1. How many cases have been referred to your Channel panel? (please provide these figures annually, for 2017 through to 2021, or the last year for which you have data)
This information is exempt from disclosure under Section 40(2) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 relating to our obligation to protect personal data. This section exempts personal data being shared if disclosure would contravene any of the data protection principles in Schedule 1 to the Data Protection Act 2018. Section 40(2) is an absolute exemption, which does not require a public interest test. Because the data requested forms part of national and regional statistics, the risk of identification is greater because there is a smaller geographical area (when compared with the regional data that is already in the public domain) for individuals to be identified. There is a significant risk that if this data is disclosed it will, in combination with other information, allow for the identification of individuals discussed/adopted at Channel, and individuals who have withdrawn their consent.
This information is also except from disclosure under Section 24 of the Freedom of Information Act relating to National Security. Disclosing this information would be an indicator of the number of people in an area who are vulnerable to being radicalised, potentially allowing individuals to build up a ‘threat map’ of the UK and thus enhance radicalisation efforts. Disclosing information over time would allow individuals to see trends in the data.
In applying this exemption we have considered the public interest test for disclosure and consider that it does not override the exemption. We consider that the public interest in transparency is served by the regional disclosures of Channel statistics. Disclosing Local Authority statistics would not increase transparency of the data but would increase the threat. Additionally, there is a risk that disclosure could create a perception amongst Channel participants that the confidentiality of Channel is being eroded, making them less likely to consent. It is in the publics interest for the process to continue.
2. How many of these cases have been adopted by the Channel panel? (please provide these figures annually, for 2017 through to 2021)
This information is exempt under section 40(2) and Section 24 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 for the reasons given above.
3. How many individuals adopted by the Channel panel later withdrew themselves from the process? (please provide these figures annually, for 2017 through to 2021)?
This information is exempt under section 40(2) and Section 24 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 for the reasons given above.
4. How many times has your Channel panel met to discuss referrals – including virtually? (please provide these figures annually, for 2017 through to 2021)
This information is except from disclosure under Section 24 of the Freedom of Information Act relating to National Security. The Channel guidance states that Channel panels should meet once a month, however panels are also required to meet more than once a month if the circumstances require it. More meetings than the baseline would indicate a higher caseload. Thus disclosing this information would be an indicator of the number of people in an area who are vulnerable to being radicalised, potentially allowing individuals to build up a ‘threat map’ of the UK and thus enhance radicalisation efforts. Disclosing information over time would allow individuals to see trends in the data.
In applying this exemption we have considered the public interest test for disclosure and consider that it does not override the exemption. We consider that the public interest in transparency is served by the regional disclosures of Channel statistics. Disclosing Local Authority statistics would not increase transparency of the data but would increase the threat. Additionally, there is a risk that disclosure could create a perception amongst Channel participants that the confidentiality of Channel is being eroded, making them less likely to consent. It is in the publics interest for the process to continue.
5. How many Channel observations from the Home Office have taken place? (please provide these figures annually, for 2017 through to 2021)
2017 – 0
2018 – 0
2019 – 0
2020 – 0
2021 – 1
6. Which government agencies, charities and companies are represented on your Channel panel? (I am requesting names of institutions and organisations here, not personal details)
The following organisations are represented on our Channel panel:
• Devon County Council
• Devon and Cornwall Police
• Counter Terrorism Policing South West
• NHS Devon Clinical Commissioning Group
• Devon Partnership NHS Trust
• HM Prison and Probation Service
• Department for Work and Pensions
• Babcock LDP
7. Do your chair and deputy chair have UK National Vetting clearance at ‘Security Check’ level?
Disclosure of this information is exempt pursuant to Section 24 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 concerning national security for the following reasons:
- It would not be appropriate to confirm which specific posts are the subject of vetting, as this could highlight who has access to sensitive material and be used for targeting purposes.
- If we confirm that our Chair/Deputy Chair has UK National Vetting clearance at ‘Security Check’ level then we would be revealing the aforementioned information.
- If we deny that our Chair/Deputy Chair has UK National Vetting clearance at ‘Security Check’ level then multiple FOI’s could then be sent out to different areas to build up a picture of which Chairs and Deputies had UK National Vetting clearance at ‘Security Check’ level.
- In applying this exemption we have considered the public interest test for disclosure and consider that it does not override the exemption. The disclosure of this information may inhibit the flow of information between panels and the police which is not in the public interest.