Spit guards and HIV

The request was successful.

Dear Avon and Somerset Constabulary,

Please outline the consultation process and the staff involved with the decision to release the information that the spit guards will protect police officers from HIV, and what will be happening in the future to prevent the public being misinformed.

Yours faithfully,

Mark Ferbrache

#Freedom of Information Requests, Avon and Somerset Constabulary

Thank you for your request for information. Your request will now be considered and you will receive a response within the statutory timescale of 20 working days as defined by the Act. In some circumstances Avon and Somerset Constabulary may be unable to achieve this deadline if consideration needs to be given to the public interest test. If this is likely you will be informed and given a revised time-scale at the earliest opportunity.

show quoted sections

#Freedom of Information Requests, Avon and Somerset Constabulary

1 Attachment

Corporate Information Management Department

Force Headquarters, PO Box 37, Valley Road,

Portishead, Bristol, BS20 8QJ

Email [email address]    

 

 

 

 

Mr Mark Ferbrache Our Reference 1452/17

[1][FOI #448351 email] Date 20 December
2017
 

 

Dear Mr Ferbrache

 

I write in connection with your request for information dated 23rd
November 2017 under the Freedom of Information Act.

 

Specifically you asked:

Please outline the consultation process and the staff involved with the
decision to release the information that the spit guards will protect
police officers from HIV, and what will be happening in the future to
prevent the public being misinformed.

 

Our response:

 

The consultation process for the use of spit guards informed the release
of information. The consultation process has been outlined below but was
also informed by other sources inclusive of the NHS and Police Federation.

 

Consultation process:

Over 220 people gave us feedback on Twitter and via email and 95% were in
favour of providing the police with spit and bite guards.  In addition to
Twitter, the main consultation route was via our 6 Independent Advisory
Groups (IAG’s) that broadly represent the communities of Bristol, BANES,
South Gloucestershire, North Somerset, West Somerset and East Somerset.   

 

Following feedback from several HIV charities to our spit guard
announcement and the risk of HIV transmission, we contacted the National
Police Chiefs Council lead to seek further advice from the Independent
Medical Science Advisory Panel representative who is a leading
microbiologist and clinical director for infection at UCLH. The
Independent Medical Science Advisory Panel are now seeking to provide a
clear, unambiguous steer to all police forces in the near future

 

 

 

Yours sincerely

 

Michelle Radcliffe

Freedom of Information Officer

Corporate Information Management Department

 

 

Please note:

1.     Requests and responses may be published on Avon and Somerset
Constabulary’s website (within 24 hours), some of which may contain a link
to additional information, which may provide you with further
clarification.

2.     Whilst we may verbally discuss your request with you in order to
seek clarification, all other communication should be made in writing.

3.     Avon and Somerset Constabulary provides you with the right to
request a re-examination of your case under its review procedure (copy
attached).

 

 

 

show quoted sections

#Freedom of Information Requests, Avon and Somerset Constabulary

2 Attachments

Corporate Information Management Department

Force Headquarters, PO Box 37, Valley Road,

Portishead, Bristol, BS20 8QJ

Email [email address]    

 

 

 

 

Mr Mark Ferbrache Our Reference 1490/17

[1][FOI #448351 email] Date 03 January
2018
 

 

Dear Mr Ferbrache

 

I write in connection with your request for information dated 1^st
December 2017 under the Freedom of Information Act.

 

Specifically you asked:

1.    Please supply a current vehicle fleet list, detailing the vehicle
make and model, as well as the role of each vehicle in the financial years
2015/16, 2016/17, and 2017/18 so far.

2.    How much has the force spent on purchasing unmarked vehicles
outright in the financial years 2015/16, 2016/17, and 2017/18 so far?
Please break this information down by vehicle make and model, detailing
the cost of each vehicle.

3.    How much has the force spent on leasing unmarked vehicles in the
financial years 2015/16, 2016/17, and 2017/18 so far? Please break this
information down by vehicle make and model, detailing the annual cost of
each lease contract.

 

Our response:

Please find the information for Q1 attached. We do not hold historic fleet
lists. 

 

With regards to both marked and unmarked vehicles the make/model have been
provided, however the vehicle roles have been deemed exempt from
disclosure.  Details of covert vehicles have also been excluded from both
Q1&2. The exemption applicable to the withheld information is section
31(1)(a)(b) of the act which relates to law enforcement.  Section 31 is a
qualified and prejudice based exemption which means there is a requirement
to identify and evidence the harm that would be caused by disclosure and
consideration given to the public interest which is below.

 

Section 31 considerations

Harm

Harm has been identified in providing you with the details of ‘vehicle
role’ as release of this information could allow those intent on criminal
behaviour to map our vehicle resources and establish specialist vehicles
which would undermine law enforcement.  Although ‘marked’ police vehicles
are identifiable in the public domain, it is not always clear what
the specific function of each of these vehicles is. Therefore, providing
you with information regarding the ‘vehicle role’ together with the make
and model would also potentially divulge what these vehicles are used
for.  These details would allow those criminally minded to identify
specific vehicles and use this information to evade apprehension thus
negatively impacting on our ability to prevent and detect crime.

 

There are concerns associated with the release of any information that
would identify covert vehicles as law enforcement could be adversely
affected. The release of this information in relation to vehicles used for
covert activities would equip individuals involved in criminal activity
with an indication of our capabilities. This information, together with
other information already in the public domain would assist those involved
in criminal behaviour in identifying the vehicles that are used for covert
operations. This would render them useless, hinder the prevention and
detection of crime and could compromise ongoing and future enquiries.
Similarly releasing information that would identify ‘unmarked’ police
vehicles would equip individuals involved in criminal activity with
information to allow them to avoid and evade Officers again negatively
impacting on law enforcement.

 

Public Interest Test for section 31(1)(a)(b)

Considerations favouring disclosure

Disclosure may add value to the accuracy of public debate with regards to
resources allocated for the prevention and detection of crime.

 

Considerations favouring non-disclosure

The Police Service has a duty to deliver effective law enforcement
ensuring that the prevention and detection of crime, apprehension or
prosecution of offenders, and administration of justice is carried out
appropriately.

 

Identifying ‘the vehicle role’ and make and model could compromise the
vehicle’s operational purpose as specialist vehicles could be identified
and targeted. Disclosure may reveal what resources are available for a
given role and this information could enable police strength to be
determined and circumvented by those intent on committing crime.  The
release of this information could therefore provide a tactical advantage
to offenders which would negatively impact on public safety and undermine
the policing purpose.

Disclosure relating to the role of a vehicle may reveal operationally
sensitive details, this might include the fact that a particular vehicle
is used solely by firearms officers. Any ability to identify its presence
at (or absence from) a particular location may be useful to those intent
on criminal activity. 

 

Disclosing the details of covert vehicles would provide sufficient
information to those involved in criminal activity of the capabilities
available to the force when carrying out covert activities in certain
areas. This could result in them taking steps to evade detection and to
destroy evidence if they believe that their movements are being monitored.
This could also lead to vehicles and officers being identified which would
render their covert capabilities useless.

Balance Test 

The ability to deliver effective law enforcement is of paramount
importance.  Whilst the value of transparency is recognised, there is no
further tangible benefit to identifying covert operation vehicles.  This
may be interesting to some individuals however this is as you will
appreciate different to being in the public’s interest to know.  To
disclose vehicle roles/base and information concerning covert and unmarked
vehicles would have an adverse effect on our ability to prevent and detect
crime.  Therefore on balance the factors favouring non-disclosure outweigh
those favouring. This represents a refusal notice for this part of your
request.

 

Q2 – Please see the table below for the total spend on purchasing unmarked
vehicles in each of the financial years 2015/16, 2016/17, and 2017/18:

 

+------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|Year |Expenditure |
|---------------------------------+--------------------------------------|
|2015/16 |621 653.26 |
|---------------------------------+--------------------------------------|
|2016/17 |821 422.93 |
|---------------------------------+--------------------------------------|
|2017/18 (to date) |215 468.05 |
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+

 

I am unable to provide a breakdown by make/model of these costs as this
information has been considered exempt from disclosure.

The exemption applicable to this is Section 43(2) - Commercial Interests.
This is a qualified and class-based exemption which means there is a
requirement to consider the public interest which is below:

 

Harm in Disclosure

Any purchase will be competitively negotiated and disclosure would place
both the supplier and the constabulary at a commercial disadvantage. Our
ability to negotiate future tenders could be hindered and could result in
us paying a higher price for this service which would impact on the cost
to the public purse.

 

Public Interest Test

 

Factors Favouring Disclosure

Disclosure could provide a better understanding of the decision making
processes and how public funds are spent.

 

Factors Favouring Non-Disclosure

As public funds would be expended, it is in the public’s interest that the
most competitive negotiations are achieved. For example companies compete
by offering something different and often this can be reflected in their
pricing. Certain companies may offer a competitive rate to the
constabulary. If this was known the supplier may no longer be in a
position to offer such rates and room to negotiate is
hindered. Ultimately, the public would pay more and this would have a
negative impact on police resources as less funding would be available for
other areas of policing.

 

Balance Test

In considering the arguments for disclosure or non-disclosure, whilst the
value of public debate is recognised, the ability of the constabulary to
further negotiate in the future is in the public’s interest as this would
potentially affect the expenditure of public funds. On balance, the
decision is that the tender submission including the quality elements will
not be disclosed on this occasion. In accordance with the Act, the
represents a Refusal Notice on this occasion.

 

In respect of Q3 there is no information held.

 

 

Yours sincerely

 

Michelle Radcliffe

Freedom of Information Officer

Corporate Information Management Department

 

 

Please note:

1.     Requests and responses may be published on Avon and Somerset
Constabulary’s website (within 24 hours), some of which may contain a link
to additional information, which may provide you with further
clarification.

2.     Whilst we may verbally discuss your request with you in order to
seek clarification, all other communication should be made in writing.

3.     Avon and Somerset Constabulary provides you with the right to
request a re-examination of your case under its review procedure (copy
attached).

 

 

 

show quoted sections