Monies spent to combat modern slavery 552/2023

FOI Reference: 552/2023

Request:

• Budgets/funding or any other resources directly allocated by the Authority towards anti-trafficking activities and/or activities to combat ‘modern slavery' in 2021 (6 April 2021 – 5 April 2022) and 2022 (6 April 2022 – 5 April 2023) financial years (for example, dedicated projects, anti-trafficking operations, members of staff, information campaigns etc.) and what these activities are. 
• If available, a copy of the organisational strategy or any other document which sets out what actions are to be taken by the Authority to combat trafficking in human beings and/or ‘modern slavery’ as mandated by the UK Modern Slavery Act (2015).

 

Response 1:

I can confirm that there is no information held/recorded by Dyfed-Powys Police as there have been no budgets/funding directly allocated towards anti-trafficking activities and/or activities to combat ‘modern slavery' in (6 April 2021 – 5 April 2022) and 2022 (6 April 2022 – 5 April 2023). It should be noted that Dyfed Powys Police does not have a separate/specific budget dedicated purely to Modern slavery/trafficking as this would sit under and form part of the main CID budget.

Additionally, there are no members of staff dedicated solely to trafficking/slavery, however there are a large number of Police officers, PCSO’s and staff who have received training in the recognition and the investigation of slavery and trafficking matters, based across the whole of the Dyfed Powys Police force area. 

 

Response 2:

I am writing to inform you that pursuant to the provision of Section 14(1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act) I have decided to refuse your request as it has been deemed to be a ‘Vexatious Request.’

Section 14(1) – Vexatious requests of the Act provides:

Section 1(1) does not oblige a public authority to comply with a request for information if the request is vexatious.

I have taken cognisance of the Information Commissioners guidance on Vexatious requests which can be found at:

https://ico.org.uk/media/for-organisations/documents/1198/dealing-with-vexatious-requests.pdf

First and foremost when considering whether to make a request for information ‘Vexatious’ consideration has been given to the ICO Guidance in relation to vexatious requests (section 14) which stipulates what the ICO expects from a public authority when considering section 14(1). Gathering evidence in order to identify a developing pattern of behaviour is an important factor as well as the context and history in which a request is made will often be a major factor in determining whether the request is vexatious. The public authority will need to consider the wider circumstances surrounding the request before making a decision as to whether section 14 (1) applies.

ICO guidance on the subject states:

‘Section 14(1) may be used in a variety of circumstances where a request, or its impact on a public authority, cannot be justified. Whilst public authorities should think carefully before refusing a request as vexatious they should not regard section 14(1) as something which is only to be applied in the most extreme of circumstances.

In cases where the issue is not clear-cut, the key question to ask is whether the request is likely to cause a disproportionate or unjustified level of disruption, irritation or distress. This will usually be a matter of objectively judging the evidence of the impact on the authority and weighing this against any evidence about the purpose and value of the request. The public authority may also take into account the context and history of the request, where this is relevant.’

Accordingly, I have classified this request as vexatious under Section 14(1) by gathering evidence under the following indicators in order to identify whether the request is burdensome.

Burden on the Authority:

FOI legislation is designed to provide opportunities whereby the public can shine a torch on the decision making and workings of a public authority. However, this does not mean that information has to automatically be disclosed. To do so without some consideration would be reckless and likely to breach other relevant legislation, such as the Data Protection Act (DPA)/General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR).

In this particular case, it has been identified that there are a number of documents relevant to question 2 of your request equating to a total of 559 pages. Prior to disclosing the requested information, the whole document would require reviewing, page by page, in order to establish whether or not there are any concerns with disclosing the contents detailed on each page. This is due to the fact that some of the information contained within will be sensitive/harmful to disclose to the public and would attract exemptions, such as but not limited to, Section 31 (Law Enforcement) Section 23 (Information supplied by or relating to security bodies), Section 24 (National Security) or Section 31 and where exemptions apply the information would need to be redacted.  

To review all 559 pages and to redact where necessary would be a time consuming task and it would be a burden on the force to undertake this task. This is due to the fact that the Freedom of Information (FOI) Decision Maker would firstly be required to liaise with the business area lead relating to modern slavery/human trafficking, which would require both the FOI Decision Maker and the business area lead coming together to review and understand the content of every page to identify what information is too sensitive/harmful to release and what information is suitable for disclosure. For the information that is deemed too sensitive/harm to release then considerations will need to be given as to which exemptions apply. For example, considerations for Section 40 in relation to any names/signatures, considerations for Section 31 in relation to any policing details, such as tactics, that would compromise law enforcement if disclosed etc. Following this process the FOI Decision Maker would then be required to redact any information from the pages deemed as sensitive/harmful and also draft their response detailing any exemptions being applied, ensuring public interest tests and harm tests are carried out where necessary.

It has been estimated that to review and to take into account the necessary considerations (including liaising with business area lead) under the FOI Act would take a minimum of 10 minutes per page, which would equate to 93.17 hours. To undertake this task would require a Decision Maker within the FOI Unit to be abstracted from normal duties for approximately 12.6 working days in order to provide an FOI compliant response in respect of this matter. This does not take into account the amount of extra time it would take to review the embedded documents that are contained within some of pages deemed relevant to question 2 of this request.

As at 25/03/24 there are 281 FOI requests that are currently and open awaiting completion. There are currently 3 Decision Makers dealing with FOI requests and to abstract one of those Decision Makers from normal duties to undertake this one task would be a considerable burden on the Freedom of Information unit and the Information Management Unit as a whole. Although there is no doubting the legal motives or responsibilities for requesting the said information, it is the opinion of Dyfed-Powys Police that the effort to meet the request will be oppressive in terms of the strain on time and resources that the authority cannot reasonably be expected to comply.

Additionally in considering the above I also make reference to a previous Decision Notice from the ICO, as outlined by the below link, whereby in similar circumstances the ICO concluded at that time that he accepts that the burden is such that it can be properly categorised as being grossly oppressive and dealing with the request under such circumstances cannot be justified. Accordingly, whilst he considers this case to be finely balanced, the Commissioner finds that section 14(1) has been appropriately applied in this instance.

https://ico.org.uk/media/action-weve-taken/decision-notices/2014/1025456/fs_50539606.pdf

Conclusion and Decision:

In considering the aforementioned facts I am satisfied that this request meets the criteria (as outlined below) pursuant to the provision of Section 14(1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 whereby the request is deemed to be ‘vexatious’ as it would pose a substantial burden on the authority.

 

Section 14(1) of the Act provides:

Section 1(1) does not oblige a public authority to comply with a request for information if the request is vexatious.

Accordingly, I have classified your request as vexatious under Section 14(1) for the reasons as outlined above.

However, under Section 16 of the FOI act (help and assistance) please see the below hyperlinks to information that may be of use.

• Modern slavery | College of Policing
• Modern Slavery: statutory guidance for England and Wales (under s49 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015) and non-statutory guidance for Scotland and Northern Ireland (accessible version) - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk)
• CYP-and-Modern-Slavery_Guidance-for-Professionals-June-2021.pdf (southglos.gov.uk)
• A guide to investigative opportunities for offences under the Modern Slavery Act 2015
• NPC Sex Working Guidance - Document (npcc.police.uk)

                                                                                               

Moreover and in addition to the above responses, Dyfed Powys Police can neither confirm nor deny that it holds any other information with regard to an exempt body 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 23(5) Information Supplied by, or concerning, certain Security Bodies

Section 23 is a class based absolute exemption and there is no requirement to consider the public interest in this case.

Confirming or denying the existence of whether any other information is held would contravene the constrictions laid out within Section 23 of the Freedom of information Act 2000 in that this stipulates a generic bar on disclosure of any information applied by, or concerning, certain Security Bodies. 

                                                                                                           

It should be noted that owing to the systems adopted by Dyfed-Powys Police in relation to the recording of such matters the information provided may or may not be accurate. It should be noted that for these reasons this Force’s response to your questions should not be used for comparison purposes with any other response you may receive.  

(This is a response under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and disclosed on 08/04/24)