Retention of officers and officers under investigation by gender from 2017/18 to 2021/22

Freedom of information request reference no: 01.FOI.22.025674

I note you seek access to the following information:

In order to help you with this request, I am outlining my query as specifically as possible. I would like to receive the answers to the following questions:

1. How many women leave the Metropolitan police force after less than a year of employment in the force? And what is the percentage?
2. How many men leave the Metropolitan police force after less than a year of employment in the force? And what is the percentage?
3. How many women leave the Metropolitan police force after less than five years of employment in the force? And what is the percentage?
4. How many men leave the Metropolitan police force after less than five years of employment in the force? And what is the percentage?
5. How many men in the Metropolitan police force are currently under investigation? 6. What percentage of these investigations are to do with sexual harassment?
7. Likewise, how many women in the Metropolitan police force are currently under investigation?
8. And what percentage of these investigations are to do with sexual harassment?

Please note: your questions have been numbered 1 to 8 to ensure clarity in our response.

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).

In addition, and irrespective of what other information may or may not be held, this request also requires the MPS to Neither Confirm Nor Deny whether it holds any further information in relation to current investigations, to protect any covert investigations which might be captured by these questions overall, and for this reason the duty in Section 1(1)(a) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act) does not apply, by virtue of the following exemptions:

Section 30(3) - Investigations
Section 31(3) - Law Enforcement

Reason for decision

‘Neither Confirm nor Deny’ (NCND)’ - In certain circumstances, even confirming or denying that requested information is held can reveal information that falls under an exemption. A public authority may be able to use an exemption to refuse to confirm whether or not it holds information, if either confirming or denying would reveal exempt information in itself.

A neither confirm nor deny response is more likely to be needed for very specific requests than for more general or wide ranging requests.

It can be important to use a neither confirm nor deny response consistently, every time a certain type of information is requested, regardless of whether the information is actually held or not. For this reason public authorities need to be alert to the possibility of receiving future requests for the same type of information when handling very specific or detailed requests.

Section 30(3) – Investigations - As outlined previously, it is important to use a neither confirm nor deny response consistently, every time a certain type of information is requested, regardless of whether the information is actually held or not. In this case the MPS would resist confirmation or denial as to whether any further information is held relevant to this request, because we need to be alert to the possibility of receiving requests for information about current investigations in the future. For example, in the event that lower figures are realised and disclosure could identify covert investigations that may or may not be ongoing. Furthermore, in the event that regular requests are received and disclosed figures fluctuate any further confirmation or denial could also be used to try and work out who or what the MPS may be currently investigating.

After weighing up the competing interests I have determined that a confirmation or denial statement that any further information is, or is not held, would not be in the public interest. I consider that the benefit that would result from providing this would not outweigh the considerations favouring neither confirming nor denying, namely the impact such requests could have on covert investigations, whether or not specific individuals have been investigated and the associated data protection implications for all involved, in any such investigations that may be ongoing. In light of the points considered above I have applied the section 30(3) exemption.

Section 31(3) – Law Enforcement - I have considered the potential harm that could be caused by confirming or denying that any further information is held in relation to current investigations of men and women in the MPS.

Every effort should be made to release information under Freedom of Information, however, any disclosure under FOIA is considered to be a release to the world as once the information is published the public authority and the MPS has no control over what use is made of that information.

To confirm or deny that any further information is or is not held in relation to men and women in the MPS currently under investigation, could identify current live investigations that are being conducted covertly. For example, if an investigation is currently taking place which involves suspected criminal offending by serving police officers, or police staff, this could be covert in nature and the suspect individuals would not be aware of its existence. Confirming or denying that any such investigations are ongoing could, in the event of low data being disclosed in response to future requests, and the publishing of any information whilst any such matter is still under investigation, may negatively affect the opportunity to bring an offender to justice. Furthermore, confirming or denying that any further information is held in relation to current investigations in the MPS risks undermining a consistent approach on the disclosure of such information in the future. As such, it is felt at this time that neither confirming nor denying that any further information exists is the most appropriate conclusion.

Disclosure

Please see tables below for information relevant to your questions numbered 1, 2, 3 and 4.

The data shows the number of leavers split male and female with the leaving rate. The ‘rate’ is the number of leavers in the length of service group divided by the average strength during the period in the same length of service group.

Leavers with less than 1 Years' service:
	Female		Male
	Leavers	Rate	Leavers	Rate
2017/18	15	3.9%	58	7.1%
2018/19	45	8.8%	86	7.7%
2019/20	58	6.3%	138	7.0%
2020/21	71	7.1%	159	8.5%
2021/22	55	5.8%	124	8.4%

    

Leavers with less than 5 Years’ service:
	Female		Male
	Leavers	Rate	Leavers	Rate
2017/18	105	4.4%	330	6.0%
2018/19	162	6.5%	399	7.0%
2019/20	145	5.4%	356	5.9%
2020/21	133	4.4%	335	5.4%
2021/22	194	5.6%	383	5.9%

Please see the table below for data relevant to your questions 5, 6, 7 and 8.

Officer/Staff gender	Number of officers/staff under investigation	% of investigations related to sexual harassment
Female	2209	0%
Male	6694	1%
Total	8903	1%