Two new Freedom of Information Act requests (20 July 2016) on the costs of Operation Grange (each one sent to both the Home Office and the Metropolitan Police)

FIRST ONE

The following Freedom of Information Act requests are made to both the Home Office and the Metropolitan Police as it is hard to know where responsibility and accountability for this matter lies.

I ask these questions about the Metropolitan Police’s Operation Grange which, according to the remit set for it by former Detective Chief Superintendent Hamish Campbell, is ‘to investigate the abduction of Madeleine McCann as if the abduction had occurred in the U.K.’    

The original allocation of funds for Operation Grange was widely reported to be £2.5 million, to be paid for out of ‘a special Home Office fund’.

Please state:

1. The date the original allocation of funds was made, and whether the amount was £2.5 million or, if not, what was the amount?

2. For each subsequent extension of funds, please state:

(a) The date on which application was made for further funding
(b) How much on each occasion the Met Police applied for
(c) The date on which the Home Secretary approved additional funds, and
(d) In each case, what further funding was granted, and for what future period of time.

3. What code has been applied to all expenditures on Operation Grange, or, alternatively, where can one find expenditure on Operation Grange in the annual audited Home Office accounts?             



------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

SECOND ONE

The following Freedom of Information Act requests are made to both the Home Office and the Metropolitan Police as it is hard to know where responsibility and accountability for this matter lies.

I ask these questions about the Metropolitan Police’s Operation Grange which, according to the remit set for it by former Detective Chief Superintendent Hamish Campbell, is ‘to investigate the abduction of Madeleine McCann as if the abduction had occurred in the U.K.’   

In 2013 and 2014 there were many references in the British press to expenditure by the Portuguese Police having to be met by the British government.

These expenses are known to include:

1. The cost of hiring an Alouette Mark III top-of-the-range Portuguese military helicopter

2. The provision of extensive physical support, assistance, supervision and other assistance in connection with two searches of patches of waste ground in Praia da Luz in 2014, and

3. Extensive assistance by way of Portuguese police conducting a series of ‘rogatory interviews’ of a significant number of alleged suspects

4. Translation services in connection with (a) the 2014 search of Praia da Luz (b) the rogatory interviews of suspects and (c) any other occasions. 

Please provide the following information:

A. The dates that the Portuguese Police, Ministry of Justice or any other agency of the Portuguese government requested financial assistance or otherwise submitted any invoice or other demand for payment

B. In each case, how much was demanded?

C. List all payments made in connection with Operation Grange to the Portuguese authorities and give the dates they were made.                   



UPDATE: Two interim responses from the Home Office so far:

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/payments_made_by_the_home_office?nocache=incoming-841849#incoming-841849

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/home_office_approval_of_expendit?nocache=incoming-841839#incoming-841839

They are taking their time with these. Here is their latest reply anyway:

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Mr Bennett

Freedom of Information Request Reference No: 2016070000799

I write in connection with your request for information which was received by the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) on 20/07/2016.  I  note you seek access to the following information:

* I ask these questions about the Metropolitan Police’s Operation Grange which, according to the remit set for it by former Detective Chief Superintendent Hamish Campbell, is ‘to investigate the abduction of Madeleine McCann as if the abduction had occurred in the U.K.’    

In 2013 and 2014 there were many references in the British press to expenditure by the Portuguese Police having to be met by the British government. These expenses are known to include:
1. The cost of hiring an Alouette Mark III top-of-the-range Portuguese military  helicopter
2. The provision of extensive physical support, assistance, supervision and other assistance in connection with two searches of patches of waste ground in Praia da Luz in 2014, and
3. Extensive assistance by way of Portuguese police conducting a series of ‘rogatory interviews’ of a significant number of alleged suspects
4. Translation services in connection with (a) the 2014 search of Praia da Luz (b) the rogatory interviews of suspects and (c) any other occasions.
Please provide the following information:
A. The dates that the Portuguese Police, Ministry of Justice or any other agency of the Portuguese government requested financial assistance or otherwise submitted any invoice or other demand for payment
B. In each case, how much was demanded?
C. List all payments made in connection with Operation Grange to the Portuguese authorities.    
                
Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) 16 August 2016
    

Dear Mr Bennett

Freedom of Information Request Reference No: 2016070000799 & 2016070000798

We refer to your FOI request received by this office on 20/07/2016, in
which you requested information under the above Act.

We are currently processing your FOI request, but your request is taking
longer than anticipated to process.

We will continue to process your request which is likely to take a further
3 weeks to complete.

We apologise for this delay and any inconvenience this may cause you. If
it is not possible to process your FOI request within this time, we will
write to you again.  

Yours faithfully
Michela Holmes
FOIA Officer


Total Policing is the Met's commitment [blah blah blah - SNIPPED]

These are the final replies from the Home Office.

Note I am still awaiting replies from the Metropolitan Police (to whom I asked the very same questions - see above):

Anthony Bennett request-347024-957dbb8e@whatdotheyknow.com 18 August 2016

FOI Ref: 40442

Dear Mr Bennett,

Thank you for your e-mail of 20 July, in which you ask for information on funding provided by the Home Office for Operation Grange, the investigation into the disappearance of Madeleine McCann. Your request has been handled as a request for information under the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

On 12 May 2011 the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) announced that, at the request of the then Home Secretary, it had agreed to bring its particular expertise to the case. Its involvement is that of an ‘investigative review’ which entails a review of all the previous investigations into the circumstances of Madeleine’s disappearance. The Home Office agreed to fund this work from a central Special Grant budget, subject to the Home Office and the MPS regularly reviewing the value and cost of the work.

I am able to disclose the following information. We provided the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime (MOPAC):

£1.9m in 2011/12,
£2.8m in 2012/13,
£2.6m in 2013/14,
£2.4m in 2014/15 and
£1.1m in 2015/16.

The estimated cost for 2016/17 is £95k which reflects the reduced scale of the investigation, which was announced by the MPS last year.

Home Office expenditure over £25k as at December 2015 is available online at https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/home-office-spending-over-25000-2015 in which Column F (Supplier Name) indicates the recipients.

I hope that this information meets your requirements. I would like to assure you that we have provided you with all relevant information that the Home Office holds.

Yours sincerely

N De Souza

Efficiency and Resources Unit
Email: foirequests@homeoffice.gsi.gov.uk

++++++++++++++++++++++
 
Crime, Policing and Fire Group  Tel: 020 7035 4848 
2 Marsham Street 
Fax: 020 7035 4745  
London  
www.gov.uk/home-office 
SW1P 4DF 
Anthony Bennett 
  
FOI #347026 email
 
18 August 2016 
FOI Ref: 40443 
 
Dear Mr Bennett, 
 
Thank you for your e-mail of 20 July in which you ask for details of payments made by the British Government to  Portuguese agencies  in relation to their involvement in Operation 
Grange, the Metropolitan Police Service’s investigation into the disappearance of Madeleine McCann.  

Your request has been handled as a request for information under the Freedom of Information Act 2000.  
 
Operation Grange is separate to investigations carried out by the Portuguese police and the Home Office does not provide funding to Portuguese agencies in relation to their 
involvement in it.   
 
The Home Office therefore does not hold the information which you have requested. 
 
Yours sincerely 
 
N de Souza 
Efficiency and Resources Unit 
 
Email: [email address] 
 

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 

NOTE: The Home Office gave me this link to Home Office expenditure:
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/home-office-spending-over-25000-2015

I have had a brief look thought it and examined expenditure for the month of December 2015. There is a huge amount of expenditure to trawl through and I don't have the time to do it. I can't honestly recommend that anyone else do so as it feels a bit like looking for a needle in a haystack, but there is the link if anyone wants to have a go.

I will wait for the Met to tell us how much they've paid to the Portuguese authorities in respect of Operation Grange        

Hi Mr Bennett,with the utmost respect to yourself over the Madeleine McCann case,I know you have asked for the items that you have requested on expenditure costs to the case!?
The Home Office have supplied records of costs of the case!
I do realise the importance of the costs to this case,as it is funded via the Tax payer of the UK,not with standing this,it could also be a ruse for tying up time that could be spent in other directions,he's looking over here,Not Over there,Goose chase?

As you say TB, complete needle in a haystack.
 
A payment to this company did jump out at me though, which I found interesting:
 
Welcome to Forensic Archive Ltd
 
Forensic Archive Ltd (FAL) is a Government-owned company formed to retain and manage casefiles from all investigation work previously undertaken by the Forensic Science Service (FSS), which on the direction of the Government, ceased to provide operational casework services in March 2012.
 
FAL provides a service to the criminal justice system enabling access to casefiles and retained items linked to historic cases.
 
To access these files please contact us.
 
The Archive
 
The Forensic Archive was established in 2012 to look after more than four million items relating to forensic examinations and investigations carried out by the Forensic Science Service on behalf of the Criminal Justice System.
 
The material, some of which dates back to the 1930s, includes millions of casefiles, frozen material (such as DNA extracts) and retained items including microscope slides, fibre tapings and recovered hairs.
 
All are valuable items when used in current cases, cold cases and potentially, future appeals. The archive also holds supporting material such as validation and verification records relating to FSS scientific methods and techniques.
 
The service is provided to authorised users as follows:
 
            Police Forces in relation to archived material originating from work previously performed by the FSS on their behalf.
            Investigating bodies in relation to archived materials which were originally commissioned by such body, including HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC), Serious Organised Crime Agency (SOCA) and replacement bodies and the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC).
            The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) in relation to all archived material.
            The Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC) in relation to all archived material.
            The National Database Unit (NDU) and replacement bodies in relation to all archived material.
            Coroners in relation to archived material which relates to cases under their jurisdiction.
 
Private individuals, appellants and defence solicitors, for example, cannot access the archive; their first port of call should be the original investigating police force.
 
The archive cannot contact ex-FSS staff regarding court warnings, continuity requirements or additional statements. Prosecution teams should now undertake this task themselves (although the archive can provide last known contact details for ex-employees).
 
It should be noted that the archive is not able to provide any scientific advice or support. If additional statements regarding scientific techniques previously used by the FSS are required, it is the responsibility of the prosecution/defence team to arrange this with an appropriate scientist. With regards cold case work, the archive cannot provide lists of all material held in relation to a case or make recommendations on potential avenues of additional scientific work. Forces should request the pertinent case-files to review themselves (or ask their current forensic provider to do so) and then contact the archive to dispatch the required items.
 
http://www.forensicarchive.com

Looks as though there is little chance of (Obtaining DNA evidence from a supposed Madeleine 15:19 markers?) now that the Official Operation Grange has concluded it's Scientific processes,FAL?

willowthewisp wrote:Looks as though there is little chance of (Obtaining DNA evidence from a supposed Madeleine 15:19 markers?) now that the Official Operation Grange has concluded it's Scientific processes,FAL?

Sorry but can u tell me what "FAL" is please? I sometimes find it quite hard to get my head round some of your posts, but they're good nonetheless, just takes a few reads til I get the gist! Thanks

Roxyroo wrote:

willowthewisp wrote:Looks as though there is little chance of (Obtaining DNA evidence from a supposed Madeleine 15:19 markers?) now that the Official Operation Grange has concluded it's Scientific processes,FAL?

Sorry but can u tell me what "FAL" is please? I sometimes find it quite hard to get my head round some of your posts, but they're good nonetheless, just takes a few reads til I get the gist! Thanks

Forensic Archive Limited,who store"Forensic Evidence" from unsolved cases?

Thankyou very much WillowtheWisp!

I have also tried to get the costs to the Portuguese authorities, similar answers. We know the government is paying but which department, tried MOJ not them. Give us a credible clue if you have one, same from foreign office so that's the three main ones out of the way.

willowthewisp wrote:

Roxyroo wrote:

willowthewisp wrote:Looks as though there is little chance of (Obtaining DNA evidence from a supposed Madeleine 15:19 markers?) now that the Official Operation Grange has concluded it's Scientific processes,FAL?

Sorry but can u tell me what "FAL" is please? I sometimes find it quite hard to get my head round some of your posts, but they're good nonetheless, just takes a few reads til I get the gist! Thanks

Forensic Archive Limited,who store"Forensic Evidence" from unsolved cases?

There was I thinking it meant 'Fall About Laughing' !

'Private individuals, appellants and defence solicitors, for example, cannot access the archive; their first port of call should be the original investigating police force.'

There lies the answer to every question.  Where is this information stored I ask myself - the Crypt?

Has anyone else received a FOI response that actually said anything?

Can I safely presume there are no other FOI responses that have actually been meaningful.

Michael99 wrote:Can I safely presume there are no other FOI responses that have actually been meaningful.

Why don't you submit a FOI yourself, and while you're at it why don't you do a bit of research on the forum for yourself.

Today I received a further reply from the Metropolitan Police.

As can be seen, they say they have 'no information'.

My questions were specific, asking for the precise dates on which Operation Grange applied for further funding (i.e. beyond the first year allocation of £2.5 million).

Press reports have continually referred to the Met Police 'applying to the Home Office' for further funding.

I assumed, as I was entitled to, that this meant that a formal application was submitted every so often, saying something like:

"Dear Home Office, We have got x (number) of more lines of enquiry to pursue, and they look jolly promising. Please extend our funding for another x (number) months or years".

But, judging by the answers - NO.  But somebody, somewhere, each year must make a decision to allocate x funds in the coming year. That is what my questions to the Home Office and Metropolitan Police have been driving at.

Answers in red:

=======================

Dear Mr Bennett

Freedom of Information Request Reference No: 2016070000798

I write in connection with your request for information which was received
by the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) on 20/07/2016.  I note you seek
access to the following information:

The following Freedom of Information Act requests are made to both the
Home Office and the Metropolitan Police as it is hard to know where
responsibility and accountability for this matter lies.

I ask these questions about the Metropolitan Police’s Operation Grange which,
according to the remit set for it by former Detective Chief Superintendent
Hamish Campbell, is ‘to investigate the abduction of Madeleine McCann as
if the abduction had occurred in the U.K.’    

The original allocation of funds for Operation Grange was widely reported to be £2.5 million,
to be paid for out of ‘a special Home Office fund’. Please state:
1. The date the original allocation of funds was made, and whether the
amount was £2.5 million or, if not, what was the amount?
2. For each subsequent extension of funds, please state: (a) The date on
which application was made for further funding (b) How much on each
occasion the Met Police applied for (c) The date on which the Home
Secretary approved additional funds, and (d) In each case, what further
funding was granted, and for what future period of time.
3. What code has been applied to all expenditures on Operation Grange, or,
alternatively, where can one find expenditure on Operation Grange in the
annual audited Home Office accounts?    
              .
SEARCHES TO LOCATE INFORMATION

To locate the information relevant to your request searches were conducted
at Operation Grange.  The searches located information relevant to your
request.

DECISION

I have today decided to disclose the located information to you.

1. The date the original allocation of funds was made, and whether the
amount was £2.5 million or, if not, what was the amount?

= The Home Office provided the Mayor's Office for Policing and Crime (MOPAC) £1.9m in
2011/12

 2. For each subsequent extension of funds, please state:
(a) The date on which application was made for further funding= This is
not held by the MPS.

We do not apply for funding, money is allocated from the Home Office.


(b) How much on each occasion the Met Police applied for

= This is not held by the MPS. We do not apply for funding, money is allocated
from the Home Office.

 (c) The date on which the Home Secretary approved additional funds, and =


This is not held by the MPS.

(d) In each case, what further funding was granted, and for what future
period of time.

= The Home Office provided the Mayor's Office for Policing
and Crime (MOPAC) £1.9m in 2011/12,

£2.8m in 2012/13,

£2.6m in 2013/14,

£2.4m in 2014/15

and £1.1m in 2015/16.  

The estimated cost for 2016/17 is £95k which reflects the reduced scale of the investigation

 3. What code has been applied to all expenditures on Operation Grange, or,
alternatively, where can one find expenditure on Operation Grange in the
annual audited Home Office accounts?

= This is not held by the MPS. The MPS do not have a code for Operation Grange.

I note that you have now made 15 requests under the Act in relation to
Operation Grange. The MPS has responded to each request, however the MPS
has committed considerable time in responding to each of your requests
which have been overlapping in content.  Any future requests to the MPS on
a similar subject are likely to fall within the provisions of Section 14
of the Act (repetitious or vexatious requests).

Should you have any further enquiries concerning this matter, please
contact me via email at [email address], quoting the reference number
above.

Yours sincerely
Michela Holmes
FOIA Officer

Thank you TB.
 
‘This is not held by the MPS. We do not apply for funding, money is allocated
from the Home Office.’
 
What utter bollocks.
 
They are asking us to believe that they don’t go to the Home Office, as you say, with ‘x’ number of officers and this much work to do.
 
So some prat at the Home Office is supposed to stick his finger in the air and just come up with a random figure to give them.
 
Completely ridiculous nonsense, but what can you do, especially as they are now implying that you've had your lot as far as questions goes, even if they never do actually answer.


How about by-passing the system with a direct appeal to the new FOI commissioner woman?

https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t13102-new-commissioner-sets-out-foi-plans

eta:

'This is not held by the MPS. The MPS do not have a code for Operation Grange'


That just has to be a blatant lie!

Tony Bennett wrote:I note that you have now made 15 requests under the Act in relation to
Operation Grange. The MPS has responded to each request, however the MPS
has committed considerable time in responding to each of your requests
which have been overlapping in content.  Any future requests to the MPS on
a similar subject are likely to fall within the provisions of Section 14
of the Act (repetitious or vexatious requests).

Should you have any further enquiries concerning this matter, please
contact me via email at [email address], quoting the reference number
above.

Yours sincerely
Michela Holmes
FOIA Officer

OK, give someone else the chance to submit 15 FOI requests.

I note that you have now made 15 requests under the Act in relation to
Operation Grange. The MPS has responded to each request, however the MPS
has committed considerable time in responding to each of your requests
which have been overlapping in content.  Any future requests to the MPS on
a similar subject are likely to fall within the provisions of Section 14
of the Act (repetitious or vexatious requests).

In other words

Doug D wrote:Thank you TB.
 
‘This is not held by the MPS. We do not apply for funding, money is allocated
from the Home Office.’
 
What utter bollocks.
 
They are asking us to believe that they don’t go to the Home Office, as you say, with ‘x’ number of officers and this much work to do.
 
So some prat at the Home Office is supposed to stick his finger in the air and just come up with a random figure to give them.
 
Completely ridiculous nonsense, but what can you do, especially as they are now implying that you've had your lot as far as questions goes, even if they never do actually answer.


How about by-passing the system with a direct appeal to the new FOI commissioner woman?

https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t13102-new-commissioner-sets-out-foi-plans

eta:

'This is not held by the MPS. The MPS do not have a code for Operation Grange'


That just has to be a blatant lie!

'This is not held by the MPS. We do not apply for funding, money is allocated
from the Home Office.’

'This is not held by the MPS. The MPS do not have a code for Operation Grange'

It's all in the careful wording I think.

'We do not apply for funding' - but we do have regular meetings with the Home Office to advise on how the investigation is progressing which the Home Office uses to determine additional funding.

'The MPS do not have a code for Operation Grange' - but we do have an overall breakdown of expenditure.  Expenditure is determined according to operational procedures, we cannot therefore provide a breakdown of the annual provision allocated by the Home Office. You will have to ask the Home Office.

So the office of circumlocution goes round and round and round and round....