BOSSES at Lancashire Constabulary have refused to reveal how many undercover officers it has – or even if it has any at all.

Responding to a Freedom of Information (FOI) Act request from the Lancashire Telegraph, the force declined to answer eight questions about its use of undercover tactics.

Police said they could ‘neither confirm nor deny’ that any information was held and cited a number of FOI exemptions – referring to the risk to the safety of its officers and the public.

Nationally, the Metropolitan Police faced criticism after senior chiefs authorised undercover police officers to give false evidence in court to protect their cover as environmental protestors.

And a number of women are taking legal action over ‘relationships’ formed with undercover officers, which goes against guidelines from the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO).

The Lancashire Telegraph asked the county’s police force a series of question about the number of undercover officers, how much is spent by the force on covert operations and how many prosecutions ‘undercover’ intelligence has led to.

The FOI response from the force accepted that providing the information would lead to a better informed and reassured public and provide transparency over the use of public funds.

But a spokesman said: “Irrespective of whether information is or isn’t held, where undercover officers are deployed, this is done as a vital tool in ensuring all avenues of investigation are carried out and exhausted.

“The safety and anonymity of these officers is of paramount importance and any disclosure which could place the safety of those officers at increased risk is not in the public interest.

“Disclosure of this information can not only lead to the officers being targeted and caused physical harm but also other members of the public in the vicinity, or police officers trying to protect people.

"In addition, information that causes speculation has in the past caused innocent people to be targeted following rumour and speculation.

“The impact of confirming or denying whether information is held would provide intelligence to the criminal fraternity which could aid in the identification of undercover officers.

“Such an action could lead to the undercover officers being ‘outed’, would place the health and safety of those individuals at risk which may result in serious injury and/or death, seriously undermine ongoing covert investigations; and hinder the effective delivery of operational law enforcement.”