Received: 1 March 2024

Would be possible to answer the following questions for me?.  

1) Are the PFEW currently or have they ever employed the services of Portland Communications, even on a retainer basis?. 

2) If  the answer to 1) is yes could you please confirm the dates of employment of those services 

3) How much has been paid to Portland Communications during the times they have been employed or on a retainer basis by the PFEW.  

4) What is their role and what have they provided for paying members specifically whilst being employed by PFEW.  

5) Whose decision was it to employ Portland Communications and what was the thought process behind a staff association employing a public relations company ?  

Responded: 5 April 2024

1. Yes  

2. Portland Communications ("Portland") were initially engaged by the PFEW in 2020. The original mandate came to an end in the Autumn of 2023, and since then Portland have been engaged in smaller projects. 

Portland were originally engaged predominantly to provide political advisory (rather than communications) services. These specialist services related to the PFEW's engagement with the Government in connection with the Police Remuneration Review Body ("PRRB"). The services received from Portland were vital to the PFEW's efforts in helping secure successive, historic pay increases for police officers in 2022 and 2023. Portland have also provided strategic communications advice, including on smaller projects since their original mandate came to an end in the Autumn of 2023. Portland, accredited members of the British Polling Council, have also carried out research among members for the PFEW Pay and Morale survey. 

3. The PFEW relies on Section 43 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 ("FOIA"). Namely that the disclosure of this information would be prejudicial to the commercial interests of the PFEW.  This position is taken on the basis that: 

• The PFEW is, later in 2024, running a tender/RFP process for external communications advisors.  
• Were details of amounts paid to Portland (as a recently engaged communications advisor) to be made public, then this information would be accessible to external agencies contemplating participating in the tender/RFP process prior to them submitting their pricing proposals. This would weaken the PFEW's position in this process and therefore prejudice its commercial interests.  
•  Whilst there is a public interest in details of the PFEW's general expenditure being made public (and which is made public via the PFEW's published accounts), to the extent that there is any public interest in the specific amounts paid to Portland, this is outweighed by the public interest in the PFEW being able to conduct its search for new communications advisors free from commercial prejudice, and to obtain fair value from its advisors, in a way that a normal commercial party would be able to. 

4. See above in response to question 2.   

5. Portland were initially engaged in 2020 by the then National Secretary. As explained, the initial engagement was to assist the PFEW in seeking to secure an increase in Police pay. It is standard practice for organisations of the PFEW's scale and complexity to seek advice from external political / communications advisors from time to time.