FOI 306-24 Cost of Uniform
Enquiry Reference: 306 - 24
I write in connection with regards to your Freedom of Information request. Below is your request and our response.
Please advise, with regards to your spending:
- The average cost per item spent on standard-issue handcuffs in the financial year 2022/23.
- a) Supplier is TCH UK Ltd
- The average cost per item spent on standard-issue boots in the financial year 2022/23.
- a) Supplier – Footsure Western Ltd
- The average cost per item spent on high-visibility jackets in the financial year 2022/23.
- a) Supplier – Yaffy (Dimensions)
- The average cost per item spent on regular police jackets in the financial year 2022/23.
- a) Police Soft Shell Fleece Supplier – Tailored Image
Having made enquiries within the Force above are the companies providing the equipment and all the information we will disclose is on the below link for anything else we would rely on the below exemption.
Contracts and tenders - Cleveland Police and Crime Commissioner (pcc.police.uk)
Section 1 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 places two duties on public authorities. Unless exemptions apply, the first duty at Section 1(1) (a) is to confirm or deny whether the information specified in a request is held. The second duty at Section 1(1) (b) is to disclose information that has been confirmed as being held. Where exemptions are relied upon, Section 17 of the Freedom of Information Act requires that I provide the applicant with a notice which: a) states that fact b) specifies the exemption(s) in question and c) state (if that would not otherwise be apparent) why the exemption applies.
Cleveland Police can neither confirm nor deny that it holds any further information relevant to your request as the duty in Section 1(1) (a) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 does not apply, by virtue of the following exemptions:
Section 43(2) Commercial Interests
This should not be taken as an indication that the information you have requested is or is not held by Cleveland Police.
Section 43 is a class based qualified exemption which means the public interest must be considered.
Public Interest Test under Section 43
Considerations Favouring Disclosure
When information disclosed relates directly to the efficiency and effectiveness of a police force or its officers it is generally of benefit to the community. In this case, the release of information will enable the public to have a better understanding of the financial workings of Cleveland Police. It would also enable the public to understand the efficiency and effectiveness of the Cleveland Police service.
There is also a legitimate public interest in knowing that Cleveland Police financial resources are used appropriately i.e. there is not under-spend or over-spend in certain areas and that we are making the best use of financial resources available to us.
Considerations Favouring Non-Disclosure
Third party interests might be jeopardised by the release of information that relates to sensitive commercial information. Although there is clearly a legitimate public interest in knowing that Cleveland Police uses service providers fairly and correctly, disclosure of information regarding specific relationships with third parties would cause harm to our reputation, relationships with current and future prospective suppliers and ultimately damage our ability to secure value for money. This is because current and prospective service providers will be wary about doing business with a Force, known to disclose details that relate to sensitive commercial information.
The Police Service has a moral duty to protect the sensitive commercial information it holds about any supplier it has dealings with. Disclosure under Freedom of Information is ‘disclosure to the world’. In this case, to provide all the information requested could jeopardise relationships between Cleveland Police and any future suppliers involved. This may reduce the number of organisations who wish to do business with us, therefore reducing the opportunities to purchase the most cost-effective service/s. This is especially important in the current economic climate where public authorities are striving to drive down costs and obtain the best possible value for money.
Balancing Test:
We have carefully considered your request for information. The public interest test is centred on whether information should be released to the world so that ANY person can view this information not just you as a requestor. In this case the right of the public to know needs to be weighed against the damage caused to our suppliers and ultimately Cleveland Police.
The use of public funds and the fact that public authorities must be open and transparent are powerful arguments. There is an identifiable public interest in knowing that excessive or unnecessary amounts of public funds (including taxpayers’ money) are not being spent and that Cleveland Police procures service providers fairly and correctly and also obtains value for money. However, this is offset by the fact that the authority is already subject to financial audit and is therefore already held accountable for the money that it spends or utilises.
Decision:
Therefore, having weighed up both parts of the public interest test, I have decided on balance it is in the public interest to withhold the requested information. The release of the requested information has the potential to harm the relationship between Cleveland Police and any current or future suppliers of procurement and contractual services, therefore making it difficult to maintain the ability to negotiate in the open market the most competitive price for procurement and contracts. Consequently, in this case, at this time, the public interest test favours non-disclosure.
The Cleveland Police response to your request is unique and it should be noted that Police Forces do not use generic systems or identical procedures to capture and record data therefore responses from Cleveland Police should not be used as a comparison with any other force response you receive.
If you are not satisfied with this response or any actions taken in dealing with your request, you have the right to request an independent internal review of your case under our review procedure. The APP College of Policing guidance states that a request for internal review should be made within 20 working days of the date on this response or 40 working days if extenuating circumstances to account for the delay can be evidenced.
Yours sincerely
Information Rights Decision Maker