Freedom of Information request ref 137-12 I am writing to obtain information about the amount British Transport Police has spent on its CCTV network in the past three years. I also wish to find out how many mobile and fixed surveillance are controlled by BTP. To outline my query as clearly as possible, I am requesting: 1) The amount spent by British Transport Police on the installation of publicfacing CCTV and the purchase or lease of recording equipment and premises in the financial years: a) April 1 st 2010 March 31 st 2011 If any of this spend was provided by a central Government grant or PFI, please make clear how much of the total cost was provided. I would like this information broken down into fixed and mobile camera devices. I have included a model table for clarity: Financial Year 2010-2011 2009-2010 Amount spent on fixed public facing Amount spent on mobile public facing Central Government grant or PFI 100 100 No 200 100 100 Yes - 50 250 Total council spend on 2) The annual cost of BTP s public-facing CCTV operation and maintenance in the financial years:
a) April 1 st 2010 March 31 st 2011 I would like this information broken down into fixed and mobile camera devices. I have included a model table for clarity: Financial Year Annual cost of CCTV operation and maintenance for fixed Annual cost of CCTV operation and maintenance for mobile 2010-2011 100 100 200 Total council spend on CCTV operation and maintenance 3) The annual wage and salary cost of CCTV operators including pension liabilities to BTP in the financial years: a) April 1 st 2010 March 31 st 2011 4) The total number of : a.) controlled by BTP on 31 st August 2011 b.) controlled by BTP, broken down into mobile and fixed devices, on 31 st August 2011 c.) If it exists, a copy of any internal guidance on CCTV usage If BTP s public-facing CCTV operation is operated by either the local police or a council, or on behalf of another authority, please make this clear and provide any details of the annual cost of the lease or annual stipend paid to (or received from) these organisations for the operation of the CCTV network. Clarification received: I am referring to all for which BTP have operational responsibility, whether they are monitored or not. I hope this answers your query relating to Q4a and b. For 4c, I would like guidance relating to the monitoring of CCTV.
RESPONSE In accordance with Section 1 of FOIA I can confirm that British Transport Police (BTP) holds the information requested and this is shown below. Question 1 Financial Year Amount spent on fixed public facing Amount spent on mobile public facing 2010-2011 0 0 2009-2010 0 0 2008-2009 0 0 British Transport Police does not install or maintain static public-facing CCTV. Therefore, no money has been spent on the purchase or installation of static CCTV in the last three years. British Transport Police has three mobile CCTV vans. However, the cost of the purchase of these was met in it s entirety by Network Rail. Therefore, no money has been spent on the purchase of mobile CCTV. Question 2 Financial Year operation and maintenance for fixed operation and maintenance for mobile 2010-2011 14, 598 0 2009-2010 14, 598 0 2008-2009 14, 598 0 British Transport Police has a 5 year maintenance deal in relation to the mobile CCTV vans but this was included in the initial cost. Question 3 The 6 CCTV Intelligence Officers cost BTP as below:
Financial Year Intelligence Officers 2010-2011 205,633.70 2009-2010 175,417.30 2008-2009 176,236.30 Question 4 (a) and (b) British Transport Police does not have operational responsibility for any public facing CCTV. Question 4 (c) Please find attached a copy of the British Transport Police CCTV Code of Practice. Some of the information held on this Code of Practice has been redacted as it is exempt from release. Where an exemption is relied upon, Section 17(1) of FOIA requires that we provide the applicant with a notice which: a) states that fact b) specifies the exemption and c) state if that would not otherwise be apparent why the exemptions apply. The redacted information has been exempted under the follwing exemption: Section 31(1) Law Enforcement Section 31 of the Act states that information is exempt if its disclosure under this Act would, or would be likely to prejudice: The prevention or detection of crime, the apprehension or prosecution of offenders and/or the administration of justice. Section 31(1) is a qualified and prejudice based exemption and therefore the legislators accept that there may be harm if released. The authority has to consider and describe the harm that would occur if the information were released and carry out a Public Interest Test. Public interest considerations Factors favouring the release of the redacted information Disclosure would allow for greater public awareness and openness in the way British Transport Police use CCTV on the railway network. This would provide greater confidence in the police and promote a feeling of safety in the general public whilst travelling on the railway network. Factors favouring withholding of the redacted information
Disclosure of specific information about the coverage of CCTV and how they are monitored would hinder British Transport Police s ability to prevent and detect crime. Detailing exactly where are located may expose a weakness in one location which could be taken advantage of by the criminal fraternity. This would threaten the ability of the force to protect the public and prevent crime. Harm Test To disclose the redacted information could adversely affect the efficiency and effectiveness of the law enforcement function of British Transport Police. There is a significant risk that the release of the requested information could lead to more offences being committed in areas where there is no CCTV coverage. This would lead to the law enforcement function of British Transport Police being compromised and could put members of the public in danger of harm. Balance of the Public Interest The public interest is not what interests the public, but a test of whether the community benefit of possession of the information outweighs the potential harm. In this case, we have identified that there would be a small benefit to the public by the release of this information. However, there is a very strong factor favouring nondisclosure, this being the negative impact on the effectiveness of the police force in being able to prevent crime successfully. If there is a risk that the future law enforcement role of the force could be compromised and the public s safety be put at risk, it cannot be justified that the public interest would be served in releasing this specific information if either of these aspects were to be compromised in any way. I have determined that the disclosure of the requested information would not be in the public interest. I believe the harm considerations and the importance of the factor favouring non-disclosure outweigh the public interest in disclosing the information. My decision, on balance, is that it would therefore not be in the public interest to release this information. In accordance with the Act, this letter represents a refusal notice for part of your request.