Security Vetting
Freedom of information request reference no: 01.FOI.22.023407
I note you seek access to the following information:
As you will be aware, the Vetting Code of Practice requires forces to monitor the application of the Vetting Code and APP on Vetting to identify whether the decision making is having a disproportionate impact on people from black and minority ethnic groups. If it is found to have a disproportionate impact the reasons should be clearly understood, and where appropriate, action taken to address the issues: Please tell us/provide the following information:
1. What steps are taken by the MPS to monitor the impact of vetting on BME groups?
2. Please provide us with any documents evidencing this monitoring within the last 2 years i.e. assessments, reports, memos etc. on this issue.
3. Please confirm whether a disproportionate impact has ever been identified?
4. If it has, please confirm when this was and what reasons were identified as being the cause of the disproportionate impact? Please furnish us with any documents recording this.
5. Please confirm what, if any, action was taken to address the disproportionate impact.
6. Please provide us with a copy of any Equality Impact Assessments undertaken in relation to security vetting. As noted above, the Code of Practice and the APP on Vetting requires you to monitor and assess whether security vetting is having a disproportionate impact on any protected quality groups. We therefore assume that the information requested should be readily available and accessible to you.”
Decision
I have today decided to disclose some of the requested information. Some data has been withheld as it is exempt from disclosure and therefore this response serves as a Refusal Notice under Section 17 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act) by virtue of the following exemptions:
Section 40(2)(3A)(a) – Personal Information.
Reason for decision
Data disclosed in accordance with the Freedom of Information Act is disclosed to the world, and not just to the individual requesting the information. This is best demonstrated by the FOI disclosures on the Disclosure Log section of the MPS website:
Some of the reports provided to you today include in depth examples of vetting refusals and the reasons behind them. This information, when connected to the other information being disclosed, could be used to identify the individuals being referred to, and disclose personal information about them that would otherwise not be known to the public. This would be grossly unfair and unlawful, and as such, that information is exempt in accordance with Section 40 – the exemption for personal information.
Section 40(2)(3A)(a) – Personal Information - The information sought under your Freedom of Information request is at such a level that, if disclosed, would provide enough detail to identify the individuals being referred to.
Although the data does not include names, it does include enough detail of a biographical nature (including the fact that they’ve applied and been refused, and their sex and ethnicity) that would allow for the identification of the individuals in question.
It is often believed that information, because ‘anonymised’, is unlikely to allow anyone to actually identify those involved as the data is ‘too abstract’. However, when considering identifiability, we have to assume that we are not looking just at the means reasonably likely to be used by the ordinary man in the street, but also the means that are likely to be used by a determined person (or a ‘motivated intruder’) with a particular reason to want to identify individuals. Examples would include investigative journalists, estranged partners, to name but a few.
If this level of data was to be disclosed, it could be pieced together with information already known by individuals or already in the public domain in order to identify the individuals involved. For example, individuals may be partially aware that someone had applied for the police but not been accepted. To disclose certain details in relation to specific refusals and reasonings may allow such individuals to ascertain or infer that a specific case relates to a particular individual. This would be unfair to that individual and any others referred to, for example, family members who may be referenced.
Therefore, where the request is seeking information that would essentially allow access to third party personal data (such as in this case) the Section 40(2) exemption may be engaged.
In order to apply the Section 40(2) exemption, the disclosure of the requested information must satisfy either the first, second or third conditions as defined by subsections 3(A), 3(B) and 4(A) of the Data Protection Act 2018.
Disclosure
Please find answers to your questions below.
Q1 - What steps are taken by the MPS to monitor the impact of vetting on BME groups?
In regards to vetting, the vetting unit monitors quarterly the impact of Vetting on BAMEH groups for both staff and officer vetting. This data is analysed by result and the reason for refusal of vetting. The reasons for refusals are dip-sampled and examined in detail with insights and recommendations made. This data then forms part of the vetting scorecard which is shared with SLT and other MET and recruitment stakeholders.
Another element by which the Met monitors the impact of BAMEH groups is the Vetting Panel. The vetting panel is a monthly meeting with other representatives in the Met including but not limited to; Professionalism, Human Resources, Directorate of Professional Standards, Independent Race Advisory Group, Met Federation, MOPAC, Vetting, Outreach, Staff Association Leads and Learning and Development. Each month the previous cases of refusals are written up and anonymised. These cases are then reviewed and discussed at length to establish whether the decision was correct, if the applicant requires an interview or if the case is to be overturned and cleared. The sex and the ethnicity of applicants whose cases are sent to panel are also monitored.
Q2 - Please provide us with any documents evidencing this monitoring within the last 2 years i.e. assessments, reports, memos etc. on this issue.
The team now responsible for this issue are relatively new and have not been in place for the last two years (see answer to question 5 for more information). Therefore, they do not have information covering the whole period.
However, we can today provide the following PowerPoint reports that they do hold, which contain analysis of data relating to potential disproportionality around vetting objections made when completing vetting applications. They document the number and proportion of police officers and police staff applicants that passed and did not pass the Vetting process. The analysis was categorised by both ethnicity and sex, for both police officer applicants and police staff applicants.
The reports were generally made quarterly, although the most recent report has not yet been compiled. This was due to a change in date for the review of the reports.
Report title: Covering the period:
Vetting Disproportionality Scorecard – 202103 November 2020 to February 2021
Vetting Disproportionality Scorecard – 202106 March 2021 to May 2021
Vetting Disproportionality Scorecard – 202109 June 2021 to August 2021
Vetting Disproportionality Scorecard – 202112 September 2021 to November 2021
Q3 - Please confirm whether a disproportionate impact has ever been identified?
Disproportionality has been identified and is being examined on a quarterly basis and the results reviewed. There are also steps being made in the creation of the Equality Team (see the answer to question 5).
Q4 - If it has, please confirm when this was and what reasons were identified as being the cause of the disproportionate impact? Please furnish us with any documents recording this.
When the initial work was taken on to identify the cause of vetting refusal rates in 2020, it was established the main reason BAMEH were being refused vetting was Non-Declaration, followed by candidate family member. However, this has since changed to the most prominent reason being Candidate Family Member. Please see the documentation referred to above.
Q5 - Please confirm what, if any, action was taken to address the disproportionate impact.
In December 2020, the vetting unit took part in a RIE (Rapid Improvement Event) as part of continuous improvement. This included members of the staff association/CPIE, Deputy Commissioners Delivery Group and a member of the Race Independent Advisory Group. This led to the creation of the Equality Team, designed to tackle the issue of non-declaration and disproportionality within the vetting unit.
The Equality Team started in August 2021 and is part of the 2021-2025 Met’s Strategy for Inclusion, Diversity and Engagement under point 9; Recruitment, Progression and Retention.
The Equality Team’s duties include but not limited to:
• Conduct personable vetting consultations where appropriate, to enable candidates the opportunity to discuss their application and provide any further information/context rather than refuse clearance based on application form alone.
• Facilitate action learning sets with vetting team representatives and stakeholders, to take learning from our own ways of working for continuous improvement in the pursuit of operational excellence in relation to the police vetting pipeline.
• Work collaboratively to conduct vetting panel reviews with other MPS Stakeholders.
• Engage in outreach and recruitment events in communities to provide reassurance or any concerns, build trust and demystify the vetting process.
The aim of the Equality Team is to provide a high-touch level of service, support and communication to address any issues/concerns that may arise during an applicant’s vetting application. With particular focus to those applicants from under-represented groups who identify as being from a Black, Asian or Multiple Ethnic Heritage backgrounds.
We have captured this statistical data and have taken significant steps to examine and monitor this to understand the correlation between those applicants granted vetting clearance to those applicants refused.
This is still a new team which is constantly evolving in its role and duties.
Please also see the attached Excel spreadsheet that shows data relating to the impact of applicants (which would otherwise potentially fail the PNC sift) being contacted by the Equality Team within the Vetting Unit.
Spreadsheet title: Covering the period:
FOI Equality Data August 2021 to February 2022
Q6 - Please provide us with a copy of any Equality Impact Assessments undertaken in relation to security vetting. As noted above, the Code of Practice and the APP on Vetting requires you to monitor and assess whether security vetting is having a disproportionate impact on any protected quality groups. We therefore assume that the information requested should be readily available and accessible to you.
As explained, the Equality Team (which focuses on this issue) is relatively new and therefore they do not yet have an EIA. However, they have confirmed this is currently being worked on and they hope to have one shortly.