FOI-OPCCN-41-APCCCirculars

Reply to: 

Claire Buckley 

Our Ref: CB/FOI-041 Direct Dial: 01953 424454 

22 nd January 2014 

Dear Member of Public 

Freedom of Information Request – FOI/OPCCN/041 

I am writing in connection with your email dated 20 th 

requested the following information: 

December 2013, in which you 

“Please send me copies of any circular emails and attachments you have received 

from the Association of PCCs which were marked ‘PCC Eyes Only’, ‘RESTRICTED’ 

or similar, and dated 24 th September 2013 or later.” 

With regards to this request, I have located copies of the emails sent by the Association of 

PCCs that you seek and, after considering the content of each Email under the rules of the 

FOI Act, I can advise the following: 

GR-A 71/2013 

This email was disclosed as part of your previous request. 

GR-A 82/2013 This email has not been provided as it is Exempt under Section 22 

(Information Intended for Future Publication) as advised in my previous 

response. 


(Information Intended for Future Publication) as advised in my previous 

response. 

GR-A 85/2013 This email has not been provided as it is Exempt under Section 43 (2) 

(Commercial Interests) of the FOI Act. 

GR-A 88/2013 

GR-A 89/2013 

(dated 

4/10/2013) 

I have attached the relevant information 

I have attached the email and the majority of attachments. Six of these 

are Exempt under Section 22 (Information Intended for Future 

Publication), One is Exempt under Section 43(2) (Commercial Interests) 

and the Annex to one of the attachments provided is Exempt under 

Section 40 (Personal Information) of the FOI Act.

Page 2 

GR-A 89/2013 

(dated 

8/10/2013) 

I have attached the email but the attachment is Exempt under Section 

43(2) (Commercial Interests) of the FOI Act 


(Personal Information) of the FOI Act. 

GR-A 91/2013 

GR-A 93/2013 

GR-A 94/2013 

GR-A 95/2013 

(dated 

30/10/2013) 

GR-A 95/2013 

(dated 

6/11/2013) 

GR-A 95/2013 

(dated 

8/11/2013) 

GR-A 96/2013 

GR-A 97/2013 


40 (Personal Information) of the FOI Act. 

I have attached the email but the attachments are Exempt under 

Section 43(2) (Commercial Interests) of the FOI Act. 



I have attached the relevant information. 


I have attached the email and the majority of attachments. One of these 

is Exempt under Section 21 (Information reasonably accessible by other 

means) of the FOI Act. Please be advised that the attachment is 

available here: PCC One Year On Report 






GR-A 99/2013 

GR-A 100/2013 

GR-A 101/2013 

GR-A 102/2013 


43(2) (Commercial Interests) of the FOI Act. 




I have attached the relevant information.

Page 3 



GR-A 104/2013 

GR-A 105/2013 

GR-A 106/2013 

GR-A 107/2013 

GR-A 108/2013 

GR-A 109/2013 

GR-A 110/2013 

GR-A 111/2013 

GR-A 112/2013 

GR-A 114/2013 

GR-A 115/2013 

GR-A 116/2013 

GR-A 117/2013 

GR-A 119/2013 

GR-A 120/2013 

GR-A 122/2013 









I have attached the email and the majority of attachments. One of these 

is Exempt under Section 31 (Law Enforcement) of the FOI Act and one 

is Exempt under Section 21 (Information reasonably accessible by other 

means). Please be advised that the attachment is available here: 

College of Policing Draft Code of Ethics 





I have attached the email and the majority of the attachments. One is 

Exempt under Section 21 (Information accessible by other means) of 

the FOI Act. Please be advised that the attachment is available here: 

Independent Review of ACPO 





21 (Information accessible by other means) of the FOI Act. Please be 

advised that the attachment is available here: Lord Stevens 

Independent Police Commission Report 


I have attached the relevant information.

Page 4 

GR-A 123/2013 

GR-A 124/2013 

Draft Mental 

Health 

Concordat 

Email (dated 

17/12/2013) 


I have attached the relevant information 

This email has not been provided as it is Exempt under Section 35 

(Formulation of Government Policy) of the FOI Act. 

Yours sincerely 

CBuckley 

Claire Buckley 

Freedom of Information Officer 

Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner for Norfolk

Buckley, Claire (PA) 

From: 

APCCS Joel Charles 

Sent: 04 October 2013 13:36 

To: 

APCCS Joel Charles 

Subject: 

GR-A 88/2013 (Restricted): CoPacc FoI request 

To: Police and Crime Commissioners 

CC: Chief Executives 

APCC Secretariat 

Dear Police and Crime Commissioners, 

GR‐A 88/2013 (Restricted): CoPacc FoI request 

Please find below a freedom of information (FoI) request sent to all your officers from Compare Police and Crime 

Commissioners (CoPacc). 

The FoI requests information on how your office meets each of the 25 transparency requirements specified within the 

Elected Local Policing Bodies (Specified Information) Order 2011 (2011 No. 3050), as amended by The Elected Local 

Policing Bodies 

(Specified Information) (Amendment) Order 2012 (2012 No. 2479). 

My colleagues and I are discussing the FoI with your group leaders next week and taking advice on the way forward. I 

would be grateful if you could wait until we have had a steer from group leaders before responding to the FoI. 

We aim to get back to you early next week so that you have plenty of time to respond. 

I hope this is helpful. 

Best wishes, 

Joel Charles 


Subject: Freedom of Information request 

This is a Freedom of Information request (dated 3rd October 2013) addressed to each Office of the Police and 

Crime Commissioner (OPCC) plus the Mayor's Office for Police and Crime (MOPAC), to provide details of 

how your OPCC/MOPAC meets each of the 25 transparency requirements specified within appropriate 

legislation. Details of the legislative requirements on PCCs and MOPAC are available here. 

In order to minimise workload on your OPCC (and on MOPAC), a Google Documents spreadsheet is provided 

here for your office to complete. Please simply provide within this spreadsheet the pages on your 

OPCC/MOPAC website that most closely provide the public with each of the 25 transparency requirements. A 

list of the legislative requirements is provided below. 

Completion of your office's element of this spreadsheet thus entails provision of the web addresses of up to 25 

pages on your OPCC/MOPAC website, and should therefore not represent any undue workload, nor should 

1

equire any extensive research on the part of your team. Should you prefer not to complete the spreadsheet, 

please alternatively meet this FoI request by in some other way providing a list of the 25 relevant webpages on 

your OPCC/MOPAC website that most closely meet each of the 25 criteria listed below. 

Please note that the responses to these 42 Freedom of Information requests (41 OPCCs plus MOPAC) will be 

reflected within a CoPaCC paper to be published in November 2013, around the first anniversary of PCCs' 

election. 

With many thanks in anticipation. 

Bernard Rix 

Chief Executive, CoPaCC 

128 Brunel Drive 

Biggleswade 

Bedfordshire SG18 8BJ 

Joel Charles|Communications Manager|The Association of Police and Crime Commissioners, APCC|07703124174 | 2 nd 

Floor, 10 Victoria Street, London, SW1H 0NN|www.apccs.police.uk 

Follow Us: Twitter @assocpccs 

Visit our website for quick links to the news you need to see today 

This communication may contain privileged and confidential information. Any views of opinions expressed are those of the originator and not necessarily those of 

the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners'. 

The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) or entity named above. If you are not the intended recipient, be aware that any disclosure, 

copying, distribution or use of the contents of the information is strictly prohibited. If you have received this electronic message in error, please notify the sender 

immediately and delete it from your system. 






2


From: 

APCCS Dawn Osborne 

Sent: 04 October 2013 16:55 

Subject: GR-A 89/2013 (Restricted): APCC General Meeting & Ministerial Engagement - 9 

October 2013 - 2 Marsham Street, London 

Attachments: 

001 Map 2 Marsham Street.doc; 002 General Meeting Agenda.doc; 003 Cover 

Briefing.docx; 004 Item 1 Change to APCC Articles covering letter.doc; 005 Item 1 

Annex A APCC - Articles of Association - proposed changes.PDF; 006 Item 2 Annual 

Report and Accounts covering letter.doc; 007 Item 2 Annex A Annual Report and 

Accounts.docx; 008 Item 2 Annex B Annual Report and Accounts Draft statutory 

accounts.xls; 009 Item 2 Annex C Annual Report and Accounts management letter 

2013.doc; 010 Item 4 ICT Company.pdf; 011 Item 7 Chief Officer Packages.docx; 012 

Water Cannon Executive Summary for PCC's.doc; 013 Annex A Water Cannon 

Operational Requirement - Part 1.doc; Ministerial Meeting Agenda.docx 

Importance: 

High 

To: 

Cc: 

Police and Crime Commissioners 

Chief Executives 

APCC Team 

Dear Police and Crime Commissioners 

GR‐A 89/2013 (Restricted): APCC General Meeting & Ministerial Engagement – 9 October 2013 – 2 Marsham Street, 

London 

The next Ministerial Engagement will take place on Wednesday 9 October 2013 at the Home Office, 2 Marsham Street, 

London, SW1P 4DF with refreshment from 8.30am and the meeting starting at 9.20am. The APCC General Meeting will 

be held across the road in the Emmanuel Centre at 9 – 23 Marsham Street starting with lunch at 12 noon and we aim to 

finish by 4pm. 

We would like you to note that Ministry of Justice officials will be available over lunch to discuss Transforming 

Rehabilitation and Andy Milne, Chief Inspector, West Mercia Police, will also be available to discuss Water Cannon 

should any PCCs have any queries on the documents included in the attached papers. 

Please find attached the papers for the meeting and I would like you to note that there are 2 Agendas for the day. One 

for the Ministerial Engagement in the morning and the Agenda for the APCC General Meeting in the afternoon, along 

with a map giving directions to the venue as follows: 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ministerial Meeting Agenda 

001 Map 2 Marsham Street 

002 General Meeting Agenda 

003 Cover Briefing 

004 Item 1 Change to APCC Articles covering letter 

005 Item 1 Annex A APCC ‐ Articles of Association ‐ proposed changes 

006 Item 2 Annual Report and Accounts covering letter 

007 Item 2 Annex A Annual Report and Accounts 

1

008 Item 2 Annex B Annual Report and Accounts Draft statutory accounts 

009 Item 2 Annex C Annual Report and Accounts management letter 2013 

010 Item 4 ICT Company 

011 Item 7 Chief Officer Packages 

012 Water Cannon Executive Summary for PCC's 

013 Annex A Water Cannon Operational Requirement ‐ Part 1 

I would be grateful if you could ensure that your office informs the APCC of your attendance to the meeting with Dawn 

Osborne (dawn.osborne@apccs.pnn.police.uk). 

Kind regards 

Dawn 

Dawn Osborne|Executive Officer|Association of Police and Crime Commissioners |020 7084 8957 |07714 399758 | 2 nd 














2

Getting to 2 Marsham Street, London SW1P 4DF 

Entrances 

Staff entrances are located on Horseferry Road, Marsham Street and Great Peter Street. 

Visitors should report to the main entrance located on Marsham Street. 

Tube and main line stations 

2 Marsham Street (2MS) is approximately a 20 minute walk to Victoria and Waterloo stations. It is 10 

minutes walk to Westminster and St James's Park tube stations and 10-15 minutes to Pimlico tube 

station. 

Buses 

Two buses, the 507 and the 88 stop outside the building. 

 

 

 

Number 507 bus travels from Victoria to Waterloo. The bus stop is on Horseferry Road, 

alongside 2MS and the frequency is 3-8 minutes from 7am to 8pm. The last bus towards 

Victoria leaves at 8.07pm, and the last towards Waterloo station is at 8.28pm. 

Number 88 bus travels from Clapham Common to Camden - passing tube stations: Oxford 

circus, Great Portland Street, Warren Street, Camden Town and also main line station: 

Clapham Common. The bus stop is on Marsham Street, outside 2MS and frequency is 4-10 

minutes from 8am to 9pm. Outside of that period buses run approximately every 12 minutes. 

Number C10 bus travels from Elephant and Castle to Victoria station - passing Pimlico tube 

station. The bus stop is a couple of minute's walk from 2MS on Page Street. Frequency is 

about every 12 minutes from 7am to 8pm.

APCC General Meeting 

Date: 9 th October 2013, 12.00 to 16.00 

Venue: Emmanuel Centre, 9‐23 Marsham Street 

London SW1P 3DW 

Programme 

Time 

Item 

12.00 

13.00 

Lunch 

1 APCC Governance (Articles of Association) 

2 APCC Annual Report and Audited Accounts 

3 Working Group: Victims Commissioning – substantive discussion 

4 Nick Alston: ICT Company 

14.30 

15.10 

5 Rt Hon Eric Pickles, Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government 

6 Vera Baird: Vulnerability Programme 

7 Ian Johnston: Chief Officer packages 

8 Mark Burns Williamson: Proceeds of Crime Act 

9 Martyn Underhill: Mental Health 

10 General Sir Nick Parker: Update on ACPO Review 

4pm 

Close

Afternoon Briefing: 1pm to 4pm 

Agenda Items 

The following items for discussion are included in the afternoon session of the APCC General 

Meeting: 

‣ APCC Governance 

At the Annual General Meeting in March 2013, members requested some changes to the Articles of 

Association which must be agreed by Special Resolution before being filed with Companies House. 

The relevant papers have been circulated previously for consideration and a vote will be taken to 

formally agree the changes. 

In addition, members are invited to endorse the Annual Report and Audited Accounts for the 

transitional year (2012/13), and agree the appointment of auditors for 2013/14. Again, the 

supporting papers for these issues have been circulated previously. 

‣ Commissioning of Victims Services – requested by the Victims Commissioning Working Group 

The Working Group on Victims’ Commissioning (Kevin Hurley, Police and Crime Commissioner for 

Surrey; Alun Michael, Police and Crime Commissioner for South Wales; and, Dorothy Gregson, Chief 

Executive for Cambridgeshire) has held discussions with Ministry of Justice officials. 

The Ministry of Justice has welcomed the suggestion that Commissioners work collaboratively with 

the MoJ to create effective transition arrangements. They are also willing to explore whether a joint 

MoJ‐PCC Board can be created in the near future to oversee the transition and ensure that 

Commissioners are able to influence how existing and future nationally commissioned services are 

delivered. 

With respect to the specific question of referral mechanisms; transition plans (which will propose 

that Commissioners work together within the existing Victim Support model and regional 

boundaries) are being developed. These “regional” arrangements should enable commissioners in 

the future to either maintain existing Victims Support referral arrangements or, if they wish, and can 

meet national quality standards, over time move to another model of provision. The devolution of 

additional money and other aspects will not be affected by this transition process and will be 

available from October 2014. 

The group are also exploring how a small number of local pilots can be supported in a way which 

does not destabilise the transition and meets national standards but does enable us to explore the 

effectiveness of new, more local, models of working. 

The Working Group has worked hard to create what they feel is a viable proposal which takes into 

account the wide range of views expressed on 19 September in Liverpool. They believe that the 

position developed with Ministry of Justice offers Commissioners the opportunity to demonstrate a 

capacity to reach consensus even on difficult issues. 

A presentation will be provided by the Working Group at the meeting.

‣ Police ICT Company – Requested by Nick Alston, PCC for Essex 

Following a letter previously sent to Police and Crime Commissioners on 27 September 2013, a 

further update is attached as Item 4, which Nick Alston wishes to discuss. 

‣ Rt Hon Eric Pickles, Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government 

The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government has been invited to attend following 

an earlier meeting with Group Representatives. This will provide an opportunity to discuss matters 

of mutual interest, such as community safety, council tax precept, and shared service arrangements 

with local government. 

‣ Vulnerability Programme – Requested by Vera Baird, Northumbria PCC 

Mrs Baird will be joined by Police Officers Gary Calvert and Sue Tauk, who will bring their experience 

to the meeting. 

The scheme is now being implemented nationally by the SIA, and Mrs Baird is keen that 

Commissioners are updated on the programme so they can look to implement it in their area. The 

programme has been supported by the Home Secretary and senior police officers. 

‣ Chief Officer Packages – Requested by Ian Johnston, PCC for Gwent 

The issue of pay and benefits for Chief Constables, retention packages, and the Police Advisory 

Board consultation on Chief Constable on contract lengths has been raised by Police and Crime 

Commissioners a number of times in recent months. A discussion paper is attached as Item 7, which 

will be presented by Ian Johnston. 

‣ Proceeds of Crime Act (PoCA) 2002 – Requested by Mark Burns Williamson, PCC for West 

Yorkshire 

Mark Burns Williamson has provided the following, which he wishes to discuss: 

There are two key issues with the current PoCA regime:‐ the way the legislation divides the money 

(unequally and unfairly) and the way the public are able to see where it gets spent by central 

government (invisible and unaccountable). Ministers agree that transparency and information are 

the lifeblood of democracy. PCCs publish details of all their expenditure down to £500 so that their 

communities are able to track the way in which their money is being spent. The same requirements 

should be applied to PoCA confiscations. Communities should be able to follow the funds and see 

clearly how the assets seized from criminals blighting their neighbourhoods have been re‐invested.

‣ Mental Health – Requested by Martyn Underhill, PCC for Dorset 

Due to a number of issues and developments related to the mental health and policing agenda, 

Martyn Underhill would like to provide a verbal update and seek views from Police and Crime 

Commissioners. 

‣ ACPO Review – Requested by the ACPO Review Working Group 

The APCC has now appointed General Sir Nick Parker to lead an independent review into the 

functions, funding and governance arrangements of ACPO with the intention of reporting back to 

Police and Crime Commissioners in November. 

The Working Group felt it would be useful for Sir Nick to update Police and Crime Commissioners on 

his approach. 

‣ Integrity and Specials – Requested by Julia Mulligan, PCC for North Yorkshire 

Julia Mulligan would like to provide a brief update to Police and Crime Commissioners on the 

progress of the Integrity Working Group, and other issues regarding Police Specials. 

‣ LUNCHTIME BRIEFINGS 

Officials from the Ministry of Justice will be available over lunch to discuss any queries Police and 

Crime Commissioners may have in relation to Transforming Rehabilitation. 

In addition, a briefing paper is attached as 012 regarding the use of water cannon. Again, officers 

will be available over lunch to discuss this should you have any queries. 

Contact: tania.eagle@apccs.pnn.police.uk; 07714 399 755

APCC briefing 

Item 7 ‐ Chief Officer Packages: discussion paper 

Introduction 

1. This paper covers the issues of: 

Pay and benefits for Chief Constables 

Retention packages 

Police Advisory Board consultation on Chief Constable on contract lengths. 

2. The above issues are scheduled to be discussed at the APCC General meeting on October 9. The 

discussion will be led by Commissioner Ian Johnston (Gwent) in his capacity as Chair, Official Side 

on the Police Negotiating Board. This note provides background, context and attempts to set 

out the various issues. 

Pay and benefits for Chief Constables 

3. This issue has been tabled for discussion at the request of a number of Commissioners following 

discussions with the APCC Chief Executive during the recent Summer visits. Broadly the issues 

relates to: 

Clarity around what allowances and benefits can be paid to Chief Constables (particularly on 

appointment) 

What are the statutory provisions? 

Whether there may be benefit in having greater transparency and national consistency. 

4. This paper sets out the statutory framework, salary and allowance provisions for Chief 

Constables. 

What is the statutory framework? 

5. The provisions for police pay, allowances and expenses are set out in the Police Regulations 

2003 and determinations made by the Home Secretary under them. The Regulations provide 

that ‘allowances’ cannot be paid except as provided for in the Regulations, or approved by the 

Home Secretary. 

6. Annex A sets out a summary of the salary, leave entitlements, allowances and expenses that can 

be paid to Chief Constables under Regulations and Determinations. The list has been divided 

between allowances and expenses which are permitted for Chief Constables (Section 1) and for 

all police officers (Section 2) which includes Chief Constables. 

7. Aside from Regulations and determinations, Police and Crime Commissioners also have a general 

power ‘to do anything calculated to facilitate, or conducive to the exercise of, their functions’. 

Whether or not this power can be used to pay benefits which fall outside Regulations remains to 

be seen. 

Next Steps 

8. In light of various requests for the above to be discussed, there will be an opportunity at the 

October 9 th meeting for Commissioner to consider the above and decide what next steps (if any) 

need to be taken. 

Retention Packages 

APCC, 10 Victoria Street, London SW1H 0NN 

T 020 7084 8957 E enquiries@apccs.pnn.police.uk @AssocPCCs www.apccs.police.uk 

The APCC provides support to all Police and Crime Commissioners and policing governance bodies in England, Wales and Northern Ireland

9. There have been a number of reports in the media around the payment of ‘retention packages’ 

to chief constables made by police authorities. The reports question the legality of the 

payments, some of which appear to be ‘above and beyond’ those set out in the Regulatory 

framework outlined above. The payments appear to have been made in order to ‘attract and 

retain talent’ however don’t appear to have been made with the authorisation of the Home 

Secretary at the time. 

10. While this practice appears to be related to payments agreed by police authorities (historically), 

there may be risk passed onto Police and Crime Commissioners, especially those who have chief 

officers in post whose contracts were agreed by the police authority. Anecdotally, the APCC is 

aware that some of these payments have been found to be unlawful and proceedings are 

occurring in different parts of the country in order to reclaim money. 

11. Commissioners may like to discuss and agree an approach to managing the above situation. 

Police Advisory Board 

12. On the 26th July, Commissioner Ian Johnston (Gwent) wrote to all Commissioners seeking views 

comment on the current fixed term appointment system in England and Wales for Chief 

Constables as a response to an informal Home Office consultation on this issue. 

13. At the moment, when appointing a Chief Constable, an appointment can be made for a 

maximum of 5 years. Subsequent contract renewals can be made for 3 years and then 1 year 

(reoccurring). The Home Office have prepared a discussion paper outlining possible alternate 

proposals. These include: 

Option 1 – Initial maximum of 4 years. Subsequent contract renewal of 4 years and a final 2 

year renewal (not reoccurring). Commissioners can only make appointments for up to 3 

years if the appointment is to happen 12 months prior to a PCC election. 

 

Option 2 – Retain the status quo (as above) 

Option 3 – Commissioners decide the length of a Chief Constable’s fixed term. 

14. Commissioner Johnston’s letter noted that PCCs on the Official Side had considered the matter 

with the following suggestion “An initial maximum contract up to 5 years, then contracts up to 3 

years (reoccurring). If an appointment is to happen 12 months prior to a PCC election, then the 

contract can only be up to 3 years” (Option 4). However, he was keen to seek the views of the 

wider Commissioner membership. 

Feedback and responses 

15. There were 11 responses to Commissioner Johnston’s letter. A summary of the responses can be 

found at Annex C. Some of themes emerging include: 

 

 

There was general support for the concept that every Commissioner should have the 

opportunity to appoint (or reappoint) their Chief Constabe during their term (There was one 

exception to this). 

There appeared to be general support for the Official Side proposal (Option 4), with 

exception of the following: 

 

 

Some Commissioners suggested the initial term should be a maximum of 4 years 

(rather than 5 as proposed above). 

Some Commissioenrs felt that a Chief Constable should have a maximum of 10 years 

in post, whereas other felt there should be no maximum, with the decision to 

appoint or reappoint remaining entirely with the Commissioner.

There appeared to be agreement that it was not advantagious not to have peaks in 

recruitment, particularly immediately after a PCC takes office. 

16. Commissioner Ian Johnston will lead a discussion on 9 th October with a view to reaching a degree 

of consensus between all Commissioners on the above. 

APCC Secretariat

Annex A: Pay and allowances under the Police Regulations 2003 

Section 1: Pay and Allowances applicable to Chief Constables 

Pay (Annex F Determinations) 

Chief constable salaries are set in Annex F of determinations using a ‘spot rate’ which varies 

depending on the force. When appointing a Chief Constable, a PCC has discretion to offer a salary 

range which varies no more than 10% (up or down) from the relevant spot rate. Annex B sets out 

the national spot rates. 

It is noted that performance related bonuses for Chief Officers was abolished from April 2013 and 

DCC salaries cannot be varied by the Police and Crime Commissioner. 

Removal Expenses (Annex V, Part 2) 

Where the member moves home on joining the force in the rank of Chief Constable, the PCC shall: 

Reimburse the reasonable cost of removal or carry out of removal 

Reimburse expenses reasonably incurred: 

o In the disposal of a former property; or 

o In order to rent a former property. 

Meet reasonable expenses in connection with the acquisition of a new suitable property, where it is 

agreed that it would be unreasonable for them not to rent or be housed in a ‘police house’. 

Reimburse for payments made by the member to meet ‘liabilities’ in respect to the first 26 weeks 

after the move. Liabilities are: 

o Mortgage Interest or rent payments 

o The different between council tax of the former home and council tax for the new property. 

There is also discretion for the PCC to continue payments beyond 26 weeks should they wish. 

Note: The determinations don’t define ‘reasonable costs or expenses’ but they do mention the 

following: 

Items of expenditure incidental to the move (not covered in the Determinations) as long as the 

police officer can satisfy the necessity of the expenditure. 

Tax liabilities incurred by the police officer as a consequence of payments made in connection with 

the move. 

It should also be noted that the determinations are worded in such a way that the above will also be 

provided to Assistant Chief Constables & Deputy Chief Constables moving to the new force, with the 

Chief Constable being substituted for the PCC in terms of authorising the payments. 

Leave entitlement (Annex O) 

Chief Constables are entitled to ‘no less than’ 48 days annual leave per year (if they have over 10 

years’ service) or 42 days (if they have under 10 years’ service). 

However, it is important to note that Chief Constables are not entitled to ‘rest days’ i.e. weekends. 

Therefore, for illustrative purposes (excluding Bank Holidays): 

 

A police constable with 10 years’ service will have 104 ‘rest days’ (52 weeks x 2 days) and 27 days 

Annual Leave = 131 days off (excluding bank holidays) 

A Chief Constable with more than 10 years’ service is entitled to ‘no less than’ 48 days annual leave 

per year. 

The current provisions date back to the 1920’s and there have been numerous attempts over the 

years to get it reviewed by CPOSA. In practice, we understand most Chief Constables roster

themselves off two days per week for weekend (ensuring cover with their ACPO team) and take 

around 30 days per year annual leave. 

Train Travel (Annex V) 

Superintending ranks and above who are required to travel by train in the execution of their duty are 

entitled to first‐class travel. 

Anecdotally, it is understand that the use of first class train travel in most forces is not widely used or 

practiced. 

Motor vehicle Allowances (Annex U) & Relevant Travelling Expenses (Annex V) 

For Chief Officers, there is an option of being paid a lump sum per annum plus mileage for duty 

travel, or a mileage rate for casual users (sums dependent on cylinder capacity of vehicle). 

‘Relevant travelling expenses’ are also covered in Annex V (Part 4) and provides for reimbursement 

(within limits set by the local policing body) where a member of a police force is: 

required to perform his normal daily period of duty in more than one tour of duty, or 

recalled to duty between two tours of duty, 

and travels to and from his home between tours, or, as the case may be, in consequence of their 

recall. 

In practice there appears to be variation around how motor vehicles are provided nationally. Some 

chief officers are provided with emergency vehicles (fitted with blue lights and siren). Unlike an ordinary 

dedicated car, this would not incur a taxable liability for chief officers for travel between home and work 

and for some private journeys – specifically, when they are used whilst ‘on call’ (meaning that the 

person must be liable, as part of normal duties, to be called on to use it to respond to emergencies, 

either when commuting to their work or using the car for private journeys). Any private usage whilst not 

on‐call would be treated as a benefit in kind and taxed accordingly 

Uniform (Annex W) 

It is the decision of the PCC whether or not a chief officer receives free uniform. 

Section 2: Pay and allowances applicable to all police officers 

Replacement allowance (Regulations Schedule 3) 

Replacement allowance is only available to officers who were already in the service on 31 August 

1994. It was introduced in 2003 to replace rent and housing allowances, on their abolition. 

Those allowances supplemented the pay of police officers who did not occupy free housing 

provided by a Police Authority or police force. Their purpose was to put a police officer who 

provided his own accommodation in broadly the same position as one who was provided with free 

accommodation. They began at a time when police officers were required to live in houses provided 

by the Police Authority. 

Several other allowances depend on whether or not an officer receives replacement allowance. 

London Weighting (Annex F of the determinations) 

Pensionable payment, currently £2,277 per annum for officers in the City of London or 

metropolitan police force. 

London Allowance (Annex U)

Non‐pensionable allowance, currently £1,011 per annum for officers in the City of London or 

metropolitan police force. 

The rate is determined by the Commissioner of the relevant force with regard to location and 

retention needs up to a maximum of: 

£4,338 a year if appointed on or after 1 September 1994 and not receiving a 

replacement allowance under Schedule 3; 

£1,011 a year, in other cases (provided that, in respect of any particular member, the 

total of the London allowance and replacement allowance payable to the member shall 

not exceed the London allowance that would be payable if the member were not 

receiving a replacement allowance). 

London Transitional Supplement (Annex U) 

 

An allowance not exceeding £1000 per annum, paid to members of the City of London or 

metropolitan police force who joined before 1 September 1994 and who receive a replacement 

allowance. 

The total of the London transitional supplement, London allowance and replacement allowance 

payable to the member shall not exceed the London allowance that would be payable if the 

member were not receiving a replacement allowance. 

South East England Allowance (Annex U) 

A member of the Essex, Hertfordshire, Kent, Surrey or Thames Valley constabulary appointed on 

or after 1 September 1994 and not receiving a replacement allowance under Schedule 3 shall be 

paid an allowance at a rate determined by the Chief Constable of the relevant force with regard 

to location and retention needs, following consultation with the joint branch board, and not 

exceeding £2,000 a year. 

A member of the Bedfordshire, Hampshire or Sussex constabulary appointed on or after 1 

September 1994 and not receiving a replacement allowance under Schedule 3 shall be paid an 

allowance at a rate determined by the Chief Constable of the relevant force with regard to 

location and retention needs, following consultation with the joint branch board, and not 

exceeding £1,000 a year. 

South East England Transitional Supplement (Annex U) 

Applies to Hertfordshire, Kent or Surrey officers who joined the police service before 1 

September 1994 and receive a replacement allowance payable at a rate less than the rate of the 

South East England Allowance that they would receive if not in receipt of a replacement 

allowance. 

They receive a supplementary allowance at the rate of the difference between that South East 

England Allowance and the replacement allowance that the member is receiving. 

Expenses (Annex V) 

Reimbursement of medical charges 

Applies where the ‘charges’ (certain drugs, medicines and appliances for dental treatment) are 

incurred by reason of an injury received without his default in the execution of his duty as a 

constable. 

Food expenses 

 

Reimbursed expenses when an officer: 

o is necessarily prevented in the course of a tour of duty from obtaining a meal in his usual 

way (reimbursed the difference between the meal he then obtains and the meal he 

usually takes in the course of that tour of duty); or

o is retained on duty beyond his normal daily period of duty (reimbursed the cost of any 

meal he then necessarily obtains). 

Reimbursement for reasonable expenditure, backed by a receipt. 

Accommodation expenses 

Reimbursed accommodation expenses necessarily incurred in connection with duty away from 

his usual place of duty, or necessary because he has been retained on duty beyond his normal 

daily period of duty 

Reimbursement for reasonable expenditure, backed by a receipt. 

Travel expenses 

 

Reimbursement (within limits set by the local policing body) applies where a member of a police 

force is: 

o required to perform his normal daily period of duty in more than one tour of duty, or 

o recalled to duty between two tours of duty, 

and travels to and from his home between tours, or, as the case may be, in consequence of his 

recall (in this paragraph referred to as “relevant travelling”).

Annex B: Chief Constable Spot Salaries (1st September 2010) 

Forces CC Salary DCC Salary 

MPS (4xACs), West Midland , Greater Manchester £181,455 £139,119 (MPS 8 x DACs) 

West Yorkshire £169,359 £135,489 

Thames Valley £160,290 £132,237 

Merseyside Northumbria £157,260 £129,744 

Hampshire £154,233 £127,248 

Kent, Lancashire, Devon & Cornwall £151,215 £124,749 

South Yorkshire, Essex, Avon & Somerset, Sussex 

South Wales 

£148,194 £122,256 

Nottinghamshire £142,143 £117,264 

Hertfordshire, West Mercia, Cheshire, Humberside 

Staffordshire, Leicestershire, Derbyshire 

£139,119 £114,771 

Surrey, Norfolk £136,092 £112,278 

Cleveland, Durham, Cambridgeshire, North Wales 

North Yorkshire, Gwent, Northamptonshire, Suffolk 

Dorset, Wiltshire, Bedfordshire 

Gloucestershire, Lincolnshire, Cumbria, 

Warwickshire, Dyfed‐Powys 

£133,068 £109,782 

£130,044 £108,873

Title: 

Water Cannon Project – Briefing Paper for Police 

and Crime Commissioners 

Briefing Paper 

Date 27/09/13 

Owner Chief Constable David Shaw 

Lead 

Dept. 

National Policing Lead for Conflict 

Management 

Contact Chief@westmercia.pnn.police.uk 

Introduction 

This summary document and accompanying paper are provided to inform Police and Crime 

Commissioners and MOPAC of the progress of the ongoing project to procure water cannon as a 

national asset for use in England and Wales. Since December 2012 Chief Constable David Shaw 

(National Policing Lead for Conflict Management) has led this project following approval by the Home 

Office Less Lethal Technologies and Systems Strategic Board and Chief Constables’ Council. 

Rationale 

The request to the Home Secretary to approve water cannon for use in England and Wales forms part of 

a review of the wider response to disorder following events of August 2011 and as a result of other 

current challenges faced by the police in relation to demonstration and disorder. While it is accepted that 

water cannon is not suited to all public disorder situations, experience from Northern Ireland and Europe 

demonstrates its ability to maintain distance between opposing factions and to reduce subject and officer 

injuries. The mere presence of water cannon is known to have a preventative effect. Water cannon have 

been authorised for use in Northern Ireland since 1999 and are frequently deployed in relation to 

disorder. There are no recorded injuries associated with its. 

Authority 

Authority for the use of water cannon in England and Wales must be granted by the Home Secretary. 

The Police Minister has been briefed in relation to the project on an ongoing basis and it is anticipated 

that authority from the Home Secretary will be requested before the end of 2013. The project currently 

has two main work streams. 

The first work stream relates to the procurement of new water cannon for use in England and Wales. 

While there is an acceptance by some Chief Constables that water cannon is unlikely to be deployed in 

their force areas, Chief Constables have agreed that this should constitute a national asset. Whilst these 

units have a high purchase cost (between £600-900K), all procurement options need to be explored and 

the associated procurement processes may take up to 24 months. It is anticipated that any new cannon 

will be in service for 25-30 years and the project is in the process of developing potential operating and 

funding models on which Chief Constables and PCC’s will be consulted in the future. 

The second work stream relates to a short to medium-term option to buy three used water cannon from 

the German Federal Police. It is considered that the 24-month lead time relating to the long-term solution 

represents an excessively long gap in operational capability therefore this interim solution is proposed. 

Project board delegates have visited Germany to view the cannon in question. Whilst the cannon are over 

twenty years old and will require some adaptation to ensure they meet the required standards for use in 

the UK, the board believes that they constitute a cost-effective medium term solution. The total cost of 

procuring and upgrading these three cannon is estimated to be in the region of £250k. The Metropolitan 

Police Service (MPS) is leading on the procurement of these cannon and it is likely that they could be 

available by spring 2014. It is not anticipated that any other UK forces will be asked to contribute towards 

the cost of these cannon. 

Deployment and Authorisation 

The MPS has agreed to train staff to operate the interim option. Whilst the German cannon are likely to 

be based within the MPS area, it is feasible that these cannon could be deployed anywhere within England

and Wales on a mutual aid basis. Nationally, due to the preparations for the G8 Summit, there are a large 

number of staff already trained to operate alongside water cannon in the public order environment. 

Authority to authorise water cannon for operational deployment within a given area will always rest with 

local Chief Officers. Authorised Professional Practice (APP) states that authority to deploy water cannon 

rests with officers of at least the rank of Assistant Chief Constable and it is important to understand that 

water cannon can only be used in relation to incidents of serious disorder or the threat thereof. As with 

any use of force, officers must justify the level of force used and water cannon will be fitted with 

sophisticated recording systems to facilitate the gathering of evidence and to record any force used. 

Medical Implications 

While the risk of injury associated with water cannon is low, water cannon themselves do have the 

capability to cause serious injury. For this reason, officers operating the cannon will be subject to 

stringent training and assessment. The cannon themselves will be tested by Home Office scientists to 

ensure that outputs do not exceed those of the PSNI cannon. The medical implications of their use will be 

assessed by an independent panel of experts with their report being submitted to the Home Secretary as 

part of the request for formal authorisation. Maintenance schedules will ensure the integrity and 

calibration of the appropriate systems. 

Communication and engagement 

Engagement will be one of the critical success factors for ensuring that the public understands the 

decision to purchase water cannon. Public order policing is based on a ‘no surprises’ approach and this 

approach will constitute the golden thread of the communications and engagement strategies. The 

Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime is represented on the Project Board and the APCC is now also 

present at this forum. They have been pivotal on advising on engagement issues. The issue of water 

cannon was also discussed at the National Police Protective Services board on 17/9/13. PCC’s will also 

play a role in developing APP through their representation on the College of Policing Board. 

A communications strategy has been written and a comprehensive engagement strategy is in the process 

of being drafted. This document will detail the engagement that will take place in relation to water cannon 

as part of the wider revised public order framework and will act as a template and briefing document to 

facilitate engagement at a local level. It is proposed to hold a series of engagement events across the 

country with PCC’s, the College of Policing, police commanders and key local community members. Whilst 

the exact structure of these events is still to be decided, it is proposed that participants will be presented 

with a number of public disorder scenarios and asked to discuss the anticipated police response. 

For consideration by Commissioners 

Police and Crime Commissioners may wish to consider the issues raised by the proposed introduction of 

water cannon which might include. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The funding of water cannon as a national asset 

Views on deployment within their respective communities 

Circumstances in which water cannon might be used 

Roles and responsibilities pre and post water cannon deployment 

Impact on policing style and engagement with respective communities 

Issues relating to risk and responsibility 

Opportunity to discuss the issues with Chief Constable Shaw. 

Chief Constable David Shaw would welcome further engagement and discussion on this subject and would 

encourage PCC’s to discuss water cannon issues with their respective Chief Constables. David is also 

happy to discuss the project directly with PCC’s (either in person or via telephone) and can be contacted 

via his staff officer Chief Inspector Andy Milne who will be available during the lunchtime break (or on 

01905 331630 or andrew.milne@westmercia.pnn.police.uk).

Title: 

Water Cannon 

Use of water cannon by police in 

relation to disorder incidents and 

planned public order operations 

Operational Requirement (Part 1) 

Date 24.06.13 

Owner Chief Constable David Shaw 

Lead 

Dept. 

National Conflict Management 

Policing Portfolio 

Version 1.0 

Review N/A 

date 

Contact chief@westmercia.pnn.police.uk 

1. Background 

1.1 The consideration of the water cannon issue has been taking place within the context 

of a much broader programme of work under the leadership of Chief Constable Ian 

Learmonth, National Policing Lead for Public Order and Public Safety. The catalyst for 

this work was the disorder of August 2011 and the programme incorporates a 

comprehensive review of capability, capacity, responsiveness, training, tactics and 

equipment of which the water cannon option is just one element. 

1.2 Article 2 of the UN Basic Principles of the Use of Force and Firearms states that; 

“Governments and law enforcement agencies should develop a range of means as 

broad as possible and equip law enforcement officials with various types of weapons 

and ammunition that will allow for a differentiated use of force and firearms”. 

1.3 The use of water cannon as a safe and proportionate tactic in the continuum of force 

for dealing with public order situations was explored in detail in the two-part Patten 

Report. 1 Its validity as a tactical option has also been recognised by Sir Dennis 

O’Connor in the HMIC report Rules of Engagement and the Metropolitan Police report 

Four Days in August. 2 

1.4 Water cannon were first used in Northern Ireland in 1969 and at that time were 

described by Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary (HMIC) as ‘mechanised 

creators of distance between police and protestors’. Development of water cannon took 

place during the 1980’s and water cannon was officially authorised for use in Northern 

Ireland in 1999. The Somati RCV9000 Water Cannon has been authorised for use in 

Northern Ireland since 2004 and is deployed and used on a frequent basis. This 

employment is based on guidance within the College of Policing Authorised 

Professional Practice (APP) and the National Police Public Order Training Curriculum. 

England, Wales and Scotland remain among the few European countries that do not 

have this tactical option available to commanders facing serious public disorder. 

1 Recommendations 69 & 70 relating to public order equipment – “A Research Programme Into 

Alternative Policing Approaches towards the Management Of Conflict” 

2 Para 7.6 recognised that, had water cannon been available, it would have been considered as a tactical 

option during the August disorder. It may also have been considered for protests such as Countryside 

Alliance in 2004, the Gaza demonstrations against the Israeli Embassy in 2008/9 and the student protests 

of 2010.

2. Water cannon as a tactical option 

2.1 Over the past 20 years, a range of less lethal policing options has been developed to 

enable the use of force at close quarters (batons, Taser, incapacitant sprays etc). The 

range of less lethal options to exercise control at a distance is limited. Faced with a 

situation where rioters were throwing petrol bombs or other missiles capable of causing 

death or serious injury, there would be little alternative other than to withdraw or deploy 

AEP or conventional firearms alongside conventional public order tactics. Deploying 

conventional public order tactics without AEP / firearms is likely to increase the risk of 

both officer and subject injury. 

2.2 Water cannon provides the ability to exert control from a distance and critically to 

provide a graduated and flexible application of force ranging from spray or diffused 

mode to forceful water jets. The mere presence of water cannon can have a deterrent 

effect and statistics from Northern Ireland demonstrate that water cannon is often 

deployed without being employed 3 . Faced with the need to either protect vulnerable 

premises or disperse a crowd in a situation of serious public disorder, in the absence of 

the availability of water cannon tactics it is likely that police commanders would have to 

authorise alternative tactics (involving significant force) which may include AEPs, 

batons, mounted officers, vehicle tactics, police dogs or even firearms. 

2.3 The principles of public order command centre on balancing the rights and freedoms 

detailed within ECHR and ensuring that any policing response is proportionate. The 

need for proportionality when force is used by police officers is clearly defined in 

legislation and public bodies and processes exist to hold the police to account for their 

actions. Police officers are required to resolve situations with the minimum amount of 

force necessary and there is equally an expectation from the public that the police will 

respond positively to serious disorder. 

2.4 It is anticipated that water cannon would be deployed in relation to planned events and 

serious disorder. Any decision to deploy water cannon would be based on a thorough 

assessment of a number of critical factors (in particular the threat of disorder and the 

level of violence used / anticipated) and would need to be both a lawful and 

proportionate use of force. It is reasonable to expect that water cannon would only be 

deployed where other tactics have been tried and proven to be unsuccessful or 

deemed otherwise inappropriate. Examples of where water cannon could be deployed 

include the following, which are intended to be illustrative, not exhaustive: defending a 

fixed and vulnerable / iconic location; separation of hostile crowds during 

demonstrations / disorder; creating distance between police and opposing factions; 

facilitating the advance of police resources and other emergency services to deal with 

life at risk incidents during incidents of severe disorder. 

2.5 It should be understood that water cannon has its limitations. It is acknowledged that it 

has a limited effect on fast, agile disorder. The Metropolitan Police report Four Days in 

August commented that ‘Examples in recent history where the use of this tactic might 

have been a consideration for commanders had it been available include the 

Countryside Alliance demonstrations in Parliament Square (2004), the Gaza 

demonstrations against The Israeli Embassy (2008/9) and potentially the student 

3 Between 1/4/12 and 30/9/12 water cannon were deployed on 53 occasions by the PSNI but only used 4 times

protests of 2010 where specific locations were targeted. In all these cases police had 

to face significant levels of violence in order to protect key locations and buildings and 

the staff within them’. 

3. Potential to cause injury 

3.1 Each water cannon used in England or Wales must be approved by the Home 

Secretary. The Scientific Advisory Committee on the Medical Implications of Less- 

Lethal Weapons (SACMILL) has been tasked by the UK Less-Lethal Technologies and 

Systems Strategic Board to advise on the medical implications surrounding use of a 

type of vehicle-mounted water cannon that has not previously been available to 

support policing of serious public disorder in the UK. In order to inform this advice, a 

comprehensive review on the medical implications of vehicle-mounted water cannon 

has been completed in July 2013 by the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory. 

3.2 There are few recorded injuries associated with the use of water cannon. The DSTL 

report concludes ‘medically relevant evidence from operational use of water cannon in 

Northern Ireland and elsewhere has been sought and assessed, as has the medical 

literature concerning the effects of high pressure water jets on the body. No clinical 

case reports concerning injuries sustained specifically from use of water cannon in civil 

disorder were found in the peer-reviewed literature, although there is good evidence 

from other sources to indicate that serious injuries have been sustained by people 

subjected to the force of water cannon jets (DSTL report “The medical implications of 

vehicle-mounted water cannon with special reference to the Ziegler Wasserwerfer 

9000 (WaWe 9) system). 

3.3 Injuries associated with the use of water cannon can be categorised as follows; 

Primary - injuries caused by the water jet impacting the body. 

Secondary - injuries produced by impact on the body of street furniture or other debris. 

Tertiary - injuries caused by impact of the body with other objects, such as may arise, 

for example, if the water jet causes people to fall over or to be thrown against rigid 

structures. 

3.4 While it is accepted that the use of water cannon could lead to serious injury, it is 

equally important that this is taken in the context of the manner of its use and the 

training provided to operators. Deployment of water cannon within England and Wales 

would be based on tactics described within the National Public Order Authorised 

Professional Practice (APP) and based on the National Public Order Training 

Curriculum. These documents form the basis for deployments within Northern Ireland 

where there have been no reports of injury caused by water cannon. It is anticipated 

that output pressures of any water cannon procured for use in England and Wales 

would not exceed those of the PSNI Somati RCV9000 and these pressures will be 

subject to scientific testing by the Home Office Centre for Applied Science and 

Technology (CAST). 

3.5 Colleagues in Northern Ireland will state that the availability of water cannon during 

incidents of disorder in Northern Ireland typically leads to reduced officer injuries. At

present there is no data to support this claim however consultation has taken place 

with PSNI specialist public order trainers who support this claim. Primarily, experience 

shows that water cannon creates distance between police and protestors reducing the 

ability of protestors to throw large injury-causing missiles (for example large masonry) 

at police. 

4. Strategic risk of disorder 

4.1 There is no intelligence to suggest that there is an increased likelihood of serious 

disorder within England and Wales. However, it would be fair to assume that the 

ongoing and potential future austerity measures are likely to lead to continued protest. 

Experiences in Millbank in 2010 demonstrate how quickly protest can turn to serious 

violent disorder. In addition, the social and economic factors that are currently being 

experienced have the potential, when combined with a significant (and often 

spontaneous) “trigger” event, to lead to the outbreak of significant disturbances. The 

disorder in August 2011 saw major damage to property, deaths of members of the 

public and injuries to police officers. 

4.2 The Metropolitan Police Service sees no evidence of a change in the context that 

underpinned the protest related violence and disorder seen in 2010 and 2011. It is also 

worthy of note that the potential for serious public disorder at specific protests has, on 

two occasions in the last 18 months, lead to the successful application for authority to 

prohibit processions under Sec 13 Public Order Act 1986. Prior to this, the last 

prohibition was in 1981 following the disorder in Brixton. Whilst there is no specific 

intelligence, the underlying factors outlined above are arguably more relevant for the 

capital given its significance as a focal point for protest. 

4.3 Although the disorder within the Metropolitan Police area in 2011 provided the catalyst 

for the debate around the requirement for water cannon, serious disorder was 

experienced in many major cities and towns of an intensity and scale where water 

cannon potentially could have offered an operational advantage to public order 

commanders. 

5. Public Opinion 

5.1 It is anticipated that public opinion will be mixed in relation to water cannon. Some 

perceive that the use of water cannon is not consistent with the British style of policing. 

There is however a public expectation that the police will deal positively with disorder 

and that the level of force used will be reasonable. 

5.2 CC Ian Learmonth has consulted with key stakeholders in relation to the wider revised 

public order framework and water cannon has featured in this. MOPAC and the APCC 

are represented on the project board and will play a key role in delivering the wider 

communications strategy should approval to use water cannon in England and Wales 

be granted. 

5.3 A 2012 YouGov survey (14/3/12) suggested that 90% of respondents were in favour of 

water cannon. Unexpected media interest in the ongoing project in May 2013 confirms 

that public opinion in relation to water cannon is mixed. However, no significant public 

opposition to water cannon has been identified in response to media releases.

5.4 Experience in Northern Ireland has shown that there is far more concern from 

community groups around the deployment and use of AEP as opposed to the use of 

water cannon. AEP has never been deployed in England and Wales in response to 

disorder incidents. 

6. Community Impact 

6.1 The impact of water cannon on individual communities will depend on the nature of the 

deployment as well as the nature of the incident prompting it. Public order policing is 

based on a ‘no surprises’ ethos and commanders must, wherever practicable, build 

communication / engagement plans into their planning considerations and assess the 

impact of their response to disorder. Post-incident community impact processes are 

embedded and well-practiced in all police forces. 

6.2 The Police Service has new national mechanisms for monitoring and assessing 

community tension. These were implemented in June 2013 and are based on the 

National Intelligence Model (NIM) principles. Nationally the National Domestic 

Extremism and Disorder Intelligence Unit (NDEDIU) assesses the strategic domestic 

extremism and public disorder threats. 

6.3 Police and Crime Commissioners provide an alternative mechanism for engaging with 

communities and this will form part of the community engagement process following 

any decision to approve water cannon for use in England and Wales. 

7. Operating Model / Funding Models 

7.1 Chief Constables have been consulted regarding potential operating and funding 

models. While a range of responses has been received, there is general support for a 

nationally funded model however Chief Constables have requested that all funding 

options and sources be explored. 

7.2 The opportunity to buy second hand water cannon from Germany presents a costeffective 

solution to the short-term requirement for water cannon. Since early 2013 the 

project has focussed on obtaining a short-term solution as it was identified that the 

procurement of a new bespoke product could take 18-24 months. The short-term 

solution will also enable the Police Service to re-assess the Operational and Technical 

Requirements (based on training and deployment) for a bespoke model to ensure that 

they are current and constitute best value. The purchase of used water cannon in the 

short-term is cheaper than leasing solutions and it is anticipated that partial costs could 

be recovered through the onward sale of the water cannon.

Ministerial Meeting 

Home Office, 2 Marsham Street, London 

Date: 9 th October, 9.20am – 4pm 

Morning session hosted by the Home Office 

Venue: Home Office, 2 Marsham Street, Conference Suite 

Time Item Agenda 

8.30am 1 Refreshments from 8.30am 

9.20am 2 Opening and welcome from Stephen Rimmer 

9.30am 3 Rt Hon Theresa May, Home Secretary, Address and Q&A 

10am 4 Rt Hon Damian Green, Minister for Policing and Justice, Address and Q&A 

10.30am 

Refreshments 

10.45am 5 Shirley Pearce, Chair, College of Policing 

11.20am 6 Anne Owers, Chair, IPCC 

12pm 

End and depart


From: 

APCCS Clare O' Sullivan

To: 

Cc: 



APCC Team 


GR‐A 89/2013 (Restricted): APCC General Meeting & Ministerial Engagement – 9 October 2013 – 2 Marsham Street, 

London 

The next Ministerial Engagement will take place on Wednesday 9 October 2013 at the Home Office, 2 Marsham Street, 

London, SW1P 4DF with refreshment from 8.30am and the meeting starting at 9.20am. The APCC General Meeting will 

be held across the road in the Emmanuel Centre at 9 – 23 Marsham Street starting with lunch at 12 noon and we aim to 

finish by 4pm. 

We would like you to note that Ministry of Justice officials will be available over lunch to discuss Transforming 

Rehabilitation and Andy Milne, Chief Inspector, West Mercia Police, will also be available to discuss Water Cannon 

should any PCCs have any queries on the documents included in the attached papers. 

Please find attached the papers for the meeting and I would like you to note that there are 2 Agendas for the day. One 

for the Ministerial Engagement in the morning and the Agenda for the APCC General Meeting in the afternoon, along 

with a map giving directions to the venue as follows: 

Ministerial Meeting Agenda 

001 Map 2 Marsham Street 

002 General Meeting Agenda 

003 Cover Briefing 

004 Item 1 Change to APCC Articles covering letter 

005 Item 1 Annex A APCC ‐ Articles of Association ‐ proposed changes 

006 Item 2 Annual Report and Accounts covering letter 

007 Item 2 Annex A Annual Report and Accounts 

008 Item 2 Annex B Annual Report and Accounts Draft statutory accounts 

009 Item 2 Annex C Annual Report and Accounts management letter 2013 

010 Item 4 ICT Company 

011 Item 7 Chief Officer Packages 

012 Water Cannon Executive Summary for PCC's 

013 Annex A Water Cannon Operational Requirement ‐ Part 1 

I would be grateful if you could ensure that your office informs the APCC of your attendance to the meeting with Dawn 

Osborne (dawn.osborne@apccs.pnn.police.uk). 

Kind regards 

Dawn 





2





















3

From: 

APCCS Clare O" Sullivan 

To: 


Subject: 

GR-A 91/2013: RESTRICTED Follow on from APCC General Meeting on 9th October 

Date: 10 October 2013 12:58:36 

Attachments: Annex A - Summary of responses to FTA consultation.docx 



APCC Team 


GR-A 91/2013: Follow on from APCC General Meeting on 9 th October 

At yesterday’s AGM a number of PCCs undertook to take further workstrands forward, with 

contributions from their fellow PCCs as follows: 

Mental Health Working Group 

Following yesterday’s meeting and the suggestion that Martyn Underhill arranges a working 

group to discuss mental health issues, a meeting of interested Commissioners is proposed on 6 

November in London. 

Martyn asks for expressions of interest to be forwarded as soon as possible to his office via: 

cathy.barfoot@dorset.pnn.police.uk. 

Victims Commissioning 

Following broad agreement to the proposal put forward by the Working Group, they were 

charged with replying to the Ministry of Justice on behalf of all PCCs. They are currently 

considering replying setting out the proposal broadly agreed yesterday, but with the pilot sites 

of London, Dorset and Avon & Somerset moving to new arrangements earlier than the majority. 

A reply will be sent by the MoJ’s deadline of October 11 th . This response will aim to capture all 

the views expressed yesterday, so individual replies from each PCC area would not be required. 

Chief Constable Contracts – Views on FTA Proposals 

Following Commissioner Johnston’s presentation concerning Chief Constable contracts and FTA 

proposals, there was a request to recirculate his original letter in (GR-B 213/13). Please follow 

the link here to Commissioner Johnston’s original letter and the Home Office Discussion paper. 

In summary, Commissioner Johnston is seeking views on proposals to change Chief Constable 

Fixed Term Appointments. For ease, the current situation and options are set out below: 

Current situation 

When appointing a Chief Constable, an appointment can be made for a maximum of 5 years. 

Subsequent contract renewals can be made for 3 years and then 1 year (reoccurring). 

Proposals 

The Home Office paper sets out proposals 1-3. Commissioners on the PNB have suggested 

Option 4.

· Options 1 - Initial maximum of 4 years. Subsequent contract renewal of 4 years and a final 2 

year renewal (not reoccurring). Commissioners can only make appointments for up to 3 

years if the appointment is to happen 12 months prior to a PCC election. (Home Office 

Preferred Option) 

· Option 2 - Retain the ‘current situation’ (as above) 

· Option 3 - Commissioners decide the length of a Chief Constable’s fixed term. 

· Option 4 - An initial maximum contract up to 5 years, then contracts up to 3 years 

(reoccuring). If an appointment is to happen 12 months prior to a PCC election, then the 

contract can only be up to 3 years. (Commissioners on the PNB proposal). 

Annex A provides a summary of the 12 responses so far (for information). 

Feedback 

Commissioner Johnston is seeking feedback (or other suggestions) on the above options. A 

summary of all the responses made to date, can be found at Annex A (for information). 

If Commissioners could respond to Oliver Shaw (oliver.shaw@apcss.pnn.police.uk) 07714399756 

by Friday 18 th October it would be appreciated. 

Many thanks 

Clare O’Sullivan 

Clare O’Sullivan|Senior Policy Development Manager – Criminal Justice and Partnerships|The 

Association of Police and Crime Commissioners, 07714 399760 | 2 nd Floor, 10 Victoria Street, 

London, SW1H 0NN|www.apccs.police.uk 



This communication may contain privileged and confidential information. Any views of opinions expressed are those of the 

originator and not necessarily those of the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners'. 

The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) or entity named above. If you are not the intended recipient, be 

aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of the information is strictly prohibited. If you have received 

this electronic message in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete it from your system. 







originator and not necessarily those of the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners'.








this electronic message in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete it from your system.

From: 


To: 


Subject: 

GR-A 93/2013: RESTRICTED Victims Commissioning Update 

Date: 14 October 2013 11:20:32 

Attachments: Letter from Victims Commissioning Working Group to MoJ 11.10.13.pdf 

Annex to Victims Working Group Letter 11.10.13.pptx 


GR-A 93/2013 – Victims’ Commissioning Update 

Please find enclosed a copy of the letter and annex sent on October 11 th from the Working 

Group to the Ministry of Justice in relation to commissioning referral arrangements for victims to 

support services. 

At the General Meeting on October 9 th , it was suggested that expressions of interest should be 

submitted by October 11th from those PCC areas that want to pilot local commissioning of 

referral arrangements from October 2014. The list of areas that have already expressed their 

interest to MoJ in acting as pilots is as follows: London, Dorset, Avon & Somerset, Wiltshire, 

Devon & Cornwall, Northamptonshire, Cambridgeshire, Staffordshire and Nottinghamshire. The 

four Police and Crime Commissioners from Yorkshire and the Humberside have also expressed 

interest in working collaboratively as a region with the Ministry of Justice as a pilot area from 

October 2014. Should there be additional areas who wish to pilot and are not represented in 

the above list, please do get in touch. 

In terms of next steps, the Working Group is seeking a follow up meeting with Ministry of Justice 

officials. Ministry of Justice officials will be advising the new Minister for Victims (Damian Green) 

on the approach set out by PCCs, and a formal reply from the Department would be anticipated 

shortly. 

Should further information be helpful, please do not hesitate to get in touch, 

Many thanks 

Clare O’Sullivan 

Clare O’Sullivan|Senior Policy Development Manager – Criminal Justice and Partnerships|The 

Association of Police and Crime Commissioners, 07714 399760 | 2 nd Floor, 10 Victoria Street, 

London, SW1H 0NN|www.apccs.police.uk 




originator and not necessarily those of the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners'.


















this electronic message in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete it from your system.


From: 

APCCS Tania Eagle 

Sent: 14 October 2013 13:57 

Cc: 

Wheatley Bruce David (Police ICT Company) 

Subject: 

GR-A 94/2013 RESTRICTED - PCC newsletter on ICT 

Attachments: HO Police National Systems - Landscape v1.docx; Annex A - Local Systems (2011 

position).pdf; Annex B - National Police ICT Services 2013-2014 Charges.xlsx 

To: 

Cc: 



APCC Team 

When he presented to the General Meeting last Wednesday, Bruce Wheatley from the Home Office committed to 

providing regular updates to Police and Commissioners on the national police ICT landscape. 

Please find attached the first of these briefings, noting the restricted nature of the documents. 

Please let me know if you have any queries. 

Regards 

Tania 

Tania Eagle|Business Director|The Association of Police and Crime Commissioners, APCC|07714399755 | 2 nd Floor, 10 

Victoria Street, London, SW1H 0NN|www.apccs.police.uk 



********************************************************************** 

This email and any files transmitted with it are private and intended 

solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. 

If you have received this email in error please return it to the address 

it came from telling them it is not for you and then delete it from your system. 

This email message has been swept for computer viruses. 

********************************************************************** 

********************************************************************** 

1











2


From: 


Sent: 06 November 2013 11:54 

To: 


Subject: 

UPDATE GR-A 95/2013: (Restricted) - Final agenda for the Police and Crime 

Commissioners one year on event - 14th November 

Attachments: 

MAP - St. Ermin's Hotel, Caxton Street, London SW1H OQW.docx; PCCs one year on 

agenda - 14th Nov 2013.docx 


UPDATE GR‐A 95/2013: (Restricted) – Final agenda for the Police and Crime Commissioners one year on event ‐ 14th 

November 

Venue: St. Ermin's Hotel, Caxton Street, London SW1H OQW 

Date and Time: 14th November 2013, 10am – 4.30pm 

Please find attached the final agenda and map for the one year on event on the 14 th November at St. Ermin's Hotel. The 

event venue is located within 3 minute walk from St James’s Park tube station. 

The main event will start at 10am with a keynote address by Tony Lloyd, Chairman of the APCC and Greater Manchester 

PCC on the role of Police and Crime Commissioners in policing in England and Wales. 

Both the Home Secretary and Policing Minister have been invited to attend and there will be a ministerial address in 

the morning. 

Following the opening speeches, three PCCs will make a speech on the below issues: 

Integrity – Julia Mulligan, North Yorkshire PCC 

Mental health – Martyn Underhill, Dorset PCC 

Victims – Jane Kennedy, Merseyside PCC 

Registration will begin at 9.30am and the main event is planned to start at 10am. Lunch will be provided and we aim to 

finish the day by 4.30pm. 

We have allocated 3 FREE places to each PCC’s office. If you have still not booked to attend then please email 

dawn.osborne@apccs.pnn.police.uk or call tel: 0207 084 8957. Please send this email to any of your officers who are 

also down to attend. 

We look forward to seeing you on the day. 

Kind regards, 

Joel 




1












2

APCC briefing 

Police and Crime Commissioners one year on: 

Delivering police accountability 

Agenda 


Date & Time: 14th November 2013, 10am – 4.30pm 

9am – Press briefing 

9.30am – 10am – Registration 

10am – Address by Tony Lloyd, Chairman of the APCC and Greater Manchester PCC on 

the role of Police and Crime Commissioners in policing in England and Wales 

10.15am – Keynote address by the Rt. Hon Damian Green MP, Minister of State for 

Policing, Criminal Justice and Victims 

10.45am – PCCs to address delegates of three key issues, 

1. Integrity – Julia Mulligan, North Yorkshire PCC 

2. Mental health – Martyn Underhill, Dorset PCC 

3. Victims – Jane Kennedy, Merseyside PCC 

12 pm – BT address on police use of IT and the drive for greater digital engagement with the 

public 

12.10 pm – Press interviews with PCCs and networking lunch. 

1.30pm – End of public session, move to closed meeting on Police ICT with Nick Alston, 

Essex PCC 

4.30pm - Close 





From: 



To: 


Subject: 

UPDATE GR-A 95/2013: (Restricted) - Police and Crime Commissioners one year on 

event - 14th November 

Attachments: 

PCCs one year on agenda - 14th Nov 2013.docx; MAP - St. Ermin's Hotel, Caxton 

Street, London SW1H OQW.docx; PCCs_One_Year_On.pdf; One year on - Suggested 

lines to take.pdf 

To: 

Cc: 


Police ICT Representatives 




UPDATE GR‐A 95/2013: (Restricted) – Police and Crime Commissioners one year on event ‐ 14th November 

Please find below a more detailed briefing for the one year on event on Thursday 14 th November. 

Media on the day 

I can now confirm that the BBC will be filming the event live all day for News 24 and all their lunchtime and evening 

news bulletins. The BBC have confirmed that the one year on event will be the main domestic news story on the 14th. 

BBC correspondent Matthew Amroliwala will be presenting live from St Ermin’s Hotel all day. ITV Daybreak and ITV 

News are also interested in filming the event and a range of national newspapers will be attending. 

I am working closely with the press to manage PCC interviews and will send out further information early next week. 

Because of the high level of media interest I have attached a short briefing on some suggested lines to take which I hope 

are useful. 

The group representatives have approved a press release for the event which will be sent out next week along with a 

copy of the one year on document to the media. 

One year on document 

After two months of work I am pleased to attach the final version of the one year on document. I would like to take this 

opportunity to thank the communicators for all their hard work in helping to deliver the final product. 

Please note that the document is embargoed until 00.01am Thursday 14th November 2013. 

Website for live stream and Twitter hashtag 

Please note that the URL for the live stream has now been agreed and will broadcast the event from the below address: 

www.bt.com/pcc2013 

1

The URL is not active at the moment while BT apply branding. I would be grateful if you could tweet out the URL from 

Monday 11th November to promote interest in the event. 

When you are communicating about the event on Twitter please use #PCCsYearOne. 

Event programme 



Please find attached the final agenda and map for the one year on event on the 14 th November at St. Ermin's Hotel. The 

event venue is located within 3 minute walk from St James’s Park tube station. 

The main event will start at 10am with a keynote address by Tony Lloyd, Chairman of the APCC and Greater Manchester 

PCC on the role of Police and Crime Commissioners in policing in England and Wales. 

The Policing Minister will deliver the ministerial address in the morning. 

Following the opening speeches, three PCCs will make a speech on the below issues: 

Integrity – Julia Mulligan, North Yorkshire PCC 

Mental health – Martyn Underhill, Dorset PCC 

Victims – Jane Kennedy, Merseyside PCC 



We have allocated 3 FREE places to each PCC’s office. If you have still not booked to attend then please email 

dawn.osborne@apccs.pnn.police.uk or call tel: 0207 084 8957. Please send this email to any of your officers who are 

also down to attend. 


Kind regards, 

Joel 









2







3

APCC agenda 

Police and Crime Commissioners one year on: 

Delivering police accountability 

Agenda 


Date & Time: 14th November 2013, 10am – 4.30pm 

9am – Press briefing 

9.30am – 10am – Registration 

10am – Address by Tony Lloyd, Chairman of the APCC and Greater Manchester PCC on 

the role of Police and Crime Commissioners in policing in England and Wales 

10.15am – Keynote address by the Rt. Hon Damian Green MP, Minister of State for 

Policing, Criminal Justice and Victims 

10.45am – PCCs to address delegates of three key issues, 

1. Integrity – Julia Mulligan, North Yorkshire PCC 

2. Mental health – Martyn Underhill, Dorset PCC 

3. Victims – Jane Kennedy, Merseyside PCC 

12 pm – Address by Stuart Hill, Vice President Central Government and Home Affairs, BT 

Global Services on police use of IT and the drive for greater digital engagement with the 

public 

12.10 pm – Press interviews with PCCs and networking lunch 

1.30pm – End of public session, move to closed meeting 

1.30pm – 2.30pm – PCC working group and General Sir Nick Parker KCB CBE – update on 

the ACPO Review 

2.30pm – 4.30pm - Nick Alston, Essex PCC - Police ICT 

4.30pm - Close 




APCC briefing 

Key message for the day 

One year on - 14 th November 2013 

Suggested lines to take 

Today’s event will discuss how Police and Crime Commissioners can maintain and increase public 

confidence in policing. 

Police and Crime Commissioners (PCCs) are working hard to ensure local communities have a 

stronger voice in policing. Working with Chief Constables we are transforming the way forces 

interact with the public so that policing in the 21st century is more responsive to communities’ 

concerns about crime. 

This year PCCs have launched campaigns to raise awareness and seek change on many key issues 

across the policing landscape. We have called for a review of the Proceeds of Crime Act so that 

communities benefit from criminals’ ill-gotten gains and working with partner agencies we are 

determined to ensure that detainees and victims of crime with mental health problems receive the 

right care, at the right time and in the right place. 

We are holding this event to help inform the media and public about the work of Police and Crime 

Commissioners one year on. 

One year on publication 

We are launching ‘Police and Crime Commissioner one year on: Delivering police accountability’ 

today which covers four key themes: crime, policing, value for money and working in partnership. 

The document is a snapshot of PCCs’ work and ideas for the future of local policing. 

Cost of the event 

BT have sponsored today’s conference so no taxpayers’ money has been used to fund the one year 

on event. 

Topical issues 

ACPO review 

Retired military chief General Sir Nick Parker is leading an independent review of the role and 

functions of the Association of Chief Police Officers. 

Sir Nick has been asked to look at the role played by ACPO in the new policing landscape. We largely 

fund the organisation and want to ensure that it is fit for purpose, both operationally and financially, 

delivering the appropriate capabilities in a manner that is sustainable and exemplifies a cost 

effective use of public money. General Sir Nick Parker will publish a report by the end of this month 

for consideration by PCCs. 




Alcohol harm 

The only way to make further progress on alcohol fuelled crime is to work in conjunction with local 

and national partners. 

Alcohol crime often overlaps with health issues so it is important to work closely with local Health 

and Wellbeing Boards and other health professionals to identify the scale of the problem and take 

action to reduce misuse. 

There is also a need to find innovative ways to address the adverse effects of the night-time 

economy and reduce the demand on police responders. Binge drinking blights towns and cities 

across England and Wales. Police and Crime Commissioners are working to change the culture by 

working with positive role models such as street pastors who engage with drinkers and offer support 

to change their ways. Some Commissioners are looking at ‘drunk tanks’ which house inebriated 

people overnight and allow police officers to deal with other crimes. 

Anti-social behaviour 

By increasing community cohesion and building trust amongst local communities we can diminish 

the tendency for people to get involved in anti-social behaviour. 

Police and Crime Commissioners have been closely following the progress of the anti-social 

behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill. We want the police to be given effective powers to tackle antisocial 

behaviour that provide better protection for victims. In particular, we welcome measures to 

tackle irresponsible dog ownership but more must be done to tackle dangerous breeds. 

One of the key debates is how we divert young people away from committing anti-social behaviour. 

A small minority of children and young people commit anti-social behaviour so enforcement 

responses need to be proportionate and effective. 

It is also important to have a multi-agency approach to tackling anti-social behaviour as the police 

are only one part of the solution. By working with local authorities, housing associations and other 

agencies we can effectively combat anti-social behaviour and empower victims and communities. 

Chief officer terms and conditions 

Police and Crime Commissioners who have responsibility for pay and negotiations for police officers 

were requested by the wider PCC membership to look into the existing statutory framework 

governing chief officer terms, conditions, allowances and expenses. PCCs are seeking to do a stocktake 

on whether the current arrangements are adequate and/or may need revision in whole or in 

part. Any proposals for change, will be agreed with the wider PCC membership and taken through 

the agreed pay negotiation machinery. 

Police ICT 

A group of PCCs are working together under the leadership of Nick Alston, Police and Crime 

Commissioner for Essex, to scope the potential strategic vision for Police ICT. The group are working 

out what the options may be for a way forward to provide a central hub for Police ICT in which 

Commissioners are closely involved. The idea of a Police ICT Company remains on the table but there 

may be other good options which should be explored. The Home Secretary has agreed to give the 

PCC working group some time to find a way forward that would enjoy widespread support.

Police integrity or plebgate 

We believe that it is essential that the public trusts the process for handling police complaints. The 

evidence is that the public have confidence in the police, but there is no room for complacency. The 

process must be independent, transparent, involve communities and be fair to those who are under 

investigation. 

Sexual offences 

PCCs are concerned about the increase in sexual offences. Although some of the recorded increase is 

related to historical cases this is a worrying trend and which must be addressed. There is also a need 

to offer greater support to the victims of sexual offences. 

PCCs are very supportive of our local Sexual Assault Referral Centres and other local support services 

which continue to play an important role in supporting victims. We must also work to encourage 

greater co-ordination between support groups and the police to ensure that victims feel confident to 

speak out. 

Victims 

Police and Crime Commissioners are determined to support the needs of those that may become 

victims. With our new responsibilities in the criminal justice area we want a more joined up 

approach between criminal justice partners, voluntary and charitable sectors so that we enhance 

and improve services for victims. By working together and locally we can put victims at the heart of 

the criminal justice system. 

Other potential issues you may be challenged on 

Senior Salaries review Board 

It is the role of the Senior Salaries Review Board (SSRB) to make recommendations to the 

Government on the pay of several senior public sector jobs including the judiciary, the military, the 

civil service and some senior NHS personnel. From 2014 onwards the SSRB will also make 

independent annual recommendations to the Government on the pay of Police and Crime 

Commissioners. 

As part of its regular process of information gathering, the SSRB asked the APCC to submit written 

evidence to inform its recommendations for next year. Evidence submitted outlines the roles, 

functions and responsibilities of Police and Crime Commissioners and reflects a broad range of views 

made by the membership. The Association has purposefully chosen not to make a collective 

comment on the pay of Police and Crime Commissioners in its submission, as it is wholly the 

responsibility of the SSRB to make an independent recommendation to Government on this matter. 

Please note: The APCC will publish PCCs response to the SSRB consultation to coincide with the final 

SSRB report published next year.


From: 


Sent: 30 October 2013 15:11 

To: 


Subject: 

REMINDER: GR-A 95/2013: (Restricted) - Police and Crime Commissioners One Year On 

- book your place today 

To: 

Cc: 





REMINDER: GR‐A 95/2013: (Restricted) – Police and Crime Commissioners One Year On ‐ book your place today 



The APCC will be hosting an event for Police and Crime Commissioners on 14th November 2013 at St Ermin’s Hotel, 

Caxton Street, London, SW1H 0QW. BT have kindly sponsored the event. 



The Home Secretary has been invited to join commissioners on the day to discuss four key themes, cutting crime, 

encouraging innovation in policing, delivering better value for money and working effectively in partnership. We will 

also be launching a document covering these four themes to stimulate debate. 

We have allocated 3 FREE places to each PCC’s office. If you would like to attend please email 

dawn.osborne@apccs.pnn.police.uk or call tel: 0207 084 8957 by Friday 1st November. 

A full agenda will be sent out shortly. 


Kind regards, 






1











2


From: 


Sent: 22 October 2013 10:32 

To: 


Subject: 

GR-A 96/2013 (Restricted): Home Office PCC ICT briefing on National Police Systems 

and newsletter on interoperability 

Attachments: 

National Police Systems - more details for PCCs.pdf; Interoperability 1 0.pdf 

To: 

Cc: 





GR‐A 96/2013 (Restricted): Home Office PCC ICT briefing on national police systems and newsletter on 

interoperability 

Please find attached the Home Office briefing on national police systems which follows on from last week’s update. This 

week’s newsletter is on Interoperability. 

We hope this is helpful; if you have any questions or comments don’t hesitate to get in touch. 

Regards, 

Joel 
















1


From: 


Sent: 22 October 2013 14:35 

Subject: 

GR-A 97/2013 (restricted): Notes from 9th October General Meeting 

Attachments: 

Minutes draft.doc 

To: 

Cc: 



APCC Team 

Dear Police and Crime Commissioner, 

Please find attached the draft notes of 9 th October General Meeting. 

I can also confirm that the next General Meeting and Ministerial Engagement will take place on 21 st January 2014 at the 

Emmanuel Centre (opposite the Home Office) in Marsham Street, London. 


Regards 

Tania 















1

DRAFT - Restricted 

Summary of Discussion and Actions: 9 th October 2013 

Home Secretary 

It was noted that the Home Secretary will make speeches to mark the first year anniversary 

for PCCs and would like to use examples of PCC’s achievements over the course of the last 

year. [note: the examples being coordinated by the APCC will be provided to the Home 

Office for this purpose]. 

An update in relation to organised crime and launch of the NCA was provided, noting that 

the relationship between the NCA and PCCs needs to develop. 

It was noted that the Organised Crime Strategy was launched on Monday. 

In relation to exploitation by organised crime groups, it was noted that there is an intention 

to introduce a Modern Slavery Bill [note: the APCC will seek further information about this] 

It was noted that progress is being made in relation to mental health and policing, but the 

Home Secretary would welcome feedback on how this is taking effect on the ground [note: it 

is proposed that these views are coordinated as part of the group being established to review 

mental health issues] 

In response to questions: 

The Home Secretary would welcome further information regarding research in West 

Midlands on the use of cautions (Turning Point) 

It was noted that the Home Secretary is still negotiating future regimes with the Department 

for Communities and Local Government on precepting 

It was noted that there is a need to bring together work being undertaken by PCCs in relation 

to integrity, and the conversations the Home Secretary is having with the IPCC 

In response to concerns raised about the value for money provided by the IPCC within its 

current operating model, the Home Secretary confirmed her appetite to ensure value for 

money, and that the scrutiny of the provision of additional funding would be rigorous 

In response to queries about the direction of ‘blue light innovation’, it was stated that there 

is policy intent to bring fire and police together under PCCs, but details are currently being 

worked through [note: the APCC will seek further information about this and provide 

feedback to PCCs] 

In relation to rehabilitation, the Home Secretary agreed that PCCs should have a role in the 

new arrangements. PCCs were reminded that there is a reference group for PCCs in relation 

to the transforming rehabilitation agenda, and when views/proposals are agreed these 

should be put forward to the Group. 

In response to a question about the role PCCs can play in the criminal justice system, and her 

views as to the recent Policy Exchange report, the Home Secretary can see potential to 

involve PCCs more, but this is something to be considered in the future.


Damian Green, Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice 

It was noted that the timetable for responding to stage 2 transfers proposals is on schedule 

and the Home Office will reply in November 

In relation to protecting children and vulnerable people from sexual violence, the Minster 

would welcome examples of good practice and innovative local solutions. 

In relation to the workforce, the Minister identified a ‘third phase of reform’ to transform the 

front line, which include developments in IT to free up police time. 

In response to questions 

A concern was expressed that child sexual exploitation is being tackled at the front line, but 

other strands of exploitation may not being tackled as effectively 

In relation to the IPCC transition programme, a concern was expressed that this approach 

may lead to undermining the Chief Constables ability to tackle complaints at a local level, 

and that an approach which provides greater supervision by the IPCC may be more 

beneficial. In response, it was noted that there is a PCC working group on this issues. 

In response to proposals to free up police time through developments in IT, it was noted 

that some areas of England and Wales do not have comprehensive 4G coverage which has 

significant implications for implementation, and needs to be considered by Government 

when developing strategies and identifying providers. 

Concern was expressed about the impact of diminishing funding streams from other 

partners, such as local authorities to partnership working within the criminal justice system 

In response to a question about increasing trends in crime, the Minister noted that upward 

trends tend to relate to fraud and internet crime, which is due to improvements in 

recording. 

Shirley Pearce, Chair, College of Policing 

Outlined key features of the College of Policing – explaining its ambitions were summarised 

in the Strategic Intent document which had been widely circulated for consultation, and that 

her key intention was that the College should be an agent of change 

The main departments/faculties which the College would be organised around were 

explained: setting standards; accreditation of providers; supporting partnership working; 

evidence base research; ethics and integrity 

The infrastructure was designed to value knowledge and as one of the Governmentappointed 

‘what works centres’, it was important that evidence based approaches were 

engrained in policing in the same way as they had been in other public sector organisations 

such as health for some years. 

The evidence base will evolve and change, so must be continuously developed – the College 

had written to University Vice Chancellors, seeking a consortium of universities to help them 

develop this approach. 

To support this, the College were conducting a mapping exercise of existing research in 

policing and had established a small fund to enable police, PCCs and universities to bid for 

projects to enhance partnership capacity building in 2013/14.


In relation to governance, the Board was developing its role and various committees had 

been established under it, including the Professional Committee. The College is looking for 

PCC engagement in this committee and there was agreement that two or three PCCs should 

attend each, meeting based on agenda item and specific areas of interest. 


The College would circulate further information to PCCs to explain how to access the 

partnership building fund. 

In response to concerns that the College had written to universities, but not PCCs about 

partnership work, although many PCCs were commissioning local universities to do work, 

the College confirmed they were also interested in PCCs letting them know about any such 

work to add to their mapping exercise. 

On concerns that most PCCs were not in a position to afford major commissions to the 

College, it was confirmed that the College funding model is still being discussed, but the aim 

is that it should derive 51% of its income from non‐grant sources within a couple of years, so 

subscription charges were likely. 

In response to further questions/concerns about the arrangements for PCC attendance at 

the Professional Committee in future, it was confirmed that this would be agenda driven 

and would include PCCs with a particular interest in specific elements/items. 

On concerns that reading across too much between health and policing academic 

approaches was misleading because elements of the health service was generally less well 

trained (e.g first response), it was confirmed that an important part of the work would be 

providing an evidence base for policing competencies to ensure continuing high standards. 

Anne Owers, Chair, IPCC 

IPCCs starting point that complaints were the key to improving policing and community 

confidence. 

IPCC was supporting its Commissioners locally to analyse what worked in addressing areas 

of concern through: sampling complaints handling; looking at work on local resolution; and 

examining chief officer formal responses to IPCC recommendations. 

However, IPCC cannot reality check this in the same way that PCCs can and better 

collaborative working between IPCC Commissioners and PCCs would be helpful in 

developing an evidenced approach. 

Other problem areas where better collaboration between PCCs and IPCC would be helpful 

include: mental health and custody; use of restraint/force (which is no longer recorded in 

detail) and preventing harm when used; exploitation (of vulnerable people by police 

officers, where there have been almost no conduct referrals), so what is being missed? 

IPCC role in investigating PCCs is sensitive and they are conscious they need to put more 

resources into this. 

In relation to IPCC/PSD transition, the scale of this is still being negotiated with the Home 

Office, but the intention is that IPCC should deal with all serious and sensitive cases.



In relation to a question about whether the IPCC represented value for money, the police 

service conducted 29,000 complaints investigations and IPCC did 120 of the most serious 

and complex of these. Their model is based on multi‐disciplinary approach to the most high 

profile cases, where there is the greatest risk of JR. They upheld about 50% of appeals on 

local investigations, which indicates that things are not perfect within PSDs and need to be 

made more consistent. 

In response to various questions about media interest in PCC investigations, IPCC confirmed 

that their key criteria must be independent transparency, so they have a policy of not 

communicating with the PCC before announcing to the press (although they do not name 

the individual). PCCs stressed that they believe this is a real problem for them – at least 

before IPCC decides whether to investigate – as this is a political football that could bring 

the whole system into disrepute. It was suggested that a protocol between IPCC, PCCs and 

monitoring officers might be helpful, although the fundamental problem was arguably a 

flaw in the legislation which could have looked more closely at aligning PCCs to the local 

government regime. There were also specific issues around vexatious complaints – and 

concern that this should not end up in the media too. 

In response to a question about whether costs would be rechargeable as between IPCC in 

local forces assisting with IPCC investigations about the transfer of resources to IPCC, it was 

confirmed that this should not be an issues, as the point of the transfer was to enable IPCC 

to conduct independent investigations themselves, without using forces to do this for them. 

In relation to a question about whether the IPCC thought the whole complaints system 

needed much more fundamental reform, to become more focused on the complainant/ 

victim and less on process/organisational convenience, the IPCC confirmed they were in 

agreement. 

APCC General Meeting 

APCC Articles of Association, Annual Report and Audited Account 

The Annual Report and Audited Accounts proposed by Simon Duckworth were endorsed. 

The changes to the Articles of Association were considered and the amendments proposed 

by the lawyers were agreed. 

Police ICT 

Nick Alston (PCC for Essex) provided an update in relation to Police ICT, inviting PCCs to take 

part in work to establish what is required from a national ICT capability. Bruce Wheatley from 

the Home Office attended the meeting to set out the support they will provide, how they will 

communicate with and update PCCs, and explain the key milestones over the next few 

weeks. A copy of his presentation, together with his contact details is attached at Annex A. 

PCCs thanked Nick Alston for his work on this issue.


Victims Commissioning 

An update on work to develop a transitional approach to commissioning referral and support 

for victims was provided by Alun Michael (PCC for South Wales), Kevin Hurley (PCC for 

Surrey) and Dorothy Gregson (Chief Executive for Cambridgeshire). 

It was explained that the principles underpinning the work on the commissioning of victims 

services are to ensure that victims are at the heart of the process, to provide better services 

to victims, and put in place better governance of those services. Equally, it is necessary to 

find the right balance between national standards and strategies, and local delivery. 

The Working Group’s proposal of a transitional approach and greater collaboration between 

PCCs and MoJ received broad agreement but it was noted that PCCs wishing to take part as 

pilots should confirm so by 11 th October. 

It was noted that transitional work from now to October 2014 will be important to develop 

information, share emerging thinking, influence nationally delivered services and ensure that 

future arrangements are robust. 

It was noted that the cost base for the provision of existing services may need to be reviewed 

and scrutinised before assumptions are made about future costs. As PCCs are developing 

their budgets for 2014/15 and will need early indications of budget implications for the 

commissioning of victims commissioning. 

It was noted that the ‘journey of the money’ will be to PCCs for them to collaboration and 

aggregate budgets. 

The British Transport Police Authority will be affected by the changes, but confirmed they 

will be willing to fit into the structure agreed by PCCs as long as the victims of crime related 

to transport will not be disadvantaged. 

Concerns were expressed about the funding model used to distribute funding, and it was 

agreed that the Ministry of Justice should be asked to provide options. 

Rt Hon Eric Pickles, Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government 

The following issues were discussed with Eric Pickles: 

Alcohol and the integration of the night‐time economy, which he said PCCs should take a 

lead on 

The benefits of focusing on ‘issues’ to enable better cooperation between different tiers of 

local government and other agencies 

In relation to barriers to pooling funding and sharing resources, it was noted that the 

judgements and responsibilities of various parties is more relevant than technical issues 

preventing shared budgets 

He agreed that councils will soon be able to share travellers’ sites


It was noted that sharing data and information between partners remains an important issue 

In response to proposals to merge fire and police under PCCs, he said that this should be 

evolutionary and voluntary 

In response to queries on the trigger for referenda in relation to the precept, it was noted 

that any area can increase its precept as long as they have a mandate from local people. 

Vera Baird, PCC for Northumbria – Vulnerability Programme 

Vera Baird, Sue Tauk and David Calvert presented the details of an initiative to improve the 

way people who are vulnerable (in relation to alcohol and the night‐time economy) are 

identified and supported through the provision of training to professionals and volunteers 

who work within that environment. 

Northumbria offered to provide further information and support to any other area wishing to 

take forward this initiative. 

Ian Johnston, PCC for Gwent – Chief Officer Packages 

It was noted that a number of PCCs have expressed an interest in reviewing the packages 

offered to chief officers as part of their contracts. 

It was agreed that consultation questions on this issue will be re‐circulated to PCCs, and that 

time will be provided for a more substantive discussion in January. 

Mark Burns‐Williamson, PCC for West Yorkshire – Proceeds of Crime Act 

Mark Burns Williamson presented his views on the Proceeds of Crime Act, including the 

potential to review legislation and ensure a greater proportion of proceeds are returned into 

policing and increase transparency of how proceeds are distributed 

It was agreed that Mark Burns‐Williamson will provide further information of the legislation 

and his proposals for consideration by PCCs. 

Martyn Underhill, PCC for Dorset – Mental Health 

Martyn Underhill proposed developing a set of criteria/standards that PCCs require from 

health providers in relation to mental health 

In response, some PCCs felt that the issues relate more to issues in local implementation. 

It was agreed that Martyn would arrange a meeting of interested PCCs to explore what the 

issues are and what needs to be done. Cambridgeshire offered to provide support to this 

work.


General Sir Nick Parker, ACPO Review 

Sir Parker provided a brief update on his approach to the ACPO Review. The Terms of 

Reference are attached at Annex B. 

Julia Mulligan, PCC for North Yorkshire – Police Specials and Integrity 

Julia Mulligan explained that Oliver Shaw (APCC team) will circulate a letter to those PCC’s 

who expressed a commitment in relation to Police Specials as part of their manifesto 

commitment with a view to establishing how these commitments can be taken forward. 

Julie Mulligan also gave a brief overview of the purpose and scope of the APCC Integrity 

Working Group, which had now met for the first time and agreed to progress key strands of 

work. 

October 2013


From: 


Sent: 25 October 2013 15:02 

Subject: 

GR-A 99/2013 (restricted): Police ICT Update 

Attachments: 

20131024LtrtoPCCs.doc 

To: 

Cc: 


Police ICT PCC representatives 


APCC Team 


Please find attached a letter from Nick Alston, PCC for Essex, providing an update in relation to the Police ICT 

Company. For those who have expressed an interest in taking part in further conference calls/meetings on this issue, 

please find details below: 

1. 29 th October, 12pm to 1.30pm, conference call (Number: 08444 737373 Pin: 070338) 

2. 7 th November, 12.30pm to 2.15pm, meeting in Central London (venue to be confirmed) 

3. 14 th November, 2.30pm to 4.30pm, meeting at St Ermins Hotel, London (following the ‘one year on’) 

If you have any queries, please let me know. 

Regards 

Tania 















1


From: 


Sent: 28 October 2013 15:48 

Subject: 


Attachments: 

Commercial and Procurement - 281013 v0 4.docx 

To: 

Cc: 


Police ICT PCC and Officers Network 


APCC Team 


Please find attached an update report from the Home Office regarding Police ICT. This paper provides a summary of 

procurement rules governing police ICT and a list of current national contracts and relevant expiry dates. Those PCCs 

and their representatives taking part in the conference call tomorrow will wish to refer to the document during the call. 


Regards 

Tania 















1


From: 


Clare O’Sullivan|Senior Policy Development Manager – Criminal Justice and Partnerships|The Association of Police and 

Crime Commissioners, 07714 399760 | 2 nd Floor, 10 Victoria Street, London, SW1H 0NN|www.apccs.police.uk 























2


From: 

APCCS Oliver Shaw 

Sent: 29 October 2013 18:08 

Subject: 

GR-A 102/2013: **Restricted** Letter from Ian Johnston - PNB Update 

Attachments: 

Letter Ian Johnston - PNB Update 29.10.13.pdf 



APCC Team 

GR‐A 102/2013: **Restricted** Letter from Ian Johnston – PNB Update 

Please find attached an letter from Ian Johnston, Police and Crime Commissioner for Gwent and Chair, Official Side, 

PNB. 

Regards, 

Oliver 

Oliver Shaw|Senior Policy Advisor|The Association of Police and Crime Commissioners, APCC|07714399756| 2 nd Floor, 

10 Victoria Street, London, SW1H 0NN|www.apccs.police.uk 























1

From the Gwent Police and Crime Commissioner, Ian Johnston 

Dear Colleagues, 

RE: PNB Update 

29 th October 2013 

Having just had the October Quarterly Police Negotiating Board (PNB) I’d like to take a moment to 

update you on a couple of matters which I know will be of interest. 

Compulsory Severance & Restricted Duties - Arbitration 

Those of you at the APCC General meeting in July will recall that there were no strong objections 

voiced against the Official Side (of which Commissioners comprise half) proposal to pursue the 

introduction of Compulsory Severance for Police Officers and Restricted Duty proposals. My 

colleagues and I have worked very hard to see these negotiations through the PNB, however, as you 

are likely aware, we were unable to reach agreement and they will be going to the Police Arbitration 

Tribunal (PAT) in November. 

Once the PAT have made their recommendations, this will be referred to the Home Secretary who 

will decide whether to accept, reject or amend the PAT’s recommendation. It’s difficult to anticipate 

timeframes, but this could be around Christmas or early 2014. 

The above issues are clearly emotive and I know you all have your personal views as to whether or 

not you might use the Compulsory Severance and / or Restricted Duty proposals if they are 

introduced. While I in no way seek to fetter anyone’s mandate to speak publically on the proceedings 

or proposals, I would ask you to keep in mind that any public comment ahead of the Home 

Secretary’s decision, particularly that which may conflict with the Official Side’s negotiation position, 

does make our job far more difficult. I do fully appreciate that we all have ultimate accountability for 

our own force areas and constituents, but it would be extremely helpful if you could nevertheless 

bare this in mind over the coming months. 

We anticipate that there will be significant media interest, particularly when the PAT make their 

recommendation and when the Home Secretary makes her decision. Closer to the time the APCC will 

be circulating ‘suggested lines’ and regular updates to assist you in handling any media. 

Chief Officer Allowances 

At our last APCC meeting you will recall that Commissioners on the PNB were asked to look into the 

matter of allowances paid to Chief Officers, particularly with a view to making the regime more 

transparent. At last week’s PNB Quarterly meeting, the Chief Police Officers’ Staff Association 

(CPOSA) also indicated their desire for greater clarity in this area. They are also seeking clarification 

on PCC powers to make payments that might fall out of the existing allowances and expenses 

framework. 

To update you, Commissioners on the PNB are undertaking a stocktake of the allowances and I would 

like to hear from you if there are any specific allowances that you pay which 

we should include in the scope of the stocktake, or are of concern to you. I 

will write back to you shortly setting out the stocktake and a set of 

recommendations for the wider PCC group to consider. Any proposals for 

change will need to be taken through the PNB. During this process I will be 

liaising closely with CPOSA to ensure they are kept abreast of developments. 

Chief Officer Contracts 

Also at the last APCC meeting, I reported of discussions around proposals 

from the Home Office to amend the duration of Fixed Term Appointments 

APCC 

2 nd Floor, 10 Victoria Street, 

London, SW1H 0NN 

T 020 7084 8957 

E enquiries@apccs.pnn.police.uk 

@AssocPCCs 

www.apccs.police.uk 

The APCC provides support to all 


and policing governance bodies in 

England, Wales and Northern 

Ireland

for Chief Constables. There was a request at the meeting for my original consultation note to be 

recirculated, which was done and the APCC have received a handful of additional responses. 

I think it’s now time to marshal a degree on consensus on the matter. Therefore, I propose that we 

go back to the Home Office saying that there is general support for contracts of 4 years and then 3 

year re-occurring. If the appointment is to be made 12 months (or less) before an election, then it can 

only be for a maximum of 3 years. When responding, I will provide copies of all responses made and 

note that there is also an alternate preference to have no fixed term contracts. 

I intend to write to the Home Office in mid-November, therefore if anyone has any strong objections 

to this course of action (or wishes to submit another response) then please let me know. 

Finally, I would like to thank all the Commissioners on the various Workforce Boards. We have had an 

extremely busy first year and I sense that things will be getting even busier in 2014 and I am very 

grateful for everyone’s ongoing support. 

If you have any questions concerning the above, please feel free to get in contact with me or you can 

contact Oliver Shaw at APCC. Oliver’s details are (oliver.shaw@apccs.pnn.police.uk, 07714399756). 

regards, 

Ian Johnston 

Police and Crime Commissioner for Gwent and Chair, Official Side, PNB


From: 















2

HOME OFFICE/VCSE STAKEHOLDER FORUM 

Date Monday 21 st October 2013 Time 3:00pm-4:30pm 

Location Conference Room 3a, Ground Floor, Peel Block 

2 Marsham Street, London SW1P 4DF 

Chair Stephen Rimmer, Director General (CPG) Secretary John Harper 

Present 

Apologies 

Ken Sutton – Crime Director (HO) 

Michael O’Toole - Cabinet Office 

Martyn Underhill – PCC for Dorset 

Gemma Lousley –Drugscope 

Cat McIntyre (APCC) 

Clare O’Sullivan (APCC) 

Ralph Michell, Cabinet Office 

Jay Downs (Office for Civil Society, Cabinet 

Office) 

Frances Flaxington -Catch 22 

Katie Aston – VCSE team, (CRH), (CPG) 

Stephen Bell, OSCT, (HO) 

Emily Robinson, Alcohol Concern 

Jacqui Fincham, MoJ 

Jess Mullen –Clinks 

Helen Mathie – Homeless Link 

Shane Britton - Revolving Doors Agency 

Jim Madden - Neighbourhood Watch and 

Home Network 

Jayne Pascoe, College of Policing 

Margaret Adjaye- Locality 

Mark Hallas- Crimestoppers 

Neil Cleeveley -NAVCA 

Phillipa Harris – Social Firms UK 

Susanne Rauprich – NCVYS 

Joe Allen, Victim Support 

Olof Jonsdottir- Social Enterprise UK 

Jo Goodman-NUS 

Ruth Breidenbach-Roe (NCVO) 

David Richardson- Age UK 

Vivienne Hayes-Director-WRC 

Sara Featherstone – CRH, (CPG) 

Mike Warren – Head of CRH, (CPG) 

Davina James-Hanman- AVA 

Joe Allen – Victim Support 

James Sandbach - CAB 

1

1. Welcome and Apologies 

1.1 Ken Sutton, Crime Director in CPG, welcomed all participants, including some new 

members, to the eighth meeting of the HO/VCSE Stakeholder Forum. He said that he 

was standing in for Stephen Rimmer who was running late. Attendees and apologies 

are listed above. 

2. Minutes and actions from last meeting 

2.1 The note of the previous meeting was accepted without amendment. An update 

was provided on the actions from the last meeting: 

Action 1: Stephen to provide a paper update to members of the Forum on the 

Spending Review. Finance colleagues in CPG are to provide a paper update as 

requested, this will be circulated with the note of this meeting. 

Action 2: CRH to liaise with College of Policing re document of strategic intent and 

circulate to members of the forum. Completed. 

Action 3: Jayne Pascoe/James Patterson to liaise on victim specific projects for the 

Cabinet Office social action fund bid. Completed. 

Action 4: Forum members are welcome to attend Stephen Bell’s prevent consultation 

meeting being held in 2MS on Thursday 18 th July (3-5pm). If members are interested 

in attending or being involved in the work more generally they should let John Harper 

know. Completed. Stephen Bell will provide an update to the group on this work 

at agenda item 4. 

Frances Flaxington asked if there had been a significant response in relation to the 

review of the Group’s Terms of Reference. Only one response had been received 

(Catch22) but with a new CPG Director General in the offing, it was agreed that it 

would be sensible to delay any review until they took up their post. 

Action 5: A session on commissioning to be the focus of the next meeting. Completed. 

This will be item number 1 on today’s agenda. 

3. Commissioning: Update from Michael O’Toole and Jayne Pascoe 

3.1 Michael O’Toole provided an update to the group on his role and specific 

workstreams currently being taken forward. Key points raised were: 

 

He has been appointed to open up more public sector business 

opportunities for not-for-profit organisations and improve the government’s 

business relationship with the VCSE sector and make it easier for these 

organisations to tender for public contracts. He will also support the 

government to engage more widely on VCSE issues, and find ways to 

enable VCSEs to bring their solutions to the public sector market. He felt his 

key role was to engage and listen too the sector. Ralph Michell spoke briefly 

about two specific reforms which his team in the Cabinet Office are currently 

working on – that of reducing bureaucracy around commissioning, and 

redefining EU procurement directives. The group asked about timescales 

around these reforms. There was no definitive timescale for these, as it was 

dependent on variable factors, but it is hoped progress will be made in the 

New Year. Information on these reforms will be circulated to the group. 

Action 1: CRH to liaise with Cabinet Office to circulate information to Forum 

members on ongoing commissioning reforms. 

Neil Cleeveley hoped that Government could collectively, across 

departments, continue to make the case on behalf of the VCSE to local 

delivery agencies. 

The Commissioning Academy is a development programme for senior 

commissioners from all parts of the public sector. It is currently in pilot 

phase, with full roll out planned for 2013. The first cohort has completed the 

2

course. 3 PCCs were involved in this pilot and 5 more have expressed an 

interest in taking part in future courses. Katie Aston said the Home Office 

will work with the APCC to promote the Academy more widely amongst 

PCCs over the coming months. 

The Academy is not a technical training programme, but is designed to give 

participants both contacts and knowledge, helping them to transform their 

organisation’s commissioning practice and re-design services delivery. 

The Academy will also build an alumni network of senior commissioners 

who have the skills, and know-how to tackle the challenges public services 

face. Those participating have already considered approaches to 

commissioning across agendas. 

Commercial Master Classes – A programme designed to build the 

voluntary, community and social enterprise sector’s commercial skills for 

public service delivery. 

A year long programme, participants will attend a two day course (25-30 

 

 

participants per course). 

Designed and delivered by a cross-sector partnership, ACEVO, AVANTA, 

Capita, Ingeus, NAVCA, NCVO, Serco and Social Enterprise UK, these 

masterclasses are the first in a national programme funded by Office for 

Civil Society, Cabinet Office with pro-bono support from private sector 

partners. 

The masterclasses will consider risks associated with contracts, as well the 

opportunities – and new delivery mechanisms for contracts. 

Jess Mullen asked about take up for the programme, given the current 

pressures on the VCSE. Michael O’Toole said that take up had been good 

so far. Martyn Underhill asked about attendees roles – Michael O’Toole said 

that there were no requirements especially around this – though PCCs Chief 

Executives seemed appropriate. Martyn also asked about regional 

approaches in respect of the master classes and commissioning more 

generally. Work along these lines is being undertaken in Norfolk. Martyn 

and Michael will liaise on the specifics of this after this meeting. 

Currently the master classes are only being run as a pilot but if they are 

successful it is hoped the programme can be rolled out more regularly. 

 

Michael O’Toole will, through HO colleagues, circulate related links to the 

programme. 

Action 2: Michael O’Toole and CRH to liaise on circulating related links to 

the programme, to Forum members. 

 

Jacqui Fincham said the MoJ are running workshops around victims service 

commissioning. These workshops are free of charge. She was happy to 

liaise with CRH and Jess Mullen on appropriate attendance for these. More 

widely around victims service provision, it is likely that MoJ funding will be 

available for PCCs to bid into. More information on this will be forthcoming 

in the next few weeks. She agreed to keep Forum members informed of 

progress. 

Action 3: CRH, Jacqui Fincham and Jess Mullen to liaise on possible 

attendees for MoJ victims workshops. 

Jayne Pascoe spoke about the work the College of Policing has been 

commissioned to undertake by the APCC. This work is to develop a 

commissioning toolkit for PCCs. Building on the work of others it will look to 

share learning and good practice. It will emphasise that one size doesn’t fit 

all and different approaches will work in different areas. Ken Sutton asked if 

this work required any volunteer areas/programmes/VCSEs to step forward 

to help complete. Jayne said that yes this is feasible. Cat McIntyre added 

practice is sought from those areas where there is expertise. She added 

that gathering, collating and sharing good practice effectively are the key 

aims of this work. Jayne Pascoe said that a workshop looking to progress 

this work will be arranged to take place in December. 

3

Martyn Underhill asked if we know whether or not all PCCs have a 

commissioning strategy. Jess Mullen said information coming out of the 

findings of the SFC work suggested that not all PCCs did have 

commissioning strategies. 

Susanne Rauprich asked if young people were to be engaged in the 

commissioning of services in this area. Jess Mullen said the Clinks 

commissioning guidance stressed the importance of user voice in the 

development of services. Stephen Rimmer said the commissioning of 

victims services is a big challenge for PCCs to undertake also. Jacqui 

Fincham said that a decision around victim referral decisions will be made 

soon by the MoJ, and added that this will be communicated as soon as is 

possible. Stephen Rimmer added that good practice and advice is important 

from government and its agencies, particularly around commissioning 

cycles, to help ensure that services are commissioned appropriately. 

4. PCC Partners Group: Update from Jess Mullen. 

4.1 Jess Mullen provided an update to the group on the discussions held at the first 

PCC Partners group (following previous discussions held at Forum meetings this 

meeting was set up to consider the impact of PCCs on the VCSE, and the 

opportunities to engage with them). As well as many of the representatives who attend 

Forum meetings – other organisations including SFC network leads and smaller 

serorganisations were invited to attend this session. Key points raised were: 

 

 

 

Commissioning – anxieties around PCCs and their willingness to involve and 

engage with the VCSE – at all stages of the commissioning process. To 

support ongoing APCC and College of Policing work on this, it is felt useful to 

consider and build upon the guide on commissioning from voluntary sector 

produced by SFC. 

Consortia - a concern about PCCs limited capacity to commission from 

consortia. Action on this point is thought to centre on influencing, where 

appropriate, the Cabinet Office master classes Michael O’Toole spoke about 

above. 

Concern about knowledge and evidence commissioners make decisions on. 

VCSE knows what works but still asked for innovative/creative ideas. Because 

of the lack of understanding about complexity of issues they are viewed as 

silos and interventions/organisations can fall into the cracks. Particularly with 

reference to the VAWG agenda where it is felt there is too much focus on 

Domestic Violence, as opposed to sexual violence, stalking etc. The 

Women’s Resource Centre with support from HO committed to develop a 

survey monkey to promote effective practice. Other sectors also have good 

examples and are carrying out surveys etc so opportunity to promote this 

together. 

National policy issues 

 

Role of government/APCC/other bodies in promoting social value act. The 

group is keen to influence to ensure this is included in any guidance on 

commissioning. 

Actions 

 

 

 

Work with the APCC and National College of Policing to feed into their work 

on commissioning and evidence gathering. 

Relevant VCSE organisations to contact PCC Vera Baird to ask for support 

in promoting the ‘whole’ strategy to PCCs – around the VAWG issues cited 

above. The use of language around the way VAWG is talked about to be 

flagged with central government. 

Cabinet Office local intelligence teams are also gathering evidence of what 

works – including around PCC commissioning so it is hoped this group can 

feed into that work too. 

4

Make use of the PCC champions for VCSE Sector and those who have 

particular special interests. 

4.2 Stephen Rimmer thanked Jess for her update and noted in particular the points on 

policy influence and unintended use of language. He added that on the point of policy 

influence he saw firstly, the development of the Crime Reduction Hub as being crucial 

to CPG engagement with the VCSE, and that secondly the work of the ‘CPG Policy 

Labs’ will look to the Forum for appropriate VCSE input. He also said that he will 

welcome a continuing challenge from the PCC Partners group to this Forum. Katie 

Aston added that in respect of the point around VAWG and the use of language, 

Forum members are invited to attend a Women’s VCSE sector event being organised 

by the Home Office on 8 November. Neil Cleeveley said that he welcomed Stephen’s 

comments about challenge, and reiterated the importance of the Social Value act in 

helping commissioners – he cited NAVCA guidance on this as well as group 

previously convened to consider these issues. Jess Mullen added that Clinks will also 

be producing guidance around Transforming Rehabilitation for the VCSE. Neil 

Cleeveley added that advice on grant giving is something NAVCA might be able to 

advise upon – in relation to APCC work. 

5. PCC and APCC Update – Martyn Underhill, Cat McIntyre and Clare 

O’Sullivan. 

5.1 Stephen Rimmer asked Martyn Underhill if he could provide an overview from his 

perspective on engaging with the VCSE. Martin said that in Dorset engagement with 

the VCSE is good – he has already signed up to compact agreements with 3 

organisations, and he understands the requirements under the Social Value Act. He 

said that following election to the post many PCCs found the timescales too short to 

fully come to grips with commissioning requirements so pass-ported over plans given 

to them by police authorities. It is felt by all PCCs that the next financial year is the real 

opportunity for them to make their mark. He added that he is opening a Victims 

Bureau in ten days, staffed fully by trained volunteers. He feels there is more we can 

do with volunteers – tapping into the Olympic model. He felt some of the key 

challenges PCCs faced were around; the transforming rehabilitation programme of 

work, provider lobbying, consulting with/the non engagement of smaller specialist 

organisations. 

5.2 Stephen Rimmer thanked Martyn for his contribution and noted the point on 

making better use of volunteers – he felt it really re-defined public space in London 

during the Olympics. Susanne Rauprich asked about Martyn’s engagement with 

young people, and whether or not he had signed up to the NCVYS Young Persons 

Charter. He said that Dorset had to the latter and in respect of engaging young people 

he had made connections with the UK Youth Parliament. All members of the Forum 

agreed with the concerns expressed by Martyn in respect of the Transforming 

Rehabilitation agenda, especially with regard to timescales. Jim Madden also asked 

Martyn about his thoughts on regional partnerships – and how set in stone are these. 

Martyn said he was quite flexible in this respect, and was happy to collaborate across 

areas/agendas where appropriate. 

6. Serious and Organised Crime Strategy – Refresh: Update. 

6.1 Stephen Bell provided an update to the group on the work of his team in refreshing 

the Serious and Organised Crime Strategy – and the input of the Forum. Key points 

raised were: 

 

The new strategy had been published on 7 October (hard copies of the 

strategy were circulated to Forum members). He thanked members of the 

Forum who had inputted into the sub group set up to seek VCSE 

engagement, particularly around victims. He directed Forum members to 

focus on the four strands of the new strategy which are; protect, prepare, 

pursue, prevent. Following publication work will focus in implementation. 

5

Key to this is partnership working. To help facilitate this he suggested that 

the VCSE group already established continue to help his team. 

Stephen Rimmer welcomed Stephen’s update and asked if the sub group 

could look to coincide with Forum meeting dates, and he also asked if PCCs 

could be involved in this work. Stephen Bell said that he will action Stephen 

Rimmer’s requests. Jess Mullen asked about links with NOMs work around 

offender rehabilitation in the strategy. Stephen Bell said that they had been 

working closely with MoJ colleagues on this work too. 

Action 4: Stephen Bell to work with CRH colleagues on co-ordinating VCSE sub 

group meetings on the new strategy to coincide with Forum meetings, and to 

consider PCC involvement in this group. 

7. Any other business 

7.1 Katie Aston referenced the work of the Local Intelligence Team in Cabinet Office 

and their request for information on good practice examples around social action from 

the VCSE. Examples from Forum members are welcome in the following areas; 

Dorset, Nottinghamshire, Bedfordshire, West Mercia, Cheshire, and Cleveland. 

Action 5: Forum members to send any good practice examples around social 

action to Katie Aston/John Harper, in the areas listed above. 

7.2 Stephen Rimmer said that he will be moving on from his current post to a role in the 

West Midlands. He thanked everyone in attendance for their hard work and 

commitment in this area of work. He said that he Ken Sutton will pick up this portfolio of 

work in the interim, and added that a successor to him will be appointed in due course. 

8. Date of next meeting. 

8.1 The next meeting will take place on Tuesday 14 th January 2014, 3:00pm-4:30pm, 

Conference Room 2, Ground Floor, Peel Building, 2 Marsham Street, London, SW1P 

4DF. 

6


From: 



To: 


Subject: 

GR-A 105/2013 (Restricted): Home Affairs Select Committee inquiry on PCCs 



APPC Secretariat 


GR‐A 104/2013 Restricted: Home Affairs Select Committee inquiry on PCCs 

The Home Affairs Select Committee (HASC) are planning to issue the terms of reference for their inquiry on PCCs today. 

I have been sent a rough outline for the PCC inquiry below: 

• The effectiveness of PCCs in reducing crime and delivering an effective police service within their police force 

area; 

• The role of PCCs in holding their chief constables to account; 

• The role of police and crime panels in holding their PCCs to account; 

• The division of functions and staff between PCCs and chief constables following the Stage 2 transfers under the 

Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011; 

• The role of PCCs in budget and precept setting; 

• The effectiveness of PCCs in promoting local policing priorities; 

• Progress to date by PCCs on establishing collaboration agreements with other PCCs, policing organisations and 

partners; and 

• Transparency of and reporting by PCCs to date. 

So far the committee has set two dates for evidence sessions with PCCs, the 19 th and 26 th November. 

On Tuesday 19 th November, the committee has asked that the three group representatives give evidence to the 

committee. 

On Tuesday 26 th November, I understand that the committee will be sending out invitations to Ann Barnes, Katy 

Bourne, Bob Jones and Bill Longmore to give evidence. 

Both meetings are likely to start at 2.45pm on both dates and questioning should last no more than an hour. 

I will keep you updated when I receive further information. 

We hope that this is useful, please do not hesitate to get in touch if further information would be helpful. 

Best wishes, 

Joel Charles 

1















2


From: 



Subject: 


Attachments: 

29.10.13 ICTConferenceCall notes.docx; Annex A - Local Systems (2011 position).pdf 

To: 

Cc: 



ICT representatives 

APCC Team 


Please find attached the notes of the conference call that took place last week and some information on the range of 

local ICT systems. 

Please note that the meeting scheduled for Thursday 7 th November will now take place by conference call from 12pm 

to 1.30pm (Number: 08444 737373 Pin: 070338). This will be followed by a meeting at 2.30pm on 14 th November at 

the St Ermins Hotel, London. 

Further information for the call on Thursday will be circulated beforehand. 

Please let me know if you have any queries 

Regards 

Tania 















1


From: 












2


From: 



Subject: 

GR-A 108/2013 (restricted) - Police ICT Update 

Attachments: 

Police ICT paper 051113 Final.docx; Government ICT Strategy - PCC Newsletter v1.docx 

To: 

Cc: 


Police ICT Representatives 


APCC Team 


For those who wish to take part, please note that the next conference call on Police ICT will take place at 12pm – 

1.30pm tomorrow (7 th November) ‐ Number: 08444 737373 

Pin: 070338 

A paper developed by Nick Alston is attached for information. The agenda is outlined below: 

1. Summary of conclusions from conversations to date. 

2. Discussion of attached DRAFT straw‐man paper ‐ is this close to summarising a majority view? 

3. How can PCCs work together to address issues in ICT? 

4. What are the alternatives to the Police ICT Company model? 

5. How do we reach a consensus? 

6. What should the outcomes for the meeting on 14 th November be, and what should the agenda include? 

In addition, please find attached the latest newsletter from the Home Office, which provides an overview of the 

Government’s ICT Strategy. 


Regards 

Tania 










1






2


From: 

APCCS Cat Mclntyre 


Cc: 

APCCS Mark Castle; APCCS Tania Eagle; APCCS Cat Mclntyre; APCCS Oliver Shaw; 

APCCS Clare O' Sullivan; APCCS Dawn Osborne; APCCS Simon Efford; APCCS Joel 

Charles; Apccs Support 

Subject: 

GR-A 109/2013: **RESTRICTED** College of Policing Professional Committee Papers 

Attachments: 

AllPapers13November.zip; Draft Agenda 13.11.13.doc 

TO: 

CC: 




Dear Police and Crime Commissioner 

GR‐A 109/2013: **RESTRICTED** College of Policing Professional Committee Papers 

Please find attached the papers for the College of Policing Professional Committee due to be held next Wednesday, 13 th 

November. The original proposed agenda was circulated to Police and Crime Commissioners under GR‐A 92 on 10 

October, but we only received the full papers yesterday and could not forward these on at the time because our email 

systems were down. The meeting papers are in the zip folder attached, and I have also attached the original draft 

agenda sent in October, as the papers do not appear to include a separate agenda. 

You will recall that the current agreement we have with the College of Policing to help overcome concerns about the 

lack of engagement for PCCs at Professional Committee level, is that the agenda will be circulated early to Police and 

Crime Commissioners, followed by the full papers nearer the date. The aim is to allow PCCs either to attend the 

Professional Committee if they have a particular interest in an area, or to pass their comments and concerns to us, so 

that these can be raised at the Committee on their behalf. At present, only one PCC has to requested to attend the 

Professional Committee Meeting on 13 November, but if anyone else has a particular interest in an agenda item and 

would like to do so, or has any particular comments on the attached papers they would wish us to raise, please let me 

know as soon as possible. 

We are aware that several PCCs have expressed concerns about being swamped by a large number of papers and 

relatively short notice in this way, which gives them and their staff little time to digest and analyse the contents. We 

will work with the College of Policing to see if we can find ways to improve this situation. 

Do please get in touch with me if you have any queries. 

Regards 

Cat McIntyre 

1

Please note my email address has changed to: cat.mcintyre@apccs.pnn.police.uk 

Cat McIntyre | Policy Lead | The Association of Police and Crime Commissioners (APCC) | 07714 399 754 | 2 nd Floor, 10 














2

NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED 

Title of meeting: Professional Committee 

Date: 13 November 2013 

Time: 11:00 -14:00pm (Break for lunch 12:30-13:00) 

Venue: 

Rm 1.10, Riverside House, 2a Southwark Bridge Rd, SE1 9HA. 

Agenda 

No. Title Lead 

1 Minutes and Actions from Previous Meeting Alex Marshall 

2 IPCC 

To cover new role of IPCC, relationship with College and feedback of 

lessons learnt 

3 Learning and Development Strategy for the Police 

Service 

To be presented to Committee for approval 

4 EDHR Strategy 

Detailed action plan to support delivery of the strategy for committee 

approval 

5 Update on Undercover Work 

Update on work agreed by Professional Committee in March 

6 Update on Local Policing Programme 

(New lead appointed for the programme) 

7 Direct Entry Update 

Summary of initial costed options for taking forward DE proposals. 

8 Future Confidential Units Operating Model 

To approve revised standards for confidential units. 

TBC 

Mike Cunningham 

Alf Hitchcock 

John Murphy 

Simon Cole 


DCC Lewis 

Benjamin/John 

Murphy 

9 Section 5 Public Order Act Guidance 

New guidance relating to changes in legislation 

Lynne Owens 

10 Commission to Review Management of Police Medical 

Appeal Boards 


Proposal setting out potential parameters of the review 

11 Verbal update: 

College transformation programme 

Alex Marshall 

12 To note: 

Gateway Group Update 

Sara Thornton 

Secretariat update 

13 AOB Alex Marshall 

Date and time of next Professional Committee meeting: 

Wednesday 5 January 2014 

Riverside House, London 

Professional Committee 

Agenda Date: 13 November 2013

College of Policing 

Title of Meeting: Professional Committee 

Date: 11 September 2013 

Time: 11:00am – 14:00pm 

Venue: Room 1.10, Riverside House, 2a Southwark Bridge Rd, London SE1 9HA 

Chair: Alex Marshall, College of Policing Chief Executive 

Attendees: 

Mark Castle (MCA) 

Association of Police and Crime Commissioners 

Jackie Cheer (JC) 

EDHR BA 

Mike Cunningham (MCU) Workforce Development BA 

Karen Daber (KD) 

College Integrity Programme 

David Hardcastle (DH) College Chief of Staff 

Chris Eyre (CE) 

Criminal Justice BA 

Sir Peter Fahy (PF) ACPO Vice President 

Steve Finnigan (SF) Performance Management BA 

Nick Gargan (NGA) Finance and Resources BA 

Nigel Green (NGR) 

Association of Special Constabulary Chief Officers 

Sarah Knapper (SK) Police Federation of England and Wales 

Julia Lawrence (JL) Police Federation of England and Wales 

Jon Murphy (JM) 

Crime BA 

Caryl Nobbs (CN) 

Unison 

Lynne Owens (LO) 

Uniformed Operations BA 

Simon Parr (SP) 

Information Management BA 

Ian Rennie (IR) 

Police Federation of England and Wales 

Steve Smith (SS) 

Police Federation of England and Wales 

Peter Spindler (SP) Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary 

Sara Thornton (ST) ACPO Vice President 

Tracey Gilles (TG) 

College Programme and Projects Office 

Giles Herdale (GH) College Practice Improvement Unit 

Mike Russell (MR) 

College Efficiency & Knowledge Support Unit 

Sharon Gernon-Booth (SGB) College Efficiency & Knowledge Support Unit 

Natalie Davison (ND) College Marketing & Communications 

Everett Henry (EH) College EDHR Unit 

Charlie Phelps (CP) College Leadership and Talent Unit 

Rose Bartlett (RB) 

College Workforce Policy & Strategy Unit 

Oliver Bolton (OB) 

College Secretariat 

Harbinder Dhaliwal (HD) College Secretariat 

Faye Bosworth (Secretary) College Secretariat 

Sara Champion (SC) College Secretariat 

Apologies: 

Simon Cole, Cressida Dick, Alf Hitchcock, Sir Hugh Orde, Gavin Thomas, Andrew 

Trotter, Ian Readhead. 

1. Minutes and Actions from Previous Meeting. 

1.1 The Chair opened the meeting and welcomed members to the College’s new London 

premises. He also introduced the College’s new Chief of Staff, Caroline Marlborough. 

1.2 Members agreed the minutes of the previous meeting held on 3 July 2013 as a true 

record. The Chair confirmed that the majority of the actions had been discharged. 

1.3 NGA said the actions on austerity would be picked up after the ACPO conference and 

brought back in January. The Finance and Resources, Futures, Workforce Development 

and Performance Management BAs regular meetings have been reinstated to help prepare 

key messages for the election and future spending rounds. 

1.4 The Chair said work had begun to understand the totality of current policing demand, 

focused around the five definitions of police forces to build an accurate picture of demand 

across the service. NGA asked to be involved with this work. 

1


1.5 JM said legal issues needed to be resolved before the Interim Online Research and 

Investigation Guidance can be forwarded to Chief Constables’ Council. 

2. HMIC Presentation on Recent Policing Reviews and Forward Programme of Work 

2.1 PS gave a presentation setting out HMIC’s current and forward programme of work and 

recommendations for the College to progress from recent HMIC reports. The Committee 

requested a more consistent approach to all HMIC recommendations, including 

consideration of the cost of implementation. 

2.4 The Committee raised specific concerns about the forthcoming inspection of Domestic 

Abuse that appeared to focus on the police response in isolation and asked HMIC to 

consider widening the focus of the review, recognising the role of other agencies. The 

impact of increasing pressure on local authority budgets and resultant loss of important 

local domestic abuse services was also raised. PF proposed that the Chair of the 

Professional Committee write to the Home Secretary to raise these concerns. 

Action: The Chair to write to the Home Secretary expressing the Professional 

Committee’s concerns with i) the narrow focus of the domestic abuse review and the need 

to recognise the delivery role of other agencies ii) the pressure on partner agencies’ 

budgets and their capability to respond to domestic abuse. 

3. Performance Management Commission 

3.1 The Committee considered a commission to develop a programme of work on 

performance management. It was discussed that there needs to be a more balanced 

approach to driving performance; it’s not solely about numbers and targets, but about 

professional judgement, use of discretion and quality of service. 

3.2 Given the potential breadth of this programme, members suggested an initial focus on: 

i) understanding the totality and current nature of demand for the service; 

ii) establishing a clear picture of how performance is currently measured; and 

iii) considering the implications of performance management in the context of 

austerity and the multi-agency delivery environment. 

Resourcing of the programme was also discussed and BA leads agreed to help canvass 

potential short-term input from appropriately experienced officers from their BA/forces. 

Decision: The Committee approved the proposal with a steer on early priorities. 

Action: Business Area leads to help identify short-term input from appropriately 

experienced officers/staff 

4. Progression of Under-Represented Groups Commission 

4.1 A commission setting out a programme of work, to support the progression of underrepresented 

groups was presented to the Committee. There was debate on how the 

programme’s objectives could be best achieved and a suggestion that in order to achieve 

real impact and transformation the proposals could be even bolder and wider in scope. It 

was felt that the current employment and legal frameworks coupled with diminishing 

opportunities for promotion, presents real challenges and highlights the need to consider 

a more lateral approach to BME progression. 

4.2 IR emphasised that it was a serious issue that the service had failed to attract, recruit and 

retain BME officers; he said there are reasons why BME candidates don’t want to join the 

service and we need to address those issues first. He indicated that the Federation was 

fully supportive of the paper and positive action so long as it was proportionate and within 

the law, but information on how this would be justified was lacking. He also warned 

against favouring one part of the service over others as this had created resentment in 

2


the past, especially during times of limited promotions. NGR also offered ASCCOs support 

and requested to be involved with the programme. 

Decision: The Committee approved the proposal and will be kept informed of progress of 

the programme. 

5. People Strategy 

5.1 MCU introduced a commission to develop a National People Strategy for Policing, setting 

out the Service’s workforce development and management priorities for 2014 - 18. He 

suggested the Service faced unprecedented levels of change and the Strategy would help 

the service understand and respond to these changes specifically in terms of better 

resource management bringing together good practice from around the country. The 

concept of wellbeing would be an important concept underpinning the strategy and its 

development would be operationally led. 

5.2 JM spoke of an initiative within his force that looked at wellbeing and the management of 

sickness that had received positive feedback from staff and the staff associations. The 

Chair said this work linked with professionalising the service, ensuring staff maintain and 

enhance their skills. 

Decision: The Committee approved the proposal to start the development of a National 

Police People Strategy and will be kept updated on this as work progresses. 

6. Direct Entry Commission 

6.1 MCU introduced a Home Office commission for the College to take forward Direct Entry 

recommendations from the Winsor report, specifically 

i) a fast track scheme to inspector; 

ii) a direct entry scheme to superintendent rank, and 

iii) a plan for facilitating the appointment of Chief Constables from overseas. 

The initial focus would be to develop costed options and recommendations to support 

implementation. 

6.2 The Chair said that the Metropolitan Police had expressed a desire to progress the 

inspector and superintendent schemes imminently, and had asked the College to develop 

national standards. LO believed there needed to be a better understanding of the problem 

that direct entry was trying to solve. She also felt there was a strong need to try to 

influence the commission so as to achieve the outcome of making the service more 

diverse. Finally there was some criticism that the proposed schemes didn’t include 

suitable options for progression of existing staff. 

6.3 NGA favoured the inspector scheme but suggested pay could be a major issue. He also 

said he was keen to be involved with the development of this work. DH raised a number 

of issues on behalf of the Superintendents Association, firstly that they haven’t yet had 

sight of the outcomes from the Home Office consultation, and they are concerned by the 

lack of an equality impact assessment accompanying the proposals. They would support 

the recommendation to progress phase 1 deliverables, but not phase 2 at this stage, and 

would seek to be a member of any project board that is set up. SP was concerned that 

when the recommendations are looked at in isolation the bigger issues of morale can be 

lost and that compulsory severance also needed to be considered. 

6.4 ST was supportive of the College setting the standards in this area but emphasised 

support to those already on the HPDS needed to be ensured. She also raised issues 

around how a suitable test would be devised to implement the proposals, whether costs 

would lie nationally or locally and the need to clarify timescales and targets for diversity. 

IR said the Police Federation opposed direct entry to Superintendent rank given the 

majority of work at this level was operational so there is a high risk to the public and 

officers, given the level of experience and knowledge required for this rank. He also said 

3


that the PFEW, in relation to the fast-track scheme, support HPDS and would support a 

review of HPDS, and it is supportive of facilitating the appointment of Chief Constables 

from overseas. He went on to state that care was needed with regard to selection and 

that if people are not right for the role this needed to be conveyed to them, which may 

not have happened in the past. Issues were also raised around timescales, payment of 

salaries and that the scheme could lead to a single employment framework. MCU accepted 

the comments and agreed to set the paper within a broader context whilst emphasising 

the urgency to get on with some of the specifics. 

Decision: The Committee recommended approval and further consideration of the direct 

entry commission to the College Board. 

7. Commission from the APCC on Commissioning Support for PCCs 

7.1 The Committee considered a commission from the APCC for the College to identify good 

practice in commissioning. The initial focus is for the College to facilitate an event for 

PCCs and their public sector partners to share evidence and learning on what works, and 

to identify what is required to build capability to commission effectively in the future. 

Decision: The Committee approved the proposal to take forward work on developing 

commissioning support for PCCs. 

8. Information Management 

8.1 The Committee were informed of a number of significant changes underway in relation to 

information management including: 

i) changes to the Government Classification Policy and security markings; 

ii) a review of the National Policing Risk Appetite; 

iii) review of Management of Police Information; and 

iv) new guidance on the use of mobile devices. 

These changes will enable a more digitised service, with scope for improved sharing of 

information across policing and government. CE said that the message that information 

would be available to staff when and where they need it must be made explicit and linked 

to the Policing Vision 2016. 

Decision: The Committee noted the paper. 

Action: Information Management Business Area to put a discussion paper on 

implementation of the Government Classification Policy to Chief Constables’ Council for 

further consideration. 

9. Armed Support to CBRN 

9.1 LO introduced a paper seeking endorsement of a national statement of 

requirements and Concept of Operations for providing armed support to CBRN operations. 

This would provide significant savings to forces if adopted. 

Decision: The Committee approved the statement of requirements and concept of 

operations for armed support to CBRN. 

10. National Police Interoperability Working Group Funding 

10.1 Options for funding the future work of the NPIWG were discussed at the meeting. 

Members also discussed the need for a standardised approach to these types of requests 

for funding. 

Decision: The Committee agreed that this work should be subsumed into the College. 

Actions: 

i) Alex Marshall and Lynne Owens to review and agree funding issues for this work. 

4


ii) ACPO Presidential team and College CEO to consider a more consistent and transparent 

approach for funding national policing programmes that are currently supported through a 

variety of ad hoc funding arrangements. 

11a. Integrity Programme Update 

11a.1 Members noted a progress update on the Integrity programme. Major developments 

included the Code of Ethics phase 3 consultation draft, the development of the struck off 

list and development of vetting processes. 

11a.2 SS raised concerns about the level of consultation underpinning the development of the 

Code of Ethics and suggested greater engagement was required prior to circulation to the 

wider workforce. He felt the current document was not fit for purpose. The Chair asked SS 

to raise these concerns at the Integrity Programme Board on 12 September. JC then gave 

a progress update on the creation of an ethics committee and said that a paper would be 

circulated on this shortly. 

Decision: The Committee endorsed the programme’s progress to date. 

11b. Protecting the Public from Dangerous People 

11b.1 GH introduced a paper proposing the development of an accreditation regime, including 

formal elements of continuing professional development, to improve standards for the 

investigation of high risk areas. He said the detail still needed to be worked out and that 

this would be brought back, along with proposal on how it would work in practice. JL said 

it needed to be clear where this would sit within the PIP review and asked for equality 

issues to be considered because a large proportion of women sit within public protection 

roles. 

Decisions: The Committee approved the proposal but suggested a broader review to 

determine where accreditation should apply across different policing roles. 

Action: The College to review and develop proposals setting out which policing roles may 

require formal accreditation and the process for taking this forward. 

12. Guidance on National Fitness Testing 

12.1 MCU introduced interim guidance on job related fitness testing and was seeking the 

Committee’s endorsement of the PAB approved guidance. LO raised concerns with regard 

to supporting frontline supervisors who manage the small percentage of officers who have 

failed the test. ST was disappointed at the narrow application and watering down of the 

recommendations and suggested referral of the document to Chief Constables’ Council. 

12.2 The Chair went on to question the interim status of the guidance. IR said this was to 

enable forces to implement and monitor the impact of the proposals over the next 12 

months. He went on to say that the test was scientific and justifiable and that the staged 

process would allow evaluation to determine whether it discriminated against certain 

groups. 

Decision: The Committee approved the interim guidance. 

Action: i) The guidance to be referred to Chief Constables’ Council for operational 

implementation. ii) The status of PAB issued guidance to be determined. 

13. College Design and Transformation 

13.1 The Chair gave an update on the College design work and told members that a strategic 

intent document would be launched on 24 September and he invited members to 

comment on this by December 17th. The College Board would be reviewing the Business 

Plan at its next meeting and Rob Beckley is currently leading work on the implementation 

plan. He also said Simon Cole would be working with the College design the Strategic 

Command Course 2014 over the next six weeks. 

5


14. APP Update 

14.1 ST asked members to note the circulated paper. 

15. Secretariat Update 

15.1 The Chair told members that the College Secretariat have begun work with BAs, including 

staff officers, to gather information to develop a BA forward programme of work. The 

intention was to develop a planned approach to projects and programmes going forward 

rather than being reactive. He also referred to an up-to-date list of BA Partners within the 

College for members to link in to. Finally he informed members that APP would be going 

live from 24 October 13. 

16. AOB 

16.1 JM informed members of a paper to Chief Constables’ Council seeking funding of £3,000 

from each force to continue funding for the ‘Ugly Mugs’ charity. 

16.2 JL made members aware of a survey, developed with ASCCO, to canvass whether 

special constables would like to become members of the Federation. She asked 

members to ensure that all specials are made aware of this survey within their force. 

16.3 SP canvassed member’s thoughts on a chief officer secondment to either the Home Office 

or the College, for the airwave replacement programme. Members agreed for this option 

to be pursued. 

****Meeting Closed**** 

6


11 Sept 2013 Professional Committee 

No Agenda 

Item 

Action Owner Status Notes 

1. HMIC 

Presentation 

2. Performance 

Management 

The Chair to write to the Home Secretary expressing the 

Professional Committee’s concerns with: 

i) the narrow focus of the domestic abuse review and the need 

to recognise the delivery role of other agencies, ii) the 

pressure on partner agencies’ budgets and their capability to 

respond to domestic abuse. 

Business Area leads to help identify short term input from 

appropriately experienced officers 

College CEO Amber Letter to HS drafted 

Heads of Business 

Areas 

Green 

Complete 

3. Information 

Management 

Update 

4. NPIWG 

Funding 

Information Management Business Area to put a discussion 

paper on implementation of the Government Classification 

Programme to Chief Constables Council for further 

consideration. 

i) Alex Marshall and Lynne Owens to review and agree funding 

issues for this work. ii) ACPO Presidential team and College 

CEO to consider a more consistent and transparent approach 

for funding national policing programmes that are currently 

supported through a variety of ad hoc funding arrangements. 

Head of the 

Information 

Management BA 

Head Uniform Ops 

BA & College CEO. 

ACPO Presidential 

team and College 

CEO 

Green 

Complete 

Amber CEO agreed funding for 2014/15 

with DCC Chesterman 

Mtg to discuss approach 

arranged for 4/12/13 

5. Protecting 

the public 

The College to review and develop proposals setting out which 

policing roles may require formal accreditation and the process 

for taking this forward. 

College Amber Helen Schofield & Giles Herdale 

taking this work forward 

6. Interim 

guidance on 

fitness 

testing 

i) The guidance is to be forwarded to Chief Constables’ Council 

for consideration of operational implementation 

ii) The status of PAB issued guidance to be determined 

Head of Workforce 

Development BA 

College 

Green 

Complete 

Purpose of PAB is to advise Home 

Sec only. 

7


Name of meeting: Professional Committee 

Date of meeting: 13/11/2013 

Item lead at meeting: CC Mike Cunningham; Charles Phelps College of Policing. 

Agenda item number: 2 

Title of paper: 

Fast-Track and Direct Entry 

1. Issue 

1.1 The Professional Committee of 11 th September 2013 agreed for the College to 

commence work relating to the anticipated commission emanating from The 

Independent Review of Police Officer and Staff Remuneration and Conditions – Final 

Report, Winsor Part 2. 

1.2 As agreed for Phase 1, this paper sets out: 

a) A costed options paper with recommendations concerning the implementation of a 

fast-track constable to inspector scheme; 

b) A costed options paper with recommendations concerning the implementation of 

superintendent direct entry scheme; and 

c) A discussion paper outlining recommendations for direct entry at chief constable 

level. 

2. Recommendations 

2.1 That the Professional Committee agrees the recommended schemes so that the project 

can move to Phase 2 which is to deliver: 

a) Detailed design and implementation of the Fast-Track to Inspector Scheme; 

b) Detailed design and implementation of a superintendent direct entry scheme; 

c) Work to support any ‘new to the service’ chief officer scheme; and 

d) A paper outlining how the officers on the current HPDS scheme will be supported 

and that the investment in those officers remains of benefit to forces. 

2.2 That the recommendations be taken to the College Board. 

2.3 That chief constables, through Chief Constables’ Council, and Police and Crime 

Commissioners are consulted on these recommendations. 

2.4 That the College continue to undertake Phase 2 under the governance of CC Mike 

Cunningham, National Policing Lead for Workforce Development. 

3. Summary 

3.1 The commission has now been received from the Home Office, as has the Government’s 

response to the consultation it carried out. The commission is in full at Appendix A. 

Professional Committee Date: 22/01/2014 

Agenda Item No.2 

Author: Charles Phelps


3.2 In the meantime, the College has, through a project set up in anticipation of this 

commission, consulted with the Service on how such schemes could work though a User 

Group chaired by DCC Giles York, an internal College Technical Advisory Group and 

through group and individual discussions with stakeholders. These groups report to a 

Project Board chaired by CC Mike Cunningham. 

3.3 The schemes are being developed as part of an overall approach to flexible entry and 

whilst they must be able to stand on their own, they will be influenced by and influence 

overall leadership development throughout the Service. Any learning from these 

schemes will be adopted in the wider approach. Through this approach, the College has 

developed recommendations with options for how the schemes could operate in a way 

that meets the differing workforce needs of forces. The Fast-Track Inspector Scheme is 

described at Appendix B and the Direct Entry Superintendent Scheme is described at 

Appendix C. 

3.4 Concurrently, we have identified potential costs in delivering these two schemes and 

have written a full financial business case. A summary of the costs are shown at 

Appendix D and this has been submitted to the Home Office although final costs will 

depend greatly on how the schemes are finally delivered. The aim of gaining additional 

resource is to allow the College to properly support forces in delivering these schemes. 

In brief, the potential costs are £1.758m in 2013/14; £3.846m in 2014/15; £5.187m in 

2015/16 and £5.275m in 2016/17. 

4. Supporting information / Consideration 

4.1 The commission states that the principles the Government want to see are: 

A Fast-Track to Inspector Scheme that is comprised of internal and external 

candidates who are promoted to inspector within three years. The external 

candidates must be graduates. There should be a minimum annual cohort of 80. 

A direct entry scheme at the rank of superintendent with a training scheme lasting 

15-18 months. There should be a minimum annual cohort of 20. 

A plan for facilitating the appointment of chief constables from overseas and 

providing a list of ranks, forces and countries that will be eligible as set out in the 

amendment to the Anti Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill. 

4.2 It is worthwhile re-iterating that the Fast-Track to Inspector Scheme will be in addition 

to those officers who are currently on the High Potential Development Scheme, which 

has approximately 300 members. Cohort Six will not finish until 2019. 

4.3 The College has in developing the schemes referred to, and borne in mind, the Home 

Office consultation and the Government’s response, which was published on the 14 th 

October. 

4.4 In developing and delivering the schemes the College will engage in partnerships and 

collaborations with other bodies, academic, public, private and third sector to ensure the 

widest possible thinking is brought to the schemes. 

4.5 At the time of writing, in response to a letter sent by the College to forces asking for 

indicative numbers for both schemes, 26 forces have replied with a demand for five 

superintendents from the Metropolitan Police only, and a demand of up to 43 graduate 

entrants from 13 forces in the first year. Two additional forces have indicated the 

requirement for one direct entry superintendent each in year two and three and 20 


Agenda Item No. 2 



forces have indicated they would aim for up to 46 current constables to join the scheme 

in 2015. 

4.6 A draft communication plan has been developed and is at Appendix E; whilst the plan 

and resulting actions will depend greatly on demand from forces, the overarching 

messages are that: 

The College recognises the high level of talent already across UK policing; 

These schemes aim to open up recruitment to attract the very best talent into 

policing and bring in new perspectives and backgrounds; 

The College of Policing is working in partnership with police forces in England and 

Wales to ensure the right people are selected for each scheme; and 

As the professional body for policing, the College is committed to ensuring the 

highest standards are met and maintained by candidates selected to participate in 

these schemes. 

4.7 In relation to direct entry at chief constable, a brief paper is at Appendix F and asks for 

consideration as to the approach to be taken. 

Author name: 

Charles Phelps 

Author job title: Head of Leadership and Talent 

Author email: 

charles.phelps@college.pnn.police.uk 

Author tel number: 01256 602188 

Sponsor (if not Author): CC Mike Cunningham 

----------------------------------- 




Appendix A: The Commission 

16 September 2013 

Dear Alex, 

The Government wants to ensure that UK policing is opened up to a wider pool 

of talent, individuals who will bring new perspectives and diverse backgrounds to 

support the continuous development of world-class police. As policing continues 

to evolve police leaders will need different and better tools to respond to future 

challenges which is why providing more routes to leadership roles is so 

important. By opening up the police to a wider pool of talent, forces will be able 

to bring in people with diverse backgrounds and new perspectives. 

Tom Winsor’s Independent Review of Police Officers’ and Staff Remuneration and 

Conditions set out proposals for direct entry schemes at inspector, 

superintendent and chief constable ranks which the Government consulted on 

earlier in the year. We will be publishing the response document in October. 

We have said that it will be for the College of Policing, as the body responsible 

for setting standards and developing professionalism in the police, to lead on 

developing and implementing these schemes. 

The consultation focussed on how the schemes should operate and in designing 

the schemes you should consider the responses but it will be down to you to 

make decisions based on what is best for policing. 

The principles the Government want to see are: 

 

 

 

 

A fast track scheme to inspector that is comprised of internal and external 

candidates who are promoted to inspector within three years. 

The external candidates must be graduates. There should be a minimum 

annual cohort of 80. 

A direct entry scheme at the rank of superintendent with a training 

scheme lasting 15-18 months. There should be a minimum annual cohort 

of 20. 

A plan for facilitating the appointment of chief constables from overseas 

and providing a list of ranks, forces and countries that will be eligible as 

set out in the amendment to the Anti Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing 

Bill. 

We are aware that you have commenced some preliminary work and hope that 

you can build on that so that we will see the first officers starting on these 

schemes in 2014/15.

Appendix B: Constable to Inspector Fast-Track 

1. Overview of Scheme 

1.1 This scheme will select graduate applicants from outside of the service and 

provide them with a three-year development programme that will equip them 

with the skills, knowledge and experience required to be promoted to the rank of 

inspector upon successful completion. Police staff and special constables will 

also be eligible to apply; they will not need to be graduates. 

1.2 The scheme is also aimed at highly talented constables who will join the 

external candidates (after their first year) and be promoted to inspector after 

completing a two-year development programme. On an exceptional basis, police 

staff or special constables who are highly qualified in policing could take the 2- 

year programme 

1.3 The development programme will be focused on gaining operational 

competence and then on leadership and management. Much of the development 

programme will take place in forces with leadership modules delivered by, or in 

partnership with, the College of Policing. Scheme members will be regularly 

assessed throughout the scheme to ensure they are meeting the standards 

required to be promoted in the timeframes of the scheme. 

1.4 The scheme is aimed at those with the potential to reach inspector rank 

within two/three years and who will continue to progress to the most senior 

ranks (at least superintendent) of the service once graduating from the scheme. 

2. Aims of the Constable to Inspector Fast-Track Scheme 

2.1 Open up entry to the service to individuals who will bring new perspectives 

and diverse backgrounds to support the continuous development of policing. 

2.2 Offer career progression to graduates in line with other professions such as 

armed forces, finance and industry, law, medicine and accountancy to attract the 

most talented graduates. 

2.3 Attract, identify and develop the most talented constables, specials and 

police staff from within the service. 

2.4 Offer a development programme and promotion mechanism to enable the 

most talented to advance to the rank of inspector within two years for serving 

constables and three years for police staff, special constables and external 

candidates. 

2.5 Develop a cadre of officers with the skills, experience and capacity to reach 

the senior ranks of the service, at least superintendent, to impact on and 

influence the management and culture of the service. 

Appendix B Page 1 of 6

3. Scheme Principles 

3.1 There will be a focus on operational knowledge and skills, leadership and 

management. 

3.2 Forces must take responsibility for their officers, providing them with the 

support and opportunities set out by the College of Policing and promote them in 

the timeframe the scheme sets out. 

3.3 Participants will undergo regular assessments. 

3.4 Those not meeting standards, set by the College of Policing, will exit the 

scheme and revert to a traditional career path 

3.5 Cohort size will be determined by forces’ workforce planning and the 

numbers meeting national standards. 

4. Timeframe for Cohort 1 

March 2014 

March 2014 

April – May 2014 

June 2014 

September 2014 

December 2014 

February 2015 

May 2015 


September 2015 – September 2017 


Market externally to graduates 

Market internally to police staff and 

special constables 

Force selection 

National Assessment Centre 

Commence programme – 1 year 

condensed constable training and 

leadership development 

Market to serving constables 

In-force selection of serving constables 

National assessment centre for serving 

constables 

Serving constables commence scheme, 

joining stream of graduates, police 

staff and specials – whole cohort 

promoted to sergeant 

Structured development programme 

including specific postings in force and 

College approved leadership modules. 

Assessment throughout to ensure 

meeting national standards 

Final assessment and promotion to 

inspector 

5. Marketing and Attraction 

5.1 Approach: A range of marketing strategies could be employed. For 

external graduates this could include targeted social media, graduate 

publications, including those aimed of under-represented groups, press 

advertising and on campus activity at specific universities, selected by location 

and target demographic. Existing force communication channels as per HPDS 

will be used to market the scheme to constables, police staff and special 

constables. The College intend to procure a specialist marketing agency to 

develop the creative concepts and material. 


5.2 Rationale: Targeted cost-effective solutions to attract top graduates, 

including those from under-represented groups to meet the specific needs of 

forces. The College’s role will be to provide national brand awareness and a 

consistent message to support forces’ local campaigns. 

5.3 Costs: Final decisions regarding the marketing spend will be proportionate 

to the requirement set out by forces. The table below shows the range of 

activities that can be used at various spending levels. 

Costs Activities 

£100k Creative development of marketing concepts £30,000 

Online activity and website advertising £30,000 

Social Media activity £30,000 

Times Top 100 £10,000 

£200k As above plus 

Targeted advertising in graduate publications £30,000 

BME specific advertising £20,000 

On campus activity £10,000 

Mobile app creation £20,000 

Promotional merchandise £2,000 


National media advertising £100,000 

6. Eligibility criteria 

6.1 Approach: Each cohort will contain both internal (constables, police staff 

including PCSOs and special constables) and external applicants (graduates). 

 

 

 

 

Constables – must be serving officers at the rank of constable at the 

time of application. They may hold an OSPRE part 1 for sergeants pass 

but must not be substantive in rank. Do not need to be a graduate. They 

cannot be a current member of the HPDS. 

Police Staff – employed by a police force as a member of staff or PCSO. 

Do not need to be a graduate. Must meet the same educational, medical, 

fitness standards and eligibility required of a regular constable. 

Special Constables – serving member of the special constabulary. Do 

not need to be a graduate. Must meet the same educational, medical, 

fitness standards and eligibility required of a regular constable. 

External Applicants (Graduates) – not currently employed by a police 

force. Must meet the same educational, medical, fitness standards and 

eligibility required of a regular constable and be a graduate with a 

minimum of a 2:2 degree. 

6.2 Rationale: Serving officers, police staff and special constables do not need 

to be graduates; a decision based on the consultation responses requesting 

acknowledgement of skills and experience other than educational attainment. 

For graduate applicants minimum standard to be set at 2:2, based on research 

regarding adverse impact on under-represented groups if set higher. 

7. Recruitment 

7.1 Approach: Recruitment will be force led; the College will provide support to 

assist with this part of the process through the development of a ‘sifting’ pack’. 

It is intended that this would include items such as: 


a standardised national application form which all applicants are required 

to complete, but which is assessed at a force level; 

a ‘realistic job preview’ self assessment tool to help candidates identify 

whether they are both suited to the demands of working for the Police 

Service and aware of the specific challenges and expectations of the fasttrack 

scheme; 

a telephone screening questionnaire based on the ‘Indicators of High 

Potential’ framework; 

advice and guidance about the use of psychometric tests; and 

advice and support in organising local open days/familiarisation events 

which candidates could be required to attend. 

7.2 If sufficient forces take part in the scheme, the College would intend to 

develop a national on-line sifting tool to assist forces with the potential 

burden of a high volume of applications. 

7.3 Rationale: Given the timeframe for delivery and the cost of building a 

central recruitment team and function, this approach is seen as the most 

effective. Forces have indicated that they would want to take responsibility for 

initial recruitment. 

7.4 Costs: No additional costs as support provided through existing College 

resources, apart from the potential procurement of an on-line national sifting 

tool at £100,000. 

8. Selection 

8.1 Approach: Candidates selected by forces will attend a national assessment 

centre. This will be designed using the same methodology the HPDS 

assessment, but designed to meet the additional requirements of the new 

scheme with new exercises and a wider group of assessors. 

8.2 Applicants will not need to undertake a separate Police SEARCH ® 

Assessment Centre; the criteria required to join the Police Service as a constable 

will be incorporated into the national selection process. 

8.3 Rationale: Assessment Centre methodology used by the College is robust, 

fit for purpose, ensures national standards are met and was supported in the 

Home Office consultation. The College will ensure the Assessment Centre 

incorporates competencies such as creativity, ability to challenge and change 

culture, and integrity. Incorporating criteria required in SEARCH ® Assessment 

Centre will make the selection process more streamlined and comparable to 

other graduate employers. 

8.4 Costs: The costs of the Assessment Centre for the internal stream can 

largely be subsumed within business as usual as it replaces the delivery of the 

current HPDS Assessment Centre. The cost of designing the Assessment Centre 

for external applicants would be up to £330,000 and up to £175,000 to deliver. 

9. Development Programme 

9.1 Approach: The Fast-Track programme will accelerate the first year at 

constable in their force for external applicants, streamlining the Certificate of 

Knowledge in Policing (CKP), the Diploma and the Initial Police Learning and 

Development Programme (IPLDP). College input will be light touch but provide 


support and guidance to every force that will be in a slightly different position. 

There will be few abstractions to distract candidates. The two-year programme 

at sergeant level will be more stretching and challenging and the College will 

intervene with training opportunities either delivered in-house or by partners. 

9.2 Rationale: It is essential that operational experience is maximised. The 

College will source the most cost-effective method for delivery to ensure 

delegates have the necessary knowledge and skills to succeed. 

9.3 Costs: Will be up to £180,000 per annum per cohort (excluding staff costs), 

depending upon the approach taken to delivery options and cohort size. 

10. Programme Support 

10.1 Approach: The College will provide standards and guidance to forces 

regarding in-force support structures, such as mentors and assessors. It will 

also provide forces and scheme members with a dedicated College contact. 

10.2 Rationale: Forces will need to have a structure in place to support their 

scheme members on this demanding programme and ensure they have the 

necessary development opportunities. Our experience from the HPDS shows 

that forces benefit from guidance on spotting talent and in implementing and 

managing talent schemes. The support provided to scheme members on the 

HPDS through the development advisers will be even more important on this 

more challenging scheme. 

10.3 Costs: Some of the College resources providing programme support would 

be re-directed to support delivery of the other national talent schemes; the costs 

associated with the fast-track would be approximately £460,000 per annum. 

11. Ongoing Assessment 

11.1 Approach: The College will give clear guidance and support to forces 

regarding the work-based assessment of scheme members and assist with 

verification processes in line with the National Police Promotion Framework 

(NPPF). There will also be a number of assessments provided by the College 

such as legal knowledge, psychometrics and 360 appraisals. It is intended that 

OSPRE I for sergeant and inspector will be merged for fast-track delegates to 

provide one examination; a pass will be required prior to the officer becoming a 

substantive sergeant but they could potentially take up earlier supervisory 

responsibilities. 

11.2 Rationale: For a scheme with set promotion timescales it is vital the 

officers are assessed to ensure competence. This needs to be a regular, robust 

assessment and a shared responsibility of forces and the College. 

11.3 Costs: Design costs up to £220,000. Delivery costs up to £50,000 per 

annum. 

12. Evaluation 

12.1 Approach: Once the scheme is fully developed an evaluation scheme will 

be developed to examine participation by forces, costs, communication, and 

quantitative and qualitative information, including progression and quality of 

candidates. 


12.2 Rationale: The commission asks for the schemes to be reviewed after five 

years, but ongoing evaluation to learn lessons will be out in place using the 

College principles of continuous improvement. 

12.3 Costs: Subsumed into normal College business. 

-------------------------------------- 


Appendix C: Entry at Superintendent 

1. Overview of Scheme 

1.1 Entry at superintendent is an 18-month development programme that aims 

to attract highly talented leaders from outside of the Service. The development 

programme will provide those who have had highly successful careers in other 

professions or sectors at a senior level with the skills and knowledge required to 

be effective operational superintendents. Scheme members will be assessed 

throughout to ensure they are meeting the required standards. 

1.2 It is intended that the scheme will be launched in early 2014 with the first 

cohort of direct entry superintendents being selected in spring 2014. They will 

join the Service in September 2014 and if successful in their final assessments, 

complete the development programme at the beginning of 2016. The Home 

Office have indicated that it will fund the salaries of the superintendents for the 

duration of the development programme. 

2. Aims of the Scheme 

2.1 Open up entry to the service to individuals who will bring new perspectives 

and diverse backgrounds to support the continuous development of policing. 

2.2 Provide a development programme that will ensure superintendent direct 

entrants are operationally capable in the superintendent role and inspire 

confidence in officers, staff and the public. 

2.3 To create a cohort that have the potential to further develop and acquire the 

skills and experience to progress to chief officer ranks. 

3. Timeframe for Cohort 1 

February 2014 

March 2014 

April 2014 


September 2014 – March 2016 

March 2016 

Market the scheme 

Force selection 

National Assessment Centre 

Join force as a superintendent 

Development programme delivered by 

College of Policing and force, including 

on assessments throughout to national 

standards 

Final assessment and made 

substantive in rank. Take up post with 

force. 

4. Marketing and Attraction 

4.1 Approach: A range of marketing strategies could be employed. This could 

include online activity, adverts in specialist publications such as The Economist 

and publications aimed at under-represented groups and national media. The 

Appendix C Page 1 of 4

RESTRICTED 

marketing strategy needs to attract the right candidates and discourage those 

who are unsuitable, with the aim of a manageable volume of high quality 

applicants. The College will procure a specialist marketing agency to develop 

the creative concepts and material. 

4.2 Rationale: Targeted cost-effective solutions to attract top talent from 

outside the Service, including those from under-represented groups to meet the 

specific needs of forces. Desire for consistency of messaging met by providing 

marketing material to forces. The Entry at Superintendent Scheme is a 

fundamental change in police recruitment and is seeking to attract from a wider 

and more diverse pool of talent. The success of the scheme relies heavily on the 

quality of the candidates it attracts and therefore the quality and outcome of the 

marketing activity are fundamental to the success of the scheme. 

4.3 Costs: Final decisions regarding the marketing spend will be proportionate 

to the requirement. The table below shows the range of activities that can be 

used at various spending levels. Should just one or two forces wish to take part, 

then marketing and attraction costs could potentially be funded solely by those 

forces. 


£95k Creative development of marketing concepts £30,000 


Social media activity £25,00 


BME specific advertising £20,000 

Regional press £75,000 


Targeted advertising (e.g. Economist, Management Today) £30,000 

Mobile App creation £20,000 

National media adverts £200,000 

5. Recruitment 

5.1 Approach: Recruitment will be force led; the College will provide support to 

assist with this part of the process through the development of a ‘sifting’ pack. 

It is intended that this would include items such as: 

a standardised national application form which all applicants are required 

to complete but which is assessed at a force level; 

a ‘realistic job preview’ self assessment tool to help candidates identify 

whether they are both suited to the demands of working for the police 

service and aware of the specific challenges and expectations of the Direct 

Entry scheme; 

 

 

advice and guidance about the use of psychometric tests; and 

advice and support in organising local open days/familiarisation events 

which candidates could be required to attend. 

5.2 Rationale: Given the timeframe for delivery, the likely numbers required 

and the cost of building a central recruitment team and function, this approach is 

seen as the most effective. Forces have indicated that they would want to take 

responsibility for initial recruitment and suitability. 


RESTRICTED 

6. Selection 

6.1 Approach: Candidates selected by forces will attend a National Assessment 

Centre. A new National Assessment Centre will be designed using the same 

methodology as Senior PNAC but adapted to meet the additional requirements of 

this scheme. Standards for passing will be set at the highest level and provide 

sufficient challenge to participants to differentiate exceptional performance. 

6.2 Applicants will not need to undertake the Police SEARCH ® Assessment 

Centre. The College will ensure the Assessment Centre tests integrity and 

ethics, resilience and includes psychometric assessments. 

6.3 Rationale: A process which seeks to select only a very few candidates of 

the highest quality must be seen to be highly challenging whilst transparent and 

valid. 

6.4 Costs: The cost of designing the Assessment Centre would be up to 

£220,000 and up to £175,000 to deliver, depending on numbers. 

7.0 Development Programme 

7.1 Approach: Significant design work will be needed on this new scheme. 

Focus groups with superintendents are taking place to inform how best the 

programme should be structured. These officers will need broad exposure to 

policing, the provision of specialist skills and shadowing opportunities. 

Therefore, most of the 18 month development programme will be spent in force. 

It is assumed that those selected for the scheme will already be exceptional 

leaders with many outstanding qualities and this development programme will 

seek to give them the necessary policing context and operational skills to 

succeed at superintendent level. 

7.2 The College will provide relevant training interventions either delivered in 

house or by partners. 

7.3 Rationale: A comprehensive programme will mitigate the risk of those 

without extensive policing experience commanding challenging operational 

events as the senior officer and, in many cases, the ultimate decision-maker. 

7.4 Costs: £60,000 per annum per cohort (excluding staff costs); this will 

depend on approach taken to delivery options and cohort size. 

8. Programme Support 

8.1 Approach: The College will provide standards and guidance to forces 

regarding in-force support structures, such as operational support and guidance, 

mentoring from peers and senior officers and in-force assessors. It will also 

provide forces and scheme members with a dedicated College contact. 

8.2 Rationale: Forces will need to have a structure in place to support their 

scheme members on this demanding programme and ensure they have the 

necessary development opportunities. Our experience from the HPDS shows 


RESTRICTED 

that forces benefit from guidance in implementing and managing talent schemes 

in-force. Given the limited resources in force the College would provide coaching 

support to scheme members and facilitate the delegates to be part of a cohort. 

8.3 Costs: Some of the College resources providing programme support would 

be re-directed to support delivery of the other national talent schemes; the costs 

associated with the fast-track would be approximately £460,000 per annum. 

9. Assessment throughout Programme 

9.1 Approach: Scheme members will be assessed throughout the programme 

and if not deemed to be safe and competent in all aspects will not be appointed 

as a superintendent. The College is taking legal advice as to what the 

employment status should be of such delegates and how those who do not show 

operational competence could be managed. 

9.2 The College will design an assessment process that is regular and robust to 

be carried out by forces and by trained College or outsourced staff. There will be 

a requirement to pass a legal knowledge examination relevant to the 

superintendent rank as well as assessments of operational capability and 

decision making. This could include Silver and Gold Command assessments 

9.3 Rationale: It is important that the capability of scheme participants is 

regularly assessed in view of the potential risks to the organisation, officers and 

public. There should be shared ownership by the College and forces of the 

decision to ‘graduate’ to fully independent superintendent. 

9.4 Costs: Design costs up to £220,000. Delivery costs up to £50,000 per 

annum. 

10. Evaluation 

10.1 Approach: Once the scheme is fully developed an evaluation scheme will 

be developed to examine participation by forces, costs, communication, and 

quantitative and qualitative information, including progression and quality of 

candidates. 

10.2 Rationale: The commission asks for the schemes to be reviewed after five 

years but ongoing evaluation to learn lessons will be out in place using the 

College principles of continuous improvement. 

10.3 Costs: Subsumed into normal College business. 

------------------------ 


Appendix D: Summary of Costs 

The College of Policing has been commissioned by the Home Office to deliver the 

Fast Track Inspector and Direct Entry Superintendents Programmes. 

The budget for the current programmes (the High Potential Development 

Scheme (HPDS)) is £1.3m. The HPDS is to continue for five years and therefore 

additional resources to deliver the new programmes is required, from outside the 

College or by re-prioritising work. However, this comes at a time when the 

College’s budget is reducing and demand rising. 

The table below sets out the commitment the College could provide using 

current HPDS resources, some of which would be re-prioritised onto this work 

and without impacting on other programmes, and the potential additional 

resources required to deliver a world-class programme. 

Oct13-Mar14 Apr14-Mar15 Apr15-Mar16 

Apr16-Mar17 

Marketing £777,500 £797,500 £782,500 £782,500 

Selection Assessments £725,000 £430,000 £525,000 £525,000 

Ongoing Assessments £540,000 £100,000 £100,000 

Staffing £256,000 £920,000 £920,000 £920,000 

Training Delivery £167,772 £309,316 £397,260 

Superintendents’ 

Salaries 

Total Additional 

Funding From Home 

Office Required 

Total Commitment 

From College 

£992,000 £2,550,000 £2,550,000 

£1,382,500 £3,532,272 £4,736,816 £4,824,760 

£376,000 £315,000 £450,000 £450,000 

Total Cost £1,758,500 3,846,272 £5,186,816 £5,274,760 

The salary of the superintendents is the largest cost (for up to 20 joiners) at 

£1.0m for 2014-15 and £2.5m thereafter. To encourage forces to take part, 

payment of that salary whilst ‘in training’ would be an incentive; as would 

payment of salaries of Fast-Track graduate inspectors, where many forces do 

not anticipate vacancies in the three year timescale. However, this does not 

appear to be an issue with internal and serving officers joining the scheme. 

Leaving aside salaries and the use of current HPDS resources we have identified 

a requirement for £1.382m in 2013/14; £2.540m in 2014/15, £2.186m in 

2015/16 and £2.274m in 2016/17 to deliver the schemes as anticipated by the 

Government’s response. It is accepted that the College could absorb a 

proportion of the training costs relating to the use of bed space and classrooms 

whilst the College has that capacity. It is also proposed that the College could 

contribute from its one-off, non-repeatable, under-spend in this financial year. 

Marketing 

There is a range of activities that could take place as the table below 

demonstrates (not including agency fees at 10%). With no additional resources, 

Appendix D Page 1 of 3

attraction activities will be left to interested forces. With some additional 

resources, the College can take more of the lead in national marketing and 

attraction activities to support forces. Should the full requirement be met, the 

College will deliver a different, more pro-active marketing and attraction 

strategy in support of forces to emphasise the step forward for policing. 


£100k Creative development of marketing material for both schemes £60k 




Times top 100 (grads) £10,000 

Social media activity (grads) £30,000 

Targeted advertising (e.g. The Economist) £35,000 


Social media activity (grads) £55,000 


Graduate publications £30,000 

Niche press (BME) £20,000 

Regional Press £75,000 

On Campus activity £10,000 

Mobile App creation: 2 x £40,000 



Niche press (BME) £40,000 

On Campus activity £10,000 

National Press £300,000 

Promotional merchandise £2,000 

Setting aside salaries and marketing, this requires £0.7m to deliver a world class 

programme for 2013/14; £2m in 2014/15 and £1.5m p.a. thereafter. The costs 

outlined below are based on the fact that the College currently has its own 

estate on which to deliver the programmes. 

Assessment 

With no extra resource, selection assessment will be delivered within the current 

HPDS programmes with similar exercises and assessors. With additional resource 

in 2013/14 of up to £450k new assessment processes and centres can be 

designed. In subsequent years, an additional resource of £310k for each year 

for the two additional assessment centres (on top of the current HPDS) is 

required. With this full resource, the College can deliver new national filtering 

mechanisms to support forces, new exercises, a wider assessor pool and timings 

to meet the needs of graduates, police officers and police staff. With less than 

this, inevitably there will be fewer assessment centres and less investment in 

new processes, exercises and assessors. 

Training and Leadership Development 

With no additional resource, leadership development would remain with forces. 

We estimate that the required supporting provision by the College, when all the 

cohorts are in place will cost up to £400k per annum. With this resource, the 

College can provide up to 12 days a year group development for the Fast Track 

Inspectors and up to 9 weeks for Direct Entry Superintendents over 18 months. 

This development will be aimed at ensuring they have operational competence 


and leadership credibility. With this full resource, training content and delivery 

will be more individual, comprehensive and involve a wider range of external 

bodies. With a more limited resource, at for example £200k, College leadership 

support will be limited to current College products, delivered by forces, with 

some College support of those products and support for delegates will be limited 

to group events. 

Support and assessment of delegates in-force 

With no additional resource, the College is able to offer guidance to forces and 

individuals as it does now with the HPDS but it would be limited as the HPDS is 

continuing. Winsor and the Government’s response to the consultation envisage 

on-going assessment and support. The below sets out additional resources 

required to deliver the support to both forces and individuals on the schemes 

and to ensure the schemes are successful. 

Costs for Activities 

2014/15 

£540k Development of a new development centre approach to continually 

assess Direct Entry Superintendent delegates and design of a new 

law examination for both schemes rather than relying on current 

products. 

Ongoing 

costs 

£90k Continuing updating and delivery of the law examination for both 

schemes 

£180k Provision of three additional experienced managers to offer support 

and guidance to delegates on both schemes plus oversee 

assessments to ensure they are valid, robust and fairly applied. 

£450k Provision of up to 5 seconded superintendents to act as mentors and 

guides for direct entry superintendents to take the cost away from 

forces. This resource can also support the inspector's scheme. 

£55k Provision to additional support for the College to promote and 

manage the schemes and be the point of contact for forces 

£775k Ongoing annual costs 

Without the seconded superintendents, the costs could be reduced to £325k per 

annum, but the primary support for Direct Entry Superintendents will then 

remain with forces. With the full resource provided, the College will be able to 

offer full, tailored support for graduates and direct entry superintendents; a 

factor we have seen important with the HPDS officers, who are under less 

pressure than delegates on these two new schemes with the tight timescales 

and high expectations placed upon them. 

Over the next weeks we will have a clearer picture of the demand and take-up 

from forces but an early indication of the support available from Government will 

help the College indicate the support they can give forces, which in turn may 

encourage greater participation in the schemes. 

--------------------------------- 


Appendix E: Direct Entry communications and 

engagement strategy 

Project lead: Charles Phelps 

Strategy owner: Kate Tonge, Head of Marketing and Communications 

Version: ONE 

Date of update: N/A 

1. Background: 

The College of Policing has been commissioned by the Home Office to 

implement three direct entry schemes, which are part of the Winsor 

Review recommendations. 

The schemes are: 

Fast track to inspector rank in three years 

Direct entry to superintendent rank 

Chief Constable recruitment for those with international policing 

experience 

The College of Policing is responsible for promoting the schemes to police 

forces for adoption, removing barriers to recruitment and quality assuring 

the successful candidates. 

The Home Office expects these new routes into a policing career will 

contribute towards changes in the culture of policing, introduce new 

perspectives and new ways of working. 

The Home Office requires that the first candidates for fast track entry and 

superintendent rank direct entry will be recruited and in training by 

September 2014. This requires a recruitment campaign from January 

2014 and a selection processes completed by March and July 2014 

respectively. 

Most of the recruitment and initial selection will be the responsibility of 

participating forces. The College of Policing will administer the national 

assessment elements to complete the selection process. 

Research across forces to date indicates that around 15 forces are 

interested in participating in the fast track scheme and possibly up to 

three forces wish to participate in the direct entry scheme. 

Up to 60 new officers are expected to be required to fulfil the fast track 

entry requirements of forces. Indicative statistics suggest this will require 

in the region of 400 applications to achieve the required numbers. 

A total of five to seven people are expected to be required to fulfil the 

Superintendent Direct Entry requirements. Indicative statistics suggest 

this requires in the region of 40 applications to achieve the required 

numbers. 

Appendix E Page 1 of 6

2. Aim: 

To deliver effective, cost-efficient communications and engagement on 

behalf of the College of Policing to September 2014 that contributes 

towards the successful delivery of the outcomes for the Direct Entry 

project which is: 

 

To meet the needs of participating forces for the recruitment of 

2014/15 candidates within the required timescales 

3. Objectives: 

The aim of this strategy will be achieved by: 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Developing a communications and engagement action plan that 

takes a phased approach to the delivery of communications and 

engagement activity, defined as: 

Phase one: Pre-programme launch communications and 

engagement (to January 2014) 

Phase two: Implementation communications and 

engagement (January to March 2014) 

Phase three: Transition to business as usual 

communications and engagement for the College of Policing 

(March – September 2014) 

Developing and delivering bespoke communications activity for the 

first two schemes to be introduced, specifically: 

Fast track to inspector 

Direct entry to superintendent 

Providing timely, accurate communications and engagement which 

clearly and consistently explain the role of the College of Policing in 

the recruitment and training processes for each scheme 

Ensuring a consistent approach to the use of the College of Policing 

brand and identity by participating forces in a way that enables 

local force identity to prevail 

Managing the commercial communications requirements of the 

programme throughout its life in the most cost-efficient way 

Managing the reputation of the College of Policing throughout the 

life of the programme in a way that minimises risk and maximises 

opportunities to strengthen it, particularly with forces 

Delivering communications and engagement activity using the most 

effective available tactics that reflects the needs of the stakeholder 

and audience groups being targeted. 

Maintaining a continuous process of assessment and evaluation of 

tactics to contribute towards an evidence base of what works for 

future campaigns. 


4. Stakeholders and audiences 

The following stakeholders and audiences are identified as relevant to this 

strategy and its delivery. 

Stakeholders are those individuals and groups who are affected by or can 

influence the delivery of the Direct Entry programme. Two-way 

communications and engagement tactics are most appropriate for 

stakeholders. 

Audiences are those individuals and groups who should be kept informed 

of the progress of the Direct Entry programme. This is largely through 

one-way communications tactics. 

This list will evolve throughout the life of this strategy and will be kept 

under review by the strategy owner and the project director. They will not 

be changed without the approval of the project director. 

STAKEHOLDERS 

Police officers in England and Wales 

– segmented according to need 

throughout the life of the strategy 

Chief Constables 


Police Federation 

Superintendents’ Association 

ACPO 

Home Office 


Policing Minister 

Heads of HR in policing 

Heads of Learning and Development 

in policing 

Potential candidates for the fast 

track and direct entry schemes* 

Specialist police and business media 

outlets 

Media consumed by potential 

candidates for fast track and direct 

entry 

Members of the College of Policing 

Professional Committee 

Members of the College of Policing 

Board 

College of Policing staff in specific, 

associated areas 

AUDIENCES 

Members of the public 

All College of Policing staff 

All officers, police staff and 

volunteers working in policing 

across England and Wales. 

Partners in health authorities, local 

authorities and other local partner 

bodies. 

*Further research is currently being undertaken by the College of Policing 

in partnership with the Metropolitan Police Service to properly understand 

this stakeholder group and the best ways to target them. 


This evidence will be made available to the strategy owner to assist in its 

effective delivery. 

5. Key messages 

These key messages will be used consistently throughout the life of this 

strategy. They will be kept under continuous review by the owner of this 

strategy and the project director. Changes in the key messages can only 

be made with the agreement of the Project Board. 

Top line key messages: 

 

 

 

 

The College recognises the high level of talent already across UK 

policing 

These schemes aim to open up recruitment to attract the very best 

talent into policing and bring in new perspectives and backgrounds. 

The College of Policing is working in partnership with police forces 

in England and Wales to ensure the right people are selected for 

each scheme 

As the professional body for policing, the College is committed to 

ensuring the highest standards are met and maintained by 

candidates selected to participate in these schemes 

In addition the following key messages are identified as specific to each 

scheme being implemented during the life of this strategy: 

Fast track entry: 

 

 

 

Fast track entry is an inclusive scheme 

It is open to university graduates, existing police officers and police 

staff 

Candidates must be able to demonstrate their operational credibility 

throughout the scheme to successfully achieve the rank of inspector 

in three years. 

Direct entry: 

 

 

 

Candidates must be able to demonstrate a proven high level of 

leadership and management skills to join the scheme 

A high level of police training will be provided to all successful 

candidates 

Direct entry superintendents must be able to demonstrate their 

operational effectiveness and competence as a superintendent to be 

successful 


Further specific key messages will be developed to meet the evolving 

needs of the project. They will be approved by the project director. 

6. Tactics 

A comprehensive communications and engagement action plan will be 

developed to deliver against this strategy. 

The widest possible range of available communications and engagement 

tactics will be deployed in support of this strategy throughout its life. 

Tactics will include: 

Media communications and engagement 

Internal communications 

Marketing communications 

Digital communications, including social media 

The use of tactics will be subject to consultation and the approval of the 

Project Director and the Project Board. 

7. Resources and budget 

A budget of up to £777,500 has been identified for the delivery of 

communications and engagement activity in support of this project in 

2013/14. 

Where additional budget is required, it will be identified by the project 

director before activity is undertaken. 

Additional communications and engagement resources to deliver this 

strategy will be recruited by the project director in consultation with the 

strategy owner. 

This resource will be responsible for developing, fully costing and 

delivering the communications action plan for this strategy. At this stage, 

it is expected that a project communications resource will be required to 

work full time to January 2014 with workloads kept under regular review. 

Resource requirements may reduce from January onwards. 

From September 2014 it is anticipated that Direct Entry communications 

and engagement can be transferred to the College of Policing MarComms 

Unit for ongoing maintenance and delivery. 

The project communications resource will work closely in partnership with 

the project team and the College MarComms unit. 

The Head of MarComms, as the strategy owner, will be a member of the 

Project Board. The project communications resource will be a member of 

the Technical Advisory Group. 


8. Risks and issues 

The following communications and engagement risks and issues are 

identified. It is recommended that these are reviewed by the Project 

Board and included in the project risk register rather than being 

maintained separately. 

Risk Likelihood Mitigation 

Medium/ 

high 

The College of Policing is perceived 

to be an extension of the Home 

Office 

Recruitment campaigns are not 

successful in indentifying sufficient 

candidates to meet the needs of 

participating forces 

The project fails to meet the 

timescales required for recruitment 

and selection 

Project alienates existing members 

of police services in England and 

Wales as members of the College 

of Policing 

Debate in the media / social media 

about the cost/benefit of the 

schemes (particularly direct entry 

to superintendent rank) 

Medium 

TBA 

TBA 

High 

9. Evaluation and performance management 

Key messages clearly 

reflect the College’s 

independent role as the 

professional body for all 

in policing 

Recruitment marketing 

activity is carefully 

targeted to the most 

appropriate / likely 

stakeholders. 


reputation management 

communications and 

engagement in place 

Project communications 

and engagement activity 

is linked into other 


MarComms activity 


reputation management 

communications and 

engagement in place 

Regular evaluation and assessment of the effectiveness and efficiency of 

communications and engagement in achieving the aim of this strategy will 

be reported regularly to the project director and the project board. A mix 

of quantitative and qualitative measures will be developed and 

consistently used throughout the life of this strategy. 

Evaluation and performance management will be developed and delivered 

by the project communications resource, in consultation with the strategy 

owner and the project director. 

Kate Tonge 

Head of MarComms; October 2013 


Appendix F: Discussion paper outlining recommendations for 

direct entry at chief constable level. 

Background 

1. The commission asks for a plan for facilitating the appointment of chief constables 

from overseas and providing a list of ranks, forces and countries that will be 

eligible as set out in the amendment to the Anti Social Behaviour, Crime and 

Policing Bill. 

2. The Home Secretary’s letter to Parliament announcing the scheme states that 

“PCCs should have the ability to choose their chief constable not only from the 

senior ranks in the United Kingdom, but also from other countries with a similar 

legal framework and policing model to ours. This will enable PCCs to choose the 

very best person for the job.” 

Home Office Fact Sheet October 2014 

3. The Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011 provides that in order to be 

appointed as a chief constable they must have served as a constable in the UK. 

Tom Winsor’s recommendation was that this should be amended to include, as an 

alternative, service in a role equivalent to a chief officer overseas, in a common 

law jurisdiction which practises policing by consent. 

4. Clause 126 accordingly provides that a person can be appointed as a chief 

constable if they have served as a constable in the UK or if they have been a 

police officer in an approved overseas force at the approved rank. 

5. It also provides that the College of Policing will be responsible for making 

designations as to which countries, police forces and ranks can be considered. The 

designation will have to be approved by the Home Secretary. 

6. As part of the wider work on implementing direct entry, the College of Policing has 

been commissioned to design a process for helping PCCs to manage integrating a 

chief constable appointed from overseas into their workforce. For example, this 

could include developing an individual learning package. 

7. It will still be for PCCs to appoint chief constables – or for the Home Secretary to 

make a recommendation to Her Majesty in the case of the appointment of the 

Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police Service. The provision will not affect the 

terms and conditions for chief constables. 

Consultation 

8. In the Home Office Consultation document, Question 30 explained that the review 

suggested that training for chief constables from overseas should be tailored to 

Appendix F Page 1 of 3

meet the needs of the individual but should include several broad areas of 

knowledge and expertise which include: the political and criminal justice context of 

policing in England and Wales; operational command in England and Wales; the 

legal responsibilities of chief constables; managing in the police; and working with 

other agencies. Respondents were asked to what extent they agreed or disagreed 

with this suggestion. 

9. Question 31 explained that the review also suggested that a newly appointed chief 

constable should be offered contact with an established chief constable as an 

advisor during their initial first few weeks. Respondents were asked to what extent 

they agreed or disagreed with this suggestion 

10. Almost half of respondents agreed with proposals set out at question 30. However, 

45% of respondents did not agree. Over half of respondents agreed that a newly 

appointed chief constable should be offered contact with an established police 

constable as an advisor during their initial first few weeks. 

11. Of the PCCs who responded, most agreed with the recommendations and the 

principle of direct entry at chief constable. Police forces provided mixed responses 

to questions 30 and 31. One force did not support employing chief constables from 

overseas. Others tended to agree with both proposals. It was suggested that new 

appointees would need a range of contacts across the public and private sectors to 

stimulate new ideas and understand the political and cultural differences that 

exist. 

12. Staff associations tended to disagree with the proposals. The PFEW, PSAEW and 

ACPO said they were against the principle of direct entry at chief constable level. 

The reasons given include that there is enough talent within UK police forces; UK 

policing experience is important; and the UK culture of a more restrained use of 

force. 

Government response 

13. The Government wants to give PCCs the choice to choose their chief constable, not 

only from the senior ranks in the United Kingdom, but also from other countries 

with a similar legal framework and policing model to ours, so that they can choose 

the very best person for the job. In most cases we would expect that will be 

someone who is a serving police officer in the UK. Therefore the number of chief 

constables going through this process is likely to be small and should therefore be 

done on an individual and bespoke basis. 

14. In designing each programme, we would expect the College of Policing to provide 

an analysis of training needs and an individual learning package to ensure that 

those appointed have the knowledge they need to apply the skills from their 

previous roles to the context of policing in the UK. 

College remit and proposed work 

15 This work fits with the College remit to define standards, which inevitably include 

standards for recruitment and appointment of Chief Constables from overseas. 

16. There has been some debate about how wide the College’s approach should be. 

Some have argued that the commission is too narrow in its approach and is not 

allowing the College to define the full set of eligibility and recruitment standards - 

countries, forces, ranks, qualifications and competencies. 


17. However, this debate seems to be resolved by the fact that Section 38 of the 

Police Reform and Anti Social Responsibility Act gives responsibility to Police and 

Crime Commissioners for selecting and appointing Chief Constables. Neither the 

Home Secretary, nor the College of Policing can prescribe how PCCs select their 

Chief Constable. 

18. Considering the specific nature of the commission from the Home Office and 

acknowledging the responsibility of the PCC to select and appoint the Chief 

Constable. It is recommended that the majority of the work associated with this 

commission could be achieved through research to explore and establish: 

a. Countries with similar policing styles – policing by consent 

b. Forces within those countries that may be of a suitable size and complexity to 

match that of UK policing 

c. The span of control and the operational responsibilities of appropriate ranks 

within those Forces to determine which would be comparable to chief officer 

roles in the UK. 

19. It is suggested that we commission RAI to conduct or procure the work described 

at paragraph 18. 

20. The College will be mindful, in its new roles, to co-ordinate or support the 

development necessary for any new chief constables taking up such a post from 

an oversees force. 

21. The College will also review and where necessary revise its Guidance to PCCs with 

new standards that are agreed, plus any additional work that may be necessary 

for such appointments. The College will continue to advise PCCs on an individual 

basis as it does now. 

--------------------------------------- 


RESTRICTED 


Date of meeting: 13 November 2013 

Item lead at meeting: ACC Benjamin 


Title of paper: Confidential Unit Operating Model (CUOM) 

1. Issue: To consider the outcomes of the Home Office Confidential Unit Operating Model 

Project and recognise its broader impact upon the developing law enforcement 

landscape. 

2. Recommendation 

2.1. That the Committee agrees to place the Confidential Unit Operating Model as reflected in 

the Authorised Professional Practice for Confidential Units. 

3. Summary 

3.1 The CUOM project is part of the Home Office Communications Capabilities Development 

programme which is focussed on maintaining law enforcement’s ability to acquire and 

exploit lawful intercept material and communications data. The project seeks to 

transform the way in which covert law enforcement is organised and supported at 

national, regional and local levels to enhance our future sensitive intelligence 

management and handling, building upon current capabilities and good practice. It seeks 

to support Government strategy to tackle serious organised crime and other areas 

where the effective use of intelligence is essential to maximise the effectiveness of 

operational and partner assets. 

3.2 This project has been running for over two years with the full support and involvement 

of the stakeholder community, including the College of Policing and the National Policing 

Lead. It supports both the creation of the National Crime Agency and the Regional 

Organised Crime Unit (ROCU) Capabilities Development programme work and has been 

subject of regular highlight reporting to the Organised Crime Portfolio. On 10 

September the operating model was endorsed by Crime Business Area for presentation 

to the Professional Committee. 

3.3 It is important for the design and standards to transition to Authorised Professional 

Practice as soon as possible to establish the approach across the stakeholder 

community, allow for implementation to be sustained in the future and provide the 

foundation for continuous improvement. 

Professional Committee Date: 13 November 2013 


Author: Scott McKenna


Background 

4.1. Confidential Units are deployed in all UK police and UK law enforcement agencies. Their 

purpose is to provide a secure and accredited environment within which to acquire, 

process and disseminate the most sensitive forms of intelligence. 

4.2. The Confidential Unit Operating Model (CUOM) project was established to transform the 

way in which covert law enforcement is organised to support improved sensitive 

intelligence management and sharing at local, regional and national levels. It exists to 

enhance the performance and effectiveness of Confidential Units to make better use of 

intelligence, including communications data, to drive better operational outcomes. It 

will achieve this through more effective exploitation of overt and sensitive intelligence in 

order to provide a rich intelligence picture that will assist the prioritisation and focus of 

operational resources. 

4.3. The project has already defined and agreed a common operating model and piloted key 

elements of it with the operational community. In doing so it worked closely with the 

law enforcement community and the College of Policing. It is now proposed to roll the 

operating model out across policing, focussing in the first instance on the NCA, ROCUs 

and large metropolitan forces. Once complete, the project will review which, if any, 

elements of the model need to implemented with local forces. 

Impact across College business areas 

4.4. This paper is linked to the College of Policing priority objective which relates to the 

delivery of Authorised Professional Practice. 

4.5. The CUOM design includes a section covering “Roles, Skills and Knowledge” and the 

CUOM Board has commissioned the College of Policing to consider and develop bespoke 

training for Confidential Unit staff in the future. Work is also being undertaken with 

investigative and intelligence training to ensure that new and developing ways of 

working in the sensitive intelligence field are produced in consultation with the senior 

investigator and intelligence manager communities. 

Internal and external consultation 

4.6. Throughout its lifecycle the CUOM project has engaged extensively with the stakeholder 

community. The CUOM Board comprises representatives from across UK law 

enforcement as well as ACPO (TAM), national agencies, GCHQ and CPS. The Board has 

been supported by an Advisory Group, made up from representatives of the operational 

community, and sub-groups were created to review and challenge specific elements of 

the operating model. 

4.7. The National Policing Lead for Intelligence and the National Intelligence Model Review 

lead have both identified and endorsed elements of the CUOM design, including a new 

information handling process, as being significant steps forward in professionalising the 

way in which law enforcement manages intelligence. 




4.8. The project is fully endorsed and supported by the National Crime Agency and ROCU 

Capabilities Board, who see it as a key enabler to the new Agency and the uplift of ROCU 

capabilities. 

4.9. To ensure that operational risk was appropriately managed, a number of workstreams 

within the operating model were piloted in a number of forces. The lessons learned from 

those pilots informed the final design of the operating model. 

Impacts including – public interest; finance; HR; EDHR 

4.10 The CUOM has a developing benefits framework which the Home Office will be 

monitoring closely over the coming months. This framework will seek to identify and 

measure the tangible benefits of CUOM to the law enforcement community. Areas 

which are forming part of the benefits statement include: 

 

 

 

 

Creating greater and richer flows of intelligence; 

Improving the security and process of intelligence handling, allowing for greater 

opportunities to produce actionable intelligence and to protect information 

sources; 

Providing access to a greater number of analytical datasets and opportunities to 

exploit intelligence; and 

Providing an enabler to transform the overt, covert intelligence landscape to 

better inform and support the National Intelligence Model and to effectively 

utilise intelligence and analytical resources. 

Next steps 

4.11 To commission the CUOM Project to continue its work with the College of Policing APP 

Team to update the existing Confidential Unit APP to incorporate the CUOM Design and 

Standards. 

Author name: 

Scott McKenna 

Author job title: Staff Officer for ACC Lewis Benjamin 

Author email: 

Scott.McKenna@homeoffice.x.gsi.gov.uk 

Author tel number: 01926 415004 

Sponsor (if not Author): ACC Benjamin 







Item lead at meeting: 


Title of paper: Guidance on the Amendment to Sections 5(1) and 6(4) of the 

Public Order Act 1986 

1. Issue 

1.1 Section 57 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013 Act will amend sections 5(1) and 6(4) of 

the Public Order Act 1986 to remove the word ‘insulting’. The amendment is expected 

to come into force early 2014, but no commencement date has yet been set. The 

College of Policing has drafted guidance (Annex A) to outline the implications of this 

amendment. 


2.1 The Professional Committee is requested to endorse the guidance for publication. 

3. Summary 

3.1 The College of Policing was approached by the Home Office in April 2013 and asked to 

develop guidance for the police service on the legislative and operational implications 

of removing the word ‘insulting’. 

3.2 The guidance has been developed by the College’s Practice Improvement Unit (PIU) 

and endorsed by ACPO. Section 4 of this covering paper presents further context on 

the associated development, consultation and quality assurance processes. 

3.3 The guidance is brief and unpacks the legal and operational impacts of removing the 

word ‘insulting’. For example, it covers the implications from an ECHR perspective (i.e. 

Article 10 – Right to Freedom of Expression) and a hate crime perspective. 

3.4 The Professional Committee is requested to endorse the guidance so that: 

 

 

 

It can be published and disseminated to the service ahead of commencement (as a 

link from the publically accessible Public Order Authorised Professional Practice); 

An assessment can be made as to whether the National Curriculum (e.g. relevant 

modules of the Initial Police Learning and Development Programme) requires any 

revision/update ahead of commencement; and 

Communication plans can be developed to inform the police service of the changes 

to section 5(1) and 6(4) of the Public Order Act 1986. 



Author: Frank Pike


4.1 The scoping and drafting of the guidance was undertaken by the PIU with input from a 

number of sources including: 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Public Order Unit (Home Office); 

The National Public Order and Public Safety (POPS) Working Group; 

Uniform Operational Support (College of Policing); 

Legal Services (College of Policing); 

Equality, Diversity and Human Rights (College of Policing); and 

Learning Strategy and Development (College of Policing). 

4.2 The draft was endorsed for wider consultation by POPS in September 2013. The draft 

was made available to forces via the ACPO Intranet. It was also made available to 

other interested parties who had contributed to the 2011 Home Office consultation 

which resulted in the law being changed (e.g. Reform Section 5, Civil Liberty Groups, 

Christian Groups). It was also circulated to the Crown Prosecution Service, Police 

Federation, Police Superintendents Association, UNISON, and the Association of Police 

and Crime Commissioners. 

4.3 The feedback received from consultation was positive. A handful of minor amendments 

were made in response to feedback and the final draft was endorsed by POPS. The final 

draft has also been through the College’s legal/EDHR validation and editorial process 

(i.e. product authoring and College publishing). 

4.4 If endorsed by the Professional Committee, the guidance will be set in the professional 

College template for external publications (this includes adding the appropriate 

copyright/licence assertion notice). Relevant links will be added and activated (e.g. to 

the APP website which is launching on 24 October). 

Author name: 

Frank Pike 

Author job title: Professional Practice Developer 

Author email: 

frank.pike@college.pnn.police.uk 

Author tel number: 07770 597341 

Sponsor (if not Author): 

Professional Committee Date: 13 November, 2013 


Author: Frank Pike

Not protectively marked 

Annex A 

Guidance on the 

Amendment to Sections 

5(1) and 6(4) of the Public 

Order Act 1986 

Submitted for Professional Committee 

endorsement 

Draft Guidance on the Amendment to Sections 5(1) and 6(4) of the Public Order Act 

1986 

Professional Committee (13/11/13)


Note: © Copyright information and assertion notice will be inserted here, as appropriate. 


1986 

Professional Committee (13/11/13) 

2


Contents 

1 Introduction 4 

2 Amended wording 5 

3 Context of the amendment 6 

4 Legal implications 7 

5 Operational implications 11 


1986 


3


1 Introduction 

1.1 Section 57 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013 will amend sections 5(1) and 

6(4) of the Public Order Act 1986 to remove the word ‘insulting’. The 

amendment is expected to come into force early 2014 but no 

commencement date has yet been set. 

1.2 The purpose of this guidance is to: 

 

 

 

present the amended wording of section 5(1) and 6(4) of the Public 

Order Act 1986 

provide the context to the amendment 

highlight the legal and operational practice implications of the 

amendment. 

1.3 In addition to this guidance, the police service is responding to the 

amendment by ensuring that other products (eg, Authorised Professional 

Practice (APP), training) are updated before the amendment to the Public 

Order Act 1986 comes into force. 


1986 


4


2 Amended wording 

2.1 When section 57 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013 comes into force, the 

word ‘insulting’ will be removed so that section 5(1) of the Public Order 

Act 1986 will provide: 

A person is guilty of an offence if he— 

(a) uses threatening or abusive words or behaviour, or 

disorderly behaviour, or 

(b) displays any writing, sign or other visible 

representation which is threatening or abusive 

within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused 

harassment, alarm or distress thereby. 

2.2 At the same time, the word ‘insulting’ will also be removed from section 

6(4) of the Public Order Act 1986 so that it will provide: 

A person is guilty of an offence under section 5 only if 

he intends his words or behaviour or the writing, sign or 

other visible representation, to be threatening or 

abusive, or is aware that it may be threatening or 

abusive or (as the case may be) he intends his 

behaviour to be or may be aware that it may be 

disorderly. 

2.3 The section 5(3) defences to this offence will remain the same. They apply 

where the accused proves that: 

(a) he had no reason to believe that there was any 

person within hearing or sight who was likely to be 

caused harassment, alarm or distress, or 

(b) he was inside a dwelling and had no reason to 

believe that the words or behaviour used, or the writing, 

sign or other visible representation displayed, would be 

heard or seen by a person outside that or any other 

dwelling, or 

(c) his conduct was reasonable. 


1986 


5


3 Context of the amendment 

3.1 The Government has a duty to balance the protection of the public with 

the need to protect individual civil liberties. Within this context, the 

Government published a consultation paper 1 in 2011 seeking views on the 

value of the word ‘insulting’ in section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986, 

whether it is consistent with the right to freedom of expression, and the 

risk of removing it from section 5. 

3.2 The consultation received nearly 3,000 responses and raised a number of 

complex issues (see the summary of responses and government 

response 2 ). In summary, the majority of respondents indicated support for 

reform of section 5 and removal of the word ‘insulting’ on the grounds that 

this would enhance the protection to the right of freedom of expression 

under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). 

Concerns were raised, however, that removing ‘insulting’ from section 5 

might signal a tolerance of hate crime, low level harassment and 

disrespectful behaviour. 

3.3 On considering the findings of the consultation, the Government decided 

to pursue removing the word ‘insulting’ from section 5. This decision was 

informed by parliamentary debates during the passage of the Crime and 

Courts Bill. The Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) also offered 

assurances that ‘insulting’ could be safely removed on the grounds that it 

would not hinder the ability of the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) to 

prosecute as the DPP could not identify any past cases where the 

behaviour leading to a conviction could not be described as ‘abusive’ as 

well as ‘insulting’. (See p 3 of the summary of responses and government 

response 3 .) 

3.4 This process culminated in the decision to remove the word ‘insulting’ 

(from a date to be appointed by Statutory Instrument) from sections 5(1) 

and 6(4) of the Public Order Act 1986. 

3.5 The remainder of this guidance focuses on the legal and operational 

practice implications for police officers as a result of the impending 

amendment. 

1 Home Office (2011) Consultation on police powers to promote and maintain public 

order. London: Home Office. 

2 Home Office (2013) Consultation on police powers to promote and maintain public 

order: Summary of consultation responses and the government response. London: Home 

Office. 

3 Ibid. 

Draft Guidance on the Amendment to Sections 5(1) and 6(4) of the Public Order Act 6 

1986 



4 Legal implications 

4.1 When the amendment comes into force, words or behaviour that are 

merely ‘insulting’, or the displaying of writing, signs or other visible 

representations which are merely ‘insulting’, within the hearing of 

someone likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress, will no longer 

constitute a criminal offence under section 5(1). 

4.2 This chapter focuses on the various powers which may be relevant to an 

officer faced with a situation where they are considering the use of section 

5 as an offence. The legislation presented underpins chapter 5 of this 

guidance on operational practice implications, and the two chapters should 

be read in conjunction with each other. 

4.3 Public Order Act 1986 

4.3.1 Section 6(1) of the Human Rights Act 1998 states that, 'It is unlawful for a 

public authority to act in a way which is incompatible with a Convention 

right.’ Officers must ensure, therefore, they do not apply section 5 of the 

Public Order Act 1986 in a way which is incompatible with the provisions 

of the ECHR, in particular Article 10 which relates to the freedom of 

expression (noting that Article 10 is a qualified right). When an officer 

considers using section 5 as an offence, they will first have to assess: 

. 

whether an offence is being committed under the ‘abusive’ or 

‘threatening’ limbs 

ECHR Article 10. 

4.3.2 For further advice on assessing Article 10, see the APP on public order 

(The rights to freedom of belief and expression). Advice on the use of 

section 5 in different contexts can also be found in CPS legal guidance on 

Public Protests and Nudity in Public Places – Guidance on handling cases of 

Naturism. 

4.3.3 Note: although there is no legal requirement to do so, officers should 

consider giving a warning prior to making an arrest for section 5 offences. 

Making an arrest without first giving a warning may subsequently be 

found to have constituted a disproportionate restriction on the person’s 

right of freedom of expression 4 . 

4.3.4 It is also important to note that section 4A of the Public Order Act 1986 

will retain the ‘insulting’ limb: 

A person is guilty of an offence if, with intent to cause 

a person harassment, alarm or distress, he— 

4 For further information, see Beggs, J., Thomas, G. and Rickard, S. (2012) Public order: 

Law and Practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 

Draft Guidance on the Amendment to Sections 5(1) and 6(4) of the Public Order Act 7 

1986 



(a) uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or 

behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or 

(b) displays any writing, sign or other visible 

representation which is threatening, abusive or 

insulting, thereby causing that or another person 

harassment, alarm or distress. 

4.3.5 More serious, planned and malicious incidents of insulting behaviour, eg, 

the burning of poppy wreaths on Remembrance Sunday (see CPS v Haque 

and Choudhury Judgment (7 March 2011)), could still constitute an 

offence under section 4A. In cases where such words or behaviour are 

used, officers will have to consider whether: 

there was intent to cause harm; and 

such harm has been caused. 

4.3.6 It should also be stressed that, while it is clear that a police officer may be 

caused harassment, alarm or distress, they are usually expected to 

display a greater degree of fortitude than members of the public. For an 

officer to be caused harassment, alarm or distress, the conduct 

complained of must go beyond that which he or she would regularly come 

across in the ordinary course of police duties (see DPP v Orum [1989] 1 

WLR 88). 

4.3.7 Finally, section 4 of the Public Order Act 1986 (fear or provocation of 

violence) will also retain the ‘insulting’ limb. This provision makes it an 

offence to use threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour 

towards another person – or to distribute or display to another person any 

writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive 

or insulting – with the intention of causing them to believe that immediate 

unlawful violence will be used against them, or of provoking such 

violence. 

4.3.8 See the APP on public order for the wider legal considerations associated 

with the Public Order Act 1986. 

4.4 Breach of the peace 

4.4.1 A breach of the peace is committed when an individual causes harm, or 

appears likely to cause harm, to a person, or in that person’s presence, to 

his or her property, or puts that person in fear of such harm being done 

through an assault, affray, a riot, unlawful assembly or other disturbance. 

4.4.2 Although there is no criminal offence of breach of the peace for which 

someone can be prosecuted, the specific power of arrest to prevent a 

breach of the peace can be used to remove people from a situation where 

an imminent breach is reasonably anticipated. 


1986 


8


4.4.3 If the behaviour does subsequently escalate to the abusive or threatening 

threshold, a prosecution under section 5 may be appropriate. Under 

section 4A, it is also possible to prosecute for using insulting, abusive or 

threatening language or behaviour, provided that the offence meets the 

test of intentionally causing harassment, alarm or distress. 

4.5 Harassment and hate crime 

4.5.1 Section 5 will continue to provide protection from threatening or abusive 

words and behaviour. Insulting words or behaviour with intent will also 

still be covered by section 4A of the Public Order Act 1986, as will 

intentional abuse and threats. It is worth reinforcing, however, that there 

are other relevant powers available to officers to respond to allegations of 

harassment and hate crime. 

4.5.2 See the APP on public order and the forthcoming hate crime strategy (to 

be published by the College of Policing) for the wider legal considerations 

associated with harassment and hate crime. 

4.6 Harassment 

4.6.1 Under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, a person must not 

pursue a course of conduct which amounts to the harassment of another 

and which they know, or ought to know, amounts to the harassment of 

the other. Harassing a person includes alarming or causing distress to that 

person. A course of conduct must involve conduct on at least two 

occasions. 

4.7 Hate crime and the Public Order Act 1986 

4.7.1 Section 31 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 designated section 5 of the 

Public Order Act 1986 as an offence that could be charged as racially or 

religiously aggravated. This will remain the case for threatening or abusive 

words or behaviour under section 5, and for threatening, abusive or 

insulting behaviour under section 4A. 

4.7.2 Sections 18 and 19 of the Public Order Act 1986 provide a similar offence 

to section 4A where there is evidence of intent to stir up racial hatred or 

that racial hatred is likely to be stirred up. 

Section 18: 

(1) A person who uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or 

behaviour, or displays any written material which is threatening, 

abusive or insulting, is guilty of an offence if— 

(a) he intends thereby to stir up racial hatred, or 


1986 


9


(b) having regard to all the circumstances racial hatred is likely to 

be stirred up thereby. 

Section 19: 

(1) A person who publishes or distributes written material which is 

threatening, abusive or insulting is guilty of an offence if— 

(a) he intends thereby to stir up racial hatred, or 

(b) having regard to all the circumstances racial hatred is likely to 

be stirred up thereby. 

4.7.3 Additionally, section 29B of the Public Order Act 1986 makes it an offence 

for a person to use threatening words or behaviour, or to display any 

written material which is threatening, with the intention to stir up religious 

hatred. 

4.7.4 Note: section 29J of the Public Order Act 1986 is designed to protect 

freedom of expression, providing: 

Nothing in this Part shall be read or given effect in a way 

which prohibits or restricts discussion, criticism or 

expressions of antipathy, dislike, ridicule, insult or abuse 

of particular religions or the beliefs or practices of their 

adherents, or of any other belief system or the beliefs or 

practices of its adherents, or proselytising or urging 

adherents of a different religion or belief system to cease 

practicing their religion or belief system. 

4.7.5 Section 29B of the Public Order Act 1986 also makes it an offence for a 

person to use threatening words or behaviour, or display any written 

material which is threatening, with the intention to stir up hatred against 

a group of people defined by reference to their sexual orientation. 

4.7.6 Note: section 29JA of the Public Order Act 1986 is designed to protect 

freedom of expression, stating: 

In this Part, for the avoidance of doubt, the discussion or 

criticism of sexual conduct or practices or the urging of 

persons to refrain from or modify such conduct or 

practices shall not be taken of itself to be threatening or 

intended to stir up hatred. 

4.7.7 The consent of the Attorney General is required for a prosecution under 

sections 18, 19 and 29B. 

4.7.8 For information on other specific hate crime offences, see the forthcoming 

hate crime strategy. 


1986 


10


5 Operational implications 

5.1 The National Decision Model (NDM) provides the framework to help 

officers respond effectively to any situation or incident: it should, 

therefore, underpin an officer’s approach to dealing with situations or 

incidents where section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986 might apply. 

5.2 This chapter presents the NDM and highlights some relevant points from 

the perspective of section 5 which can guide decision making. 

5.3 The NDM is a cyclical model made up of five stages and underpinned by 

the College of Policing’s forthcoming Code of Ethics for policing in England 

and Wales. 

5.4 For more information, see the APP on the National Decision Model. 


1986 


11


5.5 Gather information and intelligence 

5.5.1 Example questions: 

what is being said or displayed? 

what behaviour is being demonstrated? 

is anybody being threatened, insulted or abused? 

is there evidence of harassment, alarm or distress? 

what is the location of the alleged offence? 

are there any witnesses? 

5.6 Assess threat and risk and develop a working strategy 

5.6.1 Assess: 

content of the words or behaviour 

context/circumstances of the words/behaviour 

intention of the person speaking or acting 

probable impact 

Article 10 of the ECHR (freedom of expression). 

5.7 Consider powers and policy 

5.7.1 Key consideration: 

has the amendment to section 5(1) and 6(4) of the Public Order Act 

1986 come into force? If yes, words or behaviour that are merely 

insulting, or the displaying of writing, signs or other visible 

representations which are merely insulting, within the hearing of 

someone likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress will no 

longer constitute a criminal offence. 

5.7.2 Other considerations: 

have the words or behaviour been assessed as threatening or 

abusive and is there evidence of harassment, alarm or distress? 

If so, section 5(1) of the Public Order Act 1986 will still apply. 

have the words or behaviour been assessed as threatening, 

insulting or abusive and is there evidence of intent to cause 

harassment, alarm or distress? If so, section 4A of the Public 

Order Act 1986 will apply. 


1986 


12


have the words or behaviour been assessed as threatening, 

insulting or abusive and is there evidence of fear or provocation 

of violence? If so, section 4 of the Public Order Act 1986 will apply. 

has a breach of the peace been committed? 

has harassment or hate crime taken place? 

Article 10 of the ECHR (freedom of expression) protections – for 

example, sections 29J and 29JA of the Public Order Act 1986. 

5.7.3 This guidance, in conjunction with other relevant sources (eg, forthcoming 

hate crime strategy and the APP on public order), can help to ensure that 

officers have the appropriate powers and policy context. 

5.8 Identify options and contingencies 

5.8.1 This stage involves considering the different ways to make a particular 

decision (or resolve a situation). Officers should consider whether any 

options they intend to pursue are: 

proportionate 

legal 

accountable 

necessary. 

5.8.2 Potential options include: 

no further action 

warning 

summons 

dispersal 

fixed penalty notice 

arrest. 

5.9 Take action and review 

5.9.1 Example of ‘action’ considerations: 

respond – implement the selected option(s) 

record – if required, the action that was taken, along with the 

rationale for it 

monitor – what happened as a result of the decisions made. 


1986 


13


5.9.2 Example of ‘review’ questions: 

what lessons can be taken from how things turned out? 

what might be done differently next time? 


1986 


14




Item lead at meeting: CC Mike Cunningham 


Title of paper: Commission to review force management of Police 

Medical Appeal Boards (PMABs) 

1. Issue 

1.1 The Workforce Development Business Area has identified that there are emerging 

issues relating to the Service’s management of Police Medical Appeal Boards (PMABs) 

and, in order to ensure that forces are effectively discharging their responsibilities, has 

requested that the College of Policing conduct a review and assessment of forces’ 

management of this process. 


2.1 That the College agree to conduct a scoping exercise to determine the remit for a 

formal review and the resources required to review the service’s management of Ill 

Health Retirements (IHRs), Injury on Duty Awards (IoDs) and PMABs. And that the 

College does not include IHR reviews as part of this scoping exercise. 

3. Summary 

3.1 PMABs are effectively appeals against forces’ management and assessment of IHRs and 

IoDs forces’ management of PMABs are inextricably linked to the initial assessment. It 

is therefore advisable that any review incorporates an assessment of the Service’s 

management of these processes as well as their management of PMABs. 

3.2 IHRs and IoDs are financial payments given to injured officers and are governed by 

regulations made under the Police Pensions Act 1976. Management of the IHRs and 

IoDs processes require a complex understanding of medical, regulatory and legal 

issues and the responsibility for this rests with the Chief Officer in their capacity as the 

Police Pension Authority (this was with the Police Authorities prior to the introduction of 

PCCs). Where an officer is dissatisfied with the outcome of the Police Pension 

Authority’s decision they can appeal to the PMAB. 

3.3 IHRs, IoDs and subsequent PMAB hearings have significant resource implications for 

forces and in 2010 the NPIA made an assessment of this cost as part of the evidence 

submitted for the Winsor Review. From this assessment it was identified that in 

October 2009, Health Management Ltd 1 reported that between November 2008 and 

1 PMABs are managed by private companies on behalf of the Home Office. 

Professional Committee Date: 13 November, 2013 


Author: Matt Johnson

October 2009 they had received 271 appeals of which 116 had been heard at PMAB 2 . It 

was estimated that the cost of managing the 116 cases would be approximately £1 

million and this did not include costs associated with the IHRs and IoDs paid to injured 

officers, appeals yet to be heard, administration costs or any costs associated with 

cases going to judicial review. At that time, Health Management Ltd reported that of 

the 271 applications, 95 cases had been withdrawn. While withdrawals happen for 

various reasons and at varying stages of the process, each application would have 

undergone the injury award assessment and would therefore still represent a 

significant cost to forces. 

3.4 Management of IHRs also have a direct impact on forces’ ability to deploy and manage 

their workforce. At the time of writing arbitration is pending on the proposed way 

forward- debated within the PNB/PAB following the Winsor Review recommendations 

regarding management of officers on restricted duties. The number of officers currently 

on restricted duties is a direct result of policy decisions in 2006 to reduce the number 

of IHRs. It is foreseeable that the current work to reduce the number of restricted 

officers will increase the number of officers seeking IHR. It is also foreseeable that the 

introduction of fitness testing to the service will also have a bearing on the number of 

IHR requests. 

3.5 Through engagement with HR and OH practitioners the NPIA identified that each force 

approached the management of this issue differently, dependant on their workload and 

the resources made available to them. Even prior to the regulatory responsibility 

passing to the Chief Officer it was common practice for police authorities to delegate 

this role to forces and this was done with little strategic governance. While this work 

was (and still is) primarily delegated to HR there is subsequently varying levels of 

engagement from occupational health professionals and force legal services with 

significant variance in the roles of these departments between forces. The NPIA 

identified that this variance was to the detriment of the Service, resulting in duplication 

of effort, unnecessary cost and ultimately disparity in IHR and IoD decisions, with 

similar claims receiving significantly different injury awards. 

3.6 Case law resulting from PMAB decisions and judicial reviews of PMAB decisions are 

proving problematic for forces trying to assess IHRs and IoDs. In the submission of 

evidence to the Winsor Review, the NPIA identified a lack of consistency in how forces 

interpret case law, with some forces obtaining legal advice but some assessing IHRs 

and IoDs and preparing for PMABs without engaging the support of any recognised 

legal professional. The quasi-legal capacity of the PMAB is therefore having a profound 

effect on individual forces’ ability to manage this process. Where an individual force 

fails to properly present at a PMAB, or fails to be suitably robust and challenge in the 

event of a perverse decision, all forces will be bound by the decision. 

3.7 In reaching the decision on whether to retire an officer (and the level of benefits they 

are to receive), the Police Pension Authority must refer certain questions to a medical 

practitioner selected by them, commonly referred to as the SMP. The SMP plays a 

significant role in helping to determine if an officer is to be retired on ill-health grounds 

and, if so, what level of benefit they are to receive. For the purposes of the PMAB it is 

important that it is recognised that this role is ‘quasi-legal’ and therefore the SMP role 

is, by implication, not solely restricted to medical opinion. Many forces are experiencing 

increasing difficulty in identifying suitable doctors to perform this role. 

2 This number is high due to a backlog due to the mismanagement of the previous contract and does not reflect the average 

number of cases per financial year. 



Author: Matt Johnston

3.8 At present there are limited training opportunities available and no centrally accredited 

qualification for staff and SMPs. SMPs and force personnel are therefore reliant on their 

experience of the work, personal endeavour and ad hoc training they have been given 

by their employers. Prior to its closure, the NPIA ran training events in an attempt to 

assist forces. It was recognised at that time that these provisions were inadequate for 

the Service’s overall needs as ongoing changes in case law require frequent training 

revisions and updates. In addition to this, in order to maintain frontline services, forces 

have made significant cuts to HR and occupational health provisions. This has further 

reduced the corporate knowledge in the service with regards to management of these 

complex processes. 

3.9 In addition to the above there are also provisions within regulations for forces to 

review IHR decisions (IoDs are one-off payments and there is no provision to review 

them). The use of this provision remains controversial and its use is keenly challenged 

by the officers in question and NARPO. There have also been a number of significant 

high court decisions that have further clouded the issue. Due to this many forces, while 

encouraged to do so by the Home Office, are reluctant to initiate reviews fearing that 

the cost and work associated is a false economy compared to the financial saving 

generated by any reduction in IHR banding. A review of the services management of 

IHRs and IoDs would be a considerable piece of work in its own right and there may be 

benefit in seeking to review this issue separately once the review of IHR and IoD has 

been conducted and forces have been able to consider the review’s recommendations. 


4.1 The Home Office is currently developing new Police (Injury Benefit) Regulations 2013. 

The release of these regulations could potentially serve as an opportunity to realign 

and improve force practices and processes on this issue. 

4.2 The Home Office is currently in the process of retendering the contract for the PMAB. 

5. Resources 

The breadth and complexity of this issue makes it difficult to assess the resource 

commitments required to conduct a broad review of all forces. The proposed scoping 

exercise would still be a sizable piece of work but the resource commitment would be 

predominantly a human and time commitment from the College staff. 

Author name: 

Matt Johnston 

Author job title: 

Policy Manager of Occupational Health, Safety and Welfare 

Author email: 

matt.johnston@college.pnn.police.uk 

Author tel number: 0203 113 7406 

Sponsor (if not Author): CC Mike Cunningham 



Author: Matt Johnston




Item lead at meeting: CC Lynne Owens 


Title of paper: JESIP Joint Doctrine 

1. Issue 

1.1. The purpose of the paper is to provide the Professional Committee with an executive 

overview of: 

 

 

The purpose and progress made to date with the JESIP programme; and 

The proposed Joint Doctrine guidance and training which has been developed as 

part of the JESIP programme, and the impact it may have on existing police 

practice and guidance. 

1.2. This follows the paper being presented to Chief Constable’s Council on 18 th October 

2013. The JESIP Doctrine was agreed, but it was felt that the impact on policing practice 

required it to also be put before Professional Committee. 

2 Recommendation 

2.1 To commission the College of Policing to make adjustments to existing service-specific 

Authorised Professional Practice (APP) and the National Policing Curriculum to 

recognise and reflect the JESIP doctrine. 

2.2 To commission the College of Policing to provide ongoing support for the delivery of 

JESIP. 

3. Summary 

3.1 JESIP has been initiated by the Government in the wake of a succession of enquiry 

reports into major incidents throughout the United Kingdom spanning the last twenty 

five years. A common theme in many of these reports has been that the three main 

emergency services could and should have worked more effectively together as a 

whole and that had they done so more lives may have been saved. Whilst there has 

been some local work in response to individual recommendations a national approach 

to joint emergency services working and mutual aid has not been put in place. JESIP 

has been designed to address these issues. 

3.2 The programme has cross-governmental support and is overseen by a Ministerial Board 

chaired by the Home Secretary. This Board also includes senior ministerial 

representation from the Cabinet Office, Department for Health, Department for 

Communities and Local Government, together with the relevant emergency services 


Agenda Item No. 8 Author: T/DCC Charlie Hall


inspectorate functions. The three emergency services are represented on this Board 

by three strategic leads, Chief Constable Lynne Owens, Chief Fire Officer Roy Wilsher 

and Chief Executive Dr Anthony Marsh. 

3.3 The overall effect of JESIP will be to provide a consistent joint emergency services 

response to incidents. They will be trained in the application of joint command decision 

and assessment models and the roles and responsibilities of the individual services, 

leading to a coherent and commonly understood way of working. The three emergency 

services jointly working to a set of shared and agreed common operating principles 

(joint doctrine). 

4. JESIP Joint Doctrine 

4.1 The doctrine has been compiled through a series of working groups involving a range 

of key stakeholders across the blue light services and government departments. This 

has included representation from the College of Policing, National Ambulance Resilience 

Unit, the Fire Service College and the Civil Contingencies’ Secretariat amongst many 

others. 

4.2 The draft doctrine was circulated for consultation to all 105 organisations comprising 

the three blue light services during the summer. The responses have been considered 

by the working groups and informed the updating of the doctrine as necessary. A 

quality assurance panel has also sat to review the doctrine document resulting in the 

final version of the doctrine that is attached at Appendix A. 

4.3 The doctrine centres around five principles for joint working between the emergency 

services, these being: 

Co-location 

Communication 

Co-ordination 

Joint Understanding of risk 

Shared situational awareness 

4.4 Key elements of the doctrine include a joint decision making model (substantially 

based around the national decision making model used in policing) and the METHANE 

situational awareness model (consistent with the model used throughout the health 

service). The latter of these represents a change from the SAD CHALETS situational 

awareness models used in policing and the Fire and Rescue Services. 

4.5 Whilst each service already has standalone policy and procedural guidance that covers 

their response to major incidents, this inevitably includes some differences between 

the models and approaches adopted. The JESIP doctrine overcomes this, but as a 

consequence does introduce some slight changes for each of the emergency services to 

their existing policy and procedures. In most areas these represent minor adjustments 

and the JESIP team is working with the College of Policing, National Ambulance 

Resilience Unit and Chief Fire Officers Association to ensure that these become 

reflected and incorporated into single service policy and procedural guidance. 

4.6 The doctrine then provides the basis for the development and delivery of training 

products to the three services and subsequent exercise regimes that will embed these 

ways of working across the services. It is intended that the yet to be established tri- 



Author: T/DCC Charlie Hall


service governance board will provide the legacy governance arrangements for the 

JESIP approach, which will include owning and amending the JESIP doctrine into the 

future 

5. Training 

5.1 The delivery of training to responders and key personnel across the three emergency 

services is essential to be able to deliver the JESIP programme. 

5.2 The programme team has developed, working closely with the College of Policing and 

subject matter experts from the three services, a series of JESIP training products. 

These products will enable the doctrine and joint working arrangements to be 

consistently delivered to responders across the three emergency services. The first 

two training products have been robustly tested via a number of pilot courses and 

evaluated during the summer months. 

5.3 The training products comprise: 

On-Scene Commander course (1 day) 

Tactical Commander course (1 day) 

Control room commander course (under development) 

National e-learning awareness package suitable for all emergency 

responder staff (under development). 

5.4 The primary audience for delivery of the multi-agency courses are those commanders 

in the three emergency services (police, fire and ambulance) responsible for the initial 

response to a major or complex incident. Consultation has taken place with all 105 

organisations that comprise the emergency services across England and Wales to 

identify the numbers of personnel that will require training through the on-scene 

commander, tactical commander and control room courses. The numbers do vary 

between organisations dependent upon size and the way in which these functions are 

discharged. On average the numbers declared represent approximately 200 staff 

within each organisation. 

5.5 Training courses will be delivered locally via a multi-agency training team. Each of the 

105 services has been requested to identify two individuals to assist in the delivery of 

local training. These individuals will undertake the train trainer courses, commencing 

in October. On completion of the train the trainer courses local areas are then able to 

commence the broader roll-out of JESIP training to local staff. Many services have 

already put arrangements in place to deliver this training and some have negotiated 

regional arrangements to share resources. It is an expectation of the Ministerial Board 

that this training will be largely complete by September 2014. 

5.6 The training is primarily intended for delivery to the three main emergency services to 

achieve national interoperability and enhance mutual aid capacity. A number of Local 

Resilience Forums (LRFs) have expressed a desire for this to be extended to include 

other category 1 and 2 responders. Such involvement is not being co-ordinated by the 

JESIP programme team but LRFs are able to utilise the products to deliver these to 

other responders as deemed appropriate on a local basis. 





6. Conclusion 

6.1 The Joint Doctrine is critical to the success of the JESIP programme. It needs to be 

both evident and effective during major incidents and this will only be possible if it is 

embedded in routine work. The support of the Professional Committee is sought to 

allow this Joint Doctrine to be absorbed into APP and recognised as standard Policing 

Practice. 

Lynne Owens 

Chief Constable 

Head of National Uniform Operations Business Area 

Author name: DCC Charlie Hall 

Author job title: JESIP Lead, UK Interoperability Portfolio 

Author email: 

Author tel number: 

Sponsor (if not Author): CC Lynne Owens 




JOINT DOCTRINE: THE 

INTEROPERABILITY 

FRAMEWORK 

JESIP 

JOINT EMERGENCY SERVICES 

INTEROPERABILITY PROGRAMME 

Working Together – Saving Lives

JOINT DOCTRINE: 

THE INTEROPERABILITY 

FRAMEWORK

Foreword 

Welcome to the first edition of the “Joint Doctrine: the interoperability framework”. This guidance 

focuses on police, fire and ambulance interoperability in the early stages of the response to 

a major or complex incident. Its purpose is to provide emergency service commanders with a 

framework to enable them to respond together as effectively as possible. 

This guidance has been developed by police, fire and ambulance service colleagues as part of 

the Joint Emergency Services Interoperability Programme (JESIP). This is a nationally recognised 

tri-service programme, staffed solely by representatives from the blue-light services, and which 

has the full support of Chief Officers and Government Departments; the Home Office, Cabinet 

Office, Department for Communities and Local Government and the Department of Health. The 

programme was set up at the Home Secretary’s request following a number of public enquiries 

which said joint working between the three emergency services would enhance the collective 

ability to save lives and reduce harm. Major and complex incidents do not happen very often. But 

when they do we need to ensure that we have the most efficient, effective and, most importantly, 

joined-up response that is possible. The public will expect no less. 

As a living document this doctrine will be subject to future changes and improvements, as it is 

tested and embedded into business as usual. We, as three services, need to ensure that the 

ethos of working together becomes embedded within our organisations at every level. 

We are extremely grateful to those individuals and their supporting organisations who have 

contributed up to this point. If you have any comments about the document, or any questions as to 

how you might act upon this doctrine, please email them to JESIP@homeoffice.x.gsi.gov.uk 

Yours faithfully, 

CFO Roy Wilsher CC Lynne Owens CEO Anthony Marsh

Contents 

Part 1 – Principles for Joint Working 

1. Introduction – Doctrine and Guidance 1 

2. The Need for Interoperability 2 

3. Principles for Joint Working 3 

Annex A 5 

Annex B 7 

Part 2 – Ways of Working 

1. Ways of Working 10 

2. The Joint Decision Model (JDM) 11 

3. Operational, Tactical and Strategic Levels of Command 16 

Annexes 

Annex C 20 

Annex D 22 

Annex E 23 

Annex F 24

PART 1 – PRINCIPLES FOR 

JOINT WORKING

1. Introduction – Doctrine and Guidance 

The structure for managing the local multi-agency response to emergencies is based upon the 

Civil Contingencies Act (2004), which imposes a legal duty on Category 1 responders to assess 

risk, plan for emergencies and to co-operate and share information with other emergency 

response organisations. The Act is supported by two sets of guidance; ‘Emergency Preparedness’ 

and ‘Emergency Response & Recovery’ (ER&R). Emergency Preparedness deals with the preemergency 

(planning) phase. ER&R describes the multi-agency framework for responding to and 

recovering from emergencies in the UK. 

This publication complements ER&R by focussing specifically on the interoperability of the 

three emergency services in the early stages of response to a rapid onset localised emergency. 

Its purpose is to provide emergency service commanders with a framework to enable them to 

effectively respond together. However, the principles described are also applicable to the wider 

range of Category 1 and 2 response organisations, and can be applied to smaller scale incidents, 

wide-area emergencies, and pre-planned operations. 

This Doctrine focuses on the interoperability of the three emergency services whilst also 

acknowledging that emergency response is a multi-agency activity and the resolution of an 

emergency will usually involve collaboration with other Category 1 and 2 responders and partner 

organisations. Doctrine sets out the way responders should train and operate and is built upon a 

common backbone which defines terminology, principles and ways of working. Joint Doctrine sets 

out what responders should do and how they should do it in a multi-agency working environment, 

in order to achieve the degree of interoperability that is essential to a successful joint response. It 

does not constitute a set of rules to be applied without thought, but rather seeks to guide, explain 

and inform. 

The Joint Doctrine is an essential element in the hierarchy of guidance shown in Figure 1. It 

provides commanders, at the scene and elsewhere, with generic guidance on what actions they 

should undertake when responding to major and complex incidents and the principles are equally 

relevant to day-to-day joint operations. The guidance contained within this publication should be 

reflected consistently within individual organisations’ guidance, instructions to their personnel 

and in training. Separate publications set out specialist ways of working that will apply in specific 

circumstances such as Chemical, Biological, Radiological and Nuclear (CBRN) incidents or 

Marauding Terrorist Firearms Attacks (MTFA). These specialist response documents should also 

reflect the generic guidance contained within this publication. 

Figure 1 - Emergency Response Documentation Hierarchy for the emergency services 

1

2. The Need for Interoperability 

The blue light services, including police, fire and ambulance, will usually be the first to arrive at 

the scene of a rapid onset emergency. To achieve the best possible outcomes, all responders will 

need to be able to work together effectively as soon as they arrive at the scene. 

The requirement for a joint response is not new to the emergency services and should already 

be in place for routine day to day working. However the findings of, and the lessons identified by, 

many public enquiries and inquests have highlighted cases where the emergency services should 

have worked better together and shown much greater levels of co-operation and co-ordination. 

There is a requirement for better co-ordination and co-operation between the three emergency 

services who are normally the primary on-scene responders in response to a rapid onset 

emergency. Therefore, while the principles of interoperability are also applicable to the wider 

range of Category 1 and 2 responders, this document is focussed upon the emergency services 

element of the response. 

Interoperability is defined as the extent to which organisations can work together coherently 

as a matter of routine. To ensure interoperability exists between the emergency services in 

England, Wales and Scotland, which might involve cross-border mutual aid at any time, all 

responder organisations must make certain that their single service response arrangements, 

and local procedures, are in alignment with this Joint Doctrine and in accordance with the Civil 

Contingencies Act 2004 guidance set out in Emergency Response and Recovery. 

Commanders, at every level, should be able to demonstrate that they have received appropriate 

interoperability training in both their preparation and response arrangements to ensure the 

highest possible levels of joint working. With appropriate training and exercising between the 

emergency services, and also other Category 1 and 2 responders, the joint response will be 

significantly more effective in saving lives and reducing harm. 

2.1 Definitions 

There are a number of terms that are fundamental to successful joint working and these must be 

understood by all responders. These include; Command, Control, Co-ordination, Communication, 

Major Incident, Emergency, Joint Working, Joint Understanding of Risk, and Joint Learning. The 

definitions for these, and a short explanation of each, can be found at Annex A. 

2

3. Principles for Joint Working 

The principles must be applied by responders when they are determining an appropriate course of 

action and should be reflected in Joint or Standard Operating Procedures for joint working in the 

response to, and co-ordination, of an emergency. 

The public expects that the emergency services will work together, particularly in the initial 

response, in order to preserve life and reduce harm at any emergency. The purpose of clear, 

simple principles is to help commanders to take action under pressure that will enable the 

achievement of successful outcomes. This simplicity is of paramount importance in the early 

stages of an incident or emergency, when clear, robust decisions and actions need to be taken 

with minimum delay in an often rapidly changing environment. At the scene, the expected 

sequence of actions would comprise the first meeting of police, fire and ambulance commanders 

(co-location); a joint assessment of the situation and prevailing risks (communication, joint risk 

assessment and shared situational awareness); and a co-ordinated plan for action. 

3.1 Co-location 

Co-location of commanders is essential and allows those commanders to perform the functions 

of command, control and co-ordination, face to face, at a single and easily identified location. This 

is known as the Forward Command Post (FCP), which is a location near to the scene, where the 

response by the emergency services is managed. 

3.2 Communication 

Communication is the passage of clear, unambiguous and timely information relevant to an 

emergency situation. Meaningful and effective communication underpins effective joint working. 

The sharing of information, free of acronyms, across service boundaries is essential to operational 

success. This starts through pre-planning and between Control Rooms prior to deployment of 

resources. 

Communication is the capability to exchange reliable and accurate information i.e. critical 

information about hazards, risks and threats, as well as understanding each organisations 

responsibilities and capabilities. The understanding of any information shared ensures the 

achievement of shared situational awareness which underpins the best possible outcomes of an 

incident. Common symbols and terminology should be used to communicate common meaning 

amongst all responders. Further information about symbols and terminology can be found in 

Annex B. 

This guidance is not intended to provide specific advice on the technical solutions that are 

available to the emergency services. A technical solution already exists for the blue light services, 

the replacement of which is subject to a separate, cross-governmental and emergency service 

programme. 

3

3.3 Co-ordination 

Co-ordination involves the integration of the priorities, resources, decision making and response 

activities of each emergency service in order to avoid potential conflicts, prevent duplication of 

effort, minimise risk and promote successful outcomes. Effective co-ordination generally requires 

one service to act in a “lead” capacity, such as chairing co-ordination meetings and ensuring 

an effective response. The lead service will usually be the Police Service. However, in certain 

circumstances other services/agencies may be a more appropriate choice, depending upon the 

nature of the emergency, the phase of the response and the capabilities required. 

3.4 Joint understanding of risk 

Risk arises from threats and/or hazards which will be seen, understood and treated differently 

by different emergency services. In the context of a joint response, sharing information and 

understanding about the likelihood and potential impact of risks and the availability and 

implications of potential control measures will ensure, as far as is reasonably practicable, that 

the agreed aim and objectives are not compromised. This will include ensuring the safety of 

responders and mitigating the impact of risks on members of the public, infrastructure and the 

environment. Further information on the joint assessment of risk can be found in Part 2 – Ways of 

Working. 

3.5 Shared situational awareness 

This is a common understanding of the circumstances and immediate consequences of the 

emergency, together with an appreciation of the available capabilities and emergency services’ 

priorities. Achieving shared situational awareness is essential for effective interoperability in 

the emergency response and can be achieved by using the Joint Decision Model found in Part 

2 – Ways of Working. Shared situational awareness relates not only to a common understanding 

between incident commanders, but also between control rooms and all tiers of the command 

structure. 

4

Annex A 

Definition of Key Terms in Interoperability 

Capability - A demonstrable ability to respond to and recover from a particular threat or hazard. 

Command - The exercise of vested authority, that is associated with a role or rank within an 

organisation, to give direction in order to achieve defined objectives. Command is carried out by 

those who have been given authority (through role or rank) over others, for a specific operation 

or incident, to make decisions and give direction in order to achieve jointly defined and agreed 

objectives. Personnel who provide subject matter expertise or advice do so in support of the 

Operations or Tactical Commander and as part of the Command Support Team. 

Commander - Personnel who, by function or rank, are charged with ensuring the readiness of 

their teams, forces or organisations to discharge their stated duties and obligations. 

Control - The application of authority, combined with the capability to manage resources, in order 

to achieve defined objectives. Control is defined as the authority and capability of an organisation 

to direct the actions of its own personnel. While one emergency service cannot exercise command 

over another, it may be appropriate for service commanders to grant the authority to exercise 

control of their organisations’ personnel or assets to a co-ordinating group or commander of 

the designated lead service, within a specified time, place or circumstance, in order for defined 

response objectives to be achieved. However, such temporary transfer of control does not imply 

that the guiding responsibility for the physical activities of those resources has been transferred. 

Co-ordination - The integration of multi-agency efforts and available capabilities, which may be 

interdependent, in order to achieve defined objectives. Co-ordination occurs at one or more of 

three ascending levels - Operational, Tactical and Strategic, with national level co-ordination in the 

most serious of emergencies. 

Emergency - An event or situation which threatens serious damage to human welfare in a place in 

the UK, the environment of a place in the UK, or the security of the UK or of a place in the UK. 

Joint Learning - The identification of lessons from exercises or operations that are relevant 

to joint working and the process of effecting and embedding change in organisations and 

behaviours in response to those lessons. Learning is the process of developing knowledge, skills, 

attitudes and behaviours. It is therefore essential that lessons identified about joint working, from 

event or exercise debriefs or other mechanisms, should be captured, assessed, shared and acted 

upon jointly in order to promote continuous improvement but also to confirm good practice where 

it is identified. 

Joint Working - The ability of two or more responder organisations to work efficiently together 

to achieve a common aim through agreed prioritisation of effort. The public expects that the 

emergency services will work together, particularly in the initial response emergency, in order to 

preserve life and reduce harm. Individual Police, Fire & Rescue Service or Ambulance Service 

priorities must not override the degree of multi-agency co-operation required to efficiently and 

effectively work together. The aim is to use the available resources to the best collective effect to 

achieve the jointly agreed objectives for a successful response. It is essential that the activities of 

one responder service do not impede or detract from the efficiency of another. 

5

Major Incident – An event or situation requiring a response under one or more of the emergency 

services’ major incident plans. A major incident may be declared by a single blue-light service, or 

jointly. It is feasible that only one service may determine an emergency as a major incident based 

on the type of incident and scale of their resources required. This may not necessarily mean it is a 

major incident for all other services. 

Personal Data - Data which relates to a living individual or group who can be identified from the 

data and includes any expression of opinion about the individual and any indications of intentions 

in respect of the individual. (Data Protection Act 1998). 

Rapid Onset Emergency – An emergency which develops quickly and usually with immediate 

effects, thereby limiting the time available to consider response options. 

Responsibility - Guiding responsibility is reflected in parent single service policy and authorised 

operating procedures for the allocated resources. 

Rising Tide Emergency – Event or situation with a lead-in time of days, weeks or even months 

e.g. health pandemic, flooding or pop concert, the final impact of which may not be apparent early 

on. 

Sensitive Personal Data - Personal data consisting of information as to (including but not 

exclusively): race/ ethnic origin, religious beliefs, physical or mental health and commission or 

alleged commission of any offence. (Data Protection Act 1998). 

6

Annex B 

Common Terminology in Emergency Management 

One of the barriers to achieving shared situational awareness is the use of terminology that either 

means different things to different people, or is simply not understood across different services. 

Defining commonly understood terminology is desirable and to a large degree attainable, but 

emergency responders must always be attentive to the risk that their own understanding of 

concepts and specific terms is either not understood, or misunderstood, by others. Where the 

potential for confusion exists, responders should ensure that they use plain English. 

A lexicon of common terminology has been established to define and promote commonly 

understood terms in emergency management and this is introduced below, together with specific 

definitions for terms critical to interoperability. Also introduced below is the set of common map 

symbols which are linked to the lexicon and should be adopted by emergency responders. 

Lexicon of Common Terminology for UK Emergency Management 

Without a common understanding of what specific terms, phrases and associated map symbols 

mean, multi-agency working will always carry the risk of potentially serious misunderstandings, the 

consequences of which could be extremely severe. Since 2007, the Civil Contingencies Secretariat 

in the Cabinet Office has been working with a wide range of partners to build and maintain a 

single, authoritative point of reference for civil protection terminology and map symbology. These 

are summarised below. 

A lexicon is a collection of terms from a specific area of work or knowledge that are defined and 

associated with additional user-relevant information. This lexicon establishes common, agreed 

definitions for terms used in multi-agency emergency management. It is updated regularly and is 

available online at: 

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/emergency-responder-interoperability-lexicon 

Emergency services and other responders are encouraged to cross-reference definitions given 

in their own organisation’s documents to the lexicon, and to adopt the definitions given in 

the lexicon. Such convergence on common terminology is a fundamental building block for 

interoperability. 

In some cases specific terms or acronyms can have two or more meanings. This is not desirable, 

as there is potential for confusion. It reinforces the point that in spite of tools such as the lexicon, 

achieving commonly understood terminology is the responsibility of emergency responders on the 

ground. Where there is any doubt at all about what is meant by a specific term then individuals 

must check and confirm there is a common understanding. 

Where additional terms should be included in the lexicon, or responders wish to discuss existing 

definitions then contact details can be found through the web link above. The Cabinet Office 

hold and maintain the lexicon as a single, authoritative point of reference, but the emergency 

responder community shares the responsibility to maintain and grow the lexicon, so all 

communications are welcomed. 

7

Common Map Symbology for UK Emergency Management 

Maps are widely used in emergency management, but if different organisations use different map 

symbols to denote the same feature (e.g. a rendezvous point (RVP) or inner cordon) then there is 

scope for dangerous confusion and the potential of the map as a tool to co-ordinate multi-agency 

operations is severely curtailed. For this reason, the Cabinet Office and Ordnance Survey (OS) 

have collaborated in developing and disseminating a core set of common map symbols for use in 

emergency management. 

These can be found online and there is a link to the download page on the OS website at: 

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/emergency-responder-interoperability-commonmap-symbols 

At the present time the symbol set is limited to the following core features: 

• Incidents and hazards 

• Command, Control, Coordination or Communication sites 

• Assets 

• Infrastructure 

• Cordons, zones and areas. 

The symbols are developed from a number of basic building blocks, illustrated below: 

Generic inner cordon 

(with castellation on the inside) 

Generic outer cordon 

(with castellation on the outside) 

8

PART 2 – WAYS OF 

WORKING 

9

1. Ways of Working 

All personnel called upon to respond to an emergency situation must be suitably trained and 

equipped to carry out and discharge the duties they are assigned to. It is possible that during 

the early stages of an incident response, members of one service may spontaneously carry out 

tasks normally the responsibility of another. However, as soon as sufficient personnel are in place, 

unequivocal command and control of functions for which that service is normally responsible, 

must be put in place. 

Local Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) or similar instructions/directives must include 

direction that promotes ways of working that allow for integrated effort to take place with partner 

agencies. Such SOPs will need to focus on specific actions and considerations, as necessary, 

for the discharge of specific functions. However, these instructions should also make clear, at 

the outset, the paramount need to work jointly with multi-agency commanders and to avoid any 

conflict of effort between different responder organisations. 

The use of the Joint Decision Model (JDM), which includes the approach to establishing shared 

situational awareness and undertaking a joint assessment of risk, will enable efficient and 

effective joint working amongst the blue light responders and help determine their priorities for 

action. 

10

2. The Joint Decision Model (JDM) 

A wide range of decision-making models exist, including specific models used by the individual 

emergency services. Such models exist to practically support decision makers working under 

difficult circumstances, and a guiding principle is that they should not be over-complicated. One 

of the difficulties facing commanders from different organisations in a joint emergency response 

is how to bring together the available information, reconcile objectives and then make effective 

decisions together. The Joint Decision Model (JDM), shown at Figure 2, has been developed to 

enable this to happen. 

In common with most decision models, the JDM is organised around three primary considerations: 

Situation: what is happening, what are the impacts, what are the risks, what might happen and 

what is being done about it? Situational awareness is having an appropriate knowledge of these 

factors. 

Direction: what end-state is desired, what are the aims and objectives of the emergency response 

and what overarching values and priorities will inform and guide this? 

Action: what needs to be decided and what needs to be done to resolve the situation and achieve 

the desired end state? 

The JDM develops these considerations and sets out the various stages of how joint decisions 

should be reached. One of the guiding principles of the JDM is that decision makers will use their 

judgement and experience in deciding what additional questions to ask and considerations to 

take into account, to reach a jointly agreed decision. They must therefore be free to interpret the 

JDM for themselves, reasonably and according to the circumstances facing them at any given 

time. Strict adherence to the stepped process outlined in the JDM should always be secondary to 

achieving desired outcomes, particularly in time sensitive situations. A detailed and well-practised 

understanding of the JDM will facilitate clear and ordered thinking under stress. The following 

sections summarise the questions and considerations that commanders should think about in 

following the model. 

The JDM can be used for a rapid onset or a rising tide emergency to enable the establishment of 

shared situational awareness. 

11

Figure 2 - The Joint Decision Model 

2.1 Working Together – Saving Lives, Reducing Harm 

Joint decisions must be made with reference to the over arching or primary aim of any response 

to an emergency: to save lives and reduce harm. This is achieved through a co-ordinated, multiagency 

response. Decision makers should have this uppermost in their minds throughout the 

decision making process. 

2.2 Gather and share information and intelligence 

Situational awareness is about having appropriate answers to the following questions: what 

is happening, what are the impacts, what are the risks, what might happen and what is being 

done about it? In the context of the Joint Decision Model, shared situational awareness 

becomes critically important. Shared situational awareness is achieved by sharing information 

and understanding between the organisations involved, to build a stronger, multi-dimensional 

awareness of events, their implications, associated risks and potential outcomes. 

For major and complex emergencies, whether a rapid onset or a rising tide event, it is a simple 

fact that no one service can initially appreciate all relevant dimensions of an emergency. This 

deeper and wider understanding will only come from meaningful communication between 

the emergency services and other emergency responders. This should be built upon agreed 

procedures to share the required information and a commitment to use commonly understood 

terminology rather than service-specific terminology or jargon where this may impede 

understanding. In simple terms, commanders cannot assume other emergency service personnel 

see things or say things in the same way, and a sustained effort is required to reach a common 

view and understanding of events, risks and their implications. 

Decision making in the context of an emergency, including decisions involving the sharing 

of information, does not remove the statutory obligations of agencies or individuals, but it is 

recognised that such decisions are made against an overriding priority to save life and reduce 

harm. 

12

The sharing of personal data and sensitive personal data (including Police intelligence) requires 

further consideration before sharing across agencies and the JDM can be used as a tool to guide 

decision making on what to release and to whom. In particular, in considering the legal and policy 

implications, the following are relevant: 

• A legal framework to share information is required – in an ‘emergency’ situation this will 

generally come from Common Law (save life/property), the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 

or the Civil Contingencies Act 2004 

• Formal Information Sharing Agreements (ISA) may exist between some or all responding 

agencies but such existence does not prohibit sharing of information outside of these ISAs 

• There should be a specific purpose for sharing information 

• Information shared needs to be proportionate to the purpose and no more than necessary 

• The need to inform the recipient if any of the information is potentially unreliable or 

inaccurate 

• The need to ensure that the information is shared safely and securely – it must comply 

with the Government Protective Marking Scheme (GPMS – replaced by the Classifications 

Policy in 2014) if appropriate 

• What information is shared, when, with whom and why, should be recorded. 

The following mnemonic should be used when passing information, in the initial stages, between 

emergency responders and Control Rooms to enable the establishment of shared situational 

awareness: 

• Major incident declared? 

• Exact location; 

• Type of incident e.g. explosion, building collapse; 

• Hazards present, potential or suspected; 

• Access – routes that are safe to use; 

• Number, type, severity of casualties; 

• Emergency services now present and those required. 

2.3 Jointly assess risks, develop a working strategy 

Understanding risk is central to emergency response. The Civil Contingencies Act places a 

requirement on all Category 1 responders to have an accurate and shared understanding of 

the risks which would or may affect the geographical area for which they are responsible. A key 

task for commanders is to build and maintain a common understanding of the full range of risks 

and the way that those risks may be increased, reduced or controlled by decisions made and 

subsequent actions taken. In a major or complex emergency the blue light services will have 

unique insights into those risks and by sharing that knowledge, a common understanding can be 

established. 

The joint assessment of risk is the process by which commanders work towards a common 

understanding of threats, hazards and the likelihood of them being realised, in order to inform 

decisions on deployments and the risk control measures that are required. Risk mitigation 

measures to be employed by individual services also need to be understood by the other 

responding organisations in order to ensure any potential for unintended consequences are 

identified in advance of activity commencing. A joint assessment of the prevailing risks also limits 

13

the likelihood of any service following a course of action in which the other services are unable to 

participate. This, therefore, increases the operational effectiveness and efficiency of the response 

as well as the probability of a successful resolution of the incident. 

It is rare for a complete or perfect picture to exist and therefore a working strategy, for a rapid 

onset emergency, should be based on the information available at the time. The following should 

be taken into account when developing a working strategy: 

• What are the aims and objectives to be achieved? 

• Who by – Police, Fire, Ambulance and partner organisations? 

• When – timescales, deadlines and milestones? 

• Where – what locations? 

• Why – what is the rationale? Is this consistent with the overall strategic aims and 

objectives? 

• How are these tasks going to be achieved? 

In order to deliver an effective integrated multi-agency operational response plan, the following 

key steps must be undertaken: 

Identification of hazards – this will begin from the initial call received by a Control Room and will 

continue as first responders arrive on scene. Information gathered by individual agencies must 

be disseminated to all first responders and control rooms effectively. The use of the mnemonic 

METHANE will assist in a common approach. 

Dynamic Risk Assessment – undertaken by individual agencies, reflecting the tasks / objectives 

to be achieved, the hazards that have been identified and the likelihood of harm from those 

hazards. 

Identification of the tasks - each individual agency should identify and consider the specific tasks 

to be achieved according to its own role and responsibilities. 

Apply control measures – each agency should consider and apply appropriate control measures 

to ensure any risk is as low as reasonably practicable 

Integrated multi-agency operational response plan – the development of this plan should 

consider the outcomes of the hazard assessment and service risk assessments, within the 

context of the agreed priorities for the incident. 

Recording of decision– the outcomes of the joint assessment of risk should be recorded, 

together with the identified priorities and the agreed multi-agency response plan, when resources 

permit. It is acknowledged that in the early stages of the incident this may not be possible, but it 

should be noted that post-incident scrutiny inevitably focuses on the earliest decision making. 

14

2.4 Consider powers, policies and procedures 

Decision making in an emergency will be focussed on how to achieve the desired end state and 

there will always be various constraints and considerations that will shape how this is achieved. 

Powers, policies and procedures relate to any relevant laws, operating procedures or policies 

that may impact on the desired response plan and the capabilities that are available to be 

deployed. They may impact on how individual services will need to operate and co-operate in 

order to achieve the agreed aims and objectives. In the context of a joint response, a common 

understanding of any relevant powers, policies, capabilities and procedures is essential in order 

that the activities of one service compliment and do not compromise, the approach of the other 

services. 

2.5 Identify options and contingencies 

There will almost always be more than one option to achieve the desired end state and it is good 

practice that a range of options are identified and rigorously evaluated. Any potential option or 

course of action should be evaluated with respect to: 

• Suitability – does it fit with the strategic direction? 

• Feasibility – in resource terms can it be done? 

• Acceptability – is it legal, morally defensible and justifiable? 

An option may include deploying resources, briefing the public (mainstream and social media) or 

developing a contingency or emergency plan. Whichever options are chosen, it is essential that 

commanders are clear what they are required to carry out and there should be clearly agreed 

procedures for communicating any decision to defer, abort or initiate a specific tactic. 

Contingencies relate to events that may occur and the arrangements that are put in place to 

respond to them should they occur. For example, strong evidence may suggest that an emergency 

is being successfully managed and the impacts safely controlled, but there remains a likelihood 

that the situation could deteriorate with significant impacts. Simply hoping for the best is not 

a defensible option and a contingency in this case may be to define measures to adjust the 

response should the situation deteriorate. 

2.6 Take action and review what happened 

Building situational awareness, setting direction and evaluating options all lead to taking the 

actions that are judged to be the most effective and efficient in resolving an emergency and 

returning to a new normality. As the JDM is a continuous loop, it is essential that the results of 

those actions are fed back into the first box – Gather and share information and intelligence 

– which establishes shared situational awareness. This will, in turn, shape any revision to the 

direction and risk assessment and the cycle continues. 

15

3. Operational, Tactical and Strategic Levels of Command 

The Operational, Tactical and Strategic are tiers of command adopted by each of the emergency 

services, and most partner emergency response organisations, are role, not rank, related. These 

functions are broadly equivalent to those described as Bronze, Silver and Gold in other documents 

about emergency procedures. It should be understood that the titles do not convey seniority of 

service or rank, but depict the function carried out by that particular person or group. The over 

arching response structure is shown at Figure 3. 

For the purpose of clarity, this document refers only to the generic tiers of command and not 

individual service-specific functional activities. In essence, there must be a clear and identified 

commander responsible for co-ordinating their service’s activity at each of the identified command 

levels. 

It is essential that the appointed commanders of each service, operating at every level, liaise with 

each other at the earliest opportunity. Operational Commanders, particularly, must make every 

effort to achieve the closest co-ordination by meeting face-to-face. 

3.1 Operational 

The Operational Commander will control and deploy the resources of their respective service 

within a functional or geographical area and implement direction provided by the Tactical 

commander. As the incident progresses and more resources attend the scene, the level of 

supervision will increase in proportion. 

It is vital that both Operational and Tactical Commanders of each service are easily identifiable 

on the incident ground. By using this universal structure, the emergency services will be able to 

communicate with each other and understand each other’s functions and authority. The roles and 

responsibilities of Operational Commanders are at Annex D. 

3.2 Tactical 

The Tactical Commander will be located where they can maintain effective tactical command of 

the operation. This includes consideration of effective joint working with other services and other 

factors such as access to communications systems. They should attend the scene dependent 

on these considerations and the nature of the incident. For example, a single contained scene 

with limited wider impact – more likely to attend scene; multiple scenes or mobile threat and 

significant wider impact – more likely to command from an established control room. The roles 

and responsibilities of Tactical Commanders are at Annex E. 

16

3.3 Strategic 

Figure 3 - Overarching Response Structure 

The Strategic Commander in overall charge of each service is responsible for formulating the 

strategy for the incident. Each Strategic Commander has overall command of the resources of 

their own organisation, but will delegate implementation decisions to their respective tactical 

level commanders. At the earliest opportunity, a strategic group will determine/confirm a specific 

response strategy and record a strategy statement. The roles and responsibilities of Strategic 

Commanders are shown at Annex F. 

3.4 Inter-agency resources 

Any service may request the temporary assistance of personnel and equipment of another. 

In these circumstances, while the supporting service will relinquish the immediate control 

of those resources to the other service for the duration of the task, it will nevertheless keep 

overall command of its personnel and equipment at all times. Personnel from one service who 

help another in this way should only be given tasks for which they are trained and should not 

supplement the other service in a potentially dangerous way. 

There is also a network of National Inter-Agency Liaison Officers (NILO) who are trained and 

qualified to provide advice as part of the Command Support Team. 

3.5 Overarching Response Structure 

The details of the operation and co-ordination of sub-national and national levels for emergency 

response can be found in the UK Government Concept of Operations and the relevant chapters of 

Emergency Response and Recovery. The nature and severity of the emergency will determine the 

need for the involvement of the sub-national and national tiers, whilst its location will dictate the 

potential engagement of the Devolved Administrations in Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales. 

The purpose of the national level, whether managed by a Lead Government Department (LGD) 

or cross-government working conducted through the Cabinet Office Briefing Rooms (COBR), is 

to address co-ordination across all relevant government departments and across and between 

multiple local Strategic Coordinating Groups (SCGs). This includes the marshalling, prioritisation 

17

and allocation of scarce national resources (e.g. heavy lift helicopters) to local control. The 

invocation of national and sub-national arrangements do not relieve or override the local 

responsibilities of the SCG, which remain unchanged, although their considerations will be 

informed and influenced by national policies, strategy and coordinating instructions. The roles 

and responsibilities of an SCG together with a standing agenda, are shown at Annex G. 

3.6 Joint Learning 

Many post-event debriefs and inquiries have highlighted specific learning points to improve future 

response efforts. Single service debriefs and post-event investigations have similarly highlighted 

the need for internal improvements. 

In order to facilitate operational debriefing and to provide evidence for inquiries (whether judicial, 

public, technical, inquest or of some other form), it is essential to keep records. Single-agency and 

inter-agency debriefing processes should aim to capture information while memories are fresh. 

For this reason a joint hot debrief should be undertaken by commanders as soon as practicable 

following the event. 

Learning is the acquisition and development of knowledge, skills and attitudes which determine 

behaviour and how people will respond to circumstances. All three elements are important. How 

people learn is far from straightforward and it may be achieved through direct experience, study of 

the experience and insights of others, or being taught, either formally or in various informal ways. 

It is important to distinguish between lessons identified and lessons learned. Identifying lessons 

is the process of extracting and communicating issues that require some form of change to 

avoid negative events occurring again, or to reinforce good practice. Learning lessons is the 

more complex process of making and embedding those changes in a way that is reflected in how 

organisations operate and individuals behave. 

Joint learning describes both the identification of lessons relevant to joint working, and the 

process of learning those lessons. Individual services have their own approaches for identifying 

and learning lessons, but building and sustaining interoperability requires that these lessons are 

shared in order that unintended consequences (e.g. change that enhances the efficiency of single 

service operations but to the detriment of the effectiveness of joint operations) are minimised, 

and opportunities for greater interoperability are realised. This requires a commitment to sharing 

and prioritising lessons with implications for joint working. 

Lesson identification, dissemination and the development of subsequent action plans to make 

and embed change should be undertaken through a formal debrief process managed by the 

Local Resilience Forum (LRF).Further work is being undertaken by JESIP as part of the legacy 

arrangements to ensure that lessons identified from joint working are referred to a national Tri- 

Service Governance Board for consideration. This will ensure that any associated action, either 

single or joint service, as a result of this joint learning of lessons, is made, and the changes 

embedded into how organisations operate and individuals behave. Part of this work will be 

to consider the opportunities for joint debriefs and how this can be facilitated and formally 

structured.

ANNEXES 

C. Operational Commander Roles and Responsibilities 

D. Tactical Commander Roles and Responsibilities 

E. Strategic Commander Roles and Responsibilities 

F. Strategic Coordination Group Roles and Responsibilities 

19

Annex C 

Operational Commander Roles & Responsibilities 

The over arching aim of the Operational Commander is to ensure rapid and effective actions are 

implemented that save lives, minimise harm and mitigate the incident. To achieve this you will 

need to: 

• Make an initial assessment of the situation and ensure appropriate resources are 

requested and where appropriate, that a declaration of a major incident takes place; 

• Have an understanding of the role of each agency in the effective management and 

coordination of victims, survivors and relatives; 

• Use the Joint Decision Model (JDM) to establish shared situational awareness by agreeing 

a common view of the situation, its consequences and potential outcomes and the actions 

required for its resolution; 

• Carry out a briefing at the earliest opportunity. Ensure the message is clear and 

commonly understood, at regular intervals; 

• Convene joint meetings and use the JDM to share and coordinate information, intelligence 

and operational plans, to ensure multi-agency compatibility and a clear understanding of 

the initial tactical priorities and ongoing tactics; 

• Using the JDM, maintain shared situational awareness through effective communication to 

all multi-agency organisations, to assist in the implementation of the operational plan; 

• Using the JDM, construct a joint action plan, and priorities necessary for its execution, in 

sufficient detail for each service to have a clear understanding of the other responders’ 

future activities by nature, location and time. Understand all the multi-agency on-scene 

commander roles, core responsibilities, requirements and capabilities (including gaps); 

• Identify and agree the triggers, signals and arrangements for the emergency evacuation of 

the scene or area within it, or similar urgent control measures. 

• Using the JDM, conduct, record and share ongoing dynamic risk assessments, putting in 

place appropriate control measures with appropriate actions and review; 

• Understand how continually changing hazards/risks affect each organisation and work 

with your multi-agency colleagues to address these issues; 

• Ensure your legal and statutory responsibilities are met and action them in relation to the 

health, safety and welfare of individuals from your organisation during the response; 

• Make and share decisions within your agreed level of responsibility, being cognisant of 

consequence management, and disseminate these decisions for action to multi-agency 

colleagues; 

• Using the JDM, identify and action the challenges your organisation’s operational plan may 

cause multi-agency partners; 

• Determine whether the situation requires the activation of the next level of command 

support (Tactical Coordinating Group (TCG)) and make appropriate recommendation; 

• Update the Tactical Commander on any changes, including any variation in agreed multiagency 

tactics within their geographical/functional area of responsibility; 

20

• Ensure appropriate support at the scene by your organisation, in terms of communications 

operatives and loggists - if available NILO support or equivalent should be provided. The 

amount and type of support will be determined by the incident and requirements from the 

on scene commander; 

• Consider organisational post-incident procedures. 

21

Annex D 

Tactical Commander Key Roles and Responsibilities 

The overarching aim of the Tactical Commander is to ensure rapid and effective actions are 

implemented that save lives and reduce harm. The Joint Decision Model (JDM) should be used as 

the standing agenda for Tactical Co-ordinating Group (TCG) meetings. To achieve the overarching 

aim, you will need to: 

• Be aware of and understand the multi-agency command structure, commander roles, 

responsibilities, requirements and capabilities (including gaps) and monitor the on-scene 

command structure including functional roles; 

• Determine whether the situation merits the activation of the strategic level of coordination 

and recommend accordingly; 

• Establish a common view of the situation between the responder agencies. Initiate 

(if appropriate) and identify the chair of a multi-agency TCG meeting at the earliest 

opportunity, and then at regular intervals, to ensure shared situational awareness; 

• Construct and agree the overall joint intent, objectives and concept of operations for their 

achievement within a joint plan. At regular intervals assess and disseminate, through 

the appropriate communication links, the available information and intelligence to 

properly evaluate threats, hazards, vulnerabilities and own actions in order to establish 

and maintain multi-agency shared situational awareness and promote effective decision 

making; 

• Provide accurate and timely information to inform and protect communities, working with 

the media and utilising social media through a multi-agency approach; 

• Understand how continually changing threats and hazards affect each organisation and 

work with multi-agency colleagues to conduct joint dynamic risk assessments, putting in 

place appropriate mitigation and management arrangements to continually monitor and 

respond to the changing nature of emergencies for your organisation; 

• Ensure your legal and statutory responsibilities are met and doctrine considered in 

relation to the health, safety, human rights, data protection and welfare of individuals from 

your organisation during the response; 

• Share and co-ordinate operational plans to ensure multi-agency compatibility and 

understanding of both the initial tactical priorities and ongoing tactics; 

• Identify and agree a common multi-agency forward control point for all Operational 

Commanders and remain suitably located in order to maintain effective tactical command 

of the incident or operation and maintain shared situational awareness; 

• Manage and coordinate, where required, multi-agency resources and activities, providing a 

joined-up and directed response; 

• Liaise with relevant organisations to address the longer-term priorities of restoring 

essential services, and help to facilitate the recovery of affected communities; 

• Ensure that all tactical decisions made, and the rationale behind them, are documented 

in a decision log, to ensure that a clear audit trail exists for all multi-agency debriefs and 

future multi-agency learning; 

• Facilitate or make available debriefing facilities (supporting the Operational Commander 

and debriefing them). 

22

Annex E 

Strategic Commander Roles & Responsibilities 

• Protect life, property and the environment; 

• Set, review, communicate and update the strategy, based on available intelligence and the 

threat and risk; 

• Attend and possibly chair a Strategic Co-ordinating Group (SCG), if established, or consider 

the need to request that a SCG is set up; 

• Consult partner agencies and community groups when determining the strategy; 

• Become involved in making tactical level decisions, where appropriate; 

• Consider setting tactical parameters within which the Tactical Tier can work; 

• Become involved in briefings where appropriate; 

• Remain available to other agency Strategic or Tactical Tiers of Command, to ensure that 

appropriate communication mechanisms exist at a local, regional and national level; 

• Ensure that, where appropriate, command protocols are set, agreed and understood by all 

relevant parties; 

• Secure strategic resources in order to resolve the incident and prioritise the allocation of 

resources, where appropriate; 

• Ensure that there are clear lines of communication between Category 1 and 2 responders 

and appropriate agencies; 

• Review and ensure the resilience and effectiveness of the command team, identify the 

requirements for assistance from the wider resilience community and manage them 

accordingly; 

• Plan beyond the immediate response phase for recovering from the emergency and 

returning to normality; 

• Have overall responsibility within the command structure for health and safety, diversity, 

equality and human rights compliance and ensuring that relevant impact assessments are 

completed; 

• Identify the level of support needed to resolve the incident or operation and resource your 

agency’s response; 

• Have responsibility for the development of communication and media strategies; 

• Carry out a post-incident hot debrief, and debrief. 

23

Annex F 

Strategic Coordinating Group Roles & Responsibilities 

The purpose of an SCG (as set out in the non-statutory guidance contained in Emergency 

Response and Recovery) is to: take overall responsibility for the multi-agency management of 

the emergency and establish the policy and strategic framework within which lower levels of 

command and co-ordinating groups will work.The SCG will: 

• Determine and promulgate a clear strategic aim and objectives and review them regularly; 

• Establish a policy framework for the overall management of the event or situation; 

• Prioritise the requirements of the tactical tier and allocate personnel and resources 

accordingly; 

• Formulate and implement media handling and public communication plans, potentially 

delegating this to one responding agency; and 

• Direct planning and operations beyond the immediate response in order to facilitate the 

recovery process. 

The SCG does not have the collective authority to issue executive orders to individual responder 

agencies. Each organisation retains its own command authority and defined responsibilities, and 

exercises command of its own operations in the normal way. However, the co-ordinated direction 

and instructions that the SCG produce will be converted by each responder into appropriate 

commands down its own command structure and transmitted directly to all subordinate Tactical 

Co-ordinating Groups. These are well practised and understood arrangements that are used 

regularly across the country. 

It will normally, but not always, be the role of the police to co-ordinate activity with other 

organisations and therefore to chair the SCG. The police are particularly likely to field an SCG chair 

where there is an immediate threat to human life, a possibility that the emergency was a result of 

criminal or terrorist activity, or where there are significant public order implications. Under these 

circumstances, the same person may be the Police Strategic Commander and the SCG Chair. In 

other types of emergency, for instance certain health or maritime scenarios, an agency other than 

the police may initiate and lead the SCG. 

The SCG may take more than an hour to set up and obtain a clear picture of unfolding events. As a 

first priority it must formulate a strategy with key objectives that will encompass and provide focus 

for all of the activity of the responding organisations. To ensure that coordinated effort is enabled, 

even before the SCG first meets, a working strategy should be immediately available to promote 

priority actions. When the SCG meets and gains a full understanding of the situation, they should 

then review and amend the working strategy and adjust objectives and priorities as necessary. A 

working strategy that should be used as the default initial start point is provided overleaf, together 

with initial objectives and enabling actions for further consideration 

The SCG should be based at an appropriate location away from the scene. The location at which 

the SCG meets,with its supporting staff in place, is referred to as the Strategic Coordination 

Centre. This will usually, but not always be at the headquarters of the lead service or organisation 

24

(e.g. police headquarters). The location of meetings may change when another agency takes the 

lead for the Recovery Co-ordination Group when the focus moves from response to recovery. 

SCG STANDING STRATEGY AND MEETING AGENDA 

Standing Strategy to Enable the Immediate Response Activity to any 

Emergency Situation 

To contain the situation in order to save lives and limit the effect of both the direct consequences 

created by the emergency event and any indirect consequences caused by responder activity. 

Governing Objectives 

• Protect and preserve life; 

• Mitigate and minimise the impact of challenging events; 

• Maintain life support infrastructure and essential services; 

• Promote restoration and improvement activity in the aftermath of a challenging event. 

Enabling Activity 

The following activities will need to be in place to promote an effective response: 

• The creation and sharing of a Common Information Picture of unfolding events across all 

of the responding organisations; 

• Simplified procedures for making joint decisions and issue of timely direction; 

• Prioritisation of tasks; 

• Allocation of finite resources; 

• Cross boundary co-operation between partners. 

Functional Activities 

The governing objectives above are designed to encompass but not prioritise (that is the function 

of commanders at every level) the following list of activities: 

• Saving and preserving human life; 

• Relieving suffering; 

• Containing the emergency, limiting its escalation and spread; 

• Providing the public and businesses with warnings, information and advice; 

• Protecting the health and safety of responding personnel; 

• Safeguarding the environment; 

• As far as is reasonably practicable protecting property; 

• Maintaining or restoring critical activities; 

• Maintaining normal services at an appropriate level; 

• Promoting and facilitating self-help within the community; 

• Facilitating investigations and inquiries (by scene preservation, record keeping); 

• Facilitating the recovery of the community (including humanitarian assistance, economic 

infrastructure and environmental impacts); 

25

• Evaluating the response and recovery effort; 

• Identifying and taking action to implement lessons learnt; 

• Upholding the rule of law. 

26

SCG Meeting - Standing Agenda 

Preliminaries: Pre notified seating plan by organisation & name plates for attendees in place 

Item 

Lead 

1. Introductions (by exception and only where deemed necessary) Chair 

2. Declaration of items for urgent attention Chair 

3. Confirmation of decisions on urgent items Chair 

Adjourn as Necessary to Action Urgent Issues 

4. Situational briefing (including any clarifications or recent updates from Chief of Staff/ 

attendees by exception onlyInformation Manager/Attendees 

5. Review and agree strategy and priorities Chair 

6. Review outstanding actions and their effect Chair 

i. Determine new strategic actions required 

ii. Allocate responsibility for agreed actions 

7. Confirm date and time of next meeting (alongside an established meeting rhythm)Chair 

Post Meeting: Distribute record of decisions, ensure decision log is 

updated & complete 

Sec/Chair 

27

JESIP 

JOINT EMERGENCY SERVICES 

INTEROPERABILITY PROGRAMME 

Working Together – Saving Lives 

JESIP website: www.jesip.org.uk 

JESIP email: jesip@homeoffice.x.gsi.gov.uk 

HO_02046_G




Item lead at meeting: Rob Beckley 


Title of paper: Volunteer PCSOs/Patrolling Volunteers 

1. Issue 

1.1 The purpose of this paper is to brief the Professional Committee on the 

options in respect of the setting up of “Volunteer PCSOs” and other patrolling 

volunteer schemes. It focuses in particular on the issues concerning powers 

that could be assigned to such roles. It seeks the endorsement of the 

Professional Committee for an approach to Government to ensure there is 

legislative under-pinning of any powers that might be used by volunteer 

PSCOs. 


2.1 It is recommended that the: 

 

Professional Committee support the concept of volunteer PCSOs if 

individual forces decide to pursue it as a policing option; 

Citizens in Policing Portfolio oversee this development to ensure 

consistency of approach and style; 

 

 

 

Home Office is engaged to determine whether there would be support for 

the limited trial of designation of powers to volunteer PCSOs in one or 

more forces; 

Citizens in Policing Portfolio approach the Home Office to ensure the issue 

of powers is addressed by them in any future legislation; and the 

College of Policing carries out an analysis of the powers that are deemed 

most relevant and useful. This could include evidence of the extent and 

frequency of the use of current PCSO powers, especially in rural areas. 

3. Summary 

3.1 There is a growing appetite for the development of a patrolling volunteer 

that broadens the Citizens in Policing Programme. 


Professional Committee Date 13 November 2013: 


Author: DCC Rob Beckley, Co- Author DCC Michael Banks 

Version 1


3.2 With the introduction of Police and Crime Commissioners there are many 

that want to broaden active citizenship in policing. A number have made a 

commitment to increase visibility in a time of reducing resource. Some have 

talked about developing patrolling volunteers and have talked about 

developing this concept regardless of whether it is taken up more widely in 

the service. It is, of course, a matter for individual Chief Constables and 

PCCs to adopt the options available that provide the best benefit to their 

individual communities and force areas. 

3.3 The law relating to accreditation of powers and its relevance to volunteers is 

unclear. There is a fundamental issue as to whether volunteers can be given 

designated powers. Home Office and College of Policing legal advice has 

suggested that there is a risk if current powers under CSAS or PCSO 

legislation are extended to include volunteers. 

The Concept – Features and Powers 

3.4 The concept of uniformed patrolling volunteers is usually articulated as 

including the following features: 

I. Visible Reassurance: The volunteers must be a visible presence. They 

must embody the concept of communities helping themselves whilst 

maintaining a clear link to the Policing Family. 

II. Police Direction and Control: They should be uniformed and be 

directed and controlled by the police, or have the ability to be directed 

and controlled by the police. 

III. Ability to deal with low level issues: Mirroring the PCSO role, these 

volunteers should have powers to deal with issues as necessary. They 

must have the resource that allows them to do the job they have been 

asked to do. 

IV. Accountability: The volunteers must be committed and accountable to 

their communities, creating an extension to the existing Police 

Volunteer Family. 

3.5 Setting up a patrolling volunteer cohort in policing in effect provides a ‘third 

pillar’ of volunteering within the Police 1 : 

Police Officers 

Police Staff 

PCSOs 

Special Constabulary 

Police Support Volunteers 

[Patrolling Volunteer] 

1 Direct Volunteering – directed and controlled. This differentiates between this form of volunteering and links 

to the Voluntary Sector. 




DCC Rob Beckley, Co- Author DCC Michael Banks 

Version 1


3.6 There is a consistent view that any volunteer PCSOs (or similar concept) 

should have limited powers. There are three types of designated power that 

could be considered: 

S.38 Police Reform Act – provides for the designation of powers to, 

amongst others, PCSOs. Legislation requires that the CC appoints 

as a ‘member of staff’. Whilst there is no definition of ‘member of 

staff’, Home Office legal advice suggested that the wording of the 

Act suggests this requires them to be an employee. 

S.41 Police Reform Act – commonly known as CSAS – provides for the 

accreditation of organisations other than the police for the purposes 

of community safety. It allows individuals to be accredited with 

relevant powers, necessary to achieve their role. It also requires 

that they are employees. 

 

Special Constables – attested as regular constables. They hold 

officer under legislation and are paid an allowance, but not salaried. 

They have full officer powers. 

3.7 Providing volunteers with powers has recently been pioneered by the 

National Crime Agency. The NCA has created volunteers, some with powers. 

They have used legislation to establish ‘NCA Specials’; these Volunteers are 

called ‘unpaid employees’, they operate under contracts of employment and 

are subject to similar direction and control that applies to their paid staff. 

These have, however, been created through primary legislation which does 

not apply to the wider public service. 

Options: 

Option 1 – Maintaining Volunteer Street Patrols without powers 

3.8 The option of Patrolling Volunteers without designated powers remains 

popular in many parts of the UK. They provide visibility and reassurance to 

communities without training, legal or cost implications. 

3.9 Existing examples may be adapted to other disciplines; Rural Community 

Watch in Avon and Somerset Constabulary for example provides volunteer 

reassurance on horseback. This has proven to be very successful, assisted 

with events and missing persons searches without the need for delegated 

powers. 

3.10 However, this is felt to be insufficient for some forces who wish to create 

volunteer PCSOs. It may be a suitable ‘temporary solution’ whilst any 

necessary primary legislation is sought – in the East Midlands Region, 

Lincolnshire and Northamptonshire have offered to run a trial that would also 

provide weight to any argument surrounding the need for powers. 

Option 2 – Accredited Volunteers 





Version 1


3.11 This concept currently operates in the form of Auxiliary Community 

Protection Officers in Nottinghamshire. The uniformed officers are accredited 

under CSAS. Though volunteers, they are designated with a wide range of 

powers according to need. They sit under the Local Authority and 

predominantly deal with environmental issues, though have powers to deal 

with similar issues to PCSOs. 

3.12 The legality of this concept is currently under review. 

3.13 This option does not allow the volunteer to sit directly within the police, but 

affords all the powers and other considerations required within the 

aforementioned ‘primary features’. By not sitting within the police, there is 

also a potential cost share between the police and Local Authority. 

3.14 The individuals cannot be directed and controlled by the police, CSAS does 

not permit this. They would therefore need to be directed by Local Authority. 

3.15 There is an alternative within this concept to host these volunteers within 

the Voluntary/Community Sector, as opposed to Local Authority. 

Option 3 – Volunteer PCSOs 

3.16 This concept provides an option sitting directly within the Police Family, 

exercising the same powers and carrying the same responsibilities as paid 

PCSOs. 

3.17 Following legal advice there is debate over whether legislation would be 

required to enable their introduction. This would be a long term option if 

primary legislation is required, based on the standard timescales for primary 

legislation change. 

3.18 The cost for such an option would sit with the police, but will be solely 

directed and controlled by the police. Such direction and control is a 

favoured option amongst, for example, Lincolnshire in setting out their 

expectations of the concept. 

Option 4 – Second Tier of Special Constabulary 

3.19 Within the Special Constabulary sit more powers than are required within this 

concept. However, the thrust behind the concept is to achieve an old style 

‘Parish Constable’. This sits as easily within a modified Special Constabulary 

as within the Citizens in Policing Portfolio. 

3.20 There are two ways to achieve this: limiting powers conferred upon them 

(requiring changes to primary legislation); or limiting their deployment (SCs 

would still be obliged to use their powers as necessary) operating in a similar 

way to the current ‘Beat Manager’. 





Version 1


3.21 To designate fewer powers on a Special Constable again requires changes to 

primary legislation; this would solely be a deployment option for an 

expanded Special Constabulary. 

3.22 Given the hard work in developing a more professional consistency this 

option is not favoured by the Special Constabulary or the Workforce 

Development Business Area. 

Cost 

3.23 Volunteering is not free, but offers excellent value for money and further 

qualitative benefits. Any decision would require careful assessment of the 

infrastructure requirements to properly support these volunteers. 

The key issue – can a volunteer be an employee? 

3.24 There is no clear legal view on whether volunteers can be deemed an 

“employee” and thus take on current powers. A previous Supreme Court 

Case 2 stated that an individual was not an employee for the purposes of the 

case as they didn’t have a contract. The judgement did not go on to say 

whether a volunteer can be contracted. This is still unclear. 

3.25 Therefore, it may be that ‘volunteer’ and ‘employee’ are mutually exclusive 

terms and there are many complications surrounding this argument. 

Certainly, the PSV Programme historically maintained the distinction 

between volunteers and employees to prevent legal challenge 3 

3.26 Any volunteering ‘solution’ that involves a ‘contract of employment’, or 

conditions that create and employer/employee relationship will be subject to 

liabilities incumbent upon the police service or host organisation that need to 

be carefully considered. These liabilities include rights over unfair dismissal, 

employment relations act, working time directive, anti-discrimination 

legislation, and health and safety legislation. It is questionable though 

whether this would concern a force, that would hopefully welcome proper 

treatment of their volunteers. 

3.27 If a contracted volunteer is deemed to be an employee under the Minimum 

Wage Act, for example, they would not fit the exclusion under s.44, and 

therefore, they would have to be paid as an employee. If they are classed as 

a volunteer they may not satisfy the ‘employee’ requirements for accredited 

powers and therefore, any power exercised may be illegal. 

3.28 If a force were to accredit or designate powers, it creates a risk. Legal advice 

suggests it would be a waiting game for a legal challenge of any concept, but 

if successful the results could foreseeably require repayment of any illegally 

issued fines, dependent on the judgement. 

2 Sussex CAB 

3 PSVs have taken Forces to Court on two times to our knowledge – both failed due to not being able to prove 

and employer/ee relationship. Additionally, the RNLI in some cases store all their volunteer documents in a 

separate room to their employees documents, such is their sensitivity to this. 





Version 1


Other risks 

3.29 Variations in practice: Differing options may create a confusing landscape. 

Individual forces may implement different solutions or lobby independently 

for legislative change. 

3.30 Concerns over Job Substitution: The risk often raised by many on hearing 

the term ‘volunteer PCSO’ is that it is a backdoor way to make PCSOs 

redundant. If anything the commitment of PCCs and Chief Constables 

indicate the opposite intention. The longstanding principle of the PSV 

programme is that ‘Volunteers provide additionally, not job substitution’. 

3.31 Reputation: The legal issues surrounding these options could result in a risk 

for the reputation of the police service. The CSAS scheme has been 

controversial in the past and this could be extended to a volunteer patrolling 

scheme especially if it is not placed within a clear legal framework. Also, 

while PCSOs are now lauded as a cornerstone of Neighbourhood Policing in 

the vast majority of public media and forums, there is a risk that 

volunteering might re-ignite the debate of ‘policing on the cheap’. 


4.1 The idea of a “volunteer PCSO” was raised in the Flanagan Report in 2008. At 

the time the idea did not gain a lot of traction. Proposals were discussed with 

Ministers but there was not an appetite to change legislation or risk any 

dispute with unions. 

4.2 In the intervening period there has been an increase in citizen patrols such as 

Street Watch (linked closely with the Police and established in 19 forces) and 

Street Pastors and Angels (faith based and more independent of the police). 

4.3 Since the election of Police and Crime Commissioners, there has been much 

more debate around this idea, especially the concept of volunteer PCSOs. 

Some PCCs are keen on the idea of volunteer PCSOs, whilst others mooted 

the idea of Parish Constables or community patrols with limited powers. The 

PCC of Lincolnshire, for example, has publically pledged to develop a 

volunteer PCSO scheme and other PCCs are very interested in the idea. 

4.4 Those who wish to develop such schemes have a consistent vision based on 

the provision of opportunities for volunteer members of the public being 

active, visible on the streets, and empowered to make our communities safer. 

There is not, however, consensus on the actual solution. 

4.5 This paper seeks the support of the Professional Committee, and is also 

intended to be submitted to the next Chief Constables Council meeting for 

further approval. 





Version 1


Author name: 


(Following CiPP portfolio handover and update) 

Author job title: Chief Operating Officer, College of Policing 

(DCC Michael Banks: National Policing Lead for Citizens 

in Policing) 

Author email: 

Rob.Beckely@college.pnn.police.uk 

(Michael.Banks@durham.pnn.police.uk) 

Author tel. number: (0191 375 2265) 

Sponsor: 

Chief Constable Simon Cole (National Lead Local 

Policing & Partnership Business Area. 





Version 1



Date of meeting: 13 th November 2013 

Item lead at meeting: Karen Daber 


Title of paper: Integrity Programme Update November 2013 

1 Issue – provision of an update on the Integrity Programme 

2 Recommendations 

2.1 That the Professional Committee endorses progress made to date, and raises any 

significant issues for consideration by the Programme Team. 

3 Summary 

3.1 The Code of Ethics was launched for public consultation on 24 th October 2013 (copy of 

the draft Code is attached at Annex A). 

3.2 The first draft of the literature review to identify what works to reduce wrongdoing in 

policing and non-policing organisations has been delivered as part of the Evidence Base 

Workstream. 

3.3 Professor Shirley Pearce and Alex Marshall attended the Home Affairs Select Committee 

(HASC) to give evidence about integrity and ethics. To date one recommendation has 

been received which is being considered by the programme team. 

3.4 The programme will produce a report summarising the phase 1 deliverables and the 

lessons learned. 

3.5 Scoping for phase 2 of the programme is underway, this will include National 


4 Supporting information / Consideration 

4.1 The implementation strategy and plan will include feedback from the public and forcelevel 

consultation. It will also be informed by work ongoing with this year’s Strategic 

Command Course delegates who have been assigned a piece of work that will involve 

devising a plan to promote higher levels of integrity and ethics within their 

organisations. 

4.2 Update on the force-level internal questionnaire on the Code of Ethics: so far there have 

been 212 responses to the questionnaire. There are currently 16 forces who have 

responded. This includes five responses from chief officers. We have 39 responses 

Professional Committee Date: 7 th November 2013 


Author: Karen Daber

from the Met, which comparative to the size of the force, is not very many. The largest 

response has come from police staff, 64 responses, followed by PCs, 61 responses. The 

responses are currently being analysed to identify themes to inform the next 

implementation phase. 

4.3 The College Integrity mail box has received 74 emails about the Code of Ethics. 

4.4 The draft national Code of Practice for Vetting is with subject matter experts for 

feedback. Legal opinion is being sought on the code. The College of Policing will review 

its own internal management and security vetting accordingly. This work is advancing 

to provide additional clarity and consistency for vetting of chief officers and those 

aspiring to senior rank, as is revised guidance over the detail supporting flagstone 

markers on the Police National Database. 

4.5 CPOSA, DCC David Griffin, has been consulted over vetting of chief officers and has 

considered the proposals and has no issues. 

4.6 Consultation to date indicates there has been broad support for the proposal of a two 

tier register of “struck off” officers. Legal opinion is being sought, particularly as to 

whether the misconduct regime still applies if an officer resigns or retires. 

4.7 A single national register will be compiled from data gathered from Heads of 

Professional Standards departments. This single national register will be held internally. 

Only after such time that the relevant and appropriate legal safeguards have been 

received will names be made publicly available. 

4.8 A web-page is being developed that provides accessibility and transparency for chief 

officer reward packages, gifts and hospitality and business interests. 

4.9 Body worn cameras: there has been a great deal of interest to take part in the trials. A 

follow-up meeting has been arranged with the Metropolitan Police Service on the scope 

of Body Worn Video trials in London. Body Worn Video trials to support Essex in relation 

to domestic abuse have been agreed. The College Research Analysis and Information 

Unit continue to progress this work. 

4.10 The Workforce Development Workstream has undertaken preparatory work in the form 

of focus groups with operational officers and will extend this to embed the Code of 

Ethics within recruitment, retention and progression in the police service. 

4.11 Work is progressing towards a 360° feedback system to further promote and embed 

integrity; to explore and encourage mentoring and coaching schemes, particularly for 

chief officers; and to benchmark and provide guidance for chief officer PDRs. A 

substantial element of this workstream is ensuring integrity is a focus on all College of 

Policing products and services. 

Author name: 

Karen Daber 

Author job title: Senior Responsible Owner 

Author email: 

Karen.daber@college.pnn.police.uk 

Author tel number: Programme Office: 0203 113 7959 

Email: Integrity.Team@college.pnn.police.uk 

Sponsor: 


Professional Committee Date: 7 th November 2013 


Author: Karen Daber




Item lead at meeting: Alex Marshall 


Title of paper: 

College of Policing Consultation Process for Regulations and Codes 

of Practice 

1. Issue 

1.1 To seek approval for a proposed Consultation Group and consultation process for 

introducing Regulations, Codes of Practice and relevant guidance as defined in the Anti- 

Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill. 


2.1 That the Professional Committee: 

approves the proposed establishment of a Consultation Group as outlined in this 

paper; and 

notes that a more detailed proposal and draft Terms of Reference will be presented 

to the Professional Committee in January 2014. 

3. Summary 

3.1 This paper sets out the approach to consultation that the College of Policing intends to 

take, should the proposed powers in the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill 

gain Royal Assent. Those powers relate to the College developing or revising Police 

Regulations, guidance and Codes of Practice, as defined within the legislation. 

3.2 The development of Police Regulations is currently overseen by the Police Advisory 

Board of England and Wales (PABEW), at which the staff associations and other 

stakeholders negotiate a position to present to the Home Secretary. The transfer of 

powers to the College require the establishment of a new consultation body and 

process to support the development and implementation of Regulations, Codes of 

Practice and relevant guidance. 

3.3 All of those consulted have agreed that early and inclusive consultation results in better 

Regulations that are robust and workable. 


4.1 The Current position 



Author: David Hardcastle

4.2 The Police Act 1996 confers a power on the Home Secretary to issue police Regulations 

and Codes of Practice to chief officers and, where necessary, to make regulations 

regarding police practice or procedure. 

4.3 Under current arrangements these Regulations and Codes of Practice are developed 

and enacted by the Home Office and a formal consultation process for Regulations 

takes place through the PABEW. Part 10 of the current Bill transfers to the College 

some of the responsibilities now exercised by PABEW and PABEW will, therefore, no 

longer be the consultation body. 

5. The Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill 

5.1 Part 10 of the Bill confers upon the College a range of statutory powers that will enable 

it to meet its objectives. They are related to: 

the preparation of Police Regulations that the Home Secretary will make; 

the issuing of Codes of Practice, with the approval of the Home Secretary; and 

the issuing of guidance relating to police staff and contractors. 

Further detail is attached as Annex A. 

5.2 The College is required to consult with the National Crime Agency on draft Regulations, 

but the Bill does not set out any procedure for consultation with staff associations, 

unions or any other interested parties in the development of the Regulations, Codes of 

Practice or guidance as defined by the Bill. 

6. Decision Making Process 

6.1 The Board Ways of Working and Professional Committee Terms of Reference make 

clear that the Board has not delegated authority to the Professional Committee to sign 

off draft Regulations, Codes of Practice or guidance (as defined in the Bill). All such 

products must be approved by the Board. As with other work of the Professional 

Committee, the Chief Constables’ Council will have a role in considering operational 


6.2 The College’s decision making processes also includes referral to PCCs, particularly in 

relation to issues of resources and PCCs are represented on the Professional 

Committee. The College is seeking the views of the Police and Crime Commissioners on 

how best to gather their views and contributions in the development of Regulations, 

Codes of Practice and guidance. 

6.3 It is proposed that the relevant national policing Business Areas would lead the work 

on the development of the draft products. (For the Regulations and guidance, this 

would largely be the Workforce Development Business Area). As the Business Areas 

and their Portfolios and Working Groups are becoming more representative of the 

service and its partners, the project teams developing new products would include a 

range of perspectives ,such as Police and Crime Commissioners, members of staff 

associations and unions, representatives of relevant third sector bodies and 

government departments, as appropriate. 




6.4 The project team will consult with the Consultation Group collate the feedback. A 

summary of these views would be included when the draft Regulation, Code or 

guidance was submitted to the Professional Committee for consideration. 

7. Consultation Process 

7.1 In the development of Regulations and Codes of Practice, there will be many different 

perspectives to consider and the consultation process needs to be inclusive of the key 

stakeholders, including PCCs and their teams. 

7.2 In the new landscape that includes a police pay review body, the Police Advisory Board 

and the College of Policing, we need to develop clear links between the various 

consultation groups. The frequency, membership and scope for each will need to fit its 

individual purpose but, as the responsibilities of each body impact on operational 

policing, they must all be aware of each others' work. 

7.3 The Business Area should seek the involvement of the College Consultation Group (see 

below) at an early stage and actively consider their feedback before submitting draft 

Regulations, Codes or guidance to the Professional Committee. 

7.4 The Professional Committee will ensure that it considers the summary of any 

consultation when making any recommendation to the College Board. 

7.5 Where the Professional Committee feels they would benefit from further information 

from the consultative group they will request this via the relevant national policing 

Business Area lead. 

7.6 The College Board will also ensure that it considers the summary of any consultation 

when making any decision and before it seeks approval from the Home Secretary to 

amend or introduce a new Regulation or Code of Practice. 

7.7 Where the College Board feels they would benefit from further information from the 

Consultation Group they will request this via the College Chief Executive. 

8. College of Policing Consultative Group 

8.1 Terms of Reference 

8.1.1 Recognising the complexity of the consultation landscape, it is necessary to define the 

scope and role of this group. Clear terms of reference will set out the scope of the 

consultation, frequency of the meetings, requirements for the Chair and membership of 

the Group. Whilst this paper focuses on the College Consultation Group, we recognise 

that there is likely to be a requirement to establish more specific technical advisory 

groups for specific issues. 

8.2 Scope 

8.2.1 The proposed scope of this Consultation Group includes consultation on : 

 

 

the amendment or development of new Police Regulations; 

the development or revision of Codes of Practice; and 




the issuing of guidance regarding the qualifications, experience and training for 

police staff and contractors. 

8.2.2 The Group must be able to influence the development of new or revised Regulations, 

Codes of Practice and guidance. It will be a consultative group, rather than a 

negotiating body and may not always reach consensus. This is acceptable and the 

different views should be included within the consultation summary that will be 

submitted to the Professional Committee and College Board. 

8.2.3 The Consultative Group will have no responsibility for matters relating to pay and 

conditions. These will fall within the scope of other bodies. 

8.3 Frequency 

8.3.1 The experience of those involved in the PNB is that regular meetings are beneficial and, 

therefore, the consultation group should meet at least three times a year. 

8.4 Chair 

8.4.1 To ensure a consistent approach to the consultation process and to provide the College 

Board with confidence in the process, the view of the stakeholders is that the Chair of 

the Consultative Group should be independent of the police but be knowledgeable 

about policing. 

8.4.2 It has been suggested that the Chair could be one of the independent members of the 

College Board or another individual independent of the College. 

8.5 Membership 

8.5.1 The group needs to ensure that it is representative of the key stakeholders. The 

Consultation Group members could be: 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Police and Crime Commissioners; 

Association of Chief Police Officers; 

Police Federation of England and Wales; 

Superintendents Association of England and Wales; 

Chief Police Officers Staff Association; 

Police Staff representation; and 

Association of Special Constabulary Chief Officers. 

8.5.2 The Home Office are not currently listed as members of the Consultation Group, but 

they will play a key role in ensuring the regulation or Code of Practice satisfies the 

requirements of the Home Secretary when laying it before parliament. A separate 

process will be put in place to manage this. 




9. Consultation on this proposal 

9.1 On 25 September 2013, the College wrote to all Police and Crime Commissioners 

(through the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners), Police Superintendents’ 

Association Police Federation, Association of Chief Police Officers, Local Government 

Association and the Independent Chair of the PAB seeking their views on this 

consultation process. 

9.2 To date, responses have been received from the Police Superintendents’ Association, 

Police Federation, Local Government Association, Association of Chief Police Officers 

and Independent Chair of PAB. Their feedback has been incorporated into the proposals 

within this report. 

9.3 The one area where there has not been complete agreement is in relation to the Chair 

of the group. All believe the Chair should be independent, but views are split as to 

whether they should be independent of the College or an independent member of the 

College Board. Those who have responded have stated they would be prepared to work 

with either approach. 

10. Next steps 

10.1 Subject to the approval of the Professional Committee, a more detailed proposal, draft 

Terms of Reference will be developed and brought back to the Professional Committee 

in January 2014, before submitting to the College Board for approval. 

Author name: 

David Hardcastle 

Author job title: College of Policing 

Author email: 

david.hardcastle@hampshire.pnn.police.uk 

Author tel number: 07881 850315 

Sponsor (if not Author): CC Alex Marshall 




ANNEX A 

DETAIL OF PROPOSED POWERS 

1. Regulations 

The College will have the power to prepare Police Regulations in respect of: 

i. the ranks held by police officers and special constables 

ii. the qualifications required for appointment to and promotion within police forces 

and special constabulary 

iii. the period of probation for police officers and special constables 

iv. the maintenance of personal records of members of police forces and special 

constabulary 

v. police training 

vi. the qualifications for deployment to perform particular tasks 

vii. police practice and procedure. 

The power to make specific regulations remains with the Home Secretary. If the 

College submits draft regulations on the matters listed above, the Bill provides that the 

Home Secretary will make those regulations unless she considers that: 

i. doing so would impair the efficiency or effectiveness of the police 

ii. it would be unlawful to do so or 

iii. it would for some other reason be wrong to do so. 

2. Codes of Practice 

The College will have the power to issue, with the approval of the Home Secretary, 

Codes of Practice relating to chief officers’ discharge of their functions if the College 

consider that it is necessary: 

 

 

 

to promote the efficiency and effectiveness of police forces generally 

to facilitate the carrying out of joint or co-ordinated operations between forces or 

for any other reason in the national interests. 

3. Guidance 

As the College will also set standards for police staff and some staff working for third 

party contractors, the Bill also creates a new, narrower power to issue guidance in relation 

to the experience, qualifications and training of police staff and contractors. This guidance 

can be addressed to local policing bodies (PCCs) as well as Chief Officers. Guidance must 

be published, but is not subject to the requirements for HS approval and laying before 

Parliament that apply to codes. 






Date of meeting: 13/11/2013 

Item lead at meeting: CC Sara Thornton 


Title of paper: Gateway Group/APP Update 

1. Issue – This note provides an update from the last two Gateway Group meetings (17 th 

September and 14 th October) and highlights the products which are scheduled for the 

next Gateway Group meetings on November 19 th and December 18 th . 

2. Summary 

2.1 The following products were presented and discussed at the last two Gateway Group 

meetings: 

Product 

Lawful and Effective Use of Covert 

Techniques (APP) 

ACPO National DVI Strategy 2013 – 

2016 (Revised Strategy) 

ACPO Children and Young People 

Strategy 2013 – 2016 (Revised 

Strategy) 

Decision 

(17/09/13) Endorsed 

(17/09/13) Endorsed at meeting but 

also submitted to October’s Chiefs’ 

Council for their endorsement. 

(17/09/13) This was not endorsed due 

to concerns over the content – it did 

not read as a strategy and their were 

also concerns over potential duplication 

with existing APP. This was 

communicated back to the portfolio who 

submitted the product. 

ACPO/CEOP Advice on the Use of Publicity 

in Missing Children Cases (Reference 

Material) 

ACPO/CEOP Child Rescue Alert Guidance 

(Reference Material – Revised Guidance) 

ACPO Guide to Investigating Child Deaths 

(Reference Material – Revised Guidance) 

(17/09/13) Endorsed as interim 

reference material pending inclusion 

into Violence and Public Protection APP. 

(17/09/13) Endorsed as reference 

material pending inclusion into Violence 

and Public Protection APP. 

(17/09/13) Endorsed as interim 

reference material pending inclusion 

into Violence and Public Protection APP. 



Author: Frank Pike

Information sharing agreement between 

Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Education 

Children’s Services and Skills and the 

Association of Chief Police Officers 

(Information Sharing Agreement) 

(17/09/13) This ISA was submitted to 

October’s Chiefs’ Council for 

endorsement. 

ACPO Data Protection: Manual of Guidance (14/10/13) Endorsed as interim 

Part 1 Standards (Reference Material – reference material pending inclusion 

Revised Guidance) 

into Information Management APP. 

2.2 The Gateway Group function will move into the College of Policing in 2014. It will still 

cover APP and ACPO products. The Chair has requested that the following papers are 

presented to the December (and final) Professional Practice Steering Group meeting for 

discussion: 

 

 

The College’s plans regarding Gateway Group function and membership; 

The College’s intentions regarding the licensing of APP. 

2.3 The following APP products are scheduled for endorsement at the next two Gateway 

Group meetings: 

 

 

 

Financial Investigation; 

Child Sexual Exploitation and Child Abuse (modules from Violence and Public 

Protection APP); 

Firearms Licensing. 


3.1. The Professional Committee is invited to note this update. 

Author name: 

Frank Pike 

Author job title: Professional Practice Developer 

Author email: 

frank.pike@college.pnn.police.uk 

Author tel number: 07770 597341 

Sponsor (if not Author): CC Sara Thornton 



Author: Frank Pike




Item lead at meeting: Oliver Bolton 


Title of paper: Secretariat Update 

1. Issue: Provides an update from the College Secretariat in relation to: 

 

 

 

Supporting Business Areas to map future work 

Clarifying the clearance and sign off routes 

Overview of new and emerging commissions 


2.1 That the Committee notes: 

i) Continuing support for BAs to map their future programme of work; 

ii) Updated Commissioning and sign off map 

iii) The update on new and emerging commissions. 

3. Summary 

Forward planning of business area work 

3.1 At the first Professional Committee Heads of BAs helpfully shared their priorities over 

the forthcoming 24 months and in March a commitment was made to map these out 

into a forward look. To take forward this work, the College Secretariat has been 

consulting with BA staff officers to develop a template to easily capture the details of 

the priority pieces of work planned by Business Areas over the next 24 months. The 

template also captures areas that may require research and evaluation input from the 

College as well as the key risks facing each area in the near to medium term. 

3.2 Engagement with Business Areas on completing the template will be led by the 

College Business Area Partners with support from the College Secretariat and the 

Research, Analysis and Information Unit. 

Updated Commissioning and Sign-Off map 

3.3 A small focus group comprising staff officers, office of ACPO and College 

representatives has been working on a clearer way to represent the process by which 

work is commissioned and signed-off, whether at Business Area, Gateway Group or 

Professional Committee level. This is needed as there is currently a lack of clarity on 

where work should be routed, this can result in late engagement with the relevant 

leads / secretariats. Early engagement helps identify not only the correct pathway for 

the work to follow with the appropriate level of oversight, but also clarifies the need 



Author: Oliver Bolton

for the work, any wider interdependencies and possible evaluation options that might 

need to be built into the scope from the beginning. 

3.4 The output of this focus group was shared with the Business Area Leads’ staff officers 

meeting on 31 st October [and agreed and will be cascaded to all relevant 

stakeholders]. 

4. Update on new and emerging commissions 

4.1 Annex 1 provides an overview of incoming requests to the College. There are 

currently three new and emerging commissions. Of these: 

 

 

 

Review of selection, training and support for undercover officers 

Review of training needs around stop and search 

Developing a College response to Lord Victor Adebowale report on 

recommendations on mental health. 

4.2 A number of other areas of work, including work around e-crime/ cyber/ fraud are 

currently being scoped into specific programmes of work for future consideration by 

the Professional Committee. 

Author name: 

Oliver Bolton 

Author job title: Secretariat Lead, College Corporate Governance 

Author email: 

oliver.bolton@college.pnn.police.uk 

Author tel number: 07525 988 644 

Sponsor (if not Author): Alex Marshall 



Author: Oliver Bolton


No. 

Strategic 

Context 

Initial Contact Issue College / BA 

Lead(s) 

Initial Response 

Next Steps 

1 

2 

Link to 

Integrity 

Programme 

Importance 

of stop and 

search to 

ministers 

and the 

public 

NUWG 20/09/13 

Initial HO Enquiry 

(Jon de 

Sounsa/Jon 

Martin) 11/10/13 

Review of Selection, Training 

and Support for Undercover 

Officers 

Stop and Search: Package of 

training - IPLDP/Probationer 

training, standalone for existing 

substantive officers and 

refresher training. All should be 

assessed with failure resulting 

in an officer being unable to 

carry out stop and search 

Gordon 

Ryan/C. 

McGuigan 

College: 

Everett Henry 

& Helen 

Schofield 

BA:EDHR 

Reviewing HO request 

against work already 

underway and planned. 

Further meetings with Cmdr Richard Martin and 

Det Ch Supt Neil Hunter (HMIC) to discuss 

requirements due to announcement of HMIC 

inspection of all UC Units which may change 

original scope. Remit of work to be defined 

following this. 

Discussion with key stakeholders scheduled for 

18 th November. 

3 

Mental 

Health 

agenda 

Victor Adebowale 

report 

The Dept Health Concordat and 

the Lord Victor Adebowale 

report recommendations on 

Mental Health 

Everett Henry 

Cmr Jones 

Undertaking initial scoping 

work 

College Mental Health Group meeting is being 

arranged for Nov to provide time for the 

recommendations to be considered and agreed 

by Cmr Christine Jones, Home office and NHS 

England 


Agenda Item No. 14 Author: Oliver Bolton


From: 



Subject: 

GR-A 110/2013: **RESTRICTED** Feedback from Mutual Aid Steering Group 

Attachments: 

301013 MUTUAL AID STEERING GROUP MEETING.pdf 

TO: 

CC: 




Dear Police and Crime Commissioner 

GR‐A 110/2013: **RESTRICTED** Feedback from Mutual Aid Steering Group 

Please find attached feedback from Commissioners Jane Kennedy and Ian Johnston from the Mutual Aid Steering Group 

held on 30 October 2013. Commissioners Kennedy and Johnston are seeking feedback on the proposal that mutual aid 

be provided to Northern Ireland as the primary contingency for that Force. The attached note provides further 

background and detail. Please feel free to forward any comments to myself and I will pass them to Commissioners 

Kennedy and Johnston. 

Regards, 

Oliver 




















1






2

STEERING GROUP (2): Government Review of UK-wide Mutual Aid 

Arrangements 

HELD ON 

30 OCTOBER 2013 AT HOME OFFICE, MARSHAM STREET, LONDON 

Ian Johnston and Jane Kennedy represented the APCC at the Mutual Aid 

Steering Group meeting held on 30 October 2013. It would be helpful to have 

a steer from PCC colleagues regarding their views on the proposal that 

mutual aid be provided to NI as the primary contingency for that Force. 

The meeting was attended by a range of people, including Sir Hugh Orde and 

CC Ian Learmonth representing ACPO, CC Matt Baggott (PSNI), representatives 

from Scotland and Northern Ireland government and police forces, the 

Metropolitan Police, HMIC and was chaired by Stephen Rimmer with other 

Home Office officials in attendance. 

The group examined the UK-wide mutual aid reassurance requirements. The 

current reporting arrangements around significant mutual aid deployments 

(according to the briefing notes for the meeting) are: 

Unclear, who needs what and why; 

Inconsistent from event to event; and 

Variable in the nature of reassurance provided. 

The purpose of the meeting was to seek agreement to review the current UKwide 

arrangements to ensure future decisions are transparent, timely and 

provide appropriate levels of reassurance to all the relevant partners. 

A significant part of the meeting was taken up discussing the relationship 

between the Home Office, the Northern Ireland Office and the Northern 

Ireland Policing Board in relation to current and future staffing levels in PSNI. 

Matt Baggott, Chief Constable of PSNI feels he will be unable to appropriately 

staff the “Marching Season”, given his current staffing levels. He argued 

strongly that the longstanding contingency provided by the British Army as

ack-up to NI policing of public disorder having now been removed, the fallback 

position must be that PSNI can use the facilities of NPoCC to seek mutual 

aid and that this should be understood and agreed. 

Ian Learmonth provided an up-date on recent experience and argued that the 

operational aspects of providing mutual aid are working very well. There are 

sufficient numbers of public order trained officers and planning is in place to 

provide the extra training required to deliver mutual aid to Northern Ireland. 

The Police Federation of England and Wales have been fully consulted and 

have concerns regarding the safety of UK officers in the armed environment of 

NI. 

Whilst a good deal of the meeting focussed on providing mutual aid for 

Northern Ireland, the group also discussed the Commonwealth Games to be 

held in Scotland in 2014. 

In terms of implications for Police & Crime Commissioners reference was 

made to the requirement to sign-off the Section 60 forms. It was apparent 

that the ACPO view in the room was that decisions regarding mutual aid are 

very much operational matters which fall within the remit of a chief officer’s 

responsibilities. Both Ian and Jane agree with that but there are many 

implications which follow from a decision to become the contingency for 

mutual aid to Northern Ireland. This is also understood by Chief Officers and 

all sides look to a resolution of the dispute within Northern Ireland and 

Government about the resourcing of public order there. 

Whilst Forces recoup monies in relation to providing trained officers for mutual 

aid, there remains the question of officer absence from their home Forces. We 

understand that the funding of mutual aid is provided by the Force receiving 

the aid. 

There are two further meetings planned for this group.


From: 



Subject: 


Attachments: 

07 11 13 ICTConferenceCall notes v2.docx 

To: 

Cc: 



APCC Team 


Please find attached the notes from the conference all that took place on Police ICT yesterday. Please note that this is 

subject to checking with the Home Office. 

Papers for the meeting on 14 th November will be provided on Tuesday. 


Regards 

Tania 















1


From: 



Subject: 

GR-A 112/2013 (restricted): Launch of Independent Review of ACPO 

To: 

Cc: 



APCC Team 


Following consultation between the ACPO Review Working Group and General Sir Nick Parker, it has been agreed that 

Sir Nick will publish his report at 4pm on Thursday 14 th November. All Police and Crime Commissioners will be sent an 

electronic copy of the report under strict embargo at 5pm on Wednesday. 

Before making their proposals, the ACPO Review Working Group would like to consult Police and Crime Commissioners, 

Chief Constables and other key national stakeholders. Therefore a closed session will be held for Police and Crime 

Commissioners only on Thursday between 1.30pm and 2.30pm at the St Ermin’s Hotel where the ACPO Review Working 

Group will talk through the main recommendations in the report and their initial observations. 

The Working Group Members are very happy to talk to any PCC not due to attend on Thursday beforehand, as a 

reminder, the Working Group Members are below: 

Labour – Jane Kennedy 

Conservative – Matthew Ellis 

Independent – Martyn Underhill 

Other Policing Governance Bodies – Simon Duckworth 

Finally, we have been informed by the Home Office that the Home Secretary expects to attend the event on Thursday 

over lunch at 1pm for half an hour. 


Regards 

Tania 





1











2


From: 



Subject: 

GR-A 114/2013 (restricted): Independent Review of ACPO - Report 

Attachments: 

FINAL REPORT UNDER EMBARGO 12.11.13.pdf; ACPO Organisation Overview 

FINAL.pdf; General Sir Nick Parker KCB CBE - Biography.docx 

To: 

Cc: 



APCC Team 


Please find attached a copy of the report by General Sir Nick Parker, commissioned by the ACPO Review Working 

Group. An enclosure to the report and a biography of Sir Nick are also attached. 

The report is under embargo until 4pm tomorrow, Thursday 14 th November. 


Regards 

Tania 















1

APCC & Independent Review 

Organisation of the Association of Chief Police 

Officers (ACPO) 

THE PARTHENON GROUP 

Boston • London • Mumbai • San Francisco 

30 th October, 2013

Research Completed 

Background Information 

Parthenon’s Approach 

Primary Research Interviews Conducted 

• Parthenon were contacted to aggregate key financial 

and governance data from ACPO and its national 

units to support Sir Nick Parker’s report to PCCs 

• Parthenon leveraged warm leads provided by ACPO 

and National Unit contacts to set up calls with key 

stakeholders, and sourced further interviews through 

calls conducted 

• All information in this report has been provided by 

ACPO and National Units via calls and privately 

supplied documentation and has been verified by key 

ACPO stakeholders 

ACPO Central Representatives (n=2) 

• Ian Readhead, Interim CEO ACPO Central 

• David Murphy, ACPO Finance Manager 

APCC Representatives (n=2) 

• Mark Castle, APCC C-EO 

• Tania Eagle, Programme Manager, APCC 

National Unit Representatives (n=16) 

• Ian Readhead, Portfolio Lead Data 

Protection & FOI 

• Supt. Jo Rogerson, Head of Unit, NPoCC 

• Chief Inspector Mark Wise, Head of Unit, FOI 

• Chief Constable Simon Parr, Head of IMBA 

• DCI Gordon Roberts, Head of Unit, AVCIS 

• Richard Childs, Managing Director, CPI 

• Alan McInnes, General Manager, CPI 

• Dep. Chief Constable David Griffin, Vice 

Chair CPOSA 

• Jen Williams, National Co-ordinator, DVI 

• Chief Constable Jon Murphy, Head of Crime 

BA 

• Cdr Steve Rodhouse, Organised Crime 

Working Group 

• Detective Inspector Nevin Hunter, Head of 

Unit, NWCU* 

• Det. Chief Supt. Iain O’Brien, Head of Unit, 

NABIS 

• Chief Inspector Tracy Goddard-King, TAM 

• Susan Francis, Finance Advisor, ACRO 

• Senior Manager, ACRO 

DDYYCODE_## 

Note: * information submitted via email only 

Source: Parthenon Calls 

2

Agenda 

Overview of ACPO 

Overview by Unit 

DDYYCODE_## 

3

ACPO 

ACPO Core Functions 

CPOSA 

(Chief Police Officer 

Staff Association) 

ACPO 

National Unit (Private) 

National Unit 

ACPO Cost Centres 

Staff Association 

• Staff 

association for 

Chief Police 

Officers & those 

of equivalent 

rank 

NATIONAL OPERATIONAL 

POLICING SERVICES 

Provide governance, guidance & support for array 

of operational areas of policing on a national level 

PROFESSIONAL VOICE OF 

THE SERVICE 

Professional forum for CPOs to share ideas, 

expertise, best practice & co-ordinate resources 

CORPORATE FUNCTIONS 

‘ACPO Central’ 

Administrative support for ACPO & select 

associated organisations 

AVCIS 

(ACPO Vehicle 

Crime Intelligence 

Services) 

CPI 

(Crime Prevention 

Initiatives) 

NaBIS 

(National Ballistics 

Intelligence Service) 

FOI- CRU 

(Freedom of 

Information Central 

Referral Unit) 

NWCU 

(National Wildlife 

Crime Unit) 

ACRO 

(ACPO Criminal 

Records Office) 

TAM 

(ACPO 

Terrorism & Allied 

Matters ) 

NPoCC 

(National Police 

Coordination 

Centre) 

DVI 

(Disaster Victim 

Identification) 

• Reduces 

vehicle & 

vehicleenabled 

crime by 

building 

knowledge, 

data & 

insight in the 

vehicle crime 

management 

process 

• Supports 

crime 

reduction & 

prevention by 

promoting 

principles of 

‘Secured by 

Design’ 

initiative for 

premises, 

products & 

services 

• Provides 

support to 

help solve 

firearms 

crimes incl. 

registry of all 

firearms 

material 

recovered 

• Co-ordinates 

Freedom of 

Information 

requests 

such that 

consistent 

high quality 

information is 

in the public 

domain 

• Gathers 

intelligence 

of wildlife 

crime at a 

centralized 

national level 

and delivers 

best practice 

• Organises 

centralised 

management 

of criminal 

record 

information & 

improves link 

between 

criminal 

records & 

biometric 

information 


& develops 

the Counter 

Terrorism 

network in 

England & 

Wales 

• Assesses the 

national 

capacity to 

deal with all 

the national 

threat areas 


UK police 

and 

specialist 

non-police 

capability to 

deal with 

victim 

identification 

DDYYCODE_## 

Note: Key cost lines from operational units for cost of using ACPO Central staff/admin resources are indicated. ACPO Central does not charge NABIS, ACRO, FOI and NWU invoicing costs 

Source: ACPO budgets 

4

ACPO 

National Policing Business Areas and ACPO National Units 

• Heads of National Policing Business Areas are un-paid, voluntary positions taken on by Chief Constables in addition to their other duties. 

Complex Business Areas may comprise a number of National Policing Portfolios and Working Groups focusing on more specific topics 

• Heads are responsible for being the expert in their business area, and for devising national guidelines for which they seek the approval of 

the Chief Constable’s Council. They also liaise with other key stakeholders on this topic (College of Policing, Home Office, HMIC etc.) 

• It has been agreed that the work currently done by National Business Area heads in developing national standards and police practice are 

now integrated within the College of Policing 

• Generally the costs incurred by Heads of Business Areas and their related activities are often borne by their home force 

• Where relevant, Heads of Business Areas oversee the work of ACPO National Units falling within their remit. NPoCC does not fall within a 

business area (reporting instead to its own oversight board). CPI also does not fall within a National Policing Business Area* 

National Policing Business Areas 

Crime 

Criminal 

Justice 

Equality, 

Diversity, & 

Human 

RIghts 

Finances & 

Resources 

Futures 

Information 

Management 

Local 

Policing & 

Partnerships 

Performance 

Management 

Presidential 

Terrorism & 

Allied Matters 

Uniformed 

Operations 

Workforce 

Development 

Jon Murphy Simon Parr Cressida Dick Lynne Owens 

Acquisitive 

Crime 

Violence & 

Public 

Protection 

Data Protection 

& Information 

Management 

Selected National 

Policing Portfolios 

Civil 

Contingencies 

Peter Vaughan 

Acquisitive Crime Lead 

Steven Rodhouse 

Lead for Organised Crime 

Ian Readhead 

Director of Information 

Charlie Hall 

Lead for Civil Contingencies 

Debbie Simpson 

DVI Working Group Lead 

AVCIS 

NWCU 

NABIS 

FOI 

ACRO 

ACPO National 

Units 

TAM 

DVI 

DDYYCODE_## 

Note: *David Zinzan has been acting as the Lead for Crime Prevention but has announced his retirement and currently no officers are planning to take on these responsibilities 

Source: ACPO information, National Unit information, Parthenon calls 

5

ACPO 

Key bodies related to ACPO 

Chief Constable’s Council 


National Crime Agency 

Description 

• The senior operational decisionmaking 

body for the Association of 

Chief Police Officers. It provides a 

forum to discuss and consider 

issues and challenges in operational 

policing and, alongside the College of 

Policing, agree national standards and 

common approaches. 

• Its role also includes securing national 

interoperability and coordination of 

policing work, and providing value for 

money for the citizen 

• Sets standards for the police service 

on training, development, skills and 

qualifications. It will also provide 

maximum support to help the service 

implement these standards 

• The work of the National Policing 

Business Areas (formerly under 

ACPO) in developing national 

standards and police practice is now 

integrated under the College of 

Policing 

• Professional body for police officers 

in England & Wales* 

• Highly visible agency of operational 

crime fighters protecting the public 

from the damage inflicted by serious, 

organised and complex crime in the 

UK 

• Includes 4 operational commands – 

Border Policing, Economic Crime, 

Organised Crime and Child 

Exploitation and Online Protection – 

and also a National Cyber Crime Unit 

Key Role 

Operational 

Oversight 

Strategy & Policy 

Oversight 

Operational 

Oversight 

Scope 

All areas of 

policing 

Organised 

Crime 

DDYYCODE_## 

Note: *The College of Policing does not represent police officers in Scotland and N. Ireland 

Source: ACPO information 

6

ACPO 

Funding flow for ACPO National Units (2013/14) 

Funding source 

Total Other: £472K 

£259K from Sponsorship/Royalties**** 

£140Kfrom Membership/Events: 

£47K from Handling charges: 

£1,200K 

(Contribution from 

PCCs to support 

ACPO Central costs) 

Police Forces 

£410K 

(Contribution for 

running of ACPO 

National Units)* 

£1,243K 

(PCC 

contributions to 

NABIS database) 

£1,100K to ACRO 

(Share of PCC 

Contributions to 

PNC) 

Central Admin & Fund distributor 

Operational Unit (Total Annual Budget) 

Private/Commercial Unit 

Staff Association 

Income Generating Unit 

Flow of funds to Unit 

Flow of funds from Unit 

CPOSA 

£50K (for 

support staff) 

ACPO Central 

(£2,150K) 

Home Office 

Total: £150K 

(£25K royalties 

for use of 

ACPO Logo 

£122K for 

overheads) 

£1,665K 

£355K 

£75K 

£136K 

£261K 

(for logo 

Royalty 

payments) 

£2,887K 

(For International 

Projects) 

£10,900K £1,300K 

£400K 

c.£5K fee 

for ISDEP 

support***** 

£28K 

for HR/ Finance 

& other admin 

support 

£10K 

for HR/ Finance 

& other admin 

support 

AVCIS 

CPI 

NABIS 

FOI 

NWCU 

ACRO 

TAM 

NPoCC 

DVI 

(£1,247K) 

(£1,281K)** 

(£2,908) 

(£386K) 

(£453K) 

(£11,575K) 

(£11,300K)*** 

(£1,300K) 

(£500K) 

Generates £1,247K 

(£900K from FLA, £108K 

from NFU, £100K from 

Tracker) 

Generates £1,281K 

in revenues 

Total: £31K 

£20K from RSS 

£10K from ACPOS 

£1k from Training 

Generates £7,600K in 

revenues mainly from 

police certificates 

Total: £378K 

£136K from DEFRA 

£45K from Scottish Exec. 

£30K from Scottish National Heritage 

£5K from N. Ireland Office 

Total: £371K 

£150K from Channel Grant 

£130K from training costs 

£91K from DCLG 

Total: £100K 

£100K from FCO 

Other sources 

DDYYCODE_## 

Note: Figures shown may not fully reconcile or match accounts provided as individual adjustments have been made with updated information from units. *Funds entirely hypothecated. ACPO Central does not charge ACRO, FOI 

and NWCU invoicing costs; **CPI figures shown are 2011/12 actuals. ***TAM excludes the operational element of TAM which has a separate budget and which is run out of the Metropolitan Police. ****Royalties presented in 

2013/14 represent back-dated payments and are not representative of other years. ***** an annual 2% fee of budgeted ISDEP expenditure 

Source: ACPO budgets 

7

ACPO 

Police Force Contributions to ACPO (2013/14) 

£1.2m 

dedicated to 

operate ACPO 

organisation. 

Represents 

ACPO 

Governance of ACPO National Units 

AVCIS CPI NABIS FOI NWCU ACRO TAM NPoCC DVI 

Day-to-Day Lead 

Gordon 

Roberts 

(Head of Unit) 

Richard 

Childs 

(Managing 

Director) 

Iain O’Brien 


Mark Wise 

(Manager of 

FOI) 

Nevin Hunter 


Paul Brooks 

(Head of 

ACRO) 

Cressida 

Dick 

(Director of 

Strategy) 

Jo Rogerson 


Jen Williams 

(DVI Coordinator) 

National Policing 

Portfolio / 

Working Group 

Lead 

(where relevant) 

n/a 

David Zinzan 

(Lead for 

Crime 

Prevention*) 

Steve 

Rodhouse 

(Lead, 

Organised 

Crime 

Working 

Group) 

Ian Readhead 

(Portfolio 

Lead, Data 

Protection & 


Peter 

Vaughan** 

(Portfolio Lead 

for Acquisitive 

Crime) 

Ian Readhead 

(Portfolio 

Lead, Data 

Protection & 


n/a 

Stuart 

Williams 

(Strategic 

Lead) 

Debbie 

Simpson 

(DVI Working 

Group Lead) 

National Policing 

Lead 

(where relevant) 

n/a 

n/a 

Jon Murphy 

(Head of 

Crime 

Business 

Area) 

Simon Parr 

(Head of 

Information 

Management 

Business Area 

– IMBA) 

Jon Murphy 

(Head of 

Crime 

Business 

Area) 

Simon Parr 

(Head of 

Information 

Management 

Business Area 

– IMBA) 

Cressida 

Dick 

(Head of 

Terrorism and 

Allied Matters 

Business 

Area) 

n/a 

Lynne Owens 

(Head of 

Uniform 

Operation 

Business 

Area) 

Oversight / 

Governance 

Board 

AVCIS 

Governance 

Board 

(Chair: Max 

Sahota) 

CPI 

Governance 

Board 

(Chair: Sir 

Hugh Orde) 

NABIS Joint 

Management 

Group 

(Chair: Steve 

Rodhouse) 

Information 

Management 

Business 

Area 

(Head: Simon 

Parr) 

Crime 

Business 

Area 

(Head: Jon 

Murphy) 

Tripartite 

Governance 

Board 

(Chair: Sir 

Hugh Orde) 

Joint Counter 

Terrorism 

Oversight 

Group 

(Chair: 

Cressida Dick) 

NPoCC 

Oversight 

Board 

(Chair: Sir 

Hugh Orde) 

Budget: 

Home Office 

Policy & 

Strategy: 

Chief 

Constable’s 

Council 

The governance and reporting structure for ACPO national units is somewhat complex and there are mixed views on ultimate 

accountability for each unit 

DDYYCODE_## 

Note: *National Policing Business Area. **R. Berry from October 31 st 2013 

Source: Internal ACPO documentation and Parthenon Interviews 

9

Dependency 

on 

ACPO Central 

Paid 

Unpaid 

ACPO 

Use of ACPO Central Resources by national unit 

Use of 

ACPO 

Central 

Resources 

AVCIS 

CPOSA 

CPI 

NaBIS 

FOI - CRU NWCU ACRO 

TAM NPoCC DVI 

None 

Staff time 

(£50k) 

Overheads 

(£122k) 

None 

None 

None 

None 

2% fee for 

financial 

services 

HR & 

Finance and 

other admin 

support 

(£28k) 

HR & 

Finance 

and other 

admin 

support 

(£10k) 

None 

None 

None 

• Use of 

press 

office 

• Invoices 

police 

forces on 

behalf of 

national 

unit 

• Use of 

press office 

• Invoices 

police 

forces on 

behalf of 

national 

unit 

• Use of 

press office 

• ACPO 

Central 

processes 

some IT 

costs 

• Use of 

press 

office 

• Use of 

press 

office 

• Use of 

press 

office 

• Use of 

ACPO 

finance 

team 

• Use of 

press 

office 

DDYYCODE_## 

10

Agenda 

Overview of ACPO 

Overview by Unit 

DDYYCODE_## 

11

ACPO 

ACPO Central – 1 of 2 

MISSION 

“To provide the necessary corporate functions to support the ACPO 

infra-structure and other associated organisations” 

GOVERNANCE & 

ACCOUNTABILITY 

BACKGROUND 

& ACTIVITIES 

Provides administrative, HR & financial services support for the ACPO infrastructure and associated 

policing organisations: 

1. Provides Secretariat to CCC & to publish endorsed ACPO guidance & standards 

2. HR, Event Management, Facilities, IT & Office Management for ACPO organisation 

3. Financial Services for ACPO and array of associated policing organisations, e.g. distribution of PCC 

funds 

4. Membership services & administrative support to CPOSA 

5. Company secretary for ACPO CPI 

6. Staff for financial & administrative support for CPI Ltd. 

PCCs (56%), CHARGES TO NATIONAL UNITS (20%), OTHER (14%) 

ACPO President 

• Corporate governance 

board comprised of eight 

Directors headed by elected 

ACPO President; currently 

Sir Hugh Orde 

FUNDING 

PROVISION 

LOCATION 

ACPO HQ 

• Funding in 2013/14 will be reliant on PCC Contributions and charges to national units for services 

rendered* 

• Remainder to come from a variety of smaller income streams including royalties, membership 

subscriptions, conferences and exhibitions 

ANNUAL BUDGET 

£2,150,824 

FULL TIME EMPLOYEES 

17 FTEs 

AUDIT & 

PERFORMANCE 

MONITORING 

Financial Audit: 

Formal External Audit 

Performance Monitoring: 

Board of Directors 

DDYYCODE_## 

Note: *CPOSA, CPI, ACRO 


12

ACPO 

ACPO Central – 2 of 2 

ORGANISATION 

PRESIDENT 

Sir Hugh Orde 

Staff Officer 

Private Office 

1 FTE 

INTERIM CEO 

PA 

1 FTE 

d 

Ian Readhead 

POLICY 

COMMUNICATIONS 

FINANCE 

OFFICE SUPPORT 

HR MANAGER 

2 FTEs 

6 FTEs 

3 FTEs 

2 FTEs 

1 FTE 

2013/14 BUDGET 

PCC contributions £1,200,000 

ACRO funding contribution £261,027 

ACPO CPI overheads charge £149,640 

Sponsorship / royalties £259,440 

CPOSA staff time charge £49,917 

Handling Charge - other funds £46,520 

Subscriptions/Events £140,500 

Other £43,780 

Total Income £2,150,824 

• Besides PCC contributions, ACPO earns some 

income as some National Units are charged 

for use of ACPO staff time & overheads 

• ACPO members pay £150 for annual 

membership 

• ACPO also earns Royalties for use of ACPO 

logo (e.g. from CPI) 

EXPENDITURE £ 

Office Costs 476,997 

Staff Costs 1,686,729 

Meeting & Other Member Costs 4,460 

Activity Costs 3,439 

Finance Costs 1,245 

Other Costs 21,832 

Total Expenditure 2,194,702 

DDYYCODE_## 

Note: Charges paid to ACPO Central by TAM (2% Fee) and DVI (£10K) for use of admin support services are not detailed in budget above. Sponsorship / royalties received in 2013/14 (£259K) are not representative due 

to back-dated payments 


13

ACPO 

National Ballistics Intelligence Service (NABIS) – 1 of 3 

MISSION 

CORE 

FUNCTIONS 

“To implement an efficient system of work to meet the Operational and Business 

requirements for the UK Criminal Use of Firearms Strategy and Doctrine Development” 

Provides standardisation and consistency of approach to enable more effective monitoring of gun crime: 

1. Conducts forensic analysis on all ballistic material used in crime, through 4 forensic hubs, ensuring 

every ballistic item goes through a standardised forensic process 

2. Registers all firearms material recovered, seized or surrendered 

3. Manages a national database relating to people, incidents and locations involved in the Criminal Use 

of Firearms 

4. Produces intelligence products regarding the availability and use of firearms to influence legislation 

GOVERNANCE & 


Steve Rodhouse, 

Chair Joint 

Management Group 

FUNDING 

PROVISION 

PCCs (100%) 

• Contribution based on level of gun crime* 

• Funding has moved from 3-year cycle to annual funding due to uncertainty regarding future 

organisational structure 

• There is a joint 

management group with 

representatives from NCA 

and the forces 

AUDIT & 

PERFORMANCE 

MONITORING 

LOCATION 

WEST MIDLANDS 

POLICE & GREATER 

MANCHESTER POLICE 

ANNUAL BUDGET 

£1,243,205 


39.5 FTEs 




Crime Business Area with clear 

performance standards that must 

be met for forensic services 

DDYYCODE_## 

Note: *NABIS does not use FSS but bases its subscription payments from member forces in England and Wales on the level of gun crime in each force (as recorded in the annual Home Office and Office of National 

Statistics reporting figures) and weighted accordingly. Separate arrangements exist for Scotland and the Metropolitan police Service. All funding is collected, managed and invoiced via ACPO 


14

ACPO 


ORGANISATION 

HEAD 

Det. Chief. Supt. 

Iain O’Brien 

FORENSIC SERVICES 

21 FTEs 

INTELLIGENCE 

9.5 FTEs* 

KNOWLEDGE & 

COMMUNICATIONS/ 

BUSINESS SUPPORT 

8 FTEs 


Police Forces (England & Wales) £1,243,205 

TOTAL INCOME (BUDGET 2013/14) £1,243,205 

Forensic Services £930,700 

Intelligence £249,400 

Knowledge & Communications £238,400 

Business Support & Estates £246,500 

TOTAL COSTS (BUDGET 2013/14) £1,665,000 

• 79% of costs are staff costs 

• Forensic services account 

for 56% of costs 

• Business Support accounts 

for 15% of costs 

• Intelligence accounts for 

15% of costs 

• Knowledge and 

communications account for 

14% of costs 

DDYYCODE_## 

Note: PCC contribution adjusted to reflect 2013/14 actuals; therefore may not reflect NABIS budget documents. *Includes 2.5 FTEs are seconded on a zero-cost secondment basis. 


15

ACPO 


BACKGROUND 

& ACTIVITIES 

• NABIS was created in 2008 to provide support on a national basis to help solve firearms crimes, through a number of activities: 

– Registry of all firearms material recovered, seized or surrendered 

– Forensic analysis on all ballistic material used in crime through 4 forensic hubs (London, Manchester, Birmingham & Glasgow): 

– 56% of NABIS budget allocated to forensic services 

– In 2012/13 NABIS dealt with 2011 forensic examinations 

– Fast time intelligence linking individual crimes within 48 hours in urgent cases and intelligence products on a tactical and strategic level 

– National database relating to people, incidents & locations involved in the Criminal Use of Firearms 

– Operational support to forces in relation to major incidents, such as the discovery of ‘gun factories’ or one-off incidents, such as the 

Derrick Bird incident in Cumbria 

– Best practice advice, firearms tracing capability and identifying opportunities for legislative change 

• NABIS operates as an autonomous organisation in, it is not a legal entity and relies on 2 host forces, West Midlands Police and Greater 

Manchester Police, to manage employment and staffing as well as IT and Transport arrangements 

• NABIS was created out of a need to remove submission volume costs from forces as previously forces were constrained by 

Forensic Service provider costs from submitting all gun crime related ballistic items, now through the subscription model 

forces can submit any volume of items without additional cost 

• “This is a critical unit with regard to the prevention and detection of gun crime. PCCs will be aware that weapons used by 

criminals in Manchester will then be transferred to London for other criminal activity” – ACPO 

DEPENDENCY 

ON PCC 

FUNDING 

• Fully dependent on PCC contributions 

• Services NABIS provides are fully utilised and 

paid for by forces 

DDYYCODE_## 


16

ACPO 

ACPO FOI Central Referral Unit (FOI CRU) – 1 of 3 

MISSION 

“To nationally coordinate Freedom of Information requests which have 

been made to Chief Officers” 

GOVERNANCE & 


CORE 

FUNCTIONS 

FUNDING 

PROVISION 

Freedom of Information requests are critical as police service accountability remains at the heart of 

public opinion. However, as Freedom of Information is not a core operational policing priority, the FOI 

CRU acts to provide expert advice and expertise in terms of FOI requests to forces: 

1. Coordinates FOI requests such that consistent, high quality information is in the public domain 

2. Ensures there is no disclosure of information which could threaten national security 

3. Deal with all referrals that come under a certain subject matter that could threaten national security 

(~2.5K requests per year) 

4. Experts and consultants on FOI requests, providing guidance to FOI Officers within forces 

5. Provide training to FOI Officers and other police staff and related organisations 

6. Acts as a central hub for certain media requests (has relationships with media agencies) to avoid 

each force responding to all media requests 

PCCs (~90%) & OTHER (~10%) 

• Police force contribution based on FSS* formula 

• ~10% of income from other sources: ACPOS, Road Safety Support Ltd (RSS) and training income 

Simon Parr 

• Oversight is provided by the 

Information Management 

Business Area 

AUDIT & 

PERFORMANCE 

MONITORING 

LOCATION 

ANNUAL BUDGET 




HAMPSHIRE 

CONSTABULARY 

£355,000 

10 FTEs 


Informational Commissioner’s Office 

with a 10-day time frame to provide 

advice monitored by the ICO 

DDYYCODE_## 

Note: *FSS = government formula spending share 


17

ACPO 


ORGANISATION 

UNIT MANAGER 

Chief Inspector Mark Wise 

POLICE STAFF MANAGER 

POLICE DEPUTY STAFF 

MANAGER* 

ACPO FOI DECISION 

MAKER 

POLICE STAFF 

REFERRAL OFFICERS 

ADMINISTRATOR 

1 FTE 

1 FTE 

1 FTE 

4 FTEs 

1 FTE (job share) 


Police Force contributions £355,000 

ACPO Scotland Income (Lump sum for Scottish forces) £10,000 

RSS (Payment from Road Safety Support for FOI requests on speed cameras) £20,000 

Training Course Income (Charges for FOI training for non-ACPO members e.g. Home Office) £1,000 

TOTAL INCOME (BUDGET 2013/14) £386,000 

Staff Costs (Salaries of 9 staff) £296,600 

Premises Costs (Premises Recharge from ACRO) £70,268 

Other Costs (Inc. IT & Communications, Supplies & Services, Travel & Subsistence) £19,600 

TOTAL COSTS (BUDGET 2013/14) £386,468 

• The FOI CRU receives an 

additional £31K from other 

sources 

• Staff costs account for the 

majority of all costs. ACPO DP 

Officer role (Ian Readhead) is 

funded directly by ACRO 

• The FOI CRU pays ACRO for 

premises costs and associated 

services (HR, finance, IT) 

DDYYCODE_## 

Note: *The deputy manager’s role has recently been converted from a Police Sergeant post and represents a £12K cost saving. Police Force contribution adjusted to reflect 2013/14 actuals; therefore may not reflect FOI 

budget documents 


18

ACPO 


BACKGROUND 

& ACTIVITIES 

• The Freedom of Information Act went live across the 44 forces on 1 January 2005 supported by an ACPO Project Team ensuring 

adequate national training, central coordination and support. A key element of this central support was the establishment of an FOI CRU 

to manage national FOI activity 

• The unit dealt with ~2,000 FOI requests in 2012 (with media requests representing ~35-45%) and continues to see growth in the provision 

of advice and guidance to forces as FOI requests increase (total ~36K requests to FOI Officers in forces) 

• Researches centralised ACPO lead advice and ensures that a standardised national approach to responses is provided to reduce the 

chance of inappropriate information disclosure (and leading to fines) 

• Represents the police service within the National Security Liaison Group (NSLG) in co-ordinating requests, reducing the risk of the 

inappropriate disclosure of National Security information 

• Provides 1-day / 2-day training to Police Staff (~600 training places). Since 2011 national training has been provided to 310 delegates 

(FOI Officers within forces). This is the only police specific FOI training in the country 

• Other responsibilities include representing Chief Officers at the Information Commissioner’s Office and at Tribunals where forces face 

substantial legal expenses in protecting their information (winning the case in Devon and Cornwall re ANPR cameras) and providing 

advice on high profile issues (e.g. the Savile enquiry, Hillsborough disclosure, Olympics and Human Tissue Audit) 

• The FOI CRU protects the reputation of the police force and avoids forces being charged heavy fines from Information Commissioners 

through developing a relationship with this department and giving expert advice to police forces 

DEPENDENCY 

ON PCC 

FUNDING 

• The majority of funding is from police forces and any 

reduction in resources would mean that Individual 

police forces would have to respond to more FOI 

requests (e.g. media requests) 

• Other implications are that Policing Business Leads 

would be contacted by each force to advise on 

requests relating to their specialty rather than one 

central request from the FOI CRU 

DDYYCODE_## 


19

ACPO 

ACPO National Wildlife Crime Unit (NWCU) – 1 of 3 

MISSION 

“Provide a centralised capacity for intelligence, analysis and 

investigative support relating to national wildlife crime” 

GOVERNANCE & 


CORE 

FUNCTIONS 

FUNDING 

PROVISION 

Assists in the prevention and detection of wildlife crime on a national level: 

1. Maintains UK-wide intelligence database relating to people, vehicles and locations involved with 

wildlife crime 

2. Provides direct operational support to forces via specialist Investigative Support Officers 

3. Provides specialist advice and coordination for wildlife crime investigations, e.g. to police, other 

agencies 

4. Act as a conduit for international police for wildlife-related crime enquiries 

5. Provide intelligence products in line with National intelligence Model (NIM) 

PCCs (17%) & OTHER (83%) 

• Other stakeholders that provide funding include DEFRA, the Home Office, the Department of 

Environment, Northern Ireland and the Scottish Government 

Jon Murphy 

• The NWCU Head 

ultimately reports into the 

Head of the Crime 

Business Area who in turn 

reports to the Chief 

Constable’s Council on 

areas of policy and 

strategy 

• The NWCU has a 

governing board with key 

funding agencies and host 

force representatives 

AUDIT & 

PERFORMANCE 

MONITORING 

LOCATION 

ANNUAL BUDGET 2013/14 



Formal external audit 

POLICE SCOTLAND* 

£452,000 

10 FTEs** 


Governance board sets 

performance framework against 

which to measure output 

DDYYCODE_## 

Note: *premises & infrastructure. Finance & HR located with North Wales Police., ** + 2 PTEs, ***from October 31 st 2013. Currently TCC Bernard Lawson 


20

ACPO 


ORGANISATION 

HEAD 

Detective Inspector 

Nevin Hunter 

• 7 staff are office-based in Scotland, 5 staff work from 

home (Head of Unit, 3x ISOs, Internet Intelligence) 

INTELLIGENCE 

INVESTIGATIVE SUPPORT 

ANALYSIS 

INDEXING 

INTERNET INTELLIGENCE 

2 FTEs + 2 PTEs 

3 FTEs 

2 FTEs 

1 FTE 

1 FTE 


Home Office £136,000 

DEFRA (Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs) £136,000 

ACPO £75,000 

Scottish Executive £45,000 

NI Office £5,000 

Additional Income SNH (Scottish National Heritage) £30,000 

Internet Project £25,500 


• Salaries account for ~77% 

of all costs 

Pay (Salaries of 8 staff) £360,776 

Other Costs (Inc. office costs, equipment, travel, training) £110,500 


IN YEAR DEFECIT -£18,776 

DDYYCODE_## 


21

ACPO 


BACKGROUND 

& ACTIVITIES 

• Wildlife crime is any action which contravenes current legislation governing the protection of the UK’s wild animals and 

plants, e.g. hare coursing, poaching, persecution of animals and birds and the trade in ivory, rhino horn and other species 

• NWCUs main role is to assist in the detection and prevention of such crimes by obtaining & disseminating information from a 

wide range of organisations & by assisting police forces in investigations via its analysis, e.g. highlight local/national threats 

• Provides direct operational support to forces via specialist Investigative Support Officers and support to Operation SHREWD 

– the NCA pilot investigation involving serious and organised crime groups 

• NWCU also the conduit between the police force and PAW UK, a steering group meeting twice yearly to raise awareness of 

wildlife crime, develop relevant new legislation and regulation, as well enforce existing laws 

• Other members include, Police, UKBA, DEFRA, Home Office, NRW, SNH and many more 

• The NWCU is an integral part of the Acquisitive Crime Threat Reduction Board contributing to the draft UK Threat 

Assessment for 2013 

• The unit has been very active over the last 2 years especially dealing with the coordinated crime of theft of rhino horn from 

museums; in the last year they have produced ~3000 intelligence logs 

• “In October 2012, the Parliament Environmental Audit Committee noted that this committee had submitted more intelligence 

to Interpol than the combined effort of the USA, China, Australia, New Zealand, Canada and South Africa over the same 

period. More recently an early day motion was signed by over 100 MP’s calling on the Government to continue to secure 

their full funding for the unit from the Home Office. This is a unit which appears to have significant political support and is 

also recognised for their expertise by a number of non-government organisations” - ACPO 

DEPENDENCY 

ON PCC 

FUNDING 

• PCC currently fund £75,000 p.a. of NWCUs annual 

budget (~17%) so there is low dependency on 

police force contributions 

DDYYCODE_## 


22

ACPO 

ACPO Criminal Records Office (ACRO) – 1 of 4 

MISSION 

“Founded in 2006 to organise the management of criminal record information 

& improve the links between criminal records & biometric information” 

GOVERNANCE & 


CORE 

FUNCTIONS 

FUNDING 

PROVISION 

LOCATION 

HAMPSHIRE 

CONSTABULARY 

Provides an array of services based on the management & distribution of criminal records & biometric 

information at a national level 

1. Centralises national criminal records data, collecting information from across all forces; ensures data 

is standardised and consistent. Additionally updates current database with historical microfiche data 

2. Distributes data to relevant police & non-police parties where appropriate (e.g. Police Certificates, 

Subject Access etc.) 

3. Supports operational crime-fighting at local level through specific projects (e.g. ViSOR data project to 

track violent sex offenders) 

4. Builds formal international agreements to exchange criminal data to enhance national databases and 

in turn support operational policing both in the UK and abroad 

INCOME (~70%), PNC SURCHARGE TO PCCs (~10%) & OTHER 

• A surcharge to Police Force checks of the Police National Computer (PNC) generates £900k used to 

provide services back to the UK PCCs (£200K is ‘safeguarded’ for microfiche services) 

• The Home Office and governments of Scotland and N. Ireland provide funding to support exchange of 

criminal conviction info by UKCA-ECR & NEU-ECR of £2.9m 

• Generates £7.6M of own revenues from services rendered, most notably Police Certificates service 

ANNUAL BUDGET 2013/14 

£11,575,000 


250 FTEs 

Sir Hugh Orde, Chair 

of Tripartite 

Governance Board 

• The ACRO Head reports 

into the Head of Information 

Management Business Area 

• The UK Central Authority 

element of ACRO is owned 

by the Home Secretary and 

has a board chaired by the 

Home Office 

AUDIT & 

PERFORMANCE 

MONITORING 


Formal financial audit 


Select areas are subject to targets, 

e.g. must respond to all Subject 

Access requests within 40 days 

DDYYCODE_## 

Note: X 

Source: ACRO website, ACRO Financial Report 12/13, ACPO internal documents, Parthenon interviews 

23

ACPO 


ORGANISATION* 

Head of ACRO 

Supt. Paul Brooks 

Senior Manager 

(ICCE) 


(CRIO, Central) 


(Bureau) 

65 FTEs 

36 FTEs 

71 FTEs 

International Criminal 

Conviction Exchange 

Criminal Records, 

Intelligence, & Operations 

Central Services 

Bureau 

UKCA Exchange of 

Criminal Records 

(58 FTEs) 

Non EU Exchange of 


International Development 

(2 FTEs) 


(3 FTEs) 

Intelligence 

(8 FTEs) 

National Operations 

(2 FTEs) 

Finance 

(8 FTEs) 

HR 

(3 FTEs) 

Media 

(2 FTEs) 

Business Support 

(5 FTEs) 

Police Certificates 

(25 FTEs) 

Subject Access 

(10 FTEs) 

PNC Services 

(NPA & BRC) 

(11 FTEs) 

ACRO Support Team 

(10 FTEs) 

Customer Services 

(10 FTEs) 

DDYYCODE_## 

Note: * Only includes permanent staff, not all staff represented in sub-divisions shown, e.g. SMT, IT, on secondment etc. 

Source: ACRO internal documents 

24

ACPO 



Expenditure by Business Area 

Business Area 

International Criminal Conviction 

Exchange (ICCE) 

Criminal Records, Intelligence & 

Operations (CRIO) 

Expenditure 

£4,120K 

£665K 

Criminal Records £176K 

Intelligence £373K 

Operations £117K 

Central Services 

Bureau 

Police Certificates 

£2,551K 

£6,337K 

£3,672K 

Subject Access £577K 

PNC Services £563K 

Police Certificates £6,500,000 

Subject Access £390,000 

Non-Police Agencies £500,000 

ICPC £210,000 

Police Force PNC Contribution for ACRO & Microfiche £1,087,824 

Home Office Grant £2,887,000 

TOTAL INCOME £11,574,824 

Employee Related Expenses £7,250,314 

IT & Communications £841,000 

Premises Related Expenses £1,131,886 

Supplies & Services £1,014,742 

Transport Related Expenses £1,500 

Travel & Subsistence £433,400 

TOTAL EXPENDITURE £10,672,842 

ACRO Contribution to UK-CA £1,233,000 

ACRO Contribution to EFEN Project £110,000 

ACRO Contribution to ACPO Logo £261,000 

CATT Case £350,000 

ADDITIONAL EXPENDITURE £1,954,000 

DDYYCODE_## 

Note: Budget may differ slightly from ACRO 2013/14 budget documents due to manual adjustments on specific line items 

Source: Internal ACRO Documents 

25

ACPO 


BACKGROUND 

& ACTIVITIES 

• Bureau: Police Certificate service performs UK criminal record checks for people emigrating to a number of countries including 

Australia Canada, NZ, SA & US, generating significant ACRO income (c.£7.6m 2013/14).* Subject Access service delivers personal 

criminal record information to individual’s who request it; 2/3rds Forces opt-in to service (cost to operate £300k) . PNC Services work 

with authorised Non-Police Agencies to coordinate prosecutions with PNC data, e.g. UKBA, MoJ; also manages Back Record 

Conversion from NIS to convert historic microfiche records (cost: ~£550K p.a.) 

• Criminal Records, Intelligence &Operations: Criminal Records team employs Policy Officers to work with Home Office to develop 

criminal records policy/process, as well as providing advisory services to Forces & non-police organisations. Intelligence team 

currently focused on coordinating with ViSOR system to deliver information on UK nationals convicted abroad to ensure notification of 

local police force MAPPA team on individual’s return (cost: ~£345K p.a.). Operations team supporting Operation Nutmeg efforts to 

manage DNA retrieval from offenders convicted prior to implementation of current legislation; also assists HMIC Savile enquiry and 

putting in place the response of the police service with regard to the management of information (cost: ~£120K p.a.); 

• International Criminal Conviction Exchange (~£600K charge, 33% funded by ACRO) 

− 

− 

− 

UKCA-ECR acts on behalf of Home Office to support operational policing in the UK and overseas by exchanging criminal 

conviction information between EU states; NEU-ECR supports operational policing between 188 Non-EU Interpol Countries via 

mutual exchange of criminal conviction information between international agencies. Keep national databases up to date 

International Development team aims to improve & increase the international exchange of criminal conviction data by building 

formal relationships with countries outside EU-ECR where UK nationals commit crime and whose nationals commit crime in the UK 

2 additional projects with separate funding: ECRIS* Support Programme (ESP) which seeks to develop the electronic channel for 

distribution of international conviction data and the ECRIS Fingerprint Exchange Network (EFEN) to support wider use of 

fingerprints to support EU criminal records exchange; co-funded by the EC 

DEPENDENCY 

ON PCC 

FUNDING 

• While police forces contribute to costs of PNC, 

ACRO generates most of funding from 

commercial activities 

• Nevertheless, forces benefit exponentially from 

contributions to ACRO; for every £1 invested by 

PCC, ACRO re-invests £2.50-3 into services 

that benefit Police Forces directly 

DDYYCODE_## 

Note: *incl. special project working to prohibit UK sex offenders from working with children abroad 


26

ACPO 

ACPO Terrorism and Allied Matters (TAM) – 1 of 3 

MISSION 

CORE 

FUNCTIONS 

FUNDING 

PROVISION 

“Leading and coordinating the direction and development of the capability and supporting infrastructure 

within the police service to reduce the risk to the UK and its interests overseas from the threat of terrorism 

and domestic extremism” 

Coordinates and develops the Counter Terrorism network in England and Wales by acting as the ‘office’ 

to a network of ~3.8K staff across regional CT hubs in terms of policy, strategy, finance, executive 

support and governance: 

1. Make recommendations to Home Office Ministers on the distribution of National CT Specific Grants 

(both revenue and capital) 

2. Develops strategy, delivering the interpretation of the Government’s national, terrorism strategy 

(CONTEST) for the police service 

3. Manages performance of the CT network and reports to the Government 

HOME OFFICE (~97%), OTHER (~3%) 

• TAM receive a National CT Specific Grant from the Home Office and other income on a grant basis 

• ACPO liable to cover £100K of costs including PNN and salaries 

• ACPO also manages the finance of a European Commission funded project on behalf of ACPO TAM 

entitled ‘Improving Security by Democratic Participation’ (£224K) which is separate from TAM’s 

budget 

GOVERNANCE & 


Cressida Dick, Chair 

Joint Counter 

Terrorism Oversight 

Group 

• The Joint Counter Terrorism 

Oversight Group is then 

held to account by a 

number of high level formal 

meetings with 

representatives from across 

Counter Terrorism policing 

AUDIT & 

PERFORMANCE 

MONITORING 

LOCATION 

ACPO HQ 

ANNUAL BUDGET 

£11,300,000 


147 FTEs 


Through MPOAC; Members of the 

Home Office sit on TAM’s internal 

Finance and Workforce Planning 

Board and approve expenditure 


Oversight Group 

DDYYCODE_## 


27

ACPO 


ORGANISATION 

UNIT MANAGER 

Asst. Commissioner 

Cressida Dick 

• Protect and Prepare guide the national police service in the 

delivery of Protect activity 

• Prevent & Intelligence gather intelligence across the network to 

prevent, disrupt and prosecute terrorist activities 

Corporate Capability 

Protect & Prepare 

Resources 

Prevent & Intelligence 

28 FTEs 

39 FTEs 

18 FTEs 

62 FTEs 

FUNDING PROVISION 

National CT Specific Grant (From HO) £10,886,362 

Recovery of Training Course Costs (National CT Security Office recovers training costs) £130,000 

DCLG (The DCLG* funds a post in the National Community Tension Team) £91,300 

Channel grant (Funds diversionary activity in Prevent Delivery Unit) £150,000 


Police Pay £2,998,045 

Police Staff Pay £2,029,318 

Other employment costs £248,556 

Premises Costs £2,001,366 

Transport Costs £321,192 

Supplies and Services £1,291,178 

Employee Expenditure (this covers secondment costs) £2,368,007 

TOTAL EXPENDITURE (BUDGET 2013/14) £11,257,662 

• ~50% of all costs are 

staff costs 

• ACPO(TAM) recovers 

training costs for CT 

Security Advisors from 

the forces 

• *The Department for 

Communities & Local 

Government funds a 

post in the National 

Community Tension 

Team 

DDYYCODE_## 


28

ACPO 


BACKGROUND 

& ACTIVITIES 

• Established in 1977 as an ACPO sub-committee and became a full business area of ACPO in January 2001 

• Combines and coordinates all major CT projects and manages performance across a CT network: Over the past several years ACPO 

TAM has overseen the development of the ACPO counter-terrorism network, a series of dedicated counter-terrorism policing units that 

have been established across England and Wales. These units are regionally based and resourced by 'lead' police forces. Their role 

includes the gathering of intelligence and evidence to help prevent, disrupt and prosecute terrorist activities 

• Responsible for police service strategy on non-operational counter-terrorism and domestic extremism nationally. Provides coordination, 

funding and the development and delivery of projects and policy which directly support and enhance the work of the Counter Terrorism 

policing network 

• ACP (TAM) are responsible for non-operational coordination of this network (~3.8K staff), with the ACPO Counter Terrorism Coordination 

Centre (an offshoot of ACPO TAM which now sits in the Met) responsible for operational coordination 

• Liaises with policy colleagues, Government and other external partners on behalf of the police service, working to the priorities set out in 

the ACPO (TAM) UK Counter Terrorism and Domestic Extremism Policing Strategy 

• Makes recommendations to Home Office Ministers on the distribution of National CT Specific Grants (both revenue and capital). 

Decisions are made by ministers and the funding is distributed by the HO directly to Forces, and is not held at ACPO. National CT 

Specific Grant funding totals £251m revenue and £4M capital (2013/14), funds a regionally based CT National Network. This is 

administered on behalf of the HO by TAM, including the routine functions of financial reports, forecasting and budgeting 

• TAM is currently undergoing a review of its accountability and organisational structure to have clearer defined reporting lines and how it 

fits within the UK Counter Terrorism Network 

• No impact as funding from the Home Office 

DEPENDENCY 

ON PCC 

FUNDING 

DDYYCODE_## 


29

ACPO 

NPoCC (National Police Coordination Centre) – 1 of 3 

MISSION 

“Responsible for ensuring policing resilience during major events that 

are beyond the capacity of a single force” 

GOVERNANCE & 


CORE 

FUNCTIONS 

FUNDING 

PROVISION 

Assesses the national capacity and coordinates a national response to major threats in order to support 

local forces when required: 

1. Collects detail from each police force on their capacity to deal with the major threat areas 

2. Gathers a national picture of how the country can deal with these threats and the time scale in which 

they can receive assistance 

3. Aims to understand which resources ACPO regions have locally to understand what resources there 

are nationally 

4. Establishes and co-ordinates continuous testing and exercising regimes to ensure there is effective 

capability and mobilisation of national forces if and when it is required 

HOME OFFICE (100%) 

• In FY 2012/13 PNICC was funded by force contributions of £0.56M. Towards the end of 2012 future 

funding for the new and enhanced function – the NPOCC – was agreed. The Home Office has agreed 

to resource this new unit through a funding grand of £1.3M per annum 

Sir Hugh Orde, 

Chair of Oversight 

Board 

• The Oversight Board 

consists of representatives 

from the PCCs, Home 

Office, Cabinet Office and 

the HMIC 

AUDIT & 

PERFORMANCE 

MONITORING 

LOCATION 

ANNUAL BUDGET 



External audit through Home 

Office 

ACPO HQ 

£1,300,000 

10 FTEs 


Through CCs, PCCs, 

Oversight Board & NPPSB* 

(every 2 months) 

DDYYCODE_## 

Note: *NPPSB: National Police Protective Services Board 


30

ACPO 


ORGANISATION 

ACC Strategy Lead 

ACC Stuart Williams 

Superintendent 

1 FTE 

Chief Inspector 

1 FTE 

Project Manager 

1 FTE 

CAPACITY PROJECT 

2 FTEs 

TESTING & EXERCISING 

2 FTEs 

MOBILISATION 

2 FTEs 


Home Office Grant £1,300,000 


Staff Costs (Salaries for 10 staff) £815,000 

Premises Costs (Inc. rates and utilities) £196,000 

Contingency & Surge Capacity Costs (Mutual Aid, Surge Capacity & Additional expenses) £167,000 

Payment to ACPO for staff use (HR & Finance) £28,000 

Other Costs (Inc. IT, Testing & Exercising Activities) £159,000 

TOTAL COSTS (BUDGET 2013/14) £1,365,000 

• Staff costs account for ~60% of 

all costs 

• NPoCC pay £28K to ACPO for 

use of HR and Finance staff 

• In addition, the Home Office 

provides a grant for the Mercury 

IT project which is separately 

funded 

DEFECIT (BUDGET 2013/14) -£65,000 

DDYYCODE_## 


31

ACPO 


BACKGROUND 

& ACTIVITIES 

• Core responsibilities are to ensure policing resilience during major events, for example the movement of 16 Police Support Units (PSUs) 

from across the Police Service in order to assist the Metropolitan Police deal with the riots in London 

• Prior to 2012, the Police National Information & Co-ordination Centre (PNICC) had 2 FTEs providing a 24-7 on-call service 

• The evolution of PNICC, following the success of the enhanced unit in supporting the 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games, was given 

impetus by the report entitled ‘Protecting the Public’; recognising the lack of a ‘fit-for-purpose co-ordinating mechanism to mobilise police 

resources to assist individual forces facing severe challenges, such as a civil emergency or serious public disorder’ 

• The NPoCC undertakes several functions to co-ordinate a multi-disciplinary response to a wide range of threats, through working with 

partners and intelligence agencies to undertake horizon scanning in respect of potential threats 

• Ensures that the right capacity and capability is available to address the threats identified in the Strategic Policing Requirement and a 

range of other operational requirement documents 

• The unit has an on-going operational role, supporting forces in responding to large scale operational challenges and maintains a capacity 

to scale up and mobilise forces effectively in times of civil emergency. At such times it co-ordinates and prioritise resources for forces 

whilst supporting senior officers and the machinery of government 

• As part of the requirement to develop a national IT solution (Mercury) in order to enhance the management process, NPoCC received a 

Home Office grant of £464K over 2 years. This was first used to manage the resources for the Olympic Games and more recently the G8 

conference in Northern Ireland. Further work is now being completed to ensure that NPoCC can use the system on a business as usual 

basis for resource management 

• No impact from funding removal as 100% funded 

by the Home Office 

DEPENDENCY 

ON PCC 

FUNDING 

DDYYCODE_## 


32

ACPO 

UK Disaster Victim Identification (DVI) – 1 of 3 

MISSION 

CORE 

FUNCTIONS 

FUNDING 

PROVISION 

“Maintain capability and capacity to deliver disaster victim identification in the 

UK and abroad where British nationals are killed” 

Responsible for supplementing local, regional and international arrangements for dealing with the 

recovery and identification of the dead by coordinating the UK specialist capability of trained and 

equipped staff and developing best practice in terms of DVI activities 

1. Co-ordinates DVI resources: policing resources, forensic scientists, coroners, voluntary agencies 

etc. 

2. Charged by Foreign and Commonwealth Offices to coordinate deployment overseas when needed 

3. Ensures DVI training is standardised and up to date through involvement in testing and exercising 

with training run by the College of Policing; at times also assist with the delivery of training 

4. Missing persons investigations 

HOME OFFICE GRANT (80%) & FOREIGN & COMMONWEALTH 

OFFICE (20%) 

• Funded directly by the Home Office and Foreign & Commonwealth Office 

GOVERNANCE & 


Chief Constable’s 

Council 

• The DVI reports to the 

portfolio lead for 

Emergency Procedures 

who in turn reports to the 

Uniformed Operations 

Business Area. Ultimate 

accountability with policy 

and strategy lies with the 

Chief Constable’s Council 

• The DVI also has a steering 

group to oversee the work 

of the unit and a 

Sponsorship Board cochaired 

by the Home Office 

and the Foreign & 

Commonwealth Office 

AUDIT & 

PERFORMANCE 

MONITORING 

LOCATION 

ACPO HQ 

ANNUAL BUDGET 

£500,000* 


2 FTEs 


Formal external audit through 

Home Office 


Reporting through steering 

group with half-year reporting 

to the Home Office 

DDYYCODE_## 

Note: *The DVIs budget may vary significantly from year to year; funding is based on agreed activities for the financial year 


33

ACPO 


ORGANISATION 

DVI National Co-ordinator 

Officer Jen Williams 

• Use ACPO resources such as finance staff for 

invoicing and HR for recruitment 

• For certain projects bring Police Officers from 

forces in as extra resources 

Deputy DVI Co-ordinator 


Foreign & Commonwealth Office Grant £100,000 

Home Office Grant £400,000 


Staff Costs £187,000 

Premises and Facilities (Inc. office costs: IT, phone, administrative support) £30,500 

Training (Inc. funding for Casualty Bureau, combined workshops etc.) £118,500 

Exercising (multi-agency exercise to maintain DVI capacity) £95,000 

Other (Software costs, conference attendence, travel expenses etc.) £69,000 


• The DVI has a fixed budget 

depending on the year’s activities 

(agreed upfront) 

• 37% of 2013/14 costs are staff 

costs 

• 24% of 2013/14 costs are for 

providing training 

DDYYCODE_## 


34

ACPO 


BACKGROUND 

& ACTIVITIES 

• The UK DVI response was established following the Boxing Day Indian Ocean Tsunami (2004) and the subsequent terrorist 

attack on London in July 2005 

• The learning from these incidents was that there was no standardisation of training and people were putting themselves 

forward as DVI trained and were not deployable 

• Lord Justice Clarke’s Public Enquiry into the identification of victims following major transport accidents recommended the 

introduction of the role of the Senior Identification Manager and set the principles for DVI 

• The UKDVI is responsible for the delivery of the UK DVI Strategy, advice and guidance to the FCO re deaths abroad, 

through the use of the FCO grant 

• The UKDVI also is responsible for co-ordination and assessment of requirements for resources for incidents at home and 

abroad 

• The DVI also ensures standardisation of training for all levels of DVI response, working with the College of Policing to assist 

in the delivery of courses (such as the Senior Identification Manager Course) 

• Prepares strategy and policy documents and liaises between Government Departments and UK policing for DVI 

• Fully funded by the Home Office, therefore no impact from PCC funding removal 

DEPENDENCY 

ON PCC 

FUNDING 

DDYYCODE_## 


35

ACPO 

ACPO Criminal Prevention Initiatives (CPI) – 1 of 3 

MISSION 

“To reduce crime and fear of crime by development, application and promotion 

of the principles of ‘Secured by Design’” 

GOVERNANCE & 


CORE 

FUNCTIONS 

FUNDING 

PROVISION 

Takes the lead on crime prevention for private, public and commercial premises within communities by 

developing police approved standards on crime prevention techniques/equipment. 

1. Awards ‘Secured by Design’ and ‘Police Preferred Specification’ as a free endorsement to premises 

& place-based initiatives vetted by police to confirm that proven they conform to design & 

construction criteria which make it less likely to be subject to crime 

2. Identifies national/internationally-recognised standards which suggest the design and/or manufacture 

of a product or delivery of a service makes it more resistant to crime (e.g. security system). If 

standards achieved, CPI licenses ‘Secured by Design’ logo and ‘Police Preferred Specification’ to 

products for a period of up to 3 years; key revenue stream 

3. Also involved with a variety of other National Crime Prevention initiatives due to visible position in 

area, and lack of alternative organisational lead 

CPI LTD. IS A SELF-FUNDING (100%) NOT-FOR-PROFIT COMPANY 

• Generates annual turnover £1.5m-2m (2011/12) from accreditation process (renewed every 3 years) 

& £1.50 of each URN security system application fee to fund staff policy involvement 

• Pay annualised fee of £25k for use of ACPO logo on a monthly basis; as well as additional fee for 50 

days p.a. of ACPO staff time and overheads (£122k) 

• ACPO CPI has reserves of ~£1m 

Sir Hugh Orde, Chair 

of Governance 

Board 

• Strategic management of 

the business is undertaken 

by part-time Managing 

Director Richard Childs. 

• Strategic governance is 

overseen by the Board of 

Directors 

• Day-to-day management 

undertaken by a full time 

General Manager 

AUDIT & 

PERFORMANCE 

MONITORING 

LOCATION 

ANNUAL REVENUES 


Financial Audit 

Formal external audit 

ACPO HQ 

£1.5m-2m 

13 FTEs* 


Via governance board. Target set 

# of new annual subscriptions to 

support ‘cascade’ effect as 

existing customers renew policies 

DDYYCODE_## 

Note: * incl. 2 x secondments from ACPO wholly paid for by CPI 

Source: CPI Internal Documentation, Parthenon interviews 

36

ACPO 


ORGANISATION 

MANAGING DIRECTOR 

(PTE) 

Richard Childs 

GENERAL MANAGER 

Alan McInnes 

OPERATIONS MANAGER 

REGIONAL 

DEVELOPMENT 

MARKETING 

ADMIN 

1 FTE 

5 FTEs 

1 FTE 

2 FTEs 


Turnover £1,173,986 

Operating Income £101,007 

Interest £6,777 

TOTAL INCOME £1,281,770 

Administrative £957,343 

Tax £80,579 

TOTAL EXPENSES £1,037,922 

• Turnover generated from licensing 

‘SbD’ logo and charge for 

processing URN applications 

• Major costs include staff, 

overheads & royalties 

SURPLUS £243,848 

DDYYCODE_## 


37

ACPO 


BACKGROUND 

& ACTIVITIES 

• Established in 1989, Crime Prevention Initiatives (CPI) is the corporate title for a group of national projects aimed at reducing crime by 

good design. 3 key areas of activity: 

• Places: SbD is the umbrella title for a number of ‘place based initiatives which have been assessed by police professionals and 

academic research as reducing the likelihood of a ‘place’ being subject to crime. These might include anything from domestic houses, 

commercial premises to schools. No revenue generated by this scheme; a free endorsement designed to provide public reassurance 

• Products & Services: ACPO CPI identifies national or international standards which suggest that the design and/or manufacture of a 

product or service makes it more resistant to crime. Once identified, a company which manufactures a product, or delivers a service, 

that meets these standards, can apply to become a licensee of SbD logo, subject to vetting by independent test house. Once 

approved SbD logo can be used for 3 years and company can claim product/service to be ‘Police Preferred Specification’. 

• National Crime Prevention: interest and involvement in other aspects of general crime prevention has occurred in absence of any 

clear ACPO crime prevention lead, the proximity of ACPO and CPI staff, and the link between SbD and many aspects of crime 

prevention, e.g. provide informal crime support/advice to forces , standardisation of crime prevention activity among forces, focal point 

for external enquiry, advising ACPO, lobbying body/voice for service, academic research (c.£160k 2007-13), and management of 

national initiatives e.g. BankNote Watch, Airport Freight Security. Recognised as beneficial for company profile, but otherwise 

regarded as cost and distraction that is ‘not particularly encouraged’ 

• CPI does not set the standards against which products/services are tested: if no such standard exists, an independently chaired 

panel established by ACPO CPI examines product/service and determines suitability for SbD. Such cases are rare ~5/400. In some 

cases HO/Security Services might also examine. 

• Any surplus generated is ringfenced to promote SbD and initiatives/projects that promote general crime prevention by the forces on 

both a local and national level; to date £650k< has been distributed, e.g. funds locum ALOs across the country on behalf of forces 

DEPENDENCY 

ON PCC 

FUNDING 

• The CPI is fully independent in terms of funding 

• However, CPI relies on its connection to ACPO 

to provide legitimacy for its products and 

services 

DDYYCODE_## 



38

ACPO 

ACPO Vehicle Crime Intelligence Service (AVCIS) – 1 of 3 

MISSION 

CORE 

FUNCTIONS 

FUNDING 

PROVISION 

“Primary mission is to help reduce vehicle and vehicle-enabled crime by 

building knowledge in prevention, detection and monitoring techniques” 

AVCIS is the national organisation entrusted to handle vehicle crime in the UK and supports local police 

forces to reduce vehicle crime on a national level: 

1. Knowledge base: builds a national picture/map of criminal vehicle-related activity (e.g. car theft, car 

enabled crime) by collection of data from local forces 

2. Intelligence: analyses centralised data pool and shares intelligence and insight throughout force 

network 

3. Fraud desk: work stream devoted to the investigation of all vehicle-related frauds reported in 

England, Wales & NI 

FLA (74%), NFU (8%), TRACKER (8%) & OTHER (10%) 

• Funding provided by private organisations who benefit from vehicle crime reduction directly effected 

by organisation’s activity. Performance based SLAs dictate exact level of funding 

• Finance & Leasing Association (FLA) key commercial partner (£921k): leading trade association for 

motor finance industry with members funding c.50% of all new UK car sales; NFU Mutual (£103k) 

fund intelligence work related to agricultural vehicles, Tracker vehicle recovery (£100k), and array of 

other interested parties, e.g. Caravan Groups 

GOVERNANCE & 


Max Sahota, Chair of 

Governance Board 

• Police, Home Office & 

private funders are all 

represented on board 

• The governance board is 

ultimately accountable to 

funders who reserve right to 

withdraw future funding for 

the organisation, e.g. for 

poor performance 

AUDIT & 

PERFORMANCE 

MONITORING 

LOCATION 

COLLEGE OF 

POLICING 

ANNUAL BUDGET 

£1,247,446 


17 FTEs 




Via governance board: Select 

targets monitored, e.g. crime 

referrals within 48 hours, 

investigation initiated within 7 days 

of report etc. 

DDYYCODE_## 

Source: ACVIS Internal documents, Parthenon interviews 

39

ACPO 


ORGANISATION 

HEAD OF UNIT 

INTEL 

DCI Gordon Roberts 

ACRO Office 

4 FTEs 

DEPUTY HEAD OF UNIT 

Finance Officer 

Chris Hearn 

OP. SEMITA 

VEHICLE FRAUD UNIT 

CSSG 

NFU MUTUAL 

1 FTE 

11 FTEs 

2 FTEs 

1 FTE 


Finance & Leasing Association £921,694 

NFU Mutual Insurance Society £103,378 

Tracker £100,000 

Other £122,375 


Total Salaries & Wages £918,445 

Total Premises Costs £59,186 

Total Transport Costs £117,659 

Other £149,447 

TOTAL EXPENDITURE (BUDGET 2013/14) £1,244,738 

• FLA key commercial partner 

(74% funding) 

• Staff salaries account for 74% 

annual expenditure 

DEFICIT (BUDGET 2013/14) -£2,708 

DDYYCODE_## 


40

ACPO 


BACKGROUND 

& ACTIVITIES 

• Vehicle crime increasingly less of a local police force interest as security improvements have driven down levels of theft; lapse of 

interest at local level led to several special interest groups funding creation of a national organisation AVCIS 

• Financial Leasing Association (FLA) members are responsible for over 50% of car financing in the UK; in their interests to reduce 

numbers of cars stolen in the UK. Provided AVCIS funding to act as single organisation at national level to manage all 

information about stolen cars, thereby building a national picture of car theft to enable better analysis and spread of intelligence 

back to individual police forces around the UK 

• AVCIS now manage a landscape of intelligence which also includes theft from cars and cars involved in car-enabled crime 

• Respective interest groups also provide funding to fund specialist projects related to their particular area of interest 

• E.g. NFU insures 90% of all agricultural vehicles. Funds projects specifically related to recovering agricultural vehicles 

• Caravan Groups fund work specifically related to recovering caravans 

• Fraud desk: now employ single employee to investigate all vehicle-related frauds reported in England, Wales & NI 

• Forces ultimately benefit from work done by this private organisation as deeper resources for law enforcement developed by 

organisation’s activity 

DEPENDENCY 

ON PCC 

FUNDING 

• No funding from ACPO so no financial concern 

• ACPO link is a legacy of a requirement to have 

link with police 

DDYYCODE_## 



41

Chief Police Officers Staff Association (CPOSA) – 1 of 2 

MISSION 

BACKGROUND 

& ACTIVITIES 

“To safeguard the individual and collective interests of chief police officers 

and of Senior Police Staff of equivalent grades” 

• Staff association representing the interest of all chief police officers and officers held to be of 

equivalent rank throughout the force, including consideration of matters relating to conditions of 

service and the promotion of their welfare 

1. Represent interests of chief police officers at a national level at Police Negotiating Board, e.g. pay, 

general terms & conditions 

2. Articulate a collective Chief Police Officer voice and perspective on range of related internal policy 

issues, e.g. provide CPO perspective for the Winsor review of police officer remuneration and 

conditions 

3. Purchase & operate a professional indemnity insurance policy on behalf of members to provide 

protection in range of operational capacities in which they undertake and for range of misconduct 

situations 

MEMBERSHIP SUBSCRIPTIONS (100%) 

GOVERNANCE & 


Chairman CPOSA 

• Governance structure 

headed by Chief Constable 

Mark Polin 

• Leadership ultimately 

accountable to membership 

via AGM 

• Association’s activities and 

performance open for 

scrutiny by membership 

FUNDING 

PROVISION 

LOCATION 

• 300 members charged annual fee of £275 for benefits of membership, includes participation in 

insurance scheme (no additional fees for entry to scheme) 

• No external funding received 

• Surplus accumulates in fund reserved to pay additional fees/expenses, e.g. purchase of legal advice 

for matters affecting collective membership base such as PCC’s removal of Police Chiefs 

ANNUAL BUDGET 


AUDIT & 

PERFORMANCE 

MONITORING 

NO PREMISES* 

£906,218 

0 

Financial Audit 


DDYYCODE_## 

Note: * use ACPO admin staff located at 10 Victoria St for several days a year 


42

Chief Police Officers Staff Association (CPOSA) – 2 of 2 

ORGANISATION 2013/14 

CHAIRMAN 

Chief Constable 

Mark Polin 

• All CPOSA staff perform duties on volunteer 

basis; located in home offices 

• CPOSA also has use of ACPO admin staff 

COMMITTEE 

10 VOLUNTEERS 

ACTUAL FUNDING 2012/13 

Subscriptions (Final Income for 2012/13) £903,685 

Interest £2,533 

TOTAL INCOME £906,218 

Insurance £759,771 

Professional Fees £39,212 

Bank Charges £122 

Auditors' Remuneration £1,800 

Catering/Hospitality £518 

ACPO Secretariat Expenses £49,917 

Tax £507 

TOTAL COSTS £851,847 

• Income fully generated by membership 

subscriptions 

• Insurance policy premiums ~90% of costs 

• £50k payment to ACPO for use of secretariat 

staff time 

• Quarterly statements are reviewed by the 

committee 

DDYYCODE_## 


43

General Sir Nick Parker KCB CBE 

General Sir Nick Parker KCB CBE was commissioned into the British Army in 1973. After early service 

in the Infantry, he commanded the 2nd Battalion, the Royal Green Jackets from 1994‐1995. 

General Parker' attended the Army Staff Course in 1986, the Higher Command and Staff Course in 

1996 and The Royal College of Defence Studies in 2002, and has held two staff appointments in the 

Ministry of Defence. He commanded 20th Armoured Brigade from 1997 to 1999, which included 

time in Bosnia. He was also GOC 2nd Division and Governor of Edinburgh Castle from 2002‐2004 and 

he has been both the Deputy Commandant (1999‐2001) and the Commandant of the Joint Staff 

College (2004‐2005). 

Senior operational tour posts include the commander of UK Joint Task Force and advisor to the 

President of Sierra Leone in 2001, as well as Deputy Commanding General (UK) Multi‐National Corps 

Iraq from August 2005 to February 2006. He was the last GOC Northern Ireland during Operation 

BANNER from 2006 to 2007 and was then Commanded the UK Home Base for 2 years from August 

2007. He then held the position of Deputy Commander for the International Security Assistance 

Force (DCOM ISAF) in Afghanistan between November 2009 and September 2010. 

General Parker was appointed as Commander in Chief Land Forces in October 2010, became 

Commander Land Forces in November 2011 and retired in May 2013. His last appointment included 

responsibility for Defence's response to requirements on the UK homeland in support of the civil 

authorities; he led the reaction to the Tanker Drivers' industrial dispute in early 2012; and led the 

London Olympics security support that required over 18,500 personnel. 

On the personal front, he is married to Beccy and has two sons; his interests include gardening, 

fishing and Coronation Street.


From: 



Subject: 

GR-A 115/2013 (restricted): Invitation to City Forum Event on Organised Crime 

Attachments: 

INVITATION AGENDA - Cutting Serious & Organised Crime - 13.11.13.pdf; CF to All 

PCCs 13-11-13.pdf 

To: 

Cc: 



APCC Team 


Please find attached a letter from Charles Farr, Director General of the Office of Security and Counter Terrorism inviting 

you to an event on Cutting Serious and Organised Crime on 3 rd December 2013. 

Regards 

Tania 















1

PRIVATE & CONFIDENTIAL 

Invitation only agenda 

A Cityforum Round Table held in association with OSCT, Home Office 

Cutting Serious & Organised Crime - meeting evolving challenges with new capabilities and powers 

Tuesday 3 December 

Clifford Chance, London E14 

Invitation ONLY agenda – PRIVATE & CONFIDENTIAL 

Principal Sponsor 

Co Sponsor 

Hosted by 

This agenda is work in progress and the running order may alter. We would be pleased to discuss any comments 

or suggestions you may have. A timed, confirmed speaker list will be available in due course. 

Chairmen: Mr Charles Farr (morning and lunch address) and industry contributors * (afternoon) Confirmed 

Session one: Organised crime: strategic perspectives 

Opening keynote address 

Cutting serious and organised crime – the Priorities for Government 

Mr James Brokenshire MP Security Minister Home Office 

The evolving threat: the most serious challenges we need to address 

Professor Federico Varese Professor of Criminology University of Oxford 

The operational imperatives 

Mr Keith Bristow Director General National Crime Agency 

Confirmed 

Confirmed 

Confirmed 

Followed by a round table discussion including a private sector expert 

Coffee 

Session two: Organised crime: local delivery, national coordination and international collaboration 

Discussants: 

Using local capabilities to maximum effect 

Mr Tony Lloyd PCC Greater Manchester (Op Challenger) 

Mr Jon Murphy Chief Constable Merseyside Police (Policing violent crime and trafficking) 

Improving international collaboration [including a perspective on what more the UK should do] 

Mr Troels Oerting Head of EC3 Europol 

& 

Mr Mick O’Connell Director Operational Police Support Interpol General Secretariat 

Confirmed 

Confirmed 

Confirmed 

Confirmed 

How Europe can deliver effective action 

Ms Frances Kennah National Member for the United Kingdom Eurojust [including a perspective on how UK police 

might better engage] 

Confirmed 

Innovative technologies and effective collaboration 

Senior figure from BAE Systems Detica 

Confirmed 

Followed by a round table discussion including ACC Steve Heywood Greater Manchester Police & Detective Chief 

Superintendent Tom Manson MPS 

Confirmed 

INVITATION AGENDA - as at 13.11.13 

THIS IS NOT A TIMED PROGRAMME AND THE ORDER MAY BE CHANGED



Lunch 

Lunch Guest Addresses each followed by a Q & A 

The role of the professions in promoting proper business conduct? 

Mr Martyn Jones President ICAEW Chaired by Mr Charles Farr 

& 

Title to be confirmed 

Mr Stephen Greenhalgh Deputy Mayor Greater London Authority (The new London Strategy) 

Confirmed 

Confirmed 

Session three: How can we investigate, prosecute and disrupt more effectively? 

Discussants: 

Resourcing and empowering the SFO 

Mr David Green QC Director Serious Fraud Office 

The effect of effective regulation 

Ms Tracey McDermott Director of Enforcement and Financial Crime Financial Conduct Authority 

What is required for more effective policing? 

Mr Adrian Leppard Commissioner City of London Police 

Integrating the effort to hit serious crime at its heart 

Ms Stephanie Jeavons Deputy Director NCA 

Business facing the authorities – a legal perspective (speech title to be finalised) 

Mr Luke Tolaini Partner Clifford Chance 

& 

Keeping business within the law 

A senior representative from a major financial institution 

Confirmed 

Confirmed 

Confirmed 

Confirmed 

Confirmed 

Confirmed 

Followed by a round table discussion 

Session four: Law enforcement: delivering an effective response to the evolving cyberisation of serious 

and organised crime 

Opening overview: 

Professor Klaus von Lampe Associate Professor John Jay College of Criminal Justice New York; Editor in Chief 

of Trends in Organized Crime 

Confirmed 

Discussants: 

NCCU – role and vision 

Mr Andy Archibald Head of NCCU National Crime Agency 

Confirmed 

What additional capabilities do the police now require? 

Mr Peter Goodman Deputy CC East Midlands Collaboration Programme and ACPO lead on Cybercrime Confirmed 

What is the most effective approach to law enforcement? 

Mr Mike Driscoll Supervisory Special Agent Criminal and Criminal Cyber programs FBI 

Confirmed 

What does industry require from the authorities? 

An expert from business 

Followed by a round table discussion 





Conclusions 

The lessons to date 

Mr Charles Farr and Mr Keith Bristow 

Confirmed 

* Clifford Chance and BAE Systems Detica will chair the afternoon session 

The day will be preceded by a private, invitation only, dinner discussion on evening before the round table. 

Attendance will include contributors to the round table, sponsor and other VIP guests. The suggested theme is: 

A joint approach to identifying and tackling emerging threats from soc. Who can do what to deliver effect? 



PROTECT 

Charles Farr 

DIRECTOR GENERAL 

Office for Security and Counter Terrorism 

2 Marsham Street, London SW1P 4DF 

DG.OSCT@homeoffice.x.gsi.gov.uk 

Tel +44 (0) 20 7035 8882 

c/o The Association of Police and Crime 

Commissioners 

2nd Floor 

10 Victoria Street 

London 

SW1H 0NN 

13 November 2013 

Dear PCC 

SERIOUS AND ORGANISED CRIME ROUND TABLE EVENT – 3 DECEMBER 

As you know the Government has been making major changes to the way we 

work against organised crime, with the inception of the NCA and a new Serious 

and Organised Crime Strategy. 

2. On the 3 December we are supporting an event hosted in London by Cityforum 

entitled “Cutting Serious and Organised Crime”. You should already have an 

invitation. 

3. The Security Minister, James Brokenshire MP, will deliver the key note address 

on the priorities for government in this area. The round table discussions will 

cover: strategic perspectives; local delivery, national coordination and 

international collaboration; financial crime; and delivering an effective response to 

the evolving ‘cyberisation’ of serious and organised crime. I attach the draft 

agenda for the day which includes details on how to register. 

PROTECT

PROTECT 

4. I realise that you are exceptionally busy during this period but I very much hope 

you or one of your team may be able to attend. We do plan to organise other 

events to brainstorm the strategy and its implementation but this event will have a 

wide attendance and is therefore a real opportunity to advance the agenda. 

Yours sincerely, 

Charles Farr 

PROTECT


From: 

APCCS Dawn Osborne 


Subject: 

Updated: GR-A 116/2013 (restricted): Extraordinary General Meeting - ACPO Review 

Importance: 

High 

To: 

Cc: 



APCC Team 


Following on from the email below from Tania Eagle dated 15 November 2013 which proposed that an Extraordinary 

General Meeting be held on 12 December 2013 in London. The ACPO Review Working Group, having consulted 

informally with members since 14 November, sense that there is sufficient consensus to negate the requirement to 

convene an extraordinary meeting in London and instead propose to agree a direction of travel by written resolution. 

This means that members will no longer need to travel to London for the meeting and that papers (including a ballot 

paper) will be sent electronically. Papers will be sent to you on 2 December and should be returned to the secretariat 

by 12 December 2013. 

Kind regards 

Dawn 





From: APCCS Tania Eagle 


Subject: GR‐A 116/2013 (restricted): Extraordinary General Meeting ‐ ACPO Review 

To: 

Cc: 



APCC Team 


Following the publication of the ACPO Review yesterday, the Review Working Group would like to invite you to provide 

your initial views and comments to me, ideally by 20 th November (ahead of a session at the ACPO Conference on 21 st 

November). As discussed during the closed session yesterday, it would be helpful if you could also discuss the report 

and recommendations with your Chief Constable. 

1

During the closed session yesterday it was also proposed that an extraordinary meeting of Police and Crime 

Commissioner and Other Policing Governance Bodies should be convened before Christmas to agree proposals in 

relation to the review of ACPO. 

It is proposed that this meeting should take place on 12 th December, 11am to 1pm in London (venue to be 

confirmed). Please confirm your attendance with Dawn Osborne (dawn.osborne@apccs.pnn.police.uk). If you are not 

able to attend but would like a representative to attend in your place, please confirm the name of the person who will 

be able to vote on your behalf (should a vote be required). Papers will be provided one week before the meeting. 

Finally, the Working Group public statement on the ACPO Review is below. PCCs are respectfully asked to use this as a 

basis for a ‘line to take’ if a public comment is requested: 

"Our cross party group welcomes the recommendations of this thorough, perceptive and fair report which recognises the 

past record and role played by the Association of Chief Police Officers but reflects the need for change in the new policing 

landscape. Before making our proposals we will consult with Police and Crime Commissioners, Chief Constables, Home 

Secretary, the National Crime Agency, College of Policing and other stakeholders about managing the implementation of 

these changes." 


Regards 

Tania 






















2




3


From: 



Subject: 

GR-A 117/2013 (restricted): Letter from Ian Johnston - Terms and Conditions and 

CPOSA Update 

Attachments: 

Letter Ian Johnston - Terms and Conditions and CPOSA update - 15.11.13.pdf 

To: 

Cc: 



APCC Team 

RE: GR‐A 117/2013 (restricted): Letter from Ian Johnston ‐ Terms and Conditions and CPOSA Update 


Please find attached a letter from Ian Johnston, Police and Crime Commissioner for Gwent. It provides an update on 

work being undertaken by Commissioners on the PNB to look at Chief Officer terms and conditions and CPOSA 

Insurance. 

Kind regards, 

Oliver 




















1






2

From the Gwent Police and Crime Commissioner, Ian Johnston 

15 th November 2013 

Dear Colleagues, 

You will recall that Commissioners on the Official Side were asked to look at a range of issues in 

relation to Chief Officer packages at the October APCC General Meeting. I would like to update you 

on progress and touch on a couple of other issues that have arisen in the meantime. 

Commissioners on the Official Side are carefully drafting a paper that will examine the range of 

allowances that are currently permitted under the current regulation and determinations 

framework. These include relocation, pay, annual leave and vehicles as well as matters relating to 

payments that may fall out of the framework. While we are still working through a number of the 

complex issues, we hope to have a discussion paper with the wider membership well ahead of 

Christmas. I have asked for time to be set aside at the January APCC General Meeting where 

Commissioners can collectively discuss this important issue. Ahead of January, we would like to hear 

your views on the above, and I sincerely thank those who have already been in touch. 

In terms of process, I would remind you all that any changes to terms and conditions that require 

amendments to regulations and determinations will need to be taken through the police pay 

negotiation machinery. In the interests of constructive dialogue with staff associations, I will be 

keeping the Chief Officers’ Staff Association (CPOSA) abreast of developments at appropriate points 

along the process. 

On a related issue, I know a number of you are concerned about payments authorised by police 

authorities. The Independent Chair, Police Negotiating Board has written to the Home Office seeking 

clarity on this issue and I would suggest you may like to await their advice before proceeding further 

on this issue. I will of course update all members as soon as I have any further information. 

The final matter relates to CPOSA insurance cover. To date, work on this matter has been led by 

Commissioners on the ACPO Review and you will recall from their report (September 19) that the 

vast majority of Commissioners have already paid the CPOSA insurance premium for their chief 

officers for 2013/14, however they also recognised that the decision to pay is (of course) a local one. 

Work has been done to clearly distinguish which parts of the policy are met by Commissioners and 

those parts met by private CPOSA funds and finally a recommendation to commission a ‘light touch’ 

piece of analysis to inform CPOSA insurance premium discussions ahead of 2014/15. This analysis 

would look at a range of insurance afforded to comparable roles in other sectors to understand what 

is appropriate to be funded from the public purse. For the small number of Commissioners who are 

yet to pay, I would suggest you may like to pay for this year and await the outcome of the ‘light 

touch’ analysis before taking a final decision on this matter. In terms of the ‘light touch’ analysis, the 

APCC is currently talking to potential providers and are looking for this work to be completed as soon 

as possible. For information, attached is a copy of the Terms of Reference. 

If you have any questions concerning the above, please feel free to get in contact with me or you can 

contact Oliver Shaw at APCC. Oliver’s details are 

(oliver.shaw@apccs.pnn.police.uk, 07714399756). 

Regards, 

Ian Johnston 

Police and Crime Commissioner for Gwent and Chair, Official Side, PNB 

APCC 

2 nd Floor, 10 Victoria Street, 

London, SW1H 0NN 

T 020 7084 8957 

E enquiries@apccs.pnn.police.uk 

@AssocPCCs 

www.apccs.police.uk 

The APCC provides support to all 


and policing governance bodies in 

England, Wales and Northern 

Ireland

Terms of Reference 

Police and Crime Commissioners are seeking independent advice on the payment of insurance 

premiums for Chief Police Officers. The following should be provided: 

i. Whether there is a need for forces to fund separate insurance cover for Chief Officers in 

addition to any local force insurance? 

ii. What are the standards of insurance cover required for Chief Officers? 

iii. Are there any aspects of the current CPOSA reactive Insurance premium 2013/14, that would 

normally be funded by individuals rather than the organisation, when comparing to other 

public sector senior appointments? 

Advice should take into account: 

Benchmark data on the insurance provided for other public sector senior appointments. 

Existing insurance provided from local force insurance policies. 

Impact of change. 

2013/14 CPOSA reactive insurance premiums. 

Stakeholders: 

Police and Crime Commissioners. 

CPOSA. 

Chief Executives / Chief Finance Officers. 

Relevant stakeholders from other comparable sectors.


From: 



To: 


Subject: 

GR-A 119/2013 (Restricted): Under embargo - Lord Stevens Independent Police 

Commission report 

Attachments: 

Lord Stevens report.pdf 

To: 

PCCs 

PCC Chief Executives 

PCC Chief Finance Officers 

PCC Communications Lead 

APCC Board 

CC: APCC Secretariat 


GR‐A 119/2013 (Restricted): Under embargo – Lord Stevens Independent Police Commission report 

Please find attached Lord Stevens policing report which is under embargo until 12 noon tomorrow. Lord Stevens office 

has given me permission to send out his report to you before the report launch. 

Key points: 

Democratic Governance in policing 

The Commission concludes that the PCC model is systemically flawed as a method of democratic governance and should 

be discontinued in its present form at the end of the term of office of the 41 serving PCCs. 

The Commission sees no benefit in reinstating local police authorities in place of PCCs, nor does it consider it desirable 

to return to the days of trying to steer local policing from Whitehall. The Commission proposes to further democratise 

decision‐making over policing by devolving greater powers to lower tier local authorities. The Commission recommends 

four key measures to achieve this: 

(a) The introduction of a legal requirement on the police to organise internal force boundaries in ways that are 

coterminous with the lowest relevant tier of local government; 

(b) Legislating to give local government a say in the appointment of local police commanders; 

(c) Enabling lower tier local authorities to retain at least some of the police precept of the council tax which 

they will then use to commission local policing from their force. This funding would be ring fenced to fund the police 

service and could not be diverted into other local authority services; and 

(d) Giving those same lower tier local authorities the power to set priorities for neighbourhood policing, the local 

policing of volume crime and anti‐social behaviour, by formulating and agreeing with local police commanders policing 

plans for their town, city or borough 

Neighbourhood Policing 

Introduce a local policing commitment. The substance of this commitment will be subject to further discussion. 

However, it should include the following: 

1

(a) a guaranteed minimum level of neighbourhood policing; 

(b) emergency response or an explanation of why this demand will not be met or can be met by other means; 

(c) requests to the police for assistance, or reporting a crime will be met by a commitment to appropriate response 

times; 

(d) reported crime will be investigated or an explanation given of why this is not possible; 

(e) victims will be regularly updated as to the progress of the investigation; and 

(f) those coming into contact with the police whether they be victims, witnesses, offenders or complainants will be 

treated with fairness and dignity. 

Police officers and staff 

The Commission endorses the Winsor aspiration of enhancing the status of policing to a profession and the 

corresponding proposals to raise the qualification standards of those entering the profession. 

Lord Stevens rejects the new starting salary for police constables and urge that a level be set commensurate 

with the qualifications and experiences of new recruits. 

The Commission recommends the setting up of an independent review of the effects of the Winsor recommendations 

within two years of their implementation. 

Police profession 

The Commission recommends creating a ‘chartered police officer’ as the basis of the police profession. A ‘chartered’ 

police officer accountable to a strong professional body will improve public confidence and give greater competence 

and status to police officers and staff. 

The College of Policing would hold and make publicly available the register of all chartered practitioners. 

The presumption should be for total transparency–with open, public hearings for decisions on serious misconduct 

rather than the muddled regime of partially open hearings and judgements which currently prevails. 

Police officers found to have committed serious misconduct by the College of Policing board should be struck off from 

the register. 

The professional body’s primary lines of accountability should be both to the Home Secretary and Parliament. 

Raising standards and remedying misconduct 

Lord Stevens recommends the abolition of HMIC and of the IPCC, and the creation of a new single IPSC. From the outset 

the IPSC should create a database with the necessary storage facilities to retain oversight of serious investigations 

(historic and current) which are or likely to be of significant public interest. This new agency would hold police forces to 

account for the delivery of standards, deal with misconduct effectively and efficiently, and ensure all failings are 

addressed without delay. 

To ensure that the practice standards set out by the College of Policing are being appropriately applied by individual 

forces Lord Stevens considers that a power to impose an improvement framework akin to the consent decree on the 

forces where key standards fall well below an acceptable standard would provide a more active and effective regulation 

than the current regime of largely toothless recommendations. 

The College of Policing would have responsibility for managing new ‘professional competence and conduct panels;, but 

the IPSC should have a duty to ensure that they are meeting the public interest. 

2

Lord Stevens envisages that the new body would be ‘prosecution authority’ for serious complaints and the appeal body 

for complaints who were not satisfied with lower level complaints. 

Making savings and efficiencies 

The Commission recommends the development of a national procurement strategy co‐ordinated jointly by the Ministry 

of Justice and the Home Office for IT, Non IT consumables and forensic services; the aim being to secure integration, 

common standards and value for money of these services. 


Regards, 

Joel 
















3


From: 



To: 


Subject: 

GR-A 120/2013 (Restricted): NPAS statement - police helicopter accident Glasgow 

To: 

Cc: 



APCC Team 


GR‐A 120/2013 (Restricted): NPAS statement ‐ police helicopter accident Glasgow 

I have been asked by Mark Burns‐Williamson and Chief Constable Mark Gilmore to update you this evening on the 

police helicopter crash in Glasgow ‐ please find below a statement from the National Police Air Service (NPAS). 

CONFIDENTIAL FOR INTERNAL POLICE AND APCC USE ONLY ‐ NOT FOR MEDIA 

NPAS update for APCC and ACPO from Mark Burns‐Williamson West Yorkshire Police and Crime Commissioner and Mark 

Gilmore, Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police, following the police helicopter accident in Glasgow. 

"The National Police Air Service has been following the tragic events in Glasgow, our thoughts and concerns are with 

those colleagues and members of the public who may have been killed or injured in this accident, as well as with their 

friends and families. On behalf of NPAS Mark Gilmore passed on our most sincere condolences to Sir Steve House. He 

also reassured him in respect of any operational support or contingency cover that can be offered by NPAS to assist 

Police Scotland colleagues and the communities affected. 

The Northumbria air base has been contacted and has agreed to provide any immediate emergency support required. 

The NPAS control room at West Yorkshire has agreed to receive calls on behalf of Police Scotland in respect of its 

helicopter requirement. A request has been received by NPAS from Police Scotland to consider operational support 

covering the next week. The Chief Constable and Police and Crime Commissioner will be in contact with all members of 

the NPAS Strategic Board and, indeed, colleagues in the wider service. 

The Eurocopter involved in the incident is the only police helicopter operating in Scotland, and was believed to be 

returning to its base in Glasgow when the accident happened. The Scottish aircraft is operated by Bond Aviation. It is 

too early to speculate on what has caused the accident although early press reporting has focused upon possible 

mechanical failure. The true cause will only emerge from the air accident investigation. 

The Scottish aircraft is a Eurocopter 135. NPAS operates 14 Eurocopter 135s on its fleet. NPAS has already been in 

contact with the airframe manufacturer EurocopterUK and the engine manufacturer Turbomecca and there is no 

operator advice at this time, pending the outcome of the accident investigation. Presently, NPAS service remains 

unaffected, however we may at some future time receive safety directives from the CAA regarding our aircraft and 

operation. 

NPAS's regional managers are making contact with staff at all our bases to support them and any concerns they may 

have regarding flight safety. 

1

We will provide further updates as and when new information arrives. Once again, on behalf of NPAS, the Police and 

Crime Commissioner Mark Burns‐Williamson and Mark Gilmore, West Yorkshire Police Chief Constable, would like to 

express their sincere condolences.” 

Mike Green 

Corporate Commmunications Officer 

West Yorkshire Police 

01924 292045 

ext 22045 

07595006125 


Regards, 

Joel 


Joel Charles|Communications Manager|The Association of Police and Crime Commissioners’ 

Board, APCC|07703124174 | 2 nd Floor, 10 Victoria Street, London, SW1H 0NN|www.apccs.police.uk 













2


From: 

Apccs Support 

Sent: 02 December 2013 17:04 

Subject: 

GR-A 122/2013 (restricted): ACPO Review - Written Resolution 

Attachments: Written resolution guidance note.doc; ACPO Review Ordinary Resolution dated 2 

December 2013.doc; Annex A Voting Card written resolution.doc 

To: 

Cc: 



APCC Team 


Last week we confirmed that the meeting on 12 th December will not take place but a written resolution regarding the 

ACPO review will be provided instead. Please find attached the following on behalf of the ACPO Review Working Group: 

1. Written Resolution guidance note 

2. Proposal 

3. Voting form 

Please return the form by replying to this email by noon on 12 th December 2013. If you have any queries, please 

contact Tania Eagle (Tania.eagle@apccs.pnn.police.uk, 07714399755). 

Regards 

Tania 

Tania Eagle|Buisness Director|The Association of Police and Crime Commissioners, APCC| 2 nd Floor, 10 Victoria Street, 

London, SW1H 0NN|www.apccs.police.uk|Follow Us: Twitter @assocpccs 











1

2 December 2013 

Written Resolution on ACPO Review 

1. Summary 

The ACPO Review Working Group seeks the agreement of members to their 

recommendations on the Parker Review. 

2. Articles 

3. Voting 

APCC articles allow the use of written resolutions. Article 38 refers but in essence as this 

resolution does not relate to the constitution or articles of the company it can be passed 

as an ordinary resolution. This means that it will pass if 51% of eligible members are in 

agreement. As a written resolution it shall lapse if it is not passed before the end of 28 

days beginning with the date on which the resolution is circulated. 

A member signifies his/her agreement to a written resolution when the APCC receives 

from him/her an authenticated document identifying the resolution to which it relates 

indicating agreement to the resolution. The document may be sent to the APCC in hard 

copy or electronic form. The voting card at Annex A should be completed indicating 

agreement or otherwise. Once received by the APCC it may not be revoked. The 

written resolution will be passed once the majority of eligible members have signified 

agreement. 

4. Issues of Note 

Members may wish to note the following: 

 

 

 

 

Once passed a resolution of this nature is binding upon members. 

That Resolution 1 refers to all the recommendations in the attached paper titled 

“ACPO Review”. 

That the recommendation that The Chair of the Implementation Board should 

present proposals to APCC members for endorsement and ratification at 

General Meetings throughout 2014/15 ensures that members can retain 

ownership of outcomes. 

That the review of the financial commitment being reviewed at three monthly 

intervals by the Implementation Board should ensure that activity can take 

place and is used to resource the programme and ensure continuity of those 

functions currently provided by ACPO that are deemed to be essential. 

Contacts 

Mark Castle mark.castle@apccs.pnn.police.co.uk/07714399752


Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) Review 

1. Summary 

The Independent review of ACPO commissioned by the Association of Police and Crime 

Commissioners (APCC) and led by General Sir Nick Parker was presented for members' 

consideration on 14 November 2013. The ACPO Working Group members welcomed what 

they described as a "thorough, perceptive and fair report" and proposed that a consultation 

period to 28 November would enable stakeholder and member feedback to inform their 

final recommendations. This short paper contains those recommendations and an outline 

direction of travel. 


Members are invited to: 

Agree to cease funding ACPO Limited from 1 April 2014. 

 

 

 

 

 

Form an Implementation Board comprised of an independent Chair, the three PCC 

members of the ACPO Review Working Group, MOPAC, three Chief Officer rank 

police officers representative of the scale (small to large) 1 of forces in England and 

Wales, to be nominated by the current ACPO President, a senior representative 

from the College of Policing and Home Office representative to oversee the 

development and implementation of the recommendations in the Parker report. 

Agree to the ACPO Working Group apppointing an Independent Chair to lead the 

development and implementation of the recommendations in the Parker report. 

Agree that the draft implementation programme and Terms of Reference for the 

Implementation Board should be submitted to APCC members at the General 

Meeting on 21 January which should include an implementation plan and 

resourcing proposals. 

Agree that the Chair of the Implementation Board, supported by the three PCC 

members of the ACPO Review Working Group, should present proposals to APCC 

members for endorsement and ratification at General Meetings in 2014/15. 

Agree to make an interim grant of £600K to be used at the Implementation Board’s 

discretion to resource the transition, post 1 April 2014. On the basis that spending 

and implementation activity will be reported to members every three months until 

the conclusion of the Implementation Board’s work. 

1 Using the Force Weighting Mechanism as shown on page 38 table 3.2 of “Report on the pay of Police and Crime 

Commissioners” by Review Body on Senior Salaries dated October 2011; one representative from Force Weighting 

scale 1.5 to 2.0, one from 2.5 to 4.5 and one from 5.0 to 10.


3. Governance and Accountability 

The complexity of the transition from the present arrangements to those recommended in the 

Parker Report demand both a high degree of scrutiny and planning. It will be important that the 

consequences of change are identified early, that stakeholders maintain confidence in the 

programme, that value for money is delivered and that the outcome achieves credibility with 

the public. In order to maintain momentum and credibility the programme should be led by an 

Independent Chair with significant experience of implementing transformational change. He/she 

should be supported by a Board working to Terms of Reference agreed by PCCs. The Board 

should oversee and direct working groups charged to develop implementation plans that realise 

the Parker Report’s recommendations. 

4 Timings 

The scale of the proposed changes and the operational implications demand that a sense of 

urgency is maintained. An implementation plan with clear objectives and timings should be 

presented to APCC members for endorsement on 21 January 2014 to be completed by 1 April 

2015. 

5 Resources and ACPO Ltd 

It is for the Directors of ACPO to determine its future but continuity of those functions deemed 

essential in the Parker report will be integral to the success of this change programme. At the 

earliest opportunity the Implementation Board should present a costed migration plan that 

takes into account any agreement reached with ACPO Directors regarding the transfer of 

resources. The Parker report identified the requirement to resource the change programme 

during its first year while funding streams are being developed. Rather than commit the £1.2 M 

suggested in the Parker Report. PCCs are requested to underwrite the change programme by 

agreeing to an initial grant of £600K to the Implementation Board. It is intended that the 

financial commitment is reviewed at three monthly intervals by the Board and is used to 

resource the programme and ensure continuity of those functions currently provided by ACPO 

that are deemed to be essential. Early consideration should be given to strategic 

communications, as transparency and maintaining public confidence will be critical to success. 

6. Conclusion 

The successful development and implementation of the recommendations and proposals 

contained within the Parker Report are critical to the success of the wider Police reform 

programme. The interests of many stakeholders must be taken into account and activity must 

be synchronised to ensure operational output is maintained and value for money delivered. It is 

equally important that the outcome meets the requirements of the PCCs who must remain close 

to decisions throughout and gives confidence to both serving police officers and staff and the 

public. 

Contact Officer: Mark Castle (mark.castle@apccs.pnn.police.uk) 07714 399752

Annex A To 

Written Resolution on ACPO Review 

Dated 2 December 2013 

ASSOCIATION OF POLICE AND CRIME COMMISSIONERS 

Written Resolution 


VOTING CARD 

ACPO Review 

Please record your vote by placing an X under the appropriate 

column next to the relevant resolution: 

For Against 

 

Resolution 1 

Name ………………………………………………………………………………………… 

Signature …………………………………………………………………………………… 

Area ………………………………………………………………………………………….. 

Please return this form no later than 12 December 2013 to 

apccs.support@apccs.pnn.police.uk


From: 

APCCS Cat Mclntyre 


Cc: 

APCCS Mark Castle; APCCS Tania Eagle; APCCS Cat Mclntyre; APCCS Clare O' Sullivan; 

APCCS Dawn Osborne; APCCS Simon Efford; APCCS Joel Charles; Apccs Support; 

Andrew Tremayne 

Subject: 

GR-A 123/2013: **Restricted** APCC Briefing on FOI Request Concerning Convictions 

Attachments: 

APCC Briefing - FOI request on PCC and staff convictions.docx 

To: 

CC: 



APCC Team 


GR‐A 123/2013: **Restricted** APCC Briefing on FOI Request Concerning Convictions 

Further to my email GR‐B 351/2013, I am now able to enclose the advice referred to in that email about a recent FOI 

request which we believe has been sent to all PCCs. This comes from Rob Weekes of Open World News and concerns 

convictions and criminal records relating to PCCs and persons employed by PCCs. Given that this raises some complex 

Data Protection Issues, the APCC has on this occasion agreed to put together the briefing attached, which we hope will 

assist PCCs’ Offices in preparing their responses. 

Please note the attached document is restricted and care should therefore be taken in circulating it further, although we 

understand that PCCs may wish to share it with individuals who will be preparing the FOI response on their behalf. 

Please get in touch with me if you have any queries. 

Regards 

Cat McIntyre 

Please note my email address has changed to: cat.mcintyre@apccs.pnn.police.uk 

Cat McIntyre | Policy Lead | The Association of Police and Crime Commissioners (APCC) | 07714 399 754 | 2 nd Floor, 10 




1











2

APCC briefing 

** Restricted ** 

Briefing on FOI Request Concerning PCC and Staff Convictions 

‐ December 2013 

1. Introduction 

We understand most, if not all PCC Offices have received an FOI request from Rob Weekes of Open 

World News, concerning criminal records and convictions of the PCC and staff employed by the PCC. 

As this request raises a number of complex issues, particularly around the interplay between FOI and 

Data Protection, it has been decided that the APCC will prepare a briefing for PCC Offices to help 

guide them in their individual responses locally. We are grateful to the staff of the Police FOI 

Referral Unit for their assistance with this task. 

2. The Request: 

The FOI request circulated to PCC offices asks for the information which follows: 

1. Details of any previous convictions of the Police and Crime Comissioner [sic] including: 

1. a) The number of people employed by the Police and Crime Commissioner, including the PCC 

him or herself, (including those suspended, subject to caution, etc.) who have criminal records 

(for example, but not limited to, convictions, out‐of‐court disposals, etc.) 

1. b) Of these, the number known to be on the Sex Offenders Register or have convictions or outof‐court 

disposals for sex offences (of any type, including child sex). 

2. For each case, please provide: 

a) A description of the offence committed 

b) The punishment received 

c) The date of the conviction and the date when the crime was committed 

3. Lack of Clarity 

Several of the questions lack clarity in a number of respects, and the initial response to the questions 

might be to ask for clarification of the request (S8(1)(c) of the Act) in relation to: 

‣ Question 1 – it is not clear if the information sought here is specifically in relation to the PCC or is 

merely a preamble to the more statistical information sought in 1a, and 1b. In any event, for 

Data Protection reasons, if this is a request for information about the criminal record of a PCC as 

an individual, it can only be met with a Neither Confirm Nor Deny response (by virtue of S40(5) of 

the FOI Act) – see paragraph 4.1 for further discussion on this point. 





‣ Questions 1 and 2 – it is not clear which staff the inquiry relates to – since the PCC technically still 

employs all force staff, as well as the staff in his or her own office, and it might first be helpful to 

clarify this. In any event, there are a number of problems relating to what access a PCC might 

have to information about criminal convictions, other than through personnel files in his or her 

possession. This is dealt with in more detail in paragraph 4.5 below. 

‣ Questions 2 a‐c – it is not clear whether ‘each case’ refers to 1a and 1 b, or just to the latter 

question – and clarification could also be sought on this point. 

4. Issues to Consider 

1. To some extent there may be conflicts between a PCC’s desire to be open in the interests of 

transparency, the constraints required by the Data Protection Act, and precedents set now which 

might have unintended impacts if asked again in future years. As mentioned, requests for 

information about criminal convictions in relation to specific individuals should be met with the 

Neither Confirm Nor Deny response (NCND), because to do otherwise risks revealing personal 

information. Even a response of ‘none’ or ‘information not held’ is problematic, since the first is 

revealing personal information and the second could set a precedent which might imply a 

conviction if a different answer to “NCND” is given in a future request, or if that information is 

subsequently held. 

2. Statistical data which does not identify individuals can be disclosed, such as the information 

requested at question 1a – but particularly in a small office (if clarification of the request does 

reveal that it relates only to staff within the PCC’s Office) providing statistical data could in 

practice enable individuals to be identified, particularly if the detailed information requested at 

question 2 is also provided. The very sensitive nature of question 1b needs particular caution 

(the police do not generally disclose statistical information at levels lower that per 10,000 

persons for this type of question, and staff within a PCC’s office will be much lower that this). 

PCCs might consider the public interest in relation to sex offenders outweighs some of the 

statistical risks. However, an answer of ‘none’ or ‘information not held’ could cause future 

problems in the same way as discussed at paragraph 1 above, and an NCND response should 

therefore also be considered in relation to questions 1a, 1b and 2a‐c. 

3. If the request applies to all police staff as well as staff in the PCC’s office, this introduces a 

measure of scale which might bring into play issues of the excessive cost of answering the 

request. 

4. Whether the request applies to all force staff, or only to staff in the PCC’s Office, the issue of 

what information is actually held within the PCC’s office needs to be considered. Information on 

force staff is unlikely to be held by the PCC and, since many PCCs also rely on their force to 

undertake vetting and criminal record checks of their own staff, information of this nature may 

not be held in relation to PCC’s staff either. If it is, it is likely to be the sort of information held in 

personnel files, since PCCs are not able to trawl force systems, such as the PND or ViSOR 

database (which holds information on sex offenders). However, for the reasons outlined above 

NCND principles should still be considered, as this may be preferable to an ‘information not held’ 

answer. 

5. Summary Advice 

The suggested action in response to this request is therefore as follows: 

Page 2 of 4 





‣ PCCs Offices might first wish to clarify the request as suggested in paragraph 3 above 

‣ Does data recovery exceed the fees limit (particularly if the request in relation to police staff as 

well as the staff in the PCC’s Office)? 

‣ PCC Offices can only use information held in their systems to answer the question, not that held 

on force systems 

‣ Any direct question about the criminal history of an individual requires the consistent application 

of S40(5) – NCND response 

‣ Statistical information can be provided (such as that asked in question 1a and 1b of the request), 

provided it does not identify an individual, BUT the risks of doing so need to be considered and 

balanced with the public interests in disclosure, and particular caution may need to be exercised 

around the sensitivity and high risks in relation to questions 1b. 

‣ There is a higher risk in a small office (if the request relates only to the staff in the PCC’s office) 

that providing statistical information may result in individuals being identified inadvertently, 

particularly if supplemented by additional detail, such as that requested at question 2. 

‣ Because of these risks, NCND principles should be considered in relation to the provision of 

statistical information, and a partial NCND (S40(5)) applied to other information that may or may 

not be held in relation to the whole request. This might be preferable to an ‘information not 

held’ answer for the reasons set out in paragraph 4 above. 

Any Questions? 

If you have any questions on this briefing, please get in touch with cat.mcintyre@apccs.pnn.police.uk 

(07714 399 754). 

APCC Secretariat – December 2013 

Contact: cat.mcintyre@apcc.pnn.police.uk (07714 399 754) 

Page 3 of 4 





Page 4 of 4 





From: 



Subject: 

GR-A 124/2013 (restricted): Supplementary Information to Written Resolution on 

ACPO Review 

Attachments: 

ACPO Review QA 41213.doc 

To: 

Cc: 



APCC Team 


The ACPO Review Working Group asked that the attached supplementary information is provided to you to assist your 

consideration in relation to the written resolution. 

We understand that Chief Constables will receive the proposal within the written resolution directly from ACPO, you 

may therefore wish to discuss the written resolution and supplementary information with your Chief Constables. 

Please let myself of Mark Castle know if you have any queries, 

Regards 

Tania 















1

Q&A on Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) Review by 


1. Summary 

The Independent review of ACPO commissioned by the Association of Police and Crime 

Commissioners (APCC) and led by General Sir Nick Parker was presented for members' 

consideration on 14 November 2013. The ACPO Working Group members welcomed what 

they described as a "thorough, perceptive and fair report" and proposed that a consultation 

period to 28 November would enable stakeholder and member feedback to inform their 

final recommendations. The ACPO Working Group have now sent their recommendations 

to APCC members for their consideration. This paper contains some answers to questions 

which members may be asked. 

2. Questions and Answers 

Why was the ACPO Review commissioned? Home office Ministers withdrew their financial 

support for parts of ACPO in 2012. PCCs were asked to continue their financial 

commitment but in the new policing landscape we felt that it was important to examine 

the continued relevance of ACPO as presently constituted. 

You have recommended that PCCs agree to cease funding ACPO Limited from 1 April 

2014, why? General Sir Nick Parker recommended in his independent review that it was 

inappropriate for PCCs to fund ACPO as a limited company. As PCCs are examining every 

penny of police budgets to assure best value, we want Chief Officers and their 

colleagues in the other ACPO ranks to focus on this problem and work with us to identify 

a workable alternative. We agree with the analysis that General Sir Nick Parker offered. 

We wish to work with the leaders of the policing profession to establish a workable 

alternative based on Chief Constables’ Council as was recommended in the Parker 

Report. We believe that this can be in place by 1 April if Chief Constables take ownership 

of the solution. 

You have recommended that an Implementation Board is formed, why? The 

Implementation Board demonstrates our commitment to objectivity and inclusivness. 

We believe that it is our responsibility to establish a group of committed experts whose 

job is to make this work and who feel as passionate as we do about getting the best 

outcome possible for the public. 

You have suggested that it has an independent Chair and a range of other representatives 

on the Board, why? We have carefully considered the composition of this Board. We 

have demonstrated our commitment to objectivity by commissioning Nick Parker’s work 

and we believe that an independent Chair will continue to make informed judgements in

the best interests of the public that will have credibility with all stakeholders. It will be 

important that the members of the Board have a vested interest in achieving success. 

Having the three PCC members of the ACPO Review Working Group, MOPAC, three 

Chief Officer rank police officers representing forces in England and Wales, a senior 

representative from the College of Policing and a Home Office representative ensures 

that the broad spectrum of those involved in policing in England and Wales will 

contribute to the development and implementation of the recommendations in the 

Parker report. 

But what difference will an independent Chair make? With the best will in the world 

committed stakeholders will bring both knowledge and baggage, an independent Chair 

with credibility but no vested interests can help reconcile differences and ensure 

constructive and workable solutions are put in place. 

What right have PCCs to dictate the implementation programme and Terms of Reference 

for the Implementation Board? PCCs have been elected by the public to hold Chief 

Constables to account and to ensure the efficiency and effectiveness of the service 

delivered to the public. PCCs respect the professional independence of the leaders of 

policing and want to work with them to realise the proposals in the Parker report. It is 

important that at all times PCCs act as the voice of the public and ensure an affordable 

outcome. As part of the accountability and scrutiny process PCCs will review proposals 

in January, March and July and thereafter as required. 

What is the hurry? There is an ongoing need to keep the public safe from harm. We must 

ensure that the momentum and sense of urgency is maintained. 

Why do PCCs need to be consulted regularly through the implementation? PCCs will have 

to underwrite and fund these proposals, it is important that they scrutinise them on 

behalf of the public that they represent. 

If you are not funding ACPO why do you need to make an interim grant of £600K? ACPO as 

a vehicle has delivered a critically important service to the public over the years, as the 

Parker Report recognised. ACPO’s pragmatic response to policing challenges has led to 

an accumulation of functions which need to be reorganised and rationalised. The Parker 

report recommended that an alternative funding model to ACPO Limited be used and 

so, while we work with Chief Constables to establish a sustainable alternative we must 

ensure continuity of essential operational activity. There should be no sense that we are 

creating a cliff edge; we are confident that Chief Constables will have proposed a 

sustainable and cheaper alternative means of meeting the requirements of Chief 

Constables Council at an early opportunity. This investment will prime the pump and 

sustain it while a business plan is developed and will ensure that critical activity 

currently provided by ACPO is transferred at no risk to the public.

Was ACPO consulted? On 21 November the working group members met with members of 

the ACPO presidential team and sought views from chief officer at the ACPO conference. 

They also considered a written response from ACPO in their deliberations. 

Who will pay and how? PCCs and other Policing Governance Bodies will pay using the 

same formula as last year. The APCC will invoice on behalf of the Implementation 

Board. But why can’t ACPO continue and resource this from its reserves? ACPO 

directors have statutory responsibilities, only they can determine what is in the best 

interests of the public going forward and what is in their personal interests as Directors. 

We can only encourage them to join with us to deliver the best possible outcome for the 

public. 

When is all this change going to be finished? We have got to get this right but are 

confident that working alongside Chief Constables and other partners that if we aim for 

completion in a year we should be about right. 

Contact Officer: Mark Castle (mark.castle@apccs.pnn.police.uk) 07714 399752

FOI-OPCCN-41-APCCCirculars

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?