ARV special payments (867A/23)
Request
According to data supplied by the Home Office you provide ARV officers with recognition of workload payments under the SPP framework. This payment, according to their data ranges between £2000 and £4000 per annum made in monthly instalments. Could you firstly clarify the payments you make to ARV officers and the requirements for obtaining the payments?
Secondly could you also please provide me with the overtime costings for your Firearms department as a monthly breakdown from 24 months prior to the above payments being provided and 36 months after. If you do not have specific figures for the Firearms department could I request the figures for the entirety of the division or department financially responsible for them.
Lastly could I also request the vacancy rate of ARV profile officers within the force for the 24 months prior to the above payments being granted and for the 24 months following. Could I also request any data you hold on the application rate to ARV positions during this same time period and also the officers confirmed in post as ARV for the same time period.
Response
According to data supplied by the Home Office you provide ARV officers with recognition of workload payments under the SPP framework. This payment, according to their data ranges between £2000 and £4000 per annum made in monthly instalments.
Q1: Could you firstly clarify the payments you make to ARV officers and the requirements for obtaining the payments.
ARV officers do not receive any special priority payments.
Q2: Could you also please provide me with the overtime costings for your Firearms department as a monthly breakdown from 24 months prior to the above payments being provided and 36 months after. If you do not have specific figures for the Firearms department could I request the figures for the entirety of the division or department financially responsible for them.
Not applicable as ARV officers do not receive such payments.
Q3: Could I also request the vacancy rate of ARV profile officers within the force for the 24 months prior to the above payments being granted and for the 24 months following.
As Question 2.
Q4: Could I also request any data you hold on the application rate to ARV positions for the 24 months prior to the above payments being granted and for the 24 months following, and also the officers confirmed in post as ARV for the same time period.
As question 2.
In addition, West Midlands Police neither confirms nor denies that it holds any other information as the duty in Section 1(1)(a) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 does not apply by virtue of the following exemption:
Section 31(3) – Law Enforcement
Section 24(2) – National Security
There is a requirement to articulate the harm that would be caused in confirming or denying that any other information is held as well as carrying out a public interest test.
Evidence of Harm in Confirming or Denying that any other information is held
Armed Policing requires important and often time-critical decisions to be made by Authorised Firearms Officers, some of whom may have undergone training to perform a particular specialised Armed Policing role. To confirm or deny whether any other information is or isn’t held relating to any type of specialist firearms officer would provide a geographical map of where these officers are located which would identify vulnerable force areas and reveal sensitive tactical capability.
The Police Service has a positive duty to protect the public from harm and that duty of care to all involved must be the overriding consideration. Confirmation or denial that information is held, in this case, would be extremely beneficial to terrorist organisations and individual terrorists.
Furthermore, modern-day policing is intelligence led and irrespective of what information may or may not be held, the flow of intelligence into police forces may reduce which would compromise the effective delivery of operational law enforcement within the Armed Policing arena which is a dynamic and ever-changing operational environment.
Public Interest Considerations
Section 24(2) National Security
Factors favouring complying with Section 1(1)(a) confirming that information is held
The public are entitled to know how public funds are spent and how resources are distributed within an area of policing. To confirm whether CTSFOs/SFOs are located within the force area would enable the general public to hold West Midlands Police to account to ensure the level of armed policing is appropriate and balanced.
In the current financial climate of cuts and with the call for transparency of public spending, this would enable public debate into this subject.
Factors against complying with Section 1(1)(a) confirming or denying that information is held
Security measures are put in place to protect the community we serve. As evidenced within the harm, to confirm information is held would highlight to terrorists and individual’s intent on carrying out criminal activity, tactical resource capability and vulnerabilities within West Midlands Police.
Considering the current security climate within the United Kingdom, no information (such as the citing of an exemption which confirms information is held, or conversely, stating ‘no information held’) which may aid a terrorist should be disclosed. To what extent this information may aid a terrorist is unknown, but it is clear that it will have an impact on a force’s ability to monitor terrorist activity.
Irrespective of what information is or isn’t held, the public entrust the Police Service to make appropriate decisions with regard to their safety and protection and the only way of reducing risk is to be cautious with what is placed into the public domain.
The cumulative effect of terrorists gathering information from various sources would be even more impactive when linked to other information gathered from various sources about terrorism. The more information disclosed over time will give a more detailed account of the tactical infrastructure of not only a force area but also the country as a whole.
Any incident that results from such a disclosure would, by default, affect National Security.
Section 31(1) Law Enforcement
Factors favouring complying with Section 1(1)(a) confirming that any other information is held
Irrespective of what information may or may not be held, to confirm information exists would lead to a better-informed public which may encourage individuals to provide intelligence in order to reduce the risk of firearms incidents occurring.
Factors against complying with Section 1(1)(a) neither confirming nor denying that any other information is held
Confirmation or denial that information is held in this case would suggest West Midlands Police take their responsibility to ensure specialised officers are resourced dismissively and inappropriately.
Balancing test
The points above highlight the merits of confirming nor denying that information exists. The Police Service is charged with enforcing the law, preventing and detecting crime and protecting the communities we serve. As part of that policing purpose, information is gathered which can be highly sensitive relating to high profile investigative activity.
Weakening the mechanisms used to monitor any type of criminal activity, and specifically terrorist activity would place the security of the country at an increased level of danger.
In addition, anything that places that confidence at risk, no matter how generic, would undermine any trust or confidence individuals have in the Police Service. Therefore, at this moment in time, it is our opinion that for these issues the balance test favours neither confirming nor denying that any other information is held.
Attachments
Include attachments here