport, their specific duties, the types of policing tactics employed and the risks that might be
encountered would compromise the Force's ability to ensure the safety of the public.

NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED

 NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED

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 Panel’s 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

NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED