M Boyce via


Mike Alcock

Department for Transport

Aviation Security Policy

1/29 Great Minister House

76 Marsham Street

London

SW1P 4DR

Web Site: www.dft.gov.uk

Our Ref: FOI Request 7897

15 August 2011

Freedom of Information request

Thank you for your email of the 16 July in which you request information regarding airport security. I am dealing with your request under the terms of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 ("FOIA").

In your email you asked:

Dear Department for Transport,

In relation to airport body scanners the DfT have stated that: 'We

intended to revise the Code of Practice last year after considering

the consultation responses and DECIDED on a further roll-out of

security scanners'.

(1) Did you intend on rolling-out body scanners to all UK airports

last year?

(2) You stated that you had decided on a further roll-out after

CONSIDERING the consultation responses. Was the planned roll-out to

be based on the existing Interim Code of Practice? In other words

would you have ignored the serious privacy and health concerns of

most respondents (80% considered body scanners to be an

infringement of their privacy, and 30% favoured an opt-out

(pat-down) alternative)?

(3)Would the proposed roll-out of last year have offered passengers

an alternative security check ( e.g pat-down)?

(4) Would the proposed roll-out of last year have employed ionising

body scanners?

Yours faithfully,

M Boyce

Reply

Public statements by previous ministers, including that made on 1 February 2010 (http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmhansrd/cm100201/wmstext/100201m0001.htm#1002014000004) indicated that a further roll-out would take place.

As regards your questions (2) and, (3) the Department for Transport holds information about policy options for ministers regarding a further roll-out. However, I regret to inform you of my decision not to disclose this information.

This information is being withheld in reliance on the exemption in section 35(1)(a) of FOIA (formulation of government policy).

Since Section 35 is a qualified exemption, I have balanced the public interest in disclosing the information against the public interest in withholding it at this time. I have concluded that the public interest in withholding the information outweighs the public interest in disclosing it now. The key public interest factors for and against disclosure at this time are set out below, along with the relevant text of the exemption.

Exemption
Formulation of Government policy. s35(1)(a)
Information held by a government department or by the National Assembly for Wales is exempt information if it relates to:
(a) the formulation or development of government policy
In favour of disclosure / Against disclosure
·  The general public interest in disclosure of information relating to the possible roll-out of security scanners to other UK airports. There is a wide public interest in security scanners, as the policy raises issues such as privacy, human rights, health and equality.
·  As knowledge of the way government works increases, the public contribution to the policy making process could become more effective and broadly-based, allowing a more effective contribution to be made to decisions on similar issues in the future.
·  Disclosing information at an early stage promotes a spirit of openness and transparency and may increase trust in public authorities. / ·  Good government depends on good decision making and this needs to be based on the best advice available and a full consideration of all the options. In this particular case, the final decision has not been made yet. The consultation raises issues that are complex and the responses need to be assessed alongside the security and operational factors relevant to the use of security scanners at airports. This includes external factors such as European legislation including proposed changes to EU legislation on airport security screening which are currently under consideration at EU and national level.
There is a clear public interest in allowing government a protected, clear space in which it can consider matters internally with candour and free from the pressures of public debate.
·  Ministers and officials need to be able to conduct rigorous assessments of information that is relevant to policy decisions. Disclosure now would risk creating a situation where the policy decisions are fettered by pressure from media reporting.
·  The impartiality of the civil service might be undermined if advice was routinely made public as there is a risk that officials could come under political pressure not to challenge ideas in the formulation of policy.
Reasons why public interest favours withholding information
On balance, we have concluded that the public interest arguments in favour of withholding the information outweigh those in favour of release. Decision making should be based on the best advice available and a full, open and unpressured consideration of all the issues. There is a strong risk that disclosing policy advice before full and balanced policy analysis has been completed, and public announcements made, could lead to pressure for policy decisions being made in response to public debate or media reporting, without proper assessment of the relevant security and operational factors.

Your question (4) asks whether the proposed roll-out of scanners would have employed ionising security scanners. As stated in the accompanying FAQs to the Code of Practice on the use of Security Scanners, any decision on which make of scanners should be used is an operational matter for the individual airport authorities.

This code can be located at http://assets.dft.gov.uk/publications/information-on-the-implementation-of-security-scanners/faqs.rtf

If you are unhappy with the way the Department has handled your request or with the decisions made in relation to your request you may complain within two calendar months of the date of this letter by writing to the Department’s Information Rights Unit at:

Zone D/04

Ashdown House

Sedlescombe Road North

Hastings

East Sussex TN37 7GA

E-mail:

Please see attached details of DfT’s complaints procedure and your right to complain to the Information Commissioner.

If you have any queries about this letter, please contact me. Please remember to quote the reference number above in any future communications.

Yours sincerely,

Mike Alcock


Your right to complain to DfT and the Information Commissioner

You have the right to complain within two calendar months of the date of this letter about the way in which your request for information was handled and/or about the decision not to disclose all or part of the information requested. In addition a complaint can be made that DfT has not complied with its FOI publication scheme.

Your complaint will be acknowledged and you will be advised of a target date by which to expect a response. Initially your complaint will be re-considered by the official who dealt with your request for information. If, after careful consideration, that official decides that his/her decision was correct, your complaint will automatically be referred to a senior independent official who will conduct a further review. You will be advised of the outcome of your complaint and if a decision is taken to disclose information originally withheld this will be done as soon as possible.

If you are not content with the outcome of the internal review, you have the right to apply directly to the Information Commissioner for a decision. The Information Commissioner can be contacted at:

Information Commissioner’s Office
Wycliffe House
Water Lane
Wilmslow
Cheshire
SK9 5AF