Update on Glasgow Council’s contract with CGI and its use of Israeli military-grade surveillance company Qognify to monitor Glasgow city centre

/ Statements / By

Update on Glasgow Council’s contract with CGI and its use of Israeli military-grade surveillance company Qognify to monitor Glasgow city centre

GGEC update
6 May 2024

Further to our previous statement, Freedom of Information (FoI) responses from Glasgow Council, obtained by members of GGEC’s Arms Companies Team (ACT), offer some revealing insights into how the procurement of its public space surveillance system was carried out, the problematic auditing of that contract, and current council considerations as its contract with CGI comes up for expiry and potential renewal in March 2025.

In the first set of 14 FoI questions to Glasgow Council we were concerned to understand the background to the procurement process that led to the Council’s contract with CGI and its 3rd party relationship with Qognify:

  1. Why did Glasgow Council enter into a contract in 2014 with the Israeli company NICE to run its public surveillance system?

We can confirm that the Council did not enter into a contract with NICE in 2014. The contract was between Service Glasgow LLP (the Council’s former ICT provider, previously trading as ACCESS) and NICE Systems UK Ltd. This contract commenced on 25 October 2013.

  1. Did Glasgow Council know in 2014, or thereafter, that NICE was an Israeli intelligence/military-based company?

On inspecting our records, it would appear that compliance with this part of your request would cost the Council more than the upper limit allowed by section 12(1) of the Act and the fees regulations made under the Act (this limit is currently £600). Accordingly, we are unable to comply with this aspect of your request. In order to find out if the Council holds any information indicating that NICE was an Israeli intelligence/military-based company we would need to spend a considerable amount of time determining which officers might hold any emails/ correspondence or documentation that would contain this information. These individuals would then need to be contacted and asked to carry out searches of their mailboxes/files. The Council has calculated that the costs of providing your requested information would be in excess of £600.00. This figure has been calculated in accordance with the Fees Regulations made under the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act. This includes the costs which would be incurred in locating and retrieving the information and staff time. The staff time charged reflects the true pay scale of the member(s) of staff who would be involved capped at a ceiling of £15/hour per member of staff. The Council has the option of complying with requests where the costs exceed £600. However, on this occasion we have decided not to due to the resources (both financial and human) which voluntary compliance with this request would divert away from our core business.

  1. Can you provide a copy or/and record of Glasgow Council’s contract with NICE?

On inspecting our records, it would appear that the Council does not hold the information which you have requested. Neither does anyone else hold it on our behalf. Accordingly, we are unable to comply with this aspect of your request, in terms of section 17(1)(b) of the Act. The Council does not have a contract with NICE, The Council’s contract is directly with CGI.

  1. When did Glasgow Council’s contract with CGI commence?

1 April 2018.

  1. Which council body/committee/procurement team made that contractual decision over CGI.

The Council’s Executive Committee.

  1. Can you provide any minutes/record of that decision.

The information that you have requested is available from our website. In terms of section 25(1) of the Act, the Council does not have to provide information that is publicly available and reasonably accessible. For ease of reference, the minute can be found here:

  1. When does the term of the current contract with CGI expire?

31 March 2025.

  1. What are Glasgow Council’s plans for continuing or ending its contract with CGI?

The Council is planning to move to a multi-source model, being progressed under its Future of Digital and ICT Services (FICT) project.

  1. Does Glasgow Council hold any documentation within or related to its contract with CGI showing that the Israeli-founded company Qognify are a corporate part of CGI?

On inspecting our records, it would appear that the Council does not hold the information which you have requested. Neither does anyone else hold it on our behalf. Accordingly, we are unable to comply with this aspect of your request, in terms of section 17(1)(b) of the Act. No such documentation is held.

  1. Can you provide a full copy of Glasgow Council’s contract with CGI?

Please be advised that the information that you have requested has not been provided to you. We are of the view that this information is exempt from a request under section 1 of the Act because of the exemption contained in section 33(1)(b) of the Act. In other words, we believe that disclosure of the information would, or would be likely to, substantially prejudice the commercial interests of the Council and CGI. We are of the view that disclosure of this information would, or would likely to, substantially prejudice the Council and CGI if it were to be released into the public domain. The contract consists of sensitive pricing policies and the current contract with CGI is scheduled to end on 31 March 2025. We are of the view that disclosure of this type of information would allow a commercial rival of CGI to selectively undercut their pricing in order to make rival tenders look artificially competitive. In addition, disclosure of this type of information is likely to affect the Council’s ability to secure best value regarding the procurement of similar services. Potential suppliers would have a strong indication of the level of bid that may secure contracts of a similar nature and scale. This could result in bidders submitting a less competitive bid than they otherwise would have had to. While we believe the exemption contained in section 33(1)(b) of the Act applies in this case, we would still be obliged to release the information in response to your request unless the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information. The Council acknowledges the significant public interest in openness and transparency and therefore recognises that any request under section 1 of the Act is potentially in the public interest. However, we also believe there is a significant public interest in authorities such as the Council being able to conduct generally competitive tendering exercises where none of the bidders have advance knowledge of the prices their competitors will quote, and so all tenderers tender at the most sustainable competitive level. In the circumstances we feel that the specific public interest in safeguarding the legitimate commercial interests of the Council and CGI outweighs the general public interest in openness and transparency.

  1. Does Glasgow Council hold any documentation from or about Qognify relating to that company’s installation, functioning or servicing of its Open Space CCTV surveillance system within Glasgow?

On inspecting our records, it would appear that the Council does not hold the information which you have requested. Neither does anyone else hold it on our behalf. Accordingly, we are unable to comply with this aspect of your request, in terms of section 17(1)(b) of the Act. No such documentation is held. This is because the current contract is between NICE and CGI. The information you have requested would be held by CGI. Please note that CGI are not subject to the Act.

  1. How many Open Space installations are currently operational in Glasgow?

We are interpreting this part of your request as referring to our public space CCTV system, if this is not what you are referring to please let us know. We can confirm that the Council have 429 operational cameras.

  1. Does Glasgow Council have any oversight or other consultative input over how the data from its Open Space system is stored, used or disseminated?

We are interpreting this part of your request as referring to our public space CCTV (PSCCTV) system, if this is not what you are referring to please let us know. We can advise that the Council is the controller of all data captured by PSCCTV and only the Council determines what use will be made of this data, who it is shared with, how long it is retained etc. We can confirm that NICE have no access to this data.

  1. Does Glasgow Council have any contractual arrangements with any companies or organisations engaged in the supply, servicing, or administration of weaponry, arms components or intelligence data to Israel?

On inspecting our records, it would appear that the Council does not hold the information which you have requested. Neither does anyone else hold it on our behalf. Accordingly, we are unable to comply with this aspect of your request, in terms of section 17(1)(b) of the Act. The Council has no visibility of the military or intelligence supply chains of Israel.
…………….

Further research by GGEC ACT members has also uncovered and assessed the minutes of a Glasgow Council document from 2017 showing that Glasgow’s contract with CGI came from a Scotland-wide procurement process allowing 48 Public Authorities across Scotland to contract with CGI directly, and no further tendering required.

https://www.glasgow.gov.uk/councillorsandcommittees/viewSelectedDocument.asp?c=P62AFQDNDNZLZ3NT0G

Additional FoI enquiries have now been sent in these regards to Edinburgh Council.

In seeking closer understanding of the 2017 Glasgow Council document and its implications, a further set of FoI questions were sent to Glasgow Council on behalf of GGEC ACT:

We have become aware of a Glasgow Council committee meeting minute detailing the process and terms of a potential contract with the company CGI for delivery of Public Space surveillance services in Glasgow:

https://www.glasgow.gov.uk/councillorsandcommittees/viewSelectedDocument.asp?c=P62AFQDNDNZLZ3NT0G

Part of that minute records the need for due diligence auditing of any third party companies present within that contract:

“9.1 The next stage in the project is the completion of the FBC, which will include work on the following areas:-
Due diligence on the major service areas (e.g. infrastructure, applications, telecoms);
HR skills assessment;
Security risk assessment and remediation report;
Full audit of 3rd party contracts;”

  1. Did Glasgow Council conduct any such audit of CGI in 2017 when it was considering entering into this contract?
  2. Can you provide details of any such audit in 2017 that showed a 3rd party contract with the Israeli company Qognify?
  3. Has Glasgow Council conducted any such audit of CGI/Qognify since the inception of its contract with CGI?
  4. Can you provide details of any such audit/report?
    ………………

We received the following responses from Glasgow Council to these four questions:

  1. Did Glasgow Council conduct any such audit of CGI in 2017 when it was considering entering into this contract?

The Council conducted a due diligence exercise for all 3rd party contracts.

  1. Can you provide details of any such audit in 2017 that showed a 3rd party contract with the Israeli company Qognify?

We are of the view that this information is exempt from a request under section 1 of the Act because of the exemption contained in section 33(1)(b) of the Act. In other words, we believe that disclosure of the information would, or would be likely to, substantially prejudice the commercial interests of The Council. The information consists of an analysis of contractual obligations between the council and the various contractors including things like novation rights, extension provisions, costs on contract breakage etc. We are of the view that disclosure of this information would, or would likely to, substantially prejudice the Council if it were to be released into the public domain. The Council is currently undertaking a procurement exercise in relation to a number of these areas of activity and we feel that releasing details of this nature would give some parties an unfair advantage in the tendering process, to the substantial prejudice of the council’s commercial interests in obtaining best value under these procurements. While we believe the exemption contained in section 33(1)(b) of the Act applies in this case, we would still be obliged to release the information in response to your request unless the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information. The Council acknowledges the significant public interest in openness and transparency and therefore recognises that any request under section 1 of the Act is potentially in the public interest. However, in dealing your request we have taken into consideration whether the public interest is best served by disclosing or withholding the information. In conclusion we are not aware of any particular public interest in the subject matter of your inquiry which would affect this balancing exercise. In the circumstances we feel that the specific public interest in safeguarding the legitimate commercial interests of the Council outweighs the general public interest in openness and transparency.

  1. Has Glasgow Council conducted any such audit of CGI/Qognify since the inception of its contract with CGI?

No

  1. Can you provide details of any such audit/report?

On inspecting our records, it would appear that the Council does not hold the information which you have requested. Neither does anyone else hold it on our behalf. Accordingly, we are unable to comply with your request in terms of section 17(1)(b) of the Act. As explained in response to part 3 of your request the Council has not conducted any such audit.

……….

Again, we see in the Council’s response to question 2 here a concerning secretiveness in declining to divulge the nature and extent of any 3rd party auditing of Qognify.

Why is there no specific acknowledgment of such an audit, and who carried it out? Was there any concern raised by Glasgow Council during any such audit about Qognify being an Israeli company?

Many of the FoI responses here are disconcertingly opaque, falling back on pretext excuses about ‘sensitive commercial priorities’ outweighing the right to open information.

We have therefore sent further FoI requests to Glasgow Council asking for closer details on its coming ICT services and procurement process, as stated in its proposed multi-source model approach, asking whether CGI/Qognify will be retained.

We have also, in reference to the above-minuted Glasgow Council report, asked for details of data protection assessment concerns raised by the Information Commissioner’s Office over the use of “people search”, which appear not to be resolved.

We will provide further updates on all these questions and subsequent responses.

In sum, we are of the view that, from its inception, through its period of operation, and in its coming expiry, Glasgow Council has shown a lack of due concern over its contractual arrangements with Israeli company Qognify.

There appears to have been an absence of proper scrutiny and due transparency in Glasgow Council’s 3rd party auditing at the commencing of its contract with CGI, and CGI’s subcontract with Qognify.

During the term of Glasgow Council’s contract with CGI, there appears to have been no further auditing of CGI or due questioning of its contract with Qognify.

And, as the March 2025 deadline for renewal or ending of its contract with CGI approaches, Glasgow Council is yet to show any specific intention of dispensing with Qognify’s surveillance services.

However, Glasgow Council’s passing of a Solidarity with Palestine motion (28 March 2024)
https://morningstaronline.co.uk/article/glasgow-city-council-backs-palestine-struggle in which it pledges to uphold International Court of Justice (ICJ) strictures not to do anything that enables the genocide – now creates a more immediate and legally-grounded obligation for it to end its contract with GGI/Qognify.

    The council motion states:

    “Council commits to widening the present human rights due diligence process when making awards decisions by bringing a report to the City Administration Committee detailing actions that the council can lawfully take to assure itself of supply chains that do not conflict with international humanitarian law and seek legal expertise where necessary to advise this.”

    https://www.glasgow.gov.uk/councillorsandcommittees/viewSelectedDocument.asp?c=P62AFQDN810GZL2UZL

    In replying to Question 8, above, on its proposed surveillance services, Glasgow Council say it is “planning to move to a multi-source model, being progressed under its Future of Digital and ICT Services (FICT) project.”

    Yet this still tells us little or nothing about the potential retention of Qognify within this “multi-source model”.

    We are of the view that any investigative process and report to the City Administration Committee should – as pledged in the adopted resolution to consider best practices – now be expedited, with a decisive recommendation to terminate Glasgow Council’s use of Qognify services.

    GGEC ACT intend to pass this and any other retrieved information to councillors within the City Chambers willing to challenge the Council’s contractual dealings with CGI/Qognify.

    We also intend to intensify public awareness and social media coverage of these arrangements, particularly as the expiry date of the contract approaches.

    It now appears legally untenable, and certainly unconscionable, that Glasgow Council still have in place a set of surveillance services run by an Israeli military-grade intelligence company operating from within, and in support of, an apartheid, genocidal state.

    We believe that in moving to end this sordid contract, Glasgow Council would be honouring its pledges to the ICJ, upholding international law, and demonstrating a true commitment to helping stop the genocide and supporting the people of Palestine.