FOI 732/25
REQUEST
I would like to request the total amount you have paid to telecommunications companies for services including, but not limited to call records, personal details and movements of customers in each of the last 5 full financial years (2020/21-2024/25).
RESPONSE
We have consulted with our Corporate Finance Department who have provided the below response to your request.
Please see the below table that provides a breakdown of the total amount paid by South Wales Police spend to telecommunications companies:
|
2020/21 |
£ 321,194.66 |
|
2021/22 |
£ 273,157.41 |
|
2022/23 |
£ 236,981.70 |
|
2023/24 |
£ 196,107.66 |
|
2024/25 |
£ 203,434.15 |
In addition, South Wales Police can neither confirm nor deny that it holds any other information with regard to your request as the duty in Section 1(1)(a) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 does not apply by virtue of the following exemptions:
Section 24(2) National Security
Section 31(3) Law Enforcement
Section 24 and Section 31 are both qualified exemptions and as such there is a requirement to evidence any harm confirmation or denial that any other information is held as well as consider the public interest.
Harm in Confirming or Denying That Any Other Information is Held
Disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) is considered a release to the public at large. Whilst not questioning the motives of the applicant, confirming or denying that any other information is held regarding the total amount paid to telecommunications companies for services of a covert nature would reveal levels of policing activity at the most serious levels of crime, including terrorism. This would ultimately compromise police tactics, operations and future prosecutions as criminals could counteract measures that might be used against them, such as altering behaviour to avoid detection.
The threat from terrorism cannot be ignored, and it is well established that police forces use covert tactics and surveillance to gain intelligence in order to counteract criminal behaviour. As such, it has been previously documented in the media that many terrorist incidents have been thwarted due to intelligence gained by these means.
Any information identifying the focus of policing activity could be used to the advantage of terrorists or criminal organisations. Information that undermines the operational integrity of these activities will adversely affect public safety and have a negative impact on both national security and law enforcement.
Public Interest Test
Factors Favouring Confirming or Denying for Section 24
Any further information, if held, simply relates to national security and confirming or denying whether it is held would not actually harm it. The public are entitled to know what public funds are spent on and how effective policing and security measures are. By confirming or denying whether any other information is held would lead to a better-informed public.
Factors Favouring Neither Confirming Nor Denying for Section 24
By confirming or denying whether any other information is held would render security measures less effective. This would lead to the compromise of ongoing or future operations to protect the security or infra-structure of the UK and increase the risk of harm to the public.
Factors favouring Confirming or Denying for Section 31
Confirming or denying whether any other information is held relevant to this request would provide an insight into South Wales Police. It would greatly assist in the quality and accuracy of public debate, which could otherwise be steeped in rumour and speculation about the amount paid to telecommunications companies for services of a covert nature. Where public funds are being spent, there is a public interest in accountability and justifying the use of public money.
Factors against Confirming or Denying for Section 31
Confirming or denying that any other information is held relevant to this request would have the effect of compromising law enforcement tactics and would also hinder any future investigations. In addition, confirming or denying methods used to gather intelligence for an investigation would prejudice that investigation and any possible future proceedings.
It has been recorded that FOIA releases are monitored by criminals and terrorists and so to confirm or deny any other information is held concerning the level of, or lack thereof of covert tactics would lead to law enforcement being undermined. The Police Service is reliant upon all manner of techniques during operations and the public release of any modus operandi employed, if held, would prejudice the ability of the Police Service to conduct similar investigations.
South Wales Police would not wish to reveal whether or not telecommunications companies have been paid for the purpose of acquiring data covertly as this would clearly undermine the law enforcement and investigative process.
Balance Test
The security of the country is of paramount importance and South Wales Police will not divulge whether any other information is or is not held if to do so would place the safety of an individual at risk, undermine National Security or compromise law enforcement.
Whilst there is a public interest in the transparency of policing operations and providing assurance that the police are 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 investigations and all areas of operations carried out by police forces throughout the UK.
As much as there is public interest in knowing that policing activity is appropriate and balanced this will only be overridden in exceptional circumstances. Acquiring data via any covert capacity is a sensitive issue that would reveal police tactics and therefore it is our opinion that for these issues the balancing test for confirming or denying whether any other information is held for this request, is not made out.
However, this should not be taken as necessarily indicating that any other information that would meet any future request exists or does not exist.