Key information
Request reference number: MGLA130223-9986
Date of response:
Summary of request
You request
- Does the Mayor of London, drive or is driven in a Ultra Low Emission Zone (ULEZ) compliant vehicle and disclose the number of vehicles used by him which are (a) ULEZ compliant and (b) non-ULEZ compliant?
- Of the vehicles that are non-ULEZ compliant, how does this support Mayor's ULEZ policy on the current operational and ULEZ Expansion?
- Is the Mayor subject to issuance of PCNs for using non-compliant vehicles? If so, how many PCNs have been served on him and of this, how many were settled and provide proof thereof?
Our response
The GLA can neither confirm nor deny whether it holds the information that you have
requested in relation to the first and final part of your request under the duty in Section
1(1)(a) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act) in relation to the following
exemptions:
- Section 31(3) Law Enforcement
- Section 38(2) Health and Safety For further detail, please see the attached annex.
This response should not be taken as conclusive evidence that the information you have
requested does or does not exist. Please see Annex for further information.
If you have any further questions relating to this matter, please contact us, quoting
reference MGLA130223-9986.
Annex
Exemption: Section 31(3) – Law enforcement
Section 31 of the Act provides: (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
(3) The duty to confirm or deny does not arise if, or to the extent that, in compliance with
section 1(1)(a) would, or would be likely to, prejudice any of the matters mentioned in
subsection (1).
- Section 38(2) – endangering the safety of any individual
- Section 38(2) of the Act provides: (1) Information is exempt information if its disclosure under this Act would, or would be likely to:
(a) endanger the physical or mental health of any individual, or
(b) endanger the safety of any individual.
2. The duty to confirm or deny does not arise if, or to the extent that, compliance with section 1(1)(a) would, or would be likely to, have either of the effects mentioned in subsection (1).
These provisions of the Act have been engaged in relation to duty to either confirm or deny
whether the GLA does or does not hold information covered by your request. Section 31(3)
provides that we are not required to confirm or deny whether or not we hold information where to do so would prejudice the prevention or detection of crime (Section 31(1)(a)).
These provisions can be applied in instances where either confirming or denying the existence of the requested information would prejudice the ability of the GLA to employ appropriate security measures to protect its premises, property, staff and guests.
Section 38(2) provides that we are not required to confirm or deny whether or not we hold
information where to do so would endanger the safety of any individual, as set out above.
Confirming or denying whether or not the GLA does, or does not, hold information relating to this request would imply whether or not any vehicle is, or is not, used by the Mayor of London or any other member of staff. Such a statement would therefore provide useful information to potential criminals about the steps the GLA takes to protect its premises, property, staff and guests. This would allow them to take steps to avoid these measures, thereby prejudicing our ability to prevent, detect and deter criminal acts.
Because the request specifically refers to information about vehicles allegedly used by the
Mayor of London, any confirmation or denial about whether or not this is indeed the case
would identify what measure are or are not in place. Such a statement could then be used by determined individuals to locate and potentially target any vehicles which may or may not be used by the Mayor, or any other member of staff, and thereby endanger his wellbeing and physical safety.
None of these considerations however should be taken as confirmation that any such
information on this subject is or is not held by the GLA.
Public interest test
- Considerations in favour of confirming whether the information is held.
The GLA acknowledges there is a legitimate interest in the GLA being transparent and
accountable. The GLA is also mindful of the assumption in favour of disclosure in 2(2)(b) of the Act.
- Considerations in favour of maintaining the exclusion of the duty to either confirm or deny.
There is a strong public interest in not making any public statement that confirms or denies the existence of information that would be likely to prejudice the ability to detect and prevent crime, or endanger the health and safety of any individual.
In this case, the public interest in maintaining the exclusion of the duty to confirm or deny
outweighs the public interest in confirming or denying whether we hold the information in
question.
These considerations should not be taken as conclusive evidence that the information you have requested is or is not held by the GLA.