Quickly exit this site by pressing the Escape key Leave this site
We use some essential cookies to make our website work. We’d like to set additional cookies so we can remember your preferences and understand how you use our site.
You can manage your preferences and cookie settings at any time by clicking on “Customise Cookies” below. For more information on how we use cookies, please see our Cookies notice.
Your cookie preferences have been saved. You can update your cookie settings at any time on the cookies page.
Your cookie preferences have been saved. You can update your cookie settings at any time on the cookies page.
Sorry, there was a technical problem. Please try again.
This site is a beta, which means it's a work in progress and we'll be adding more to it over the next few weeks. Your feedback helps us make things better, so please let us know what you think.
Freedom of information request reference no: 01.FOI.24.036020
I note you seek access to the following information:
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)(a)(b)&(3)(a)(i) – Personal Information
Section 42(2) - Legal Professional Privilege
Section 43(2) – Commercial sensitivity
Reason for decision
Section 40 Exemption has been applied with reference to Q.7 Who is the senior responsible officer for vetting in the MPS?
Section 42 Exemption has been applied with reference to Q.13 What legal advice was taken with regards to discontinuing ?applications that were awaiting vetting?
and Section 43 Exemption has been applied with reference to Q.9. What is the cost of employing outside companies to provide vetting per applicant?
Section 40(2)(a)(b) and (3)(a)(i) - Personal Information - 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(c) of the Data Protection Act 2018.
The first condition ensures that the exemption would apply in circumstances where the disclosure of the information would breach any of the Data Protection Act 2018 principles.
There are six Data Protection principles set out in the 2018 act and these can be found at section 34.
In this instance I have decided that the release of staff names would provide those intent on disrupting the work of the MPS with information that would assist them to do so. In this regard, a person with this intent would be likely to use this information to make inappropriate contact with senior members of staff or send them vast amounts of unsolicited correspondence. This would impede upon the resources of these senior members of staff and cause disruption to the work of the MPS.
Individuals would not reasonably expect the MPS to put information into the public domain which identifies them. Such disclosure could lead to unwanted and unwarranted intrusion and distress.
The basis for determining whether such a disclosure would be lawful and fair is outlined under section 35 of the 2018 act which states that the subject of the data must have given his/her consent for disclosure, or the processing must be necessary for the performance of a task carried out by a competent authority. As we do not have consent for the disclosure of personal data and the disclosure is not necessary for any law enforcement purposes it would not be considered lawful processing. Such a disclosure would therefore contravene the first data protection principle.
I have applied the exemption provided under Section 40(2) of the Freedom of Information Act to this information as the first condition, defined in subsection 3(A)(a) of Section 40 has been satisfied.
Section 42(2) – Legal Professional Privilege - The duty to confirm or deny does not arise if, or to the extent that, compliance with section 1(1)(a) would involve the disclosure of any information (whether or not already recorded) in respect of which such a claim could be maintained in legal proceedings.
Section 43(2) of the Act allows a public authority to withhold information if a person's commercial interests would be compromised by its release. (A 'person' may be an individual, a company, public authority itself or any other legal entity.)
As explained previously, the Freedom of Information Act is applicant and motive blind and any information disclosed under the Act is a disclosure to the world at large and would be disclosed to any individual upon request. For this reason, a request made under the Act is not a private transaction. Both the request itself and any information which may be disclosed, are considered suitable for open publication.
With reference to Section 42 of the Act, the MPS will not release any information that would harm its relationship with its legal advisors. The client’s (in this case the MPS) ability to speak freely and frankly with its legal advisor in order to obtain appropriate legal advice is a fundamental requirement of the English legal system and the concept of legal professional privilege protects the confidentiality of communications between a lawyer and client. This helps to ensure complete fairness in legal proceedings.
With reference to Section 43 of the Act, individuals and companies contracting with the MPS would have no reasonable expectation that details such as the cost of vetting per applicant will be shared with members of the public or competing companies. Ultimately the disclosure of this information would have the potential to damage business confidence and cause harm to the commercial interests of the MPS which, in turn, may impact upon the procurement of similar services in the future, as individuals and companies would be less willing to share details with the MPS through fear of disclosure under the Act.
Therefore, any information disclosed under the Act in response to this request can be used by competitors to inform future business decisions which could place our contractors and business partners at a significant disadvantage.
In this case, it is predominantly our contractors who would be most directly prejudiced by the disclosure of the information, however, it could also prove detrimental to the relationship between the MPS and our contractors and suppliers.
The MPS has a need to safeguard openness in all areas of communication between client and lawyer, to ensure access to full and frank advice. The information sought in this request relates to whether or not legal advice was provided to the MPS with reference to discontinuing applications awaiting vetting and we believe that confirmation or denial in this instance could reveal the substance of the advice and that this would impede upon the relationship between the MPS and its legal advisors, thereby hindering the law enforcement role of the MPS.
The ICO guidance confirms that there is a public interest in allowing public authorities to withhold information which, if disclosed, would reduce its ability to negotiate or compete in a commercial environment. Furthermore, disclosure of the information requested has the potential to cause damage to business confidence and cause harm to the commercial interests of both the contractors and the MPS.
Finally, it is not in the public interest for the relationship between the MPS and our contractors or business partners to be negatively affected because any harm caused may lead to the termination of a relationship resulting in the MPS being unable to procure our preferred choice of contractors, which we require to facilitate effective policing. In the event that our current contractors were to terminate their relationship with the MPS, we would have to seek out new contractors and renegotiate terms. By narrowing the range of those that would work with us, we may be forced to use less preferable companies which may also result in higher costs. This could subsequently lead to us having to procure less suitable services or utilise public funds in a less efficient manner.
As stated above, a Freedom of Information Act request is not a private transaction. Both the request itself and any information disclosed are considered suitable for open publication, that is, once access to information is granted to one person under the Act, it is then considered public information and must be communicated to any individual should a request be received. Any information released under the Act is also published on the MPS website.
I have to consider whether the public interest lies in favour of releasing information into the public domain or whether there is sufficient reason to support withholding the requested information, if held. Having considered your request, I accept that there is a public interest in transparency when requests are made for police information of this nature.
However, we will not confirm or deny whether the requested information in relation to Question 13 is or is not held, if we believe that this confirmation or denial would be likely to reveal the substance of any advice, thereby causing harm to the relationship between the MPS and its Legal Advisors. The client’s (in this case the MPS) ability to speak freely and frankly with its legal advisors in order to obtain appropriate legal advice is a fundamental requirement of the English legal system and the concept of legal professional privilege protects the confidentiality of communications between a lawyer and client. This helps to ensure complete fairness in legal proceedings.
Similarly, we will not release information that is of commercial value that is likely to harm the relationship between the MPS and its Legal Advisors.
Disclosure
Q1 - When was the decision to end the enhanced police returners scheme made.
The decision was made week of 5 February 2024.
Q2 - by who?
The decision was made by the Commissioner of Police. Please see the link below from the London Assembly with reference to this decision.
Q3 - Please supply all minutes for all meetings about the enhanced police returners scheme?
This information is not held. Conversations were held at different levels and in different forums, however, minutes were not produced.
Q4 - How long does it on average take to do RV/CTC vetting?
Officer average turnaround time is 41 calendar days; officer average completion time upon allocation is 28 calendar days.
Q5 - How many people work in the vetting unit?
A total of 154 people work in the Vetting unit.
Q6 - How many cases do they handle each year?
A total of 21,014 cases were completed between January 2023 – December 2023 by the Vetting unit.
Q7 - Who is the senior responsible officer for vetting in the MPS?
The role is performed by a Band B Vetting officer whose name has been withheld in accordance with Section 40(2) of the Act.
Q8 - What outside companies are involved in the process and what are their roles?
The following company is involved in the process: Experian – their role is to provide finance checks.
Q9 - What is the cost of employing outside companies to provide vetting per applicant?
Section 43 Exemption applies to this question.
Q10 - When was the senior leadership team last vetted.
This question requires clarification as there are several senior leadership teams within the Met and we would need to know the specific leadership team that this question relates to.
Q11 - how long did this take from when their vetting application was submitted?
Please see 10 above.
Q12 - Were the Police Federation involved / consulted on the proposal to discontinue applications already submitted to re-join the MPS under the enhanced re-joiners scheme?
Yes, a meeting was held with the Federation.
Q13 - What legal advice was taken with regards to discontinuing ?applications that were awaiting vetting?
The Section 42(2) Exemption applies to this question.
Q14 - How many re-joiners have had their applications cancelled by the MPS because the MPS could not complete vetting?
No re-joiners have had their applications cancelled because the MPS could not complete vetting.
Q15 - what was the average age of people rejoining under the enhanced re-joiners scheme?
The average age of people re-joining was 53.
Q16 - How many people have re-joined the MPS under the enhanced returners scheme.
537 Officers joined the Enhanced Returners Scheme.
Q17 - how long did their vetting take on average.
Vetting took an average of 81 calendar days for completion.
Q18 - Were applications to re-join the MPS under the enhanced returners scheme in any way treated differently to other applications to join the MPS.
There was no difference between applications to re-join the MPS and other applications to join the MPS.
Q19 - How many people have discontinued their application as vetting were unable to complete their vetting in a timely manner.
This information is not held as people may withdraw for a variety of reasons and the MPS does not keep a record of the reasons.
London Assembly – Mayor’s Questions (with reference to Q.2)
MOPAC - Met Police Enhanced Retention Scheme