·         There was a need for more consistency and clarity, and that a vetting baseline and guidance would be useful,

·         All authorities do need a vetting policy, with vetting levels and systems to be agreed between the Chief Officer and the Authority,

·         Policies may vary across authorities as they were particular expressions of the trust between each service and each authority.

·         The Network had previously agreed that the (National Security) CTC check was recommended as a minimum requirement for all authority members.

·         The presented proposals would not secure the assent of sufficient authority members,

·         In particular, members were not convinced of the case for employing Police vetting as a minimum standard when Members do not routinely see operational police data and have little need to do so, and

·         Most authorities already employ National Security vetting and have developed policies at considerable cost in terms of time and other resources.

·         These proposals therefore require further consultation

·         Revised proposals should return to the SPPN for consideration in September.

and , that the APA will continue to progress this matter with regard to the ‘bigger picture’ of information assurance work.

Further, authorities will be aware that since SPPN considered this matter, HMIC published a report on forces' work on the Prevent aspect of Counter Terrorism. This report is specifically about Prevent work, and does not include authorities' wider scrutiny and oversight responsibilites, but in the context police sharing information about Prevent with partners, it says that "vetting is an unnecessary distraction in taking forward information sharing - a'red herring','' and suggests that in this particular context there will be very few cases where vetting is required to access more sensitive information. This report also encouraged partners who had not already agreed vetting policies to do so.