Received: 1 December 2025

QUESTION 1: 

Please provide the costs for the Metropolitan Police Federation General Secretary, Deputy General Secretary, Treasurer, Conduct and Performance lead, Equality and Diversity lead, Health and Safety lead, MO Secretary, FLP Secretary, SO Secretary and all National Council members to attend the PFEW conference and subsequent National Council meeting in Birmingham on the week of the 18/19th November 2025. 

Please ensure that the costs are clearly attributable to the roles described above and breakdown the costs as follows: 

Transport - please show whether travel by car or train. If by train confirm if standard or first class tickets were purchased. 

QUESTION 2: 

Confirm all listed police officers have been issued Oyster Cards for free tube and bus travel within the MPD.

QUESTION 3: 

Are the listed police officers members of ATOC Rail Travel Scheme? 

QUESTION 4: 

Accommodation - please show type of room i.e. single, double, twin, suite etc. 

QUESTION 5: 

Subsistence - please differentiate between meals and alcohol. 

QUESTION 6: 

Please confirm from which budget these expenses were sourced and where costs exceed the formal PFEW guidance (for example if first class rail travel was used) who and when this was authorised by.

Responded: 23 February 2026

RESPONSE 1: 

The MO Secretary, SO Secretary, FLP Secretary and H&S Lead did not attend conference.  Therefore, this request covers the General Secretary, Deputy General Secretary, Chair, Treasurer, Conduct Lead, Equality and Diversity Lead and one National Council member. 

Colleagues travelled to conference by train and travelled in Standard Premier class.  No First Class tickets were purchased. 

RESPONSE 2: 

The Police Federation of England and Wales (PFEW) does not hold this information, as we do not administer the provision of Oyster Cards to MPS officers.  

RESPONSE 3: 

The PFEW does not hold this information, as we do not administer the ATOC scheme. 

RESPONSE 4: 

Given the number of colleagues attending conference from MPF, a range of rooms were booked at the PFEW HQ recommended hotels in the vicinity of the conference venue. 

RESPONSE 5: 

Whilst the PFEW does hold this data, it is impossible to work out accurate costs for subsistence by role.  This is because there were group meals paid for by one individual on behalf of the group and, in some cases, these meals included individuals outside of the scope of this request for example, MPF reps.  In either case, it is unknown which items on any given receipt are attributable to which individual and, therefore, the PFEW cannot accurately provide this data in the manner in which it has been requested. 

RESPONSE 6:

Due to the conference and National Council meeting both taking place at the NEC Birmingham Complex there were a limited number of hotels near the conference venue. There were four hotels recommended by the Federation for delegates to stay in, of which the Genting was one of those hotels. Room rates were similar for all the four recommended hotels.

In the event that they were not, given the personal nature of the subject matter, the PFEW considers that the majority of emails in the pensions mailbox would contain personal data and would therefore be exempt information under section 40(2)(a) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA).  

The PFEW is of the view that disclosing the information pertinent to this part of the request would be in breach of the data protection principles set out under Article 5 of the UKGDPR.  The PFEW has a legal requirement to process data lawfully, fairly and transparently, to collect data for explicit and legitimate purposes and to ensure that data is not further processed in a manner that is incompatible with the initial purposes (Article 5(1)(a) and (b) of the UKGDPR). 

Furthermore, the PFEW does not consider there to be any legal basis to process the data under Article 6 of the UKGDPR for the purposes of answering this FOI request. The individuals who have contacted this mailbox have done so of their own freewill for the purposes it was set up for and for the reasons contained within any emails they may have sent to us.  We do not consider that we have a legitimate interest in providing the requestor with copies of emails sent by individuals, nor are we able to identify any legitimate interest on the part of the requestor in receiving copies of these emails which would outweigh the rights and interests of the senders. We also do not have the senders' consent (or any other legal basis) to process their data for any purposes outside of that.  Consequently, the PFEW is applying section 40(2)(a) and (3A)(a) to this question.