Dear Metropolitan Police Service (MPS),

(1a) I would like to know who currently holds the post of ‘National Coordinator Domestic Extremism’ (also rendered ‘National Co-ordinator Domestic Extremism’, ‘National Coordinator - Domestic Extremism’, ‘National Coordinator of Domestic Extremism’, ‘National Co-ordinator - Domestic Extremism’, ‘National Co-ordinator of Domestic Extremism’ etc), or NCDE, subsequent to the departure of DCS Christopher Greany. (1b) If the title ‘NCDE’, in the sense of the head of NDEDIU, is to be discontinued following Mr Greany's departure, please indicate the new title or post replacing it.

(2a) Please could you also clarify whether ‘NCDE’ defines only a post (e.g. ‘NCDE Greany’, the coordinator), or does it also refer to an office or unit under the control of the coordinator (e.g. ‘staff from NCDE’)? (2b) If ‘NCDE’ refers also to such an office or unit, please indicate how many staff are in it (not including personnel levels from e.g. NDEDIU), (2c) whether they are MPS officers/staff members, or from other organisations, and (2d) any information on budget or funding received.

(3) Finally, please could you clarify which units came under the control of NCDE. The general understanding has been that three units - NPOIU, NETCU and NDET before they were merged into NDEU and later reorganised as NDEDIU - came under NCDE's purview; however former National Coordinator Tudway has indicated that he was responsible for four units whilst NCDE.

===

I appreciate the sensitivity of this subject, but note that all the above material is freely available in the public domain (HMIC, Operation Herne, Ellison Review, Parliament and elsewhere), and believe that to clarify these specific points, which are essentially bureaucratic and non-operational matters, would present no danger to MPS or its work, whilst demonstrating that it has embraced a greater culture of transparency.

Yours faithfully,

David Cinzano

Metropolitan Police Service (MPS)

Dear Mr  Cinzano

Freedom of Information Request Reference No: 2014110002040

I write in connection with your request for information which was received
by the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) on 25/11/2014.  I note you seek
access to the following information:

* Dear Metropolitan Police Service (MPS),

* (1a) I would like to know who currently holds the post of ‘National
Coordinator Domestic Extremism’ (also rendered ‘National Co-ordinator
Domestic Extremism’, ‘National Coordinator - Domestic Extremism’,
‘National Coordinator of Domestic Extremism’, ‘National Co-ordinator -
Domestic Extremism’, ‘National Co-ordinator of Domestic Extremism’
etc), or NCDE, subsequent to the departure of DCS Christopher Greany.
(1b) If the title ‘NCDE’, in the sense of the head of NDEDIU, is to be
discontinued following Mr Greany's departure, please indicate the new
title or post replacing it.

* (2a) Please could you also clarify whether ‘NCDE’ defines only a post
(e.g. ‘NCDE Greany’, the coordinator), or does it also refer to an
office or unit under the control of the coordinator (e.g. ‘staff from
NCDE’)? (2b) If ‘NCDE’ refers also to such an office or unit, please
indicate how many staff are in it (not including personnel levels from
e.g. NDEDIU), (2c) whether they are MPS officers/staff members, or
from other organisations, and (2d) any information on budget  or
funding received.

* (3) Finally, please could you clarify which units  came under the
control of NCDE. The general understanding has been that three units -
NPOIU, NETCU and NDET before they were merged into NDEU and later
reorganised as NDEDIU - came under NCDE's purview; however former
National Coordinator Tudway has indicated that he was responsible for
four units whilst NCDE.


* I  appreciate the sensitivity of this subject, but note that all the
above material is freely available in the public domain (HMIC,
Operation Herne, Ellison Review, Parliament and elsewhere), and
believe that to clarify these specific points, which are essentially
bureaucratic and non-operational matters, would present no danger to
MPS or its work, whilst demonstrating that it has embraced a greater
culture of transparency.

Your request will now be allocated to the relevant unit within the MPS and
will be processed in accordance with the Freedom of Information Act 2000
(the Act).  

You will receive your response directly from the relevant unit within the
statutory timescale of 20 working days as defined by the Act.  

In some circumstances the MPS may be unable to achieve this deadline.  If
this is likely you will be informed and given a revised time-scale at the
earliest opportunity.

COMPLAINT RIGHTS

Your attention is drawn to the attached sheet, which details your right of
complaint.

If you have any further enquiries concerning this matter, please contact
us at [email address] or on the phone at 0207 161 3500, quoting the
reference number above.  Should your enquiry relate to the logging or
allocations process we will be able to assist you directly and where your
enquiry relates to other matters (such as the status of the request) we
will be able to pass on a message and/or advise you of the relevant
contact details.

Yours sincerely

Peter Deja
Officer - Freedom of Information Triage Team

COMPLAINT RIGHTS

Are you unhappy with how your request has been handled or do you think the
decision is incorrect?

You have the right to require the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) to
review their decision.

Prior to lodging a formal complaint you are welcome to discuss the
response with the case officer who dealt with your request.  

Complaint

If you are dissatisfied with the handling procedures or the decision of
the MPS made under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act) regarding
access to information you can lodge a complaint with the MPS to have the
decision reviewed.

Complaints should be made in writing, within forty (40) working days from
the date of the refusal notice, and addressed to:

FOI Complaint
Public Access Office
PO Box 57192
London
SW6 1SF
[email address]

In all possible circumstances the MPS will aim to respond to your
complaint within 20 working days.

The Information Commissioner

After lodging a complaint with the MPS if you are still dissatisfied with
the decision you may make application to the Information Commissioner for
a decision on whether the request for information has been dealt with in
accordance with the requirements of the Act.

For information on how to make application to the Information Commissioner
please visit their website at www.ico.org.uk.  Alternatively, phone or
write to:

Information Commissioner's Office
Wycliffe House
Water Lane
Wilmslow
Cheshire
SK9 5AF
Phone:  01625 545 745

Total Policing is the Met's commitment to be on the streets and in your
communities to catch offenders, prevent crime and support victims. We are
here for London, working with you to make our capital safer.

 

Consider our environment - please do not print this email unless
absolutely necessary.

NOTICE - This email and any attachments may be confidential, subject to
copyright and/or legal privilege and are intended solely for the use of
the intended recipient. If you have received this email in error, please
notify the sender and delete it from your system.  To avoid incurring
legal liabilities, you must not distribute or copy the information in this
email without the permission of the sender. MPS communication systems are
monitored to the extent permitted by law.  Consequently, any email and/or
attachments may be read by monitoring staff. Only specified personnel are
authorised to conclude any binding agreement on behalf of the MPS by
email. The MPS accepts no responsibility for unauthorised agreements
reached with other employees or agents.  The security of this email and
any attachments cannot be guaranteed. Email messages are routinely scanned
but malicious software infection and corruption of content can still occur
during transmission over the Internet. Any views or opinions expressed in
this communication are solely those of the author and do not necessarily
represent those of the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS).

 

Find us at:

Facebook: Facebook.com/metpoliceuk

Twitter: @metpoliceuk

Metropolitan Police Service (MPS)

Dear Mr Cinzano

Freedom of Information Request Reference No:  2014110002040

I write in connection with your request for information which was received
by the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) on 25/11/2014.  I note you seek
access to the following information:

·        Dear Metropolitan Police Service (MPS),

(1a) I would like to know who currently holds the post of ‘National
Coordinator Domestic Extremism’ (also rendered ‘National Co-ordinator
Domestic Extremism’, ‘National Coordinator - Domestic Extremism’,
‘National Coordinator of Domestic Extremism’, ‘National Co-ordinator -
Domestic Extremism’, ‘National Co-ordinator of Domestic Extremism’ etc),
or NCDE, subsequent to the departure of DCS Christopher Greany.
(1b) If the title ‘NCDE’, in the sense of the head of NDEDIU, is to be
discontinued following Mr Greany's departure, please indicate the new
title or post replacing it.
(2a) Please could you also clarify whether ‘NCDE’ defines only a post
(e.g. ‘NCDE Greany’, the coordinator), or does it also refer to an office
or unit under the control of the coordinator (e.g. ‘staff from NCDE’)?
 (2b) If ‘NCDE’ refers also to such an office or unit, please indicate how
many staff are in it (not including personnel levels from e.g. NDEDIU),
 (2c) whether they are MPS officers/staff members, or from other
organisations, and
(2d) any information on budget  or funding received.

(3) Finally, please could you clarify which units  came under the control
of NCDE. The general understanding has been that three units - NPOIU,
NETCU and NDET before they were merged into NDEU and later re organised to
form the NDEDIU - came under NCDE's purview; however former National
Coordinator Tudway has indicated that he was responsible for four units
whilst NCDE.

I appreciate the sensitivity of this subject, but note that all the above
material is freely available in the public domain (HMIC, Operation Herne,
Ellison Review, Parliament and elsewhere), and believe that to clarify
these specific points, which are essentially bureaucratic and
non-operational matters, would present no danger to MPS or its work,
whilst demonstrating that it has embraced a greater culture of
transparency.

EXTENT OF SEARCHES TO LOCATE INFORMATION

To locate the information relevant to your request searches were conducted
at the Counter Terrorism Command

RESULT OF SEARCHES

The searches located information relevant to your request.

DECISION

I have today decided to disclose the located information to you for
questions 1a, 1b, 2a and 3.

1a The post is vacant and is currently going through a  recruitment
process.
1b see above
2a the NCDE is a position,  the head of the NDEDIU
3 The NPOIU, NECTU and NDET became the NDEU and then later became the
NDEDIU in 2013. The NCDE was the head of all of these units.

In relation to your remaining questions posed, I have decided to decline
to provide any further information by virtue of the exemptions below.

Section 17(1) of the Act provides:

(1)        A public authority which, in relation to any request for
information, is to any extent relying on a claim that any provision in
part II relating to the duty to confirm or deny is relevant to the
request, or on a claim that information is exempt information must, within
the time for complying with section 1(1), give the applicant a notice
which :-

(a) states the fact,
(b) specifies the exemption in question, and
(c) states (if that would not otherwise be apparent) why the exemption
applies.

In accordance with the Act, this letter represents a Refusal Notice for
the remainder of the questions posed in this request. The Metropolitan
Police Service can confirm that it holds the information that you have
requested as the duty in s1(1)(a) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000
does not apply, by virtue of the following exemptions :-
Section 24(1) - National Security
Section 31(1)(a)(b) - Law enforcement

Section 24 - National security

(1) Information which does not fall within section 23(1) is exempt
information if exemption from section 1(1)(b) is required for the purpose
of safeguarding national security.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000...

This is a qualified exemption for which I am required to provide evidence
of harm and conduct a public interest test.

Evidence of Harm

This exemption applies as providing the number of staff and information on
budget or funding received for the unit could be used to try and work out
how resources are allocated within the Counter Terrorism Command as the
NDEDIU is part of the Counter Terrorism Command. Those with criminal
intent could then try and map costs for combating terrorism across forces.
Such an ability to map costs would provide them with an advantage over the
MPS and other forces as the information can indeed be viewed as
operational 'intelligence' and operationally sensitive. Disclosure could
have a negative effect on national security should the release of
information be used and manipulated by criminal fraternities to try and
attack the particular forces that had smaller budgets than the MPS and
show that they may be vulnerable to attack in these areas as they had less
resources to deal with an attack.

To release such information into the public domain under the Act could
have a detrimental effect on policing resources which are vital in
ensuring national security is maintained. Policing resources and our
ability to protect national security would be negatively effected should
the disclosed information be manipulated by those with the capability and
know-how to map operational resources. For example, disclosure may lead to
an attack on  locations where one force is viewed to have less spend per
year  as these locations might be viewed as a 'weak target' with less
policing resources allocated. This rationale is valid for this exemption
as such an occurrence would harm national security.

In this current environment of an increased threat of terrorist activity,
providing any details that could assist an extremist faction would
undermine the safeguarding of national security.

ICO guidance emphasises there is no definition of national security and
refers to the Information Tribunal (EA/2006/0045) who summarised:

·        “National security” means the security of the United Kingdom and
its people;
·        The interests of national security are not limited to actions by
an individual which are targeted at the UK, its system of government or
its people;
·        The protection of democracy and the legal and constitutional
systems of the state are part of national security as well as military
defence;
·        Action against a foreign state may be capable indirectly of
affecting the security of the UK;
·        Reciprocal co-operation between the UK and other states in
combating international terrorism is capable of promoting the United
Kingdom’s national security.

The ICO guidance also states ‘safeguarding national security also includes
protecting potential targets even if there is no evidence that an attack
is imminent…the Commissioner also recognises terrorist can be highly
motivated and may go to great lengths to gather intelligence.  This means
there may be grounds for withholding what seems harmless information on
the basis that it may assist terrorists when pieced together with other
information they may obtain.’

Based on this definition national security encompasses a wide spectrum and
it is our duty to protect the people within the UK.  Public safety is of
paramount importance to the policing purpose and must be taken into
account in deciding whether to disclose any requested information.
Public Interest Test

Considerations favouring disclosure for S24 - Disclosing the information
would allow individuals to contribute to more accurate public debate on
matters that are of public relevance - in this case information pertinent
to combating terrorism and extremism  and the use of public funds.

Considerations favouring non-disclosure for S24 - Efficient and effective
conduct of the force: There remains the possibility that the current or
future law enforcement role of the force may be compromised by the release
of the information. To compromise the role and functions of the service
through disclosure would have a knock on effect on national security and
its arrangements. There are significant risks associated with providing
information relating to the costs of any nations security arrangements
since they may reveal the relative vulnerability of what we may be trying
to protect.

To release the requested information into the public domain under the
Freedom of Information Act is likely to have a detrimental effect on
policing resources, particularly in the sensitive area of national
security. Policing resources would be negatively effected should those
with intent to map and obtain an operational advantage over MPS resources
(allocated for protection and national security purposes) manipulate the
disclosed information. Should the figure be lower than envisaged,
criminals may use this information to try and focus their activities in
particular areas or establishments’ they believe would provide them with a
higher chance of success at attacking.

Section 31 - Law enforcement

(1) Information which is not exempt information by virtue of section 30 is
exempt information if its disclosure under this Act would, or would be
likely to, prejudice—

(a) the prevention or detection of crime,

(b) the apprehension or prosecution of offenders,

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000...

This is a qualified exemption for which I am required to provide evidence
of harm and conduct a public interest test.

Evidence of Harm

Disclosing the numbers of staff, budgets and funding received for NDEDIU
could be used by those with the time and inclination over a period of
years to try and work out how resources are allocated within the unit.
 Combined with the information concerning salaries which is already in the
public domain, those with criminal intent could then try to use this
information and map costs across forces, which in turn would provide
insight into the resources available.  This may provide those seeking to
commit criminal acts with an advantage over the MPS and other forces, as
the information can indeed be viewed as operational 'intelligence' and
operationally sensitive. Disclosure could have a negative effect on our
ability to provide the necessary service required should the release of
information be used and manipulated by those with criminal intent to try
and attack the people and buildings of the country.

Disclosure of the budget, staff figures and funding requested could have a
detrimental effect on policing resources. Policing resources would be
negatively effected should the disclosed information be manipulated. For
example, disclosure may lead to an attack in an area where there is seen
to be less funding allocated within locations where one force is viewed to
have less of spend per year and these locations be viewed as a 'weak
target' with less policing resources allocated to them. Such an occurrence
would require the allocation of additional policing resources to counter
the disclosure of intelligence provided through a FOIA disclosure.

In the current environment of an increased threat of terrorist activity,
providing any details that could assist an extremist faction would put
policing capabilities at risk. The information you have requested is
therefore particularly sensitive as at this present time, the Home Office
classes the current threat level from international terrorism as ‘Severe’.
This means that a terrorist attack is highly likely Home Office current
threat level-
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/counter-ter.... In
consideration of the ramifications of this level, it would not be wise to
disclose the requested details, as this may enable criminals to use this
information as an advantage over the MPS and the national security of the
UK.
Public Interest Test

Considerations favouring disclosure for S31 - Where public funds are being
spent, there is a public interest in accountability and justifying the use
of public money. For the MPS to be fully transparent and open, I
appreciate there is a public interest in providing information pertinent
to the budget, staff numbers and funding for the NDEDIU. To provide
figures would provide the public with the knowledge that the NDEDIU is
appropriately using public funds to carry out their duties.

Considerations favouring non-disclosure for S31 - There remains the
possibility that the current or future law enforcement role of the unit
will be compromised by the release of the information requested. It can be
argued that there are significant risks associated with providing
information in relation to the costs of any nation’s security
arrangements, since they may reveal the relative vulnerability of what we
may be trying to protect.  Providing data on staff numbers would show how
many officers are deployed to protect the nation in different forces and
areas of policing, thus providing criminals and others with the necessary
information to circumvent the work of the police in trying to prevent a
terrorist/extremist attack, which would not be in the public interest.

To release the requested information into the public domain under the
Freedom of Information Act is likely to have a detrimental effect on
policing resources. Policing resources and our Counter Terrorism role
would be negatively effected should the information be used and
manipulated by those with criminal intent to obtain an advantage over MPS
resources allocated for such purposes. Should the figure be lower than
envisaged, by crudely taking into account and trying to calculate the
expenditure of the NDEDIU could enable individuals to believe they have a
higher chance of success at attacking particular forces or individuals
which may be classed as coming under the wing of the Counter Terrorism
Command.

Balancing Test - I find the strongest reason favouring disclosure is
accountability, it would enable the public to understand the MPS are
justified and accountable in the use of funds to conduct the vital work
they do. I find the strongest reason favouring non-disclosure is the need
to ensure the role, function and resources of the MPS is not compromised
by disclosure. On weighing up the competing interests, I find the public
interest test favours non-disclosure of the budget, staff numbers and
funding for the NDEDIU which is part of the Counter Terrorism Command.  I
base this decision on the understanding that the public interest is not
what interests the public but what will be of greater good if released, to
the community as a whole.

It is important to note that the UK does face a serious and sustained
threat from violent terrorists/extremists and this threat is greater in
scale and ambition than any of the terrorist threats in the past.
Government reports suggest that at any one time the police and security
agencies are contending with many terrorist plots, terrorist groups or
networks and individuals who are judged to pose a threat to the well-being
of the UK and or UK interests.  To provide the budget, staff numbers and
funding for the NDEDIU would allow those with the inclination to crudely
calculate the cost of security arrangements, which could indicate or guess
which areas may be a more vulnerable target for attack.

In the current environment of an increased threat of terrorist activity,
providing any details that could assist an extremist/terrorist faction who
have the relevant time and know-how, would put people’s lives at risk,
given the national significance of the role of the NDEDIU in identifying
extremists who live among us I believe that the publication of such
information by a FOIA release would not be in the public interest.

COMPLAINT RIGHTS

If you are dissatisfied with this response please read the attached paper
entitled Complaint Rights which explains how to make a complaint.  

Should you have any further enquiries concerning this matter, please
contact me at the address at the top of this letter, quoting the reference
number above.

Yours sincerely

Karen Fox
Information Manager

In complying with their statutory duty under sections 1 and 11 of the
Freedom of Information Act 2000 to release the enclosed information, the
Metropolitan Police Service will not breach the Copyright, Designs and
Patents Act 1988. However, the rights of the copyright owner of the
enclosed information will continue to be protected by law.  Applications
for the copyright owner's written permission to reproduce any part of the
attached information should be addressed to MPS Directorate of Legal
Services, 1st Floor (Victoria Block), New Scotland Yard, Victoria, London,
SW1H 0BG.
COMPLAINT RIGHTS

Are you unhappy with how your request has been handled or do you think the
decision is incorrect?

You have the right to require the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) to
review their decision.

Prior to lodging a formal complaint you are welcome to discuss the
response with the case officer who dealt with your request.  

Complaint

If you are dissatisfied with the handling procedures or the decision of
the MPS made under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act) regarding
access to information you can lodge a complaint with the MPS to have the
decision reviewed.

Complaints should be made in writing, within forty (40) working days from
the date of the refusal notice, and addressed to:

FOI Complaint
Public Access Office
PO Box 57192
London
SW6 1SF
[email address]

In all possible circumstances the MPS will aim to respond to your
complaint within 20 working days.
The Information Commissioner

After lodging a complaint with the MPS if you are still dissatisfied with
the decision you may make application to the Information Commissioner for
a decision on whether the request for information has been dealt with in
accordance with the requirements of the Act.

For information on how to make application to the Information Commissioner
please visit their website at www.ico.org.uk.  Alternatively, phone or
write to:

Information Commissioner's Office
Wycliffe House
Water Lane
Wilmslow
Cheshire
SK9 5AF
Phone:  01625 545 745

Total Policing is the Met's commitment to be on the streets and in your
communities to catch offenders, prevent crime and support victims. We are
here for London, working with you to make our capital safer.

 

Consider our environment - please do not print this email unless
absolutely necessary.

NOTICE - This email and any attachments may be confidential, subject to
copyright and/or legal privilege and are intended solely for the use of
the intended recipient. If you have received this email in error, please
notify the sender and delete it from your system.  To avoid incurring
legal liabilities, you must not distribute or copy the information in this
email without the permission of the sender. MPS communication systems are
monitored to the extent permitted by law.  Consequently, any email and/or
attachments may be read by monitoring staff. Only specified personnel are
authorised to conclude any binding agreement on behalf of the MPS by
email. The MPS accepts no responsibility for unauthorised agreements
reached with other employees or agents.  The security of this email and
any attachments cannot be guaranteed. Email messages are routinely scanned
but malicious software infection and corruption of content can still occur
during transmission over the Internet. Any views or opinions expressed in
this communication are solely those of the author and do not necessarily
represent those of the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS).

 

Find us at:

Facebook: Facebook.com/metpoliceuk
Twitter: @metpoliceuk

Looking for an EU Authority?

You can request documents directly from EU Institutions at our sister site AskTheEU.org . Find out more .

AskTheEU.org