FOI Request re software solution used to manage and track staff vetting

Angela Price made this Freedom of Information request to Cleveland Police

This request has been closed to new correspondence from the public body. Contact us if you think it ought be re-opened.

The request was successful.

Dear Cleveland Police,

I am currently researching what software solutions Police Forces use to manage and track staff vetting and would be most grateful if you would provide me, under the Freedom of Information Act, details in respect to the contract below.

The details we require are:

• What, if any, bespoke software is used for managing and tracking staff vetting?
• If bespoke software is used, what was the start date, duration and value of the contract?
• Is there an extension clause in the contract and, if so, the duration of the extension?
• Has a decision been made yet on whether the contract is are being either extended or renewed?
• Who is the senior officer (outside of procurement) responsible for managing the vetting process?

Thank you for your help.

Yours faithfully,

Angela Price

Freedom of Information, Cleveland Police

This mailbox is for Freedom of Information requests only and all other
mail will be deleted unactioned.

 

For Legal please forward your e-mail to
[1][email address] and for Subject Access please
check the Subject Access section of the Cleveland Police website under the
heading of ‘Advice and Information’ or forward your e-mail to
[2][email address] for all other
enquiries please contact Cleveland Police via 101.

 

References

Visible links
1. mailto:[email address]
2. mailto:[email address]

Freedom of Information, Cleveland Police

Dear Ms Price,

Enquiry Ref: 11857/2020

I acknowledge receipt of your request for information dated 6th April 2020 and received by this office on that date.

As set out by the Freedom of Information Act it will be our aim to respond to your request within 20 working days that is by 6th May 2020. In some cases, however, we may be unable to achieve this deadline and would hope to contact you should this be the case.

Please note: Although every effort will be made to ensure a response is provided within statutory deadlines, due to current circumstances delays may be unavoidable. We apologise for any inconvenience and will endeavour to process your request as quickly as is practicable.

Please note the ‘working day’ is defined as any day other than a Saturday, a Sunday, or a day which is a bank holiday in any part of the United Kingdom. The first reckonable day is the first working day after receipt.

If you have any questions regarding your request please contact this office.

Yours sincerely,

Ms E McGuigan
Freedom of Information Decision Maker
Directorate of Standards and Ethics
Cleveland Community Safety Hub | 1 Cliffland Way | Hemlington | TS8 9GL
E-mail: [Cleveland Police request email]

Website | Facebook | Twitter | Instagram | LinkedIn

       
Public Service | Transparency | Impartiality | Integrity

“Delivering outstanding policing for our communities”

Please do not use social media or email to report crime as we do not monitor these accounts 24/7. Dial 999 in an emergency or visit the contact us section of our website for all reporting options.

show quoted sections

Freedom of Information, Cleveland Police

Dear Ms Price,

Enquiry Ref: 11857/2020

I write in connection with your request for information dated 6th April 2020 and received by this office on that date. Below are the questions raised in your request and our response.

I am currently researching what software solutions Police Forces use to manage and track staff vetting and would be most grateful if you would provide me, under the Freedom of Information Act, details in respect to the contract below.

The details we require are:
• What, if any, bespoke software is used for managing and tracking staff vetting?
a) Core-vet vetting system
• If bespoke software is used, what was the start date, duration and value of the contract?
a) The Force went live with Core-vet on 25th June 2019, the contact is for 3 years
• Is there an extension clause in the contract and, if so, the duration of the extension?
a) There is no extension clause
• Has a decision been made yet on whether the contract is are being either extended or renewed?
a) No decision has been made at the present time
• Who is the senior officer (outside of procurement) responsible for managing the vetting process?
a) Maria Laden

In relation to your request for the value of the contract Cleveland Police would rely upon the following;
Section 1 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) 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 s17 of FOIA requires that we provide the applicant with a notice which: a) states that fact b) specifies the exemption(s) in question and c) states (if that would not otherwise be apparent) why the exemption applies.

We are not disclosing the above requested information, pursuant to the exemption provision of Section 43(2)(b) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 which states that under Section 43 of the Act (Commercial Interests information is exempt information:
a) If it constitutes a trade secret
b) If its disclosure would or would likely to prejudice commercial interests of any person (including the public authority holding it)
This exemption is a qualified and class based exemption. A class based exemption means the legislators, when writing this piece of legislation, considered that the release of this type of information would cause harm to either the authority or individuals involved. Accordingly therefore the Cleveland Police do not need to communicate the harm in disclosure.

Public Interest Test
Factors favouring disclosure

Use of public resources - where public resources are being used, there is public interest in accountability and justification. There is public interest in establishing that the Force has negotiated a competitive rate for IT Security systems.

Factors favouring non-disclosure
Interests of third parties - where third party interests may be jeopardised by the release of information that relates to sensitive commercial information held about a business. Disclosure of information specific to that one commercial arrangement is likely to negatively impact on the commercial interests of the company concerned. Releasing the amount of money paid could prejudice the commercial interests of that company. The release of this information may give other Companies an unfair advantage should they wish to provide services of the force for other contracts. It may also result in the force being unable to maximise income from any future commercial arrangements that it may consider entering into.

Balancing Test

When balancing the public interest test we have considered whether the information should be released into the public domain. In this case there is the use of public resources favouring disclosure which needs to be weighed against the interest of third parties for non-disclosure. By releasing the requested information the commercial interests of a business may be compromised, along with the relationship the force has with that company. And for this reason the factor favouring non-disclosure, interests of third parties outweighs the factor favouring disclosure, use of public resources.

In accordance with Section 17 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000, this letter represents a Refusal Notice with regard to this section of your request.
I can advise however that contract information is published on the Police Crime Commissioners website and on ‘Bluelight’ and that this information will appear next time the data is updated for contracts above £10,000.

Please note any statistical data supplied in relation to Freedom of Information requests is a snapshot of data held at the time the request was received by the Freedom of Information office and is subject to constant change/updates.

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.

We have made every effort to ensure a response was provided within statutory deadlines, however due to current circumstances delays have been unavoidable. If your response was late we apologise for any inconvenience it may have caused. If we can be of any further assistance please do not hesitate to contact this office.

Yours sincerely,

Ms E McGuigan
Freedom of Information Decision Maker
Directorate of Standards and Ethics
Cleveland Community Safety Hub | 1 Cliffland Way | Hemlington | TS8 9GL
E-mail: [Cleveland Police request email]

Website | Facebook | Twitter | Instagram | LinkedIn

       
Public Service | Transparency | Impartiality | Integrity

“Delivering outstanding policing for our communities”

Please do not use social media or email to report crime as we do not monitor these accounts 24/7. Dial 999 in an emergency or visit the contact us section of our website for all reporting options.

show quoted sections