FREEDOM OF INFORMATION REQUESTDJ 2016 - 157 – RESPONSE

REQUEST

/

RESPONSE

/

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

1.)The make, model and specification (full specification from thepurchase) of each vehicle allocated to each member of police staffand police officer making up the Chief Officer Group. / Audi Q5 S Line Plus 3.0TDi Quattro S Tronic / Purchase Cost - £41,695
30/05/2013
Audi Q5 S Line Plus 3.0TDi Quattro S Tronic / Purchase Cost - £43,471
17/09/2013
Land Rover Evoque TD4 Auto 4Wd 2.0 HSE Dynamic / Purchase Cost - £42,242
23/06/2015
BMW X3 xDrive 30d M Sport / Purchase Cost - £25,700* *Purchased second hand
04/01/2016
BMW 525d M Sport Touring / Purchase Cost - £38,134
28/06/2012
Exempt information section 40(2) Freedom of Information Act, 2000
in part. Information in respect of specific specification required by a
Chief Officer fall within this exemption.
In respect of the request, exempt under section 40 of the Act, by virtue of Section 40(2) any information to which a request for information relates is exempt information if, (a) it constitutes the personal data which do not fall within subsection (1) [Applicant’s personal data], and (b) either the first or second condition below is satisfied, namely the giving to a member of the public of the confirmation or denial that would have to be given to comply with section 1(1)(a) would (apart from this Act) contravene any of the data protection principles or section 10 data Protection Act 1998 or would do so if the exemptions in section 33A of the Act were disregarded, or (ii) by virtue of any provision of Part IV of the Data Protection Act 1998 the information is exempt from section 7(1)(a) of that Act (subject access provisions). / Under the contractual terms with the Police and Crime Commissioner on which vehicles are provided to Chief Officers, the vehicles, whilst provided as part of the individual Chief Officer’s personal contract of services, are for use in policing roles when the need arise.When applying for the role, applicants are informed by the PCC that, “Arrangements for the Chief Constable are subject to agreement between the Chief Constable and the Police and Crime Commissioner”
2.)The cost of purchase for each vehicle and the dateof purchase / Please refer to one above.
3.)Confirm or negate whether each vehicle is
Equippedwithemergency lighting and audible equipment / All vehicles fitted with Emergency Blues/Audible warning except
the Land Rover.
See additional information: HMRC Guidance documents: / The fact that emergency equipment is fitted to the vehicles does not act to reduce any taxation payable by the individual chief officers.
The HMRC guidance criteria, is not met in this case. (See Internet link).
4.) The current police driving qualification (standard / response /advanced) of each member of police staff and officer that makes upChief Officer Group together with the date that the said memberpassed their driving qualification or indeed the last date theywere reassessed against the requirements of the drivingqualification / Recorded Police Driver Classification.
1 x Advanced class car
2 x Standard car
2 x No information held
Exempt information section 40(2) Freedom of Information Act, 2000 in part. Information in respect of driving test dates relating to
Chief Officers falls within this exemption. / Emergency equipment may only be used on a driven vehicle in accordance with Force Policy.
Blue lights may be used to aide conspicuousness of a stationary vehicle even if the driver does not have the training to use on a moving vehicle.
5.) The most common marked police vehicle currently in use by your force / Hyundai I30
6.) The cost (average cost if necessary) for the purchase of the most commonly purchased vehicle as per question 5. / Unit price information held.
Section 43(2) Information Act, 2000 – Commercial Interest exemption.
Information is exempt information if its disclosure under this Act would, or would be likely to, prejudice the commercial interest of any person (including the public authority holding it). / Consultation has taken place with the commercial entity involved in the supply of the vehicles.

Please refer to the public interest test on next page.

PUBLIC INTEREST TEST PROCESS / Applicant Name: Geoffrey Goodfellow / Reference: DJ 2016 - 157
EXEMPTION / FAVOURING DISCLOSURE / FAVOURING NON-DISCLOSURE
Section 43(2) (Commercial Interests)
[Application 6] / Disclosure of information would assist the public in understanding the sums involved in the purchase of a particular type of motor vehicle used in the Vehicle Fleet. The information would also assist in understanding that the supply and fitting of emergency equipment is a matter that has to be considered as part of the overall cost of a police vehicle.
Members of the public may wish to be assured that ‘best value’ is being obtained in respect of the price paid for police vehicles. / Whilst there is legitimate interest in members of the public wishing to ensure that appropriate expenditure is being made in relation to the Force Vehicle Fleet, there are many consideration that need to be taken into account in relation to the choice of vehicle for a particular policing role which will not be determined solely in relation to the vehicle price. As well as the basic vehicle cost consideration has to be given to any alterations made to a ‘standard vehicle’ produced by a manufacture, either in relation to factory fitted equipment or other necessary equipment in relation to emergency equipment and other kinds of necessary police equipment. Disclosure of the information sought would not provide the basis of allowing a proper consideration of whether ‘best value’ is being obtained. The information sought appears to be more relevant to contractual matters in relation to the supply of vehicles.
In certain circumstances, such as requests relating to commercial contracts, the timing of the request itself is also relevant to whether a public interest against disclosure is created. Where arequest is received before a tendering process has been completed, then that of itself means that competitors can gain an unfair advantage if detailed information on price and other companies which may partake in the tending process is disclosed, such as the cost incurred in relation to earlier contracts particularly where the cost can be associated with a specific contractor. The costs involved in such contracts will be considered as confidential by the contractor and as such should not be disclosed in a freedom of information application.
A new Crown Commercial Services Vehicle Framework is now in force and UK Police Forces and other ‘Blue Light Authorities’. The release of the cost information for specific vehicle contracts would be likely to seriously damage some contractor’s opportunities to fairly compete for the contract awards. Where such harm is caused to a contractor by the provisions of information which provides advantage to a rival contractor that is not in the interest of either the dis-advantaged contractor of the public authority. In the current case, the vehicle manufacturer has made representations that should the unit price of a vehicle be placed in the public domain by means of an FOI application, then the price of the vehicles, which were by the contract totally confidential, would do enormous damage to Hyundai if other competitors such as Vauxhall, Ford and Peugeot knew the prices that Hyundai charge for its vehicles to the Emergency services. This is not just to the police service but other emergency services. The price charged is of benefit not only to the manufacturer in being able to obtain the contract for supply, but also to the Force in respect of obtaining best value for the Force and therefore the public finances available to the Force. In times of austerity which had severely cut the public funds available, it is vital importance that the Force is able to obtain best value.
If such disclosures under the Freedom of Information Act, 2000, take place, public authorities may find that the number of contractors prepared to bid for such work will diminish and the loss of completion would allow higher contact prices to be quoted to the disadvantage of the public authority and also the public, particularly at a time when budgets are constrained. The unit price involved in this contract is of significant benefit to the Force and represents best value.
The financial resources of the Force are subject to independent scrutiny by the Police and Crime Commissioner who has statutory duties to ensure that financial resources are correctly used and fully accounted for in public records.
.
Section 40(2)
Personal data
[Application 1] / This application does not require a public interest test / The below information briefly indicates why the exemption provision is engaged in respect of the exempt information.
The information concerned is personal information in the particular circumstances as it is identified to a Chief Officer and is part of a contract with the Police and Crime Commissioner which is considered confidential. The information is held only as the vehicle has been supplied via the Force Vehicle Fleet.
There would be no expectation as part of the Chief Officer’s contract that this level of detail would be disclosed to the public.
Similarly a qualification and or requalification date for driving authorities are personal data of the individual Chief Officer. The Information Commissioner’s guidance on determining what is personal data has been consulted considering whether this exemption is engaged in respect of the two applications.
Decision: / When balancing the public interest it is necessary to consider the release of the requested information into the public domain. The public interest is not what interests the public, but what would be of tangible benefit to the public as a whole.
The current application does not appear to be seeking necessary information to permit a member of the public to make a valid assessment of whether the Force is achieving ‘best value’ in relation to the purchase of police vehicles and equipment, but potentially to compare and contrast Chief Officer vehicles which are supplied as part of their contract with the Police & Crime Commissioner as part of the terms of service, with the cost of the most commonly used police vehicle. There can be no reasonable comparison of two different type of vehicle supplied under two different contractual reasons for entirely separate purposes.
Irrespective of any potential motivation for the application, consideration has been given to ensuring that the commercial interest of the supplier and the Force is not compromised by disclosure of the unit price of a vehicle. In the abstract by not having full detailed specification of the vehicle then the price of the unit does not provide any tangible benefit to the public. However protecting the information does benefit the public pursue and therefore the interest of the public at large.
Given the information sought, consideration has to be given as to what effect disclosure could have in relation to tendering processes so as to not disadvantage individual tendering companies or the Force which has to consider carefully the resources available for the vehicle fleet.
The decision therefore is that the information exempt in the response table will not be disclosed at this time, but that information which can be disclosed will be disclosed.
Prepared by: / D. Jackson, Disclosure Analyst (9848)

DJAN- 01/2016