Cost of contract for the airport

Summary

The requester asked for the running costs of aviation security services provided by Noonans and details on government subsidies. The Department of Infrastructure confirmed no subsidy was paid but withheld specific cost figures citing commercial prejudice.

Key Facts

• Noonans and Resource are now part of the same company providing all security requirements.
• The Department of Infrastructure cannot disclose the running costs of Noonans for aviation security.
• No government subsidy has been paid to Noonans; they are paid a contract amount by the Department.
• Disclosure of costs was refused under section 30(2)(b) of the Freedom of Information Act 2015.
• The Department determined that withholding information outweighs the public interest in transparency to protect commercial interests.

Data Disclosed

• 1084664
• 2019-12-05
• 2019-12-19
• section 30(2)(b)
• Freedom of Information Act 2015

Exemptions Cited

• Section 30(2)(b) of the Freedom of Information Act 2015 (prejudice to commercial interests)

Original Request

can you provide the information to what the running costs are from Noonans who operate the avaiation security at the airport and the cost of resource who provide services within the airport. Also what has the government subsidy has been given after tender

Data Tables (1)

Full Response Text

Department of Infrastructure Sea Terminal Building, Douglas, Isle of Man, IM1 2RF

Contact: FOI Response Team/LH/MF Telephone: (01624) 686785 Email: dpo-doi@gov.im

Our ref: 1084664 19 December 2019

Dear ###

We write further to your request which was received on 5 December 2019 and which states (sic) (numbered for ease of reference):

"1. can you provide the information to what the running costs are from Noonans who operate the avaiation security at the airport and the cost of resource who provide services within the airport. 2. Also what has the government subsidy has been given after tender"

While our aim is to provide information whenever possible, in this instance some information is exempt from disclosure under section 30(2)(b) of the Act as disclosure would be likely to prejudice the commercial interests of an organisation. Explanation: Noonan and Resource are now part of the same company, therefore all security requirements are met by the same provider. 1. We are unable to provide details of the running costs of Noonan in respect of the provision of aviation security at the Isle of Man Airport, only Noonan would be able to furnish this information. 2. No subsidy has been paid by Government to Noonan, the provider is paid an amount by the Department of Infrastructure to provide aviation security services at the Isle of Man Airport. As section 30 is a qualified and prejudice-based exemption, it is subject to tests. The FOI Code of Practice allows for aggregation of these factors when creating arguments in favour of disclosure or withholding and weighing these factors to reach a decision.

Factors in favour of disclosure • Transparency and openness of Government • Accountability in respect of the spending of public funds • Ensuring fair commercial competition

Factors in favour of withholding • Companies that participate in a procurement process have an expectation of confidentiality • Release of this data could give future competitors an unfair commercial advantage in tender processes • A loss of confidence in the Department by commercial operators • Companies could be discouraged from submitting tenders • Companies could be discouraged from dealing with the public sector, leading to the Department being unable to appoint a contractor for the aviation security function; at best it could increase the amount of tax payers’ money required to secure this function - at worst it could render the Airport unable to operate • There is a likelihood that disclosure of this information would prejudice the commercial interests of Noonan and affect their ability to participate competitively in the whole commercial area of security provision. In taking these factors into account the Department has determined that the factors in favour of maintaining the exemption outweigh the factors in favour of disclosing the information.

Please quote the reference number 1084664 in any future communications.

Your right to request a review

If you are unhappy with this response to your freedom of information request, you may ask us to carry out an internal review of the response, by completing a complaint form and submitting it electronically or by delivery/post.

An electronic version of our complaint form can be found by going to our website at https://services.gov.im/freedom-of-information/Review . If you would like a paper version of our complaint form to be sent to you by post, please contact me and I will be happy to arrange for this. Your review request should explain why you are dissatisfied with this response, and should be made as soon as practicable. We will respond as soon as the review has been concluded. If you are not satisfied with the result of the review, you then have the right to appeal to the Information Commissioner for a decision on; 1. Whether we have responded to your request for information in accordance with Part 2 of the Freedom of Information Act 2015; or 2. Whether we are justified in refusing to give you the information requested.
In response to an application for review, the Information Commissioner may, at any time, attempt to resolve a matter by negotiation, conciliation, mediation or another form of alternative dispute resolution and will have regard to any outcome of this in making any subsequent decision.

More detailed information on your right to a review can be found on the Information Commissioner’s website at www.inforights.im. Should you have any queries concerning this letter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Further information about freedom of information requests can be found at www.gov.im/foi. I will now close your request as of this date.

Yours sincerely FOI Response Team