In accordance with section 1 (1) (b) of the Act our response is
provided below;
1. Copy of SLA attached - some information as shown has been
redacted from the document, reasons for this are shown below:
a) personal information/names/contact details
b) £ rates
c) nominated sub-contractor
d) languages for direct employment
e) direct extension numbers for custody suites
f) PIN codes for accessing the service
FOI 2763 - Final Applied Languages SLA 2009
2. The contract is continually monitored, an "annual review" was
therefore not necessary - and did not occur
3. As at 6 October 2010, the end date of the current SLA is 31
October 2010, with options to extend for a further 2 years.
4. As at 6th October 2010 , the information is the same as for
Q3.
Section 17 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 requires the
Cheshire Constabulary, when refusing to provide such information
(because the information is exempt) to provide you with a notice
which a) states that fact, b) specifies the exemption in question
and c) states (if that would not otherwise be apparent) why the
exemption applies.
The information is exempt by virtue of:
Section 31 Law Enforcement (1) (a) the prevention or detection of
crime & (c) the administration of justice, this is a qualified
prejudice based exemption and I am required to demonstrate the
prejudice or harm that disclosure would be likely to cause.
Section 43 Commercial Interests (2) would be likely to prejudice
commercial interests, this is a qualified class based exemption and
I am required to apply a public interest test.
Section 40(2) of the FOI Act 2000 relates to any information to
which a request for information relates is also exempt information
if
(a) it constitutes personal data which does not fall within
subsection (1), and
(b) either the first or the second condition below is
satisfied
(3) The first condition is:-
(a) in a case where the information falls within any of
paragraphs (a) to (d) of the definition of "data" in section 1(1)
of the Data Protection Act 1998, that the disclosure of the
information to a member of the public otherwise than under this Act
would contravene:-
(i) any of the data protection principles,
In this case disclosure would breach principle 1& 2 of the
Data Protection Act 1998:
Principle 1:Personal data shall be processed fairly and lawfully
and, in particular, shall not be processed unless-
(a) at least one of the conditions in Schedule 2 is met, and
(b) in the case of sensitive personal data, at least one of the
conditions in Schedule 3 is also met.
Principle 2: Personal data can only be processed for one or more
specified and lawful purposes, and shall not be further processed
in any manner incompatible with that purpose or purposes.
In this particular case no schedule 2 conditions are met and
general disclosure is not a specified purpose therefore disclosure
would be unlawful. Section 40 (2) is therefore an absolute
exemption .
Section 43 Commercial Interests
Disclosure of the contract rates & pricing would undermine
the Authority's ability to negotiate future contracts at the
advantage of the Police Authority and the tax payer, also
prejudicing the suppliers commercial interests. By disclosing this
information it would enable future contractors to exploit the
current supplier, deeming the process unfair. With this in mind the
following public interest test applies in respect of the Section 43
exemption.
In considering where the public interest lies the factors that
favour disclosure are arguments in favour of promoting
transparency, accountability and public finances. The arguments in
favour of non-disclosure include the the interests of third parties
and an obligation to maintain confidence.
When deciding where the public interest lies we have to take
into consideration valid arguments both for and against disclosure.
In this case the strongest factor in favour of disclosure is
accountability. However, there would be no community benefit in
placing the interests of the third party at risk, with no benefit
to the tax payer in jeopardising the future tendering process.
Therefore on balance in all the circumstances of the case, the
public interest in maintaining the exemptions outweighs the public
interest in disclosing the information.
Section 31 Law Enforcement
The disclosure of this information would impact upon the volume
of work and ability to carry out officers and staffs duties, as
members of the public would contact the custody suite for various
reasons such as to obtain information about a detainee. This would
create a backlog of callers which in turn could occupy officers,
preventing completion of their daily duties, having an impact on
police resources and the administration of justice. This has been
experienced in the past when different custody arrangements were in
place, (at various police stations), the custody staff spending an
inordinate amount of time dealing with telephone enquiries. It may
also enable anyone to book interpreters on behalf of the authority
and this could have severe financial implications on the authority.
If an interpreter is booked for a hoax job, time and money would be
wasted and would have a detrimental impact on the prevention and
detection of crime. Evidence of this is shown in the numbers of 999
hoax calls made to the Constabulary.
In considering where the public interest lies the factors that
favour disclosure are the arguments in favour of promoting
transparency, accountability and participation. The arguments in
favour of non-disclosure is the efficient and effective Conduct of
the Police Service where current or future law enforcement of the
force may be compromised by the release of information. In this
case, disclosure of the information would have a significant impact
upon the authorities resources therefore, in all the circumstances
of the case the public interest in maintaining the exemptions
outweigh the public interest in disclosure.