FOI-OPCCN-41-APCCCirculars
FOI-OPCCN-41-APCCCirculars
FOI-OPCCN-41-APCCCirculars
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
Reply to:<br />
Claire Buckley<br />
Our Ref: CB/<strong>FOI</strong>-0<strong>41</strong> Direct Dial: 01953 424454<br />
22 nd January 2014<br />
Dear Member of Public<br />
Freedom of Information Request – <strong>FOI</strong>/<strong>OPCCN</strong>/0<strong>41</strong><br />
I am writing in connection with your email dated 20 th<br />
requested the following information:<br />
December 2013, in which you<br />
“Please send me copies of any circular emails and attachments you have received<br />
from the Association of PCCs which were marked ‘PCC Eyes Only’, ‘RESTRICTED’<br />
or similar, and dated 24 th September 2013 or later.”<br />
With regards to this request, I have located copies of the emails sent by the Association of<br />
PCCs that you seek and, after considering the content of each Email under the rules of the<br />
<strong>FOI</strong> Act, I can advise the following:<br />
GR-A 71/2013<br />
This email was disclosed as part of your previous request.<br />
GR-A 82/2013 This email has not been provided as it is Exempt under Section 22<br />
(Information Intended for Future Publication) as advised in my previous<br />
response.<br />
GR-A 83/2013 This email has not been provided as it is Exempt under Section 22<br />
(Information Intended for Future Publication) as advised in my previous<br />
response.<br />
GR-A 85/2013 This email has not been provided as it is Exempt under Section 43 (2)<br />
(Commercial Interests) of the <strong>FOI</strong> Act.<br />
GR-A 88/2013<br />
GR-A 89/2013<br />
(dated<br />
4/10/2013)<br />
I have attached the relevant information<br />
I have attached the email and the majority of attachments. Six of these<br />
are Exempt under Section 22 (Information Intended for Future<br />
Publication), One is Exempt under Section 43(2) (Commercial Interests)<br />
and the Annex to one of the attachments provided is Exempt under<br />
Section 40 (Personal Information) of the <strong>FOI</strong> Act.
Page 2<br />
GR-A 89/2013<br />
(dated<br />
8/10/2013)<br />
I have attached the email but the attachment is Exempt under Section<br />
43(2) (Commercial Interests) of the <strong>FOI</strong> Act<br />
GR-A 90/2013 This email has not been provided as it is Exempt under Section 40<br />
(Personal Information) of the <strong>FOI</strong> Act.<br />
GR-A 91/2013<br />
GR-A 93/2013<br />
GR-A 94/2013<br />
GR-A 95/2013<br />
(dated<br />
30/10/2013)<br />
GR-A 95/2013<br />
(dated<br />
6/11/2013)<br />
GR-A 95/2013<br />
(dated<br />
8/11/2013)<br />
GR-A 96/2013<br />
GR-A 97/2013<br />
I have attached the email but the attachment is Exempt under Section<br />
40 (Personal Information) of the <strong>FOI</strong> Act.<br />
I have attached the email but the attachments are Exempt under<br />
Section 43(2) (Commercial Interests) of the <strong>FOI</strong> Act.<br />
I have attached the email but the attachments are Exempt under<br />
Section 43(2) (Commercial Interests) of the <strong>FOI</strong> Act.<br />
I have attached the relevant information.<br />
I have attached the relevant information.<br />
I have attached the email and the majority of attachments. One of these<br />
is Exempt under Section 21 (Information reasonably accessible by other<br />
means) of the <strong>FOI</strong> Act. Please be advised that the attachment is<br />
available here: PCC One Year On Report<br />
I have attached the email but the attachments are Exempt under<br />
Section 43(2) (Commercial Interests) of the <strong>FOI</strong> Act.<br />
I have attached the relevant information.<br />
GR-A 98/2013 This email has not been provided as it is Exempt under Section 40<br />
(Personal Information) of the <strong>FOI</strong> Act.<br />
GR-A 99/2013<br />
GR-A 100/2013<br />
GR-A 101/2013<br />
GR-A 102/2013<br />
I have attached the email but the attachment is Exempt under Section<br />
43(2) (Commercial Interests) of the <strong>FOI</strong> Act.<br />
I have attached the email but the attachment is Exempt under Section<br />
43(2) (Commercial Interests) of the <strong>FOI</strong> Act.<br />
I have attached the relevant information.<br />
I have attached the relevant information.
Page 3<br />
GR-A 103/2013 This email has not been provided as it is Exempt under Section 40<br />
(Personal Information) of the <strong>FOI</strong> Act.<br />
GR-A 104/2013<br />
GR-A 105/2013<br />
GR-A 106/2013<br />
GR-A 107/2013<br />
GR-A 108/2013<br />
GR-A 109/2013<br />
GR-A 110/2013<br />
GR-A 111/2013<br />
GR-A 112/2013<br />
GR-A 114/2013<br />
GR-A 115/2013<br />
GR-A 116/2013<br />
GR-A 117/2013<br />
GR-A 119/2013<br />
GR-A 120/2013<br />
GR-A 122/2013<br />
I have attached the relevant information.<br />
I have attached the relevant information.<br />
I have attached the email but the attachment is Exempt under Section<br />
43(2) (Commercial Interests) of the <strong>FOI</strong> Act.<br />
I have attached the email but the attachments are Exempt under<br />
Section 43(2) (Commercial Interests) of the <strong>FOI</strong> Act.<br />
I have attached the email but the attachments are Exempt under<br />
Section 43(2) (Commercial Interests) of the <strong>FOI</strong> Act.<br />
I have attached the email and the majority of attachments. One of these<br />
is Exempt under Section 31 (Law Enforcement) of the <strong>FOI</strong> Act and one<br />
is Exempt under Section 21 (Information reasonably accessible by other<br />
means). Please be advised that the attachment is available here:<br />
College of Policing Draft Code of Ethics<br />
I have attached the relevant information.<br />
I have attached the email but the attachment is Exempt under Section<br />
43(2) (Commercial Interests) of the <strong>FOI</strong> Act.<br />
I have attached the relevant information.<br />
I have attached the email and the majority of the attachments. One is<br />
Exempt under Section 21 (Information accessible by other means) of<br />
the <strong>FOI</strong> Act. Please be advised that the attachment is available here:<br />
Independent Review of ACPO<br />
I have attached the relevant information.<br />
I have attached the relevant information.<br />
I have attached the relevant information.<br />
I have attached the email but the attachment is Exempt under Section<br />
21 (Information accessible by other means) of the <strong>FOI</strong> Act. Please be<br />
advised that the attachment is available here: Lord Stevens<br />
Independent Police Commission Report<br />
I have attached the relevant information.<br />
I have attached the relevant information.
Page 4<br />
GR-A 123/2013<br />
GR-A 124/2013<br />
Draft Mental<br />
Health<br />
Concordat<br />
Email (dated<br />
17/12/2013)<br />
I have attached the relevant information.<br />
I have attached the relevant information<br />
This email has not been provided as it is Exempt under Section 35<br />
(Formulation of Government Policy) of the <strong>FOI</strong> Act.<br />
Yours sincerely<br />
CBuckley<br />
Claire Buckley<br />
Freedom of Information Officer<br />
Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner for Norfolk
Buckley, Claire (PA)<br />
From:<br />
APCCS Joel Charles <br />
Sent: 04 October 2013 13:36<br />
To:<br />
APCCS Joel Charles<br />
Subject:<br />
GR-A 88/2013 (Restricted): CoPacc FoI request<br />
To: Police and Crime Commissioners<br />
CC: Chief Executives<br />
APCC Secretariat<br />
Dear Police and Crime Commissioners,<br />
GR‐A 88/2013 (Restricted): CoPacc FoI request<br />
Please find below a freedom of information (FoI) request sent to all your officers from Compare Police and Crime<br />
Commissioners (CoPacc).<br />
The FoI requests information on how your office meets each of the 25 transparency requirements specified within the<br />
Elected Local Policing Bodies (Specified Information) Order 2011 (2011 No. 3050), as amended by The Elected Local<br />
Policing Bodies<br />
(Specified Information) (Amendment) Order 2012 (2012 No. 2479).<br />
My colleagues and I are discussing the FoI with your group leaders next week and taking advice on the way forward. I<br />
would be grateful if you could wait until we have had a steer from group leaders before responding to the FoI.<br />
We aim to get back to you early next week so that you have plenty of time to respond.<br />
I hope this is helpful.<br />
Best wishes,<br />
Joel Charles<br />
APCC Secretariat<br />
Subject: Freedom of Information request<br />
This is a Freedom of Information request (dated 3rd October 2013) addressed to each Office of the Police and<br />
Crime Commissioner (OPCC) plus the Mayor's Office for Police and Crime (MOPAC), to provide details of<br />
how your OPCC/MOPAC meets each of the 25 transparency requirements specified within appropriate<br />
legislation. Details of the legislative requirements on PCCs and MOPAC are available here.<br />
In order to minimise workload on your OPCC (and on MOPAC), a Google Documents spreadsheet is provided<br />
here for your office to complete. Please simply provide within this spreadsheet the pages on your<br />
OPCC/MOPAC website that most closely provide the public with each of the 25 transparency requirements. A<br />
list of the legislative requirements is provided below.<br />
Completion of your office's element of this spreadsheet thus entails provision of the web addresses of up to 25<br />
pages on your OPCC/MOPAC website, and should therefore not represent any undue workload, nor should<br />
1
equire any extensive research on the part of your team. Should you prefer not to complete the spreadsheet,<br />
please alternatively meet this FoI request by in some other way providing a list of the 25 relevant webpages on<br />
your OPCC/MOPAC website that most closely meet each of the 25 criteria listed below.<br />
Please note that the responses to these 42 Freedom of Information requests (<strong>41</strong> OPCCs plus MOPAC) will be<br />
reflected within a CoPaCC paper to be published in November 2013, around the first anniversary of PCCs'<br />
election.<br />
With many thanks in anticipation.<br />
Bernard Rix<br />
Chief Executive, CoPaCC<br />
128 Brunel Drive<br />
Biggleswade<br />
Bedfordshire SG18 8BJ<br />
Joel Charles|Communications Manager|The Association of Police and Crime Commissioners, APCC|0770312<strong>41</strong>74 | 2 nd<br />
Floor, 10 Victoria Street, London, SW1H 0NN|www.apccs.police.uk<br />
Follow Us: Twitter @assocpccs<br />
Visit our website for quick links to the news you need to see today<br />
This communication may contain privileged and confidential information. Any views of opinions expressed are those of the originator and not necessarily those of<br />
the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners'.<br />
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,<br />
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<br />
immediately and delete it from your system.<br />
This communication may contain privileged and confidential information. Any views of opinions expressed are those of the originator and not necessarily those of<br />
the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners'.<br />
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,<br />
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<br />
immediately and delete it from your system.<br />
2
Buckley, Claire (PA)<br />
From:<br />
APCCS Dawn Osborne <br />
Sent: 04 October 2013 16:55<br />
Subject: GR-A 89/2013 (Restricted): APCC General Meeting & Ministerial Engagement - 9<br />
October 2013 - 2 Marsham Street, London<br />
Attachments:<br />
001 Map 2 Marsham Street.doc; 002 General Meeting Agenda.doc; 003 Cover<br />
Briefing.docx; 004 Item 1 Change to APCC Articles covering letter.doc; 005 Item 1<br />
Annex A APCC - Articles of Association - proposed changes.PDF; 006 Item 2 Annual<br />
Report and Accounts covering letter.doc; 007 Item 2 Annex A Annual Report and<br />
Accounts.docx; 008 Item 2 Annex B Annual Report and Accounts Draft statutory<br />
accounts.xls; 009 Item 2 Annex C Annual Report and Accounts management letter<br />
2013.doc; 010 Item 4 ICT Company.pdf; 011 Item 7 Chief Officer Packages.docx; 012<br />
Water Cannon Executive Summary for PCC's.doc; 013 Annex A Water Cannon<br />
Operational Requirement - Part 1.doc; Ministerial Meeting Agenda.docx<br />
Importance:<br />
High<br />
To:<br />
Cc:<br />
Police and Crime Commissioners<br />
Chief Executives<br />
APCC Team<br />
Dear Police and Crime Commissioners<br />
GR‐A 89/2013 (Restricted): APCC General Meeting & Ministerial Engagement – 9 October 2013 – 2 Marsham Street,<br />
London<br />
The next Ministerial Engagement will take place on Wednesday 9 October 2013 at the Home Office, 2 Marsham Street,<br />
London, SW1P 4DF with refreshment from 8.30am and the meeting starting at 9.20am. The APCC General Meeting will<br />
be held across the road in the Emmanuel Centre at 9 – 23 Marsham Street starting with lunch at 12 noon and we aim to<br />
finish by 4pm.<br />
We would like you to note that Ministry of Justice officials will be available over lunch to discuss Transforming<br />
Rehabilitation and Andy Milne, Chief Inspector, West Mercia Police, will also be available to discuss Water Cannon<br />
should any PCCs have any queries on the documents included in the attached papers.<br />
Please find attached the papers for the meeting and I would like you to note that there are 2 Agendas for the day. One<br />
for the Ministerial Engagement in the morning and the Agenda for the APCC General Meeting in the afternoon, along<br />
with a map giving directions to the venue as follows:<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Ministerial Meeting Agenda<br />
001 Map 2 Marsham Street<br />
002 General Meeting Agenda<br />
003 Cover Briefing<br />
004 Item 1 Change to APCC Articles covering letter<br />
005 Item 1 Annex A APCC ‐ Articles of Association ‐ proposed changes<br />
006 Item 2 Annual Report and Accounts covering letter<br />
007 Item 2 Annex A Annual Report and Accounts<br />
1
008 Item 2 Annex B Annual Report and Accounts Draft statutory accounts<br />
009 Item 2 Annex C Annual Report and Accounts management letter 2013<br />
010 Item 4 ICT Company<br />
011 Item 7 Chief Officer Packages<br />
012 Water Cannon Executive Summary for PCC's<br />
013 Annex A Water Cannon Operational Requirement ‐ Part 1<br />
I would be grateful if you could ensure that your office informs the APCC of your attendance to the meeting with Dawn<br />
Osborne (dawn.osborne@apccs.pnn.police.uk).<br />
Kind regards<br />
Dawn<br />
Dawn Osborne|Executive Officer|Association of Police and Crime Commissioners |020 7084 8957 |07714 399758 | 2 nd<br />
Floor, 10 Victoria Street, London, SW1H 0NN|www.apccs.police.uk<br />
Follow Us: Twitter @assocpccs<br />
Visit our website for quick links to the news you need to see today<br />
This communication may contain privileged and confidential information. Any views of opinions expressed are those of the originator and not necessarily those of<br />
the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners'.<br />
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,<br />
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<br />
immediately and delete it from your system.<br />
This communication may contain privileged and confidential information. Any views of opinions expressed are those of the originator and not necessarily those of<br />
the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners'.<br />
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,<br />
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<br />
immediately and delete it from your system.<br />
2
Getting to 2 Marsham Street, London SW1P 4DF<br />
Entrances<br />
Staff entrances are located on Horseferry Road, Marsham Street and Great Peter Street.<br />
Visitors should report to the main entrance located on Marsham Street.<br />
Tube and main line stations<br />
2 Marsham Street (2MS) is approximately a 20 minute walk to Victoria and Waterloo stations. It is 10<br />
minutes walk to Westminster and St James's Park tube stations and 10-15 minutes to Pimlico tube<br />
station.<br />
Buses<br />
Two buses, the 507 and the 88 stop outside the building.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Number 507 bus travels from Victoria to Waterloo. The bus stop is on Horseferry Road,<br />
alongside 2MS and the frequency is 3-8 minutes from 7am to 8pm. The last bus towards<br />
Victoria leaves at 8.07pm, and the last towards Waterloo station is at 8.28pm.<br />
Number 88 bus travels from Clapham Common to Camden - passing tube stations: Oxford<br />
circus, Great Portland Street, Warren Street, Camden Town and also main line station:<br />
Clapham Common. The bus stop is on Marsham Street, outside 2MS and frequency is 4-10<br />
minutes from 8am to 9pm. Outside of that period buses run approximately every 12 minutes.<br />
Number C10 bus travels from Elephant and Castle to Victoria station - passing Pimlico tube<br />
station. The bus stop is a couple of minute's walk from 2MS on Page Street. Frequency is<br />
about every 12 minutes from 7am to 8pm.
APCC General Meeting<br />
Date: 9 th October 2013, 12.00 to 16.00<br />
Venue: Emmanuel Centre, 9‐23 Marsham Street<br />
London SW1P 3DW<br />
Programme<br />
Time<br />
Item<br />
12.00<br />
13.00<br />
Lunch<br />
1 APCC Governance (Articles of Association)<br />
2 APCC Annual Report and Audited Accounts<br />
3 Working Group: Victims Commissioning – substantive discussion<br />
4 Nick Alston: ICT Company<br />
14.30<br />
15.10<br />
5 Rt Hon Eric Pickles, Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government<br />
6 Vera Baird: Vulnerability Programme<br />
7 Ian Johnston: Chief Officer packages<br />
8 Mark Burns Williamson: Proceeds of Crime Act<br />
9 Martyn Underhill: Mental Health<br />
10 General Sir Nick Parker: Update on ACPO Review<br />
4pm<br />
Close
Afternoon Briefing: 1pm to 4pm<br />
Agenda Items<br />
The following items for discussion are included in the afternoon session of the APCC General<br />
Meeting:<br />
‣ APCC Governance<br />
At the Annual General Meeting in March 2013, members requested some changes to the Articles of<br />
Association which must be agreed by Special Resolution before being filed with Companies House.<br />
The relevant papers have been circulated previously for consideration and a vote will be taken to<br />
formally agree the changes.<br />
In addition, members are invited to endorse the Annual Report and Audited Accounts for the<br />
transitional year (2012/13), and agree the appointment of auditors for 2013/14. Again, the<br />
supporting papers for these issues have been circulated previously.<br />
‣ Commissioning of Victims Services – requested by the Victims Commissioning Working Group<br />
The Working Group on Victims’ Commissioning (Kevin Hurley, Police and Crime Commissioner for<br />
Surrey; Alun Michael, Police and Crime Commissioner for South Wales; and, Dorothy Gregson, Chief<br />
Executive for Cambridgeshire) has held discussions with Ministry of Justice officials.<br />
The Ministry of Justice has welcomed the suggestion that Commissioners work collaboratively with<br />
the MoJ to create effective transition arrangements. They are also willing to explore whether a joint<br />
MoJ‐PCC Board can be created in the near future to oversee the transition and ensure that<br />
Commissioners are able to influence how existing and future nationally commissioned services are<br />
delivered.<br />
With respect to the specific question of referral mechanisms; transition plans (which will propose<br />
that Commissioners work together within the existing Victim Support model and regional<br />
boundaries) are being developed. These “regional” arrangements should enable commissioners in<br />
the future to either maintain existing Victims Support referral arrangements or, if they wish, and can<br />
meet national quality standards, over time move to another model of provision. The devolution of<br />
additional money and other aspects will not be affected by this transition process and will be<br />
available from October 2014.<br />
The group are also exploring how a small number of local pilots can be supported in a way which<br />
does not destabilise the transition and meets national standards but does enable us to explore the<br />
effectiveness of new, more local, models of working.<br />
The Working Group has worked hard to create what they feel is a viable proposal which takes into<br />
account the wide range of views expressed on 19 September in Liverpool. They believe that the<br />
position developed with Ministry of Justice offers Commissioners the opportunity to demonstrate a<br />
capacity to reach consensus even on difficult issues.<br />
A presentation will be provided by the Working Group at the meeting.
‣ Police ICT Company – Requested by Nick Alston, PCC for Essex<br />
Following a letter previously sent to Police and Crime Commissioners on 27 September 2013, a<br />
further update is attached as Item 4, which Nick Alston wishes to discuss.<br />
‣ Rt Hon Eric Pickles, Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government<br />
The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government has been invited to attend following<br />
an earlier meeting with Group Representatives. This will provide an opportunity to discuss matters<br />
of mutual interest, such as community safety, council tax precept, and shared service arrangements<br />
with local government.<br />
‣ Vulnerability Programme – Requested by Vera Baird, Northumbria PCC<br />
Mrs Baird will be joined by Police Officers Gary Calvert and Sue Tauk, who will bring their experience<br />
to the meeting.<br />
The scheme is now being implemented nationally by the SIA, and Mrs Baird is keen that<br />
Commissioners are updated on the programme so they can look to implement it in their area. The<br />
programme has been supported by the Home Secretary and senior police officers.<br />
‣ Chief Officer Packages – Requested by Ian Johnston, PCC for Gwent<br />
The issue of pay and benefits for Chief Constables, retention packages, and the Police Advisory<br />
Board consultation on Chief Constable on contract lengths has been raised by Police and Crime<br />
Commissioners a number of times in recent months. A discussion paper is attached as Item 7, which<br />
will be presented by Ian Johnston.<br />
‣ Proceeds of Crime Act (PoCA) 2002 – Requested by Mark Burns Williamson, PCC for West<br />
Yorkshire<br />
Mark Burns Williamson has provided the following, which he wishes to discuss:<br />
There are two key issues with the current PoCA regime:‐ the way the legislation divides the money<br />
(unequally and unfairly) and the way the public are able to see where it gets spent by central<br />
government (invisible and unaccountable). Ministers agree that transparency and information are<br />
the lifeblood of democracy. PCCs publish details of all their expenditure down to £500 so that their<br />
communities are able to track the way in which their money is being spent. The same requirements<br />
should be applied to PoCA confiscations. Communities should be able to follow the funds and see<br />
clearly how the assets seized from criminals blighting their neighbourhoods have been re‐invested.
‣ Mental Health – Requested by Martyn Underhill, PCC for Dorset<br />
Due to a number of issues and developments related to the mental health and policing agenda,<br />
Martyn Underhill would like to provide a verbal update and seek views from Police and Crime<br />
Commissioners.<br />
‣ ACPO Review – Requested by the ACPO Review Working Group<br />
The APCC has now appointed General Sir Nick Parker to lead an independent review into the<br />
functions, funding and governance arrangements of ACPO with the intention of reporting back to<br />
Police and Crime Commissioners in November.<br />
The Working Group felt it would be useful for Sir Nick to update Police and Crime Commissioners on<br />
his approach.<br />
‣ Integrity and Specials – Requested by Julia Mulligan, PCC for North Yorkshire<br />
Julia Mulligan would like to provide a brief update to Police and Crime Commissioners on the<br />
progress of the Integrity Working Group, and other issues regarding Police Specials.<br />
‣ LUNCHTIME BRIEFINGS<br />
Officials from the Ministry of Justice will be available over lunch to discuss any queries Police and<br />
Crime Commissioners may have in relation to Transforming Rehabilitation.<br />
In addition, a briefing paper is attached as 012 regarding the use of water cannon. Again, officers<br />
will be available over lunch to discuss this should you have any queries.<br />
Contact: tania.eagle@apccs.pnn.police.uk; 07714 399 755
APCC briefing<br />
Item 7 ‐ Chief Officer Packages: discussion paper<br />
Introduction<br />
1. This paper covers the issues of:<br />
Pay and benefits for Chief Constables<br />
Retention packages<br />
Police Advisory Board consultation on Chief Constable on contract lengths.<br />
2. The above issues are scheduled to be discussed at the APCC General meeting on October 9. The<br />
discussion will be led by Commissioner Ian Johnston (Gwent) in his capacity as Chair, Official Side<br />
on the Police Negotiating Board. This note provides background, context and attempts to set<br />
out the various issues.<br />
Pay and benefits for Chief Constables<br />
3. This issue has been tabled for discussion at the request of a number of Commissioners following<br />
discussions with the APCC Chief Executive during the recent Summer visits. Broadly the issues<br />
relates to:<br />
Clarity around what allowances and benefits can be paid to Chief Constables (particularly on<br />
appointment)<br />
What are the statutory provisions?<br />
Whether there may be benefit in having greater transparency and national consistency.<br />
4. This paper sets out the statutory framework, salary and allowance provisions for Chief<br />
Constables.<br />
What is the statutory framework?<br />
5. The provisions for police pay, allowances and expenses are set out in the Police Regulations<br />
2003 and determinations made by the Home Secretary under them. The Regulations provide<br />
that ‘allowances’ cannot be paid except as provided for in the Regulations, or approved by the<br />
Home Secretary.<br />
6. Annex A sets out a summary of the salary, leave entitlements, allowances and expenses that can<br />
be paid to Chief Constables under Regulations and Determinations. The list has been divided<br />
between allowances and expenses which are permitted for Chief Constables (Section 1) and for<br />
all police officers (Section 2) which includes Chief Constables.<br />
7. Aside from Regulations and determinations, Police and Crime Commissioners also have a general<br />
power ‘to do anything calculated to facilitate, or conducive to the exercise of, their functions’.<br />
Whether or not this power can be used to pay benefits which fall outside Regulations remains to<br />
be seen.<br />
Next Steps<br />
8. In light of various requests for the above to be discussed, there will be an opportunity at the<br />
October 9 th meeting for Commissioner to consider the above and decide what next steps (if any)<br />
need to be taken.<br />
Retention Packages<br />
APCC, 10 Victoria Street, London SW1H 0NN<br />
T 020 7084 8957 E enquiries@apccs.pnn.police.uk @AssocPCCs www.apccs.police.uk<br />
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’<br />
to chief constables made by police authorities. The reports question the legality of the<br />
payments, some of which appear to be ‘above and beyond’ those set out in the Regulatory<br />
framework outlined above. The payments appear to have been made in order to ‘attract and<br />
retain talent’ however don’t appear to have been made with the authorisation of the Home<br />
Secretary at the time.<br />
10. While this practice appears to be related to payments agreed by police authorities (historically),<br />
there may be risk passed onto Police and Crime Commissioners, especially those who have chief<br />
officers in post whose contracts were agreed by the police authority. Anecdotally, the APCC is<br />
aware that some of these payments have been found to be unlawful and proceedings are<br />
occurring in different parts of the country in order to reclaim money.<br />
11. Commissioners may like to discuss and agree an approach to managing the above situation.<br />
Police Advisory Board<br />
12. On the 26th July, Commissioner Ian Johnston (Gwent) wrote to all Commissioners seeking views<br />
comment on the current fixed term appointment system in England and Wales for Chief<br />
Constables as a response to an informal Home Office consultation on this issue.<br />
13. At the moment, when appointing a Chief Constable, an appointment can be made for a<br />
maximum of 5 years. Subsequent contract renewals can be made for 3 years and then 1 year<br />
(reoccurring). The Home Office have prepared a discussion paper outlining possible alternate<br />
proposals. These include:<br />
Option 1 – Initial maximum of 4 years. Subsequent contract renewal of 4 years and a final 2<br />
year renewal (not reoccurring). Commissioners can only make appointments for up to 3<br />
years if the appointment is to happen 12 months prior to a PCC election.<br />
<br />
Option 2 – Retain the status quo (as above)<br />
Option 3 – Commissioners decide the length of a Chief Constable’s fixed term.<br />
14. Commissioner Johnston’s letter noted that PCCs on the Official Side had considered the matter<br />
with the following suggestion “An initial maximum contract up to 5 years, then contracts up to 3<br />
years (reoccurring). If an appointment is to happen 12 months prior to a PCC election, then the<br />
contract can only be up to 3 years” (Option 4). However, he was keen to seek the views of the<br />
wider Commissioner membership.<br />
Feedback and responses<br />
15. There were 11 responses to Commissioner Johnston’s letter. A summary of the responses can be<br />
found at Annex C. Some of themes emerging include:<br />
<br />
<br />
There was general support for the concept that every Commissioner should have the<br />
opportunity to appoint (or reappoint) their Chief Constabe during their term (There was one<br />
exception to this).<br />
There appeared to be general support for the Official Side proposal (Option 4), with<br />
exception of the following:<br />
<br />
<br />
Some Commissioners suggested the initial term should be a maximum of 4 years<br />
(rather than 5 as proposed above).<br />
Some Commissioenrs felt that a Chief Constable should have a maximum of 10 years<br />
in post, whereas other felt there should be no maximum, with the decision to<br />
appoint or reappoint remaining entirely with the Commissioner.
There appeared to be agreement that it was not advantagious not to have peaks in<br />
recruitment, particularly immediately after a PCC takes office.<br />
16. Commissioner Ian Johnston will lead a discussion on 9 th October with a view to reaching a degree<br />
of consensus between all Commissioners on the above.<br />
APCC Secretariat
Annex A: Pay and allowances under the Police Regulations 2003<br />
Section 1: Pay and Allowances applicable to Chief Constables<br />
Pay (Annex F Determinations)<br />
Chief constable salaries are set in Annex F of determinations using a ‘spot rate’ which varies<br />
depending on the force. When appointing a Chief Constable, a PCC has discretion to offer a salary<br />
range which varies no more than 10% (up or down) from the relevant spot rate. Annex B sets out<br />
the national spot rates.<br />
It is noted that performance related bonuses for Chief Officers was abolished from April 2013 and<br />
DCC salaries cannot be varied by the Police and Crime Commissioner.<br />
Removal Expenses (Annex V, Part 2)<br />
Where the member moves home on joining the force in the rank of Chief Constable, the PCC shall:<br />
Reimburse the reasonable cost of removal or carry out of removal<br />
Reimburse expenses reasonably incurred:<br />
o In the disposal of a former property; or<br />
o In order to rent a former property.<br />
Meet reasonable expenses in connection with the acquisition of a new suitable property, where it is<br />
agreed that it would be unreasonable for them not to rent or be housed in a ‘police house’.<br />
Reimburse for payments made by the member to meet ‘liabilities’ in respect to the first 26 weeks<br />
after the move. Liabilities are:<br />
o Mortgage Interest or rent payments<br />
o The different between council tax of the former home and council tax for the new property.<br />
There is also discretion for the PCC to continue payments beyond 26 weeks should they wish.<br />
Note: The determinations don’t define ‘reasonable costs or expenses’ but they do mention the<br />
following:<br />
Items of expenditure incidental to the move (not covered in the Determinations) as long as the<br />
police officer can satisfy the necessity of the expenditure.<br />
Tax liabilities incurred by the police officer as a consequence of payments made in connection with<br />
the move.<br />
It should also be noted that the determinations are worded in such a way that the above will also be<br />
provided to Assistant Chief Constables & Deputy Chief Constables moving to the new force, with the<br />
Chief Constable being substituted for the PCC in terms of authorising the payments.<br />
Leave entitlement (Annex O)<br />
Chief Constables are entitled to ‘no less than’ 48 days annual leave per year (if they have over 10<br />
years’ service) or 42 days (if they have under 10 years’ service).<br />
However, it is important to note that Chief Constables are not entitled to ‘rest days’ i.e. weekends.<br />
Therefore, for illustrative purposes (excluding Bank Holidays):<br />
<br />
A police constable with 10 years’ service will have 104 ‘rest days’ (52 weeks x 2 days) and 27 days<br />
Annual Leave = 131 days off (excluding bank holidays)<br />
A Chief Constable with more than 10 years’ service is entitled to ‘no less than’ 48 days annual leave<br />
per year.<br />
The current provisions date back to the 1920’s and there have been numerous attempts over the<br />
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<br />
around 30 days per year annual leave.<br />
Train Travel (Annex V)<br />
Superintending ranks and above who are required to travel by train in the execution of their duty are<br />
entitled to first‐class travel.<br />
Anecdotally, it is understand that the use of first class train travel in most forces is not widely used or<br />
practiced.<br />
Motor vehicle Allowances (Annex U) & Relevant Travelling Expenses (Annex V)<br />
For Chief Officers, there is an option of being paid a lump sum per annum plus mileage for duty<br />
travel, or a mileage rate for casual users (sums dependent on cylinder capacity of vehicle).<br />
‘Relevant travelling expenses’ are also covered in Annex V (Part 4) and provides for reimbursement<br />
(within limits set by the local policing body) where a member of a police force is:<br />
required to perform his normal daily period of duty in more than one tour of duty, or<br />
recalled to duty between two tours of duty,<br />
and travels to and from his home between tours, or, as the case may be, in consequence of their<br />
recall.<br />
In practice there appears to be variation around how motor vehicles are provided nationally. Some<br />
chief officers are provided with emergency vehicles (fitted with blue lights and siren). Unlike an ordinary<br />
dedicated car, this would not incur a taxable liability for chief officers for travel between home and work<br />
and for some private journeys – specifically, when they are used whilst ‘on call’ (meaning that the<br />
person must be liable, as part of normal duties, to be called on to use it to respond to emergencies,<br />
either when commuting to their work or using the car for private journeys). Any private usage whilst not<br />
on‐call would be treated as a benefit in kind and taxed accordingly<br />
Uniform (Annex W)<br />
It is the decision of the PCC whether or not a chief officer receives free uniform.<br />
Section 2: Pay and allowances applicable to all police officers<br />
Replacement allowance (Regulations Schedule 3)<br />
Replacement allowance is only available to officers who were already in the service on 31 August<br />
1994. It was introduced in 2003 to replace rent and housing allowances, on their abolition.<br />
Those allowances supplemented the pay of police officers who did not occupy free housing<br />
provided by a Police Authority or police force. Their purpose was to put a police officer who<br />
provided his own accommodation in broadly the same position as one who was provided with free<br />
accommodation. They began at a time when police officers were required to live in houses provided<br />
by the Police Authority.<br />
Several other allowances depend on whether or not an officer receives replacement allowance.<br />
London Weighting (Annex F of the determinations)<br />
Pensionable payment, currently £2,277 per annum for officers in the City of London or<br />
metropolitan police force.<br />
London Allowance (Annex U)
Non‐pensionable allowance, currently £1,011 per annum for officers in the City of London or<br />
metropolitan police force.<br />
The rate is determined by the Commissioner of the relevant force with regard to location and<br />
retention needs up to a maximum of:<br />
£4,338 a year if appointed on or after 1 September 1994 and not receiving a<br />
replacement allowance under Schedule 3;<br />
£1,011 a year, in other cases (provided that, in respect of any particular member, the<br />
total of the London allowance and replacement allowance payable to the member shall<br />
not exceed the London allowance that would be payable if the member were not<br />
receiving a replacement allowance).<br />
London Transitional Supplement (Annex U)<br />
<br />
An allowance not exceeding £1000 per annum, paid to members of the City of London or<br />
metropolitan police force who joined before 1 September 1994 and who receive a replacement<br />
allowance.<br />
The total of the London transitional supplement, London allowance and replacement allowance<br />
payable to the member shall not exceed the London allowance that would be payable if the<br />
member were not receiving a replacement allowance.<br />
South East England Allowance (Annex U)<br />
A member of the Essex, Hertfordshire, Kent, Surrey or Thames Valley constabulary appointed on<br />
or after 1 September 1994 and not receiving a replacement allowance under Schedule 3 shall be<br />
paid an allowance at a rate determined by the Chief Constable of the relevant force with regard<br />
to location and retention needs, following consultation with the joint branch board, and not<br />
exceeding £2,000 a year.<br />
A member of the Bedfordshire, Hampshire or Sussex constabulary appointed on or after 1<br />
September 1994 and not receiving a replacement allowance under Schedule 3 shall be paid an<br />
allowance at a rate determined by the Chief Constable of the relevant force with regard to<br />
location and retention needs, following consultation with the joint branch board, and not<br />
exceeding £1,000 a year.<br />
South East England Transitional Supplement (Annex U)<br />
Applies to Hertfordshire, Kent or Surrey officers who joined the police service before 1<br />
September 1994 and receive a replacement allowance payable at a rate less than the rate of the<br />
South East England Allowance that they would receive if not in receipt of a replacement<br />
allowance.<br />
They receive a supplementary allowance at the rate of the difference between that South East<br />
England Allowance and the replacement allowance that the member is receiving.<br />
Expenses (Annex V)<br />
Reimbursement of medical charges<br />
Applies where the ‘charges’ (certain drugs, medicines and appliances for dental treatment) are<br />
incurred by reason of an injury received without his default in the execution of his duty as a<br />
constable.<br />
Food expenses<br />
<br />
Reimbursed expenses when an officer:<br />
o is necessarily prevented in the course of a tour of duty from obtaining a meal in his usual<br />
way (reimbursed the difference between the meal he then obtains and the meal he<br />
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<br />
meal he then necessarily obtains).<br />
Reimbursement for reasonable expenditure, backed by a receipt.<br />
Accommodation expenses<br />
Reimbursed accommodation expenses necessarily incurred in connection with duty away from<br />
his usual place of duty, or necessary because he has been retained on duty beyond his normal<br />
daily period of duty<br />
Reimbursement for reasonable expenditure, backed by a receipt.<br />
Travel expenses<br />
<br />
Reimbursement (within limits set by the local policing body) applies where a member of a police<br />
force is:<br />
o required to perform his normal daily period of duty in more than one tour of duty, or<br />
o recalled to duty between two tours of duty,<br />
and travels to and from his home between tours, or, as the case may be, in consequence of his<br />
recall (in this paragraph referred to as “relevant travelling”).
Annex B: Chief Constable Spot Salaries (1st September 2010)<br />
Forces CC Salary DCC Salary<br />
MPS (4xACs), West Midland , Greater Manchester £181,455 £139,119 (MPS 8 x DACs)<br />
West Yorkshire £169,359 £135,489<br />
Thames Valley £160,290 £132,237<br />
Merseyside Northumbria £157,260 £129,744<br />
Hampshire £154,233 £127,248<br />
Kent, Lancashire, Devon & Cornwall £151,215 £124,749<br />
South Yorkshire, Essex, Avon & Somerset, Sussex<br />
South Wales<br />
£148,194 £122,256<br />
Nottinghamshire £142,143 £117,264<br />
Hertfordshire, West Mercia, Cheshire, Humberside<br />
Staffordshire, Leicestershire, Derbyshire<br />
£139,119 £114,771<br />
Surrey, Norfolk £136,092 £112,278<br />
Cleveland, Durham, Cambridgeshire, North Wales<br />
North Yorkshire, Gwent, Northamptonshire, Suffolk<br />
Dorset, Wiltshire, Bedfordshire<br />
Gloucestershire, Lincolnshire, Cumbria,<br />
Warwickshire, Dyfed‐Powys<br />
£133,068 £109,782<br />
£130,044 £108,873
Title:<br />
Water Cannon Project – Briefing Paper for Police<br />
and Crime Commissioners<br />
Briefing Paper<br />
Date 27/09/13<br />
Owner Chief Constable David Shaw<br />
Lead<br />
Dept.<br />
National Policing Lead for Conflict<br />
Management<br />
Contact Chief@westmercia.pnn.police.uk<br />
Introduction<br />
This summary document and accompanying paper are provided to inform Police and Crime<br />
Commissioners and MOPAC of the progress of the ongoing project to procure water cannon as a<br />
national asset for use in England and Wales. Since December 2012 Chief Constable David Shaw<br />
(National Policing Lead for Conflict Management) has led this project following approval by the Home<br />
Office Less Lethal Technologies and Systems Strategic Board and Chief Constables’ Council.<br />
Rationale<br />
The request to the Home Secretary to approve water cannon for use in England and Wales forms part of<br />
a review of the wider response to disorder following events of August 2011 and as a result of other<br />
current challenges faced by the police in relation to demonstration and disorder. While it is accepted that<br />
water cannon is not suited to all public disorder situations, experience from Northern Ireland and Europe<br />
demonstrates its ability to maintain distance between opposing factions and to reduce subject and officer<br />
injuries. The mere presence of water cannon is known to have a preventative effect. Water cannon have<br />
been authorised for use in Northern Ireland since 1999 and are frequently deployed in relation to<br />
disorder. There are no recorded injuries associated with its.<br />
Authority<br />
Authority for the use of water cannon in England and Wales must be granted by the Home Secretary.<br />
The Police Minister has been briefed in relation to the project on an ongoing basis and it is anticipated<br />
that authority from the Home Secretary will be requested before the end of 2013. The project currently<br />
has two main work streams.<br />
The first work stream relates to the procurement of new water cannon for use in England and Wales.<br />
While there is an acceptance by some Chief Constables that water cannon is unlikely to be deployed in<br />
their force areas, Chief Constables have agreed that this should constitute a national asset. Whilst these<br />
units have a high purchase cost (between £600-900K), all procurement options need to be explored and<br />
the associated procurement processes may take up to 24 months. It is anticipated that any new cannon<br />
will be in service for 25-30 years and the project is in the process of developing potential operating and<br />
funding models on which Chief Constables and PCC’s will be consulted in the future.<br />
The second work stream relates to a short to medium-term option to buy three used water cannon from<br />
the German Federal Police. It is considered that the 24-month lead time relating to the long-term solution<br />
represents an excessively long gap in operational capability therefore this interim solution is proposed.<br />
Project board delegates have visited Germany to view the cannon in question. Whilst the cannon are over<br />
twenty years old and will require some adaptation to ensure they meet the required standards for use in<br />
the UK, the board believes that they constitute a cost-effective medium term solution. The total cost of<br />
procuring and upgrading these three cannon is estimated to be in the region of £250k. The Metropolitan<br />
Police Service (MPS) is leading on the procurement of these cannon and it is likely that they could be<br />
available by spring 2014. It is not anticipated that any other UK forces will be asked to contribute towards<br />
the cost of these cannon.<br />
Deployment and Authorisation<br />
The MPS has agreed to train staff to operate the interim option. Whilst the German cannon are likely to<br />
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<br />
number of staff already trained to operate alongside water cannon in the public order environment.<br />
Authority to authorise water cannon for operational deployment within a given area will always rest with<br />
local Chief Officers. Authorised Professional Practice (APP) states that authority to deploy water cannon<br />
rests with officers of at least the rank of Assistant Chief Constable and it is important to understand that<br />
water cannon can only be used in relation to incidents of serious disorder or the threat thereof. As with<br />
any use of force, officers must justify the level of force used and water cannon will be fitted with<br />
sophisticated recording systems to facilitate the gathering of evidence and to record any force used.<br />
Medical Implications<br />
While the risk of injury associated with water cannon is low, water cannon themselves do have the<br />
capability to cause serious injury. For this reason, officers operating the cannon will be subject to<br />
stringent training and assessment. The cannon themselves will be tested by Home Office scientists to<br />
ensure that outputs do not exceed those of the PSNI cannon. The medical implications of their use will be<br />
assessed by an independent panel of experts with their report being submitted to the Home Secretary as<br />
part of the request for formal authorisation. Maintenance schedules will ensure the integrity and<br />
calibration of the appropriate systems.<br />
Communication and engagement<br />
Engagement will be one of the critical success factors for ensuring that the public understands the<br />
decision to purchase water cannon. Public order policing is based on a ‘no surprises’ approach and this<br />
approach will constitute the golden thread of the communications and engagement strategies. The<br />
Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime is represented on the Project Board and the APCC is now also<br />
present at this forum. They have been pivotal on advising on engagement issues. The issue of water<br />
cannon was also discussed at the National Police Protective Services board on 17/9/13. PCC’s will also<br />
play a role in developing APP through their representation on the College of Policing Board.<br />
A communications strategy has been written and a comprehensive engagement strategy is in the process<br />
of being drafted. This document will detail the engagement that will take place in relation to water cannon<br />
as part of the wider revised public order framework and will act as a template and briefing document to<br />
facilitate engagement at a local level. It is proposed to hold a series of engagement events across the<br />
country with PCC’s, the College of Policing, police commanders and key local community members. Whilst<br />
the exact structure of these events is still to be decided, it is proposed that participants will be presented<br />
with a number of public disorder scenarios and asked to discuss the anticipated police response.<br />
For consideration by Commissioners<br />
Police and Crime Commissioners may wish to consider the issues raised by the proposed introduction of<br />
water cannon which might include.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
The funding of water cannon as a national asset<br />
Views on deployment within their respective communities<br />
Circumstances in which water cannon might be used<br />
Roles and responsibilities pre and post water cannon deployment<br />
Impact on policing style and engagement with respective communities<br />
Issues relating to risk and responsibility<br />
Opportunity to discuss the issues with Chief Constable Shaw.<br />
Chief Constable David Shaw would welcome further engagement and discussion on this subject and would<br />
encourage PCC’s to discuss water cannon issues with their respective Chief Constables. David is also<br />
happy to discuss the project directly with PCC’s (either in person or via telephone) and can be contacted<br />
via his staff officer Chief Inspector Andy Milne who will be available during the lunchtime break (or on<br />
01905 331630 or andrew.milne@westmercia.pnn.police.uk).
Title:<br />
Water Cannon<br />
Use of water cannon by police in<br />
relation to disorder incidents and<br />
planned public order operations<br />
Operational Requirement (Part 1)<br />
Date 24.06.13<br />
Owner Chief Constable David Shaw<br />
Lead<br />
Dept.<br />
National Conflict Management<br />
Policing Portfolio<br />
Version 1.0<br />
Review N/A<br />
date<br />
Contact chief@westmercia.pnn.police.uk<br />
1. Background<br />
1.1 The consideration of the water cannon issue has been taking place within the context<br />
of a much broader programme of work under the leadership of Chief Constable Ian<br />
Learmonth, National Policing Lead for Public Order and Public Safety. The catalyst for<br />
this work was the disorder of August 2011 and the programme incorporates a<br />
comprehensive review of capability, capacity, responsiveness, training, tactics and<br />
equipment of which the water cannon option is just one element.<br />
1.2 Article 2 of the UN Basic Principles of the Use of Force and Firearms states that;<br />
“Governments and law enforcement agencies should develop a range of means as<br />
broad as possible and equip law enforcement officials with various types of weapons<br />
and ammunition that will allow for a differentiated use of force and firearms”.<br />
1.3 The use of water cannon as a safe and proportionate tactic in the continuum of force<br />
for dealing with public order situations was explored in detail in the two-part Patten<br />
Report. 1 Its validity as a tactical option has also been recognised by Sir Dennis<br />
O’Connor in the HMIC report Rules of Engagement and the Metropolitan Police report<br />
Four Days in August. 2<br />
1.4 Water cannon were first used in Northern Ireland in 1969 and at that time were<br />
described by Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary (HMIC) as ‘mechanised<br />
creators of distance between police and protestors’. Development of water cannon took<br />
place during the 1980’s and water cannon was officially authorised for use in Northern<br />
Ireland in 1999. The Somati RCV9000 Water Cannon has been authorised for use in<br />
Northern Ireland since 2004 and is deployed and used on a frequent basis. This<br />
employment is based on guidance within the College of Policing Authorised<br />
Professional Practice (APP) and the National Police Public Order Training Curriculum.<br />
England, Wales and Scotland remain among the few European countries that do not<br />
have this tactical option available to commanders facing serious public disorder.<br />
1 Recommendations 69 & 70 relating to public order equipment – “A Research Programme Into<br />
Alternative Policing Approaches towards the Management Of Conflict”<br />
2 Para 7.6 recognised that, had water cannon been available, it would have been considered as a tactical<br />
option during the August disorder. It may also have been considered for protests such as Countryside<br />
Alliance in 2004, the Gaza demonstrations against the Israeli Embassy in 2008/9 and the student protests<br />
of 2010.
2. Water cannon as a tactical option<br />
2.1 Over the past 20 years, a range of less lethal policing options has been developed to<br />
enable the use of force at close quarters (batons, Taser, incapacitant sprays etc). The<br />
range of less lethal options to exercise control at a distance is limited. Faced with a<br />
situation where rioters were throwing petrol bombs or other missiles capable of causing<br />
death or serious injury, there would be little alternative other than to withdraw or deploy<br />
AEP or conventional firearms alongside conventional public order tactics. Deploying<br />
conventional public order tactics without AEP / firearms is likely to increase the risk of<br />
both officer and subject injury.<br />
2.2 Water cannon provides the ability to exert control from a distance and critically to<br />
provide a graduated and flexible application of force ranging from spray or diffused<br />
mode to forceful water jets. The mere presence of water cannon can have a deterrent<br />
effect and statistics from Northern Ireland demonstrate that water cannon is often<br />
deployed without being employed 3 . Faced with the need to either protect vulnerable<br />
premises or disperse a crowd in a situation of serious public disorder, in the absence of<br />
the availability of water cannon tactics it is likely that police commanders would have to<br />
authorise alternative tactics (involving significant force) which may include AEPs,<br />
batons, mounted officers, vehicle tactics, police dogs or even firearms.<br />
2.3 The principles of public order command centre on balancing the rights and freedoms<br />
detailed within ECHR and ensuring that any policing response is proportionate. The<br />
need for proportionality when force is used by police officers is clearly defined in<br />
legislation and public bodies and processes exist to hold the police to account for their<br />
actions. Police officers are required to resolve situations with the minimum amount of<br />
force necessary and there is equally an expectation from the public that the police will<br />
respond positively to serious disorder.<br />
2.4 It is anticipated that water cannon would be deployed in relation to planned events and<br />
serious disorder. Any decision to deploy water cannon would be based on a thorough<br />
assessment of a number of critical factors (in particular the threat of disorder and the<br />
level of violence used / anticipated) and would need to be both a lawful and<br />
proportionate use of force. It is reasonable to expect that water cannon would only be<br />
deployed where other tactics have been tried and proven to be unsuccessful or<br />
deemed otherwise inappropriate. Examples of where water cannon could be deployed<br />
include the following, which are intended to be illustrative, not exhaustive: defending a<br />
fixed and vulnerable / iconic location; separation of hostile crowds during<br />
demonstrations / disorder; creating distance between police and opposing factions;<br />
facilitating the advance of police resources and other emergency services to deal with<br />
life at risk incidents during incidents of severe disorder.<br />
2.5 It should be understood that water cannon has its limitations. It is acknowledged that it<br />
has a limited effect on fast, agile disorder. The Metropolitan Police report Four Days in<br />
August commented that ‘Examples in recent history where the use of this tactic might<br />
have been a consideration for commanders had it been available include the<br />
Countryside Alliance demonstrations in Parliament Square (2004), the Gaza<br />
demonstrations against The Israeli Embassy (2008/9) and potentially the student<br />
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<br />
to face significant levels of violence in order to protect key locations and buildings and<br />
the staff within them’.<br />
3. Potential to cause injury<br />
3.1 Each water cannon used in England or Wales must be approved by the Home<br />
Secretary. The Scientific Advisory Committee on the Medical Implications of Less-<br />
Lethal Weapons (SACMILL) has been tasked by the UK Less-Lethal Technologies and<br />
Systems Strategic Board to advise on the medical implications surrounding use of a<br />
type of vehicle-mounted water cannon that has not previously been available to<br />
support policing of serious public disorder in the UK. In order to inform this advice, a<br />
comprehensive review on the medical implications of vehicle-mounted water cannon<br />
has been completed in July 2013 by the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory.<br />
3.2 There are few recorded injuries associated with the use of water cannon. The DSTL<br />
report concludes ‘medically relevant evidence from operational use of water cannon in<br />
Northern Ireland and elsewhere has been sought and assessed, as has the medical<br />
literature concerning the effects of high pressure water jets on the body. No clinical<br />
case reports concerning injuries sustained specifically from use of water cannon in civil<br />
disorder were found in the peer-reviewed literature, although there is good evidence<br />
from other sources to indicate that serious injuries have been sustained by people<br />
subjected to the force of water cannon jets (DSTL report “The medical implications of<br />
vehicle-mounted water cannon with special reference to the Ziegler Wasserwerfer<br />
9000 (WaWe 9) system).<br />
3.3 Injuries associated with the use of water cannon can be categorised as follows;<br />
Primary - injuries caused by the water jet impacting the body.<br />
Secondary - injuries produced by impact on the body of street furniture or other debris.<br />
Tertiary - injuries caused by impact of the body with other objects, such as may arise,<br />
for example, if the water jet causes people to fall over or to be thrown against rigid<br />
structures.<br />
3.4 While it is accepted that the use of water cannon could lead to serious injury, it is<br />
equally important that this is taken in the context of the manner of its use and the<br />
training provided to operators. Deployment of water cannon within England and Wales<br />
would be based on tactics described within the National Public Order Authorised<br />
Professional Practice (APP) and based on the National Public Order Training<br />
Curriculum. These documents form the basis for deployments within Northern Ireland<br />
where there have been no reports of injury caused by water cannon. It is anticipated<br />
that output pressures of any water cannon procured for use in England and Wales<br />
would not exceed those of the PSNI Somati RCV9000 and these pressures will be<br />
subject to scientific testing by the Home Office Centre for Applied Science and<br />
Technology (CAST).<br />
3.5 Colleagues in Northern Ireland will state that the availability of water cannon during<br />
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<br />
with PSNI specialist public order trainers who support this claim. Primarily, experience<br />
shows that water cannon creates distance between police and protestors reducing the<br />
ability of protestors to throw large injury-causing missiles (for example large masonry)<br />
at police.<br />
4. Strategic risk of disorder<br />
4.1 There is no intelligence to suggest that there is an increased likelihood of serious<br />
disorder within England and Wales. However, it would be fair to assume that the<br />
ongoing and potential future austerity measures are likely to lead to continued protest.<br />
Experiences in Millbank in 2010 demonstrate how quickly protest can turn to serious<br />
violent disorder. In addition, the social and economic factors that are currently being<br />
experienced have the potential, when combined with a significant (and often<br />
spontaneous) “trigger” event, to lead to the outbreak of significant disturbances. The<br />
disorder in August 2011 saw major damage to property, deaths of members of the<br />
public and injuries to police officers.<br />
4.2 The Metropolitan Police Service sees no evidence of a change in the context that<br />
underpinned the protest related violence and disorder seen in 2010 and 2011. It is also<br />
worthy of note that the potential for serious public disorder at specific protests has, on<br />
two occasions in the last 18 months, lead to the successful application for authority to<br />
prohibit processions under Sec 13 Public Order Act 1986. Prior to this, the last<br />
prohibition was in 1981 following the disorder in Brixton. Whilst there is no specific<br />
intelligence, the underlying factors outlined above are arguably more relevant for the<br />
capital given its significance as a focal point for protest.<br />
4.3 Although the disorder within the Metropolitan Police area in 2011 provided the catalyst<br />
for the debate around the requirement for water cannon, serious disorder was<br />
experienced in many major cities and towns of an intensity and scale where water<br />
cannon potentially could have offered an operational advantage to public order<br />
commanders.<br />
5. Public Opinion<br />
5.1 It is anticipated that public opinion will be mixed in relation to water cannon. Some<br />
perceive that the use of water cannon is not consistent with the British style of policing.<br />
There is however a public expectation that the police will deal positively with disorder<br />
and that the level of force used will be reasonable.<br />
5.2 CC Ian Learmonth has consulted with key stakeholders in relation to the wider revised<br />
public order framework and water cannon has featured in this. MOPAC and the APCC<br />
are represented on the project board and will play a key role in delivering the wider<br />
communications strategy should approval to use water cannon in England and Wales<br />
be granted.<br />
5.3 A 2012 YouGov survey (14/3/12) suggested that 90% of respondents were in favour of<br />
water cannon. Unexpected media interest in the ongoing project in May 2013 confirms<br />
that public opinion in relation to water cannon is mixed. However, no significant public<br />
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<br />
community groups around the deployment and use of AEP as opposed to the use of<br />
water cannon. AEP has never been deployed in England and Wales in response to<br />
disorder incidents.<br />
6. Community Impact<br />
6.1 The impact of water cannon on individual communities will depend on the nature of the<br />
deployment as well as the nature of the incident prompting it. Public order policing is<br />
based on a ‘no surprises’ ethos and commanders must, wherever practicable, build<br />
communication / engagement plans into their planning considerations and assess the<br />
impact of their response to disorder. Post-incident community impact processes are<br />
embedded and well-practiced in all police forces.<br />
6.2 The Police Service has new national mechanisms for monitoring and assessing<br />
community tension. These were implemented in June 2013 and are based on the<br />
National Intelligence Model (NIM) principles. Nationally the National Domestic<br />
Extremism and Disorder Intelligence Unit (NDEDIU) assesses the strategic domestic<br />
extremism and public disorder threats.<br />
6.3 Police and Crime Commissioners provide an alternative mechanism for engaging with<br />
communities and this will form part of the community engagement process following<br />
any decision to approve water cannon for use in England and Wales.<br />
7. Operating Model / Funding Models<br />
7.1 Chief Constables have been consulted regarding potential operating and funding<br />
models. While a range of responses has been received, there is general support for a<br />
nationally funded model however Chief Constables have requested that all funding<br />
options and sources be explored.<br />
7.2 The opportunity to buy second hand water cannon from Germany presents a costeffective<br />
solution to the short-term requirement for water cannon. Since early 2013 the<br />
project has focussed on obtaining a short-term solution as it was identified that the<br />
procurement of a new bespoke product could take 18-24 months. The short-term<br />
solution will also enable the Police Service to re-assess the Operational and Technical<br />
Requirements (based on training and deployment) for a bespoke model to ensure that<br />
they are current and constitute best value. The purchase of used water cannon in the<br />
short-term is cheaper than leasing solutions and it is anticipated that partial costs could<br />
be recovered through the onward sale of the water cannon.
Ministerial Meeting<br />
Home Office, 2 Marsham Street, London<br />
Date: 9 th October, 9.20am – 4pm<br />
Morning session hosted by the Home Office<br />
Venue: Home Office, 2 Marsham Street, Conference Suite<br />
Time Item Agenda<br />
8.30am 1 Refreshments from 8.30am<br />
9.20am 2 Opening and welcome from Stephen Rimmer<br />
9.30am 3 Rt Hon Theresa May, Home Secretary, Address and Q&A<br />
10am 4 Rt Hon Damian Green, Minister for Policing and Justice, Address and Q&A<br />
10.30am<br />
Refreshments<br />
10.45am 5 Shirley Pearce, Chair, College of Policing<br />
11.20am 6 Anne Owers, Chair, IPCC<br />
12pm<br />
End and depart
Buckley, Claire (PA)<br />
From:<br />
APCCS Clare O' Sullivan
To:<br />
Cc:<br />
Police and Crime Commissioners<br />
Chief Executives<br />
APCC Team<br />
Dear Police and Crime Commissioners<br />
GR‐A 89/2013 (Restricted): APCC General Meeting & Ministerial Engagement – 9 October 2013 – 2 Marsham Street,<br />
London<br />
The next Ministerial Engagement will take place on Wednesday 9 October 2013 at the Home Office, 2 Marsham Street,<br />
London, SW1P 4DF with refreshment from 8.30am and the meeting starting at 9.20am. The APCC General Meeting will<br />
be held across the road in the Emmanuel Centre at 9 – 23 Marsham Street starting with lunch at 12 noon and we aim to<br />
finish by 4pm.<br />
We would like you to note that Ministry of Justice officials will be available over lunch to discuss Transforming<br />
Rehabilitation and Andy Milne, Chief Inspector, West Mercia Police, will also be available to discuss Water Cannon<br />
should any PCCs have any queries on the documents included in the attached papers.<br />
Please find attached the papers for the meeting and I would like you to note that there are 2 Agendas for the day. One<br />
for the Ministerial Engagement in the morning and the Agenda for the APCC General Meeting in the afternoon, along<br />
with a map giving directions to the venue as follows:<br />
Ministerial Meeting Agenda<br />
001 Map 2 Marsham Street<br />
002 General Meeting Agenda<br />
003 Cover Briefing<br />
004 Item 1 Change to APCC Articles covering letter<br />
005 Item 1 Annex A APCC ‐ Articles of Association ‐ proposed changes<br />
006 Item 2 Annual Report and Accounts covering letter<br />
007 Item 2 Annex A Annual Report and Accounts<br />
008 Item 2 Annex B Annual Report and Accounts Draft statutory accounts<br />
009 Item 2 Annex C Annual Report and Accounts management letter 2013<br />
010 Item 4 ICT Company<br />
011 Item 7 Chief Officer Packages<br />
012 Water Cannon Executive Summary for PCC's<br />
013 Annex A Water Cannon Operational Requirement ‐ Part 1<br />
I would be grateful if you could ensure that your office informs the APCC of your attendance to the meeting with Dawn<br />
Osborne (dawn.osborne@apccs.pnn.police.uk).<br />
Kind regards<br />
Dawn<br />
Dawn Osborne|Executive Officer|Association of Police and Crime Commissioners |020 7084 8957 |07714 399758 | 2 nd<br />
Floor, 10 Victoria Street, London, SW1H 0NN|www.apccs.police.uk<br />
Follow Us: Twitter @assocpccs<br />
Visit our website for quick links to the news you need to see today<br />
2
This communication may contain privileged and confidential information. Any views of opinions expressed are those of the originator and not necessarily those of<br />
the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners'.<br />
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,<br />
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<br />
immediately and delete it from your system.<br />
This communication may contain privileged and confidential information. Any views of opinions expressed are those of the originator and not necessarily those of<br />
the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners'.<br />
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,<br />
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<br />
immediately and delete it from your system.<br />
This communication may contain privileged and confidential information. Any views of opinions expressed are those of the originator and not necessarily those of<br />
the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners'.<br />
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,<br />
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<br />
immediately and delete it from your system.<br />
This communication may contain privileged and confidential information. Any views of opinions expressed are those of the originator and not necessarily those of<br />
the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners'.<br />
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,<br />
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<br />
immediately and delete it from your system.<br />
3
From:<br />
APCCS Clare O" Sullivan<br />
To:<br />
APCCS Clare O" Sullivan<br />
Subject:<br />
GR-A 91/2013: RESTRICTED Follow on from APCC General Meeting on 9th October<br />
Date: 10 October 2013 12:58:36<br />
Attachments: Annex A - Summary of responses to FTA consultation.docx<br />
To: Police and Crime Commissioners<br />
CC: Chief Executives<br />
APCC Team<br />
Dear Police and Crime Commissioners,<br />
GR-A 91/2013: Follow on from APCC General Meeting on 9 th October<br />
At yesterday’s AGM a number of PCCs undertook to take further workstrands forward, with<br />
contributions from their fellow PCCs as follows:<br />
Mental Health Working Group<br />
Following yesterday’s meeting and the suggestion that Martyn Underhill arranges a working<br />
group to discuss mental health issues, a meeting of interested Commissioners is proposed on 6<br />
November in London.<br />
Martyn asks for expressions of interest to be forwarded as soon as possible to his office via:<br />
cathy.barfoot@dorset.pnn.police.uk.<br />
Victims Commissioning<br />
Following broad agreement to the proposal put forward by the Working Group, they were<br />
charged with replying to the Ministry of Justice on behalf of all PCCs. They are currently<br />
considering replying setting out the proposal broadly agreed yesterday, but with the pilot sites<br />
of London, Dorset and Avon & Somerset moving to new arrangements earlier than the majority.<br />
A reply will be sent by the MoJ’s deadline of October 11 th . This response will aim to capture all<br />
the views expressed yesterday, so individual replies from each PCC area would not be required.<br />
Chief Constable Contracts – Views on FTA Proposals<br />
Following Commissioner Johnston’s presentation concerning Chief Constable contracts and FTA<br />
proposals, there was a request to recirculate his original letter in (GR-B 213/13). Please follow<br />
the link here to Commissioner Johnston’s original letter and the Home Office Discussion paper.<br />
In summary, Commissioner Johnston is seeking views on proposals to change Chief Constable<br />
Fixed Term Appointments. For ease, the current situation and options are set out below:<br />
Current situation<br />
When appointing a Chief Constable, an appointment can be made for a maximum of 5 years.<br />
Subsequent contract renewals can be made for 3 years and then 1 year (reoccurring).<br />
Proposals<br />
The Home Office paper sets out proposals 1-3. Commissioners on the PNB have suggested<br />
Option 4.
· Options 1 - Initial maximum of 4 years. Subsequent contract renewal of 4 years and a final 2<br />
year renewal (not reoccurring). Commissioners can only make appointments for up to 3<br />
years if the appointment is to happen 12 months prior to a PCC election. (Home Office<br />
Preferred Option)<br />
· Option 2 - Retain the ‘current situation’ (as above)<br />
· Option 3 - Commissioners decide the length of a Chief Constable’s fixed term.<br />
· Option 4 - An initial maximum contract up to 5 years, then contracts up to 3 years<br />
(reoccuring). If an appointment is to happen 12 months prior to a PCC election, then the<br />
contract can only be up to 3 years. (Commissioners on the PNB proposal).<br />
Annex A provides a summary of the 12 responses so far (for information).<br />
Feedback<br />
Commissioner Johnston is seeking feedback (or other suggestions) on the above options. A<br />
summary of all the responses made to date, can be found at Annex A (for information).<br />
If Commissioners could respond to Oliver Shaw (oliver.shaw@apcss.pnn.police.uk) 07714399756<br />
by Friday 18 th October it would be appreciated.<br />
Many thanks<br />
Clare O’Sullivan<br />
Clare O’Sullivan|Senior Policy Development Manager – Criminal Justice and Partnerships|The<br />
Association of Police and Crime Commissioners, 07714 399760 | 2 nd Floor, 10 Victoria Street,<br />
London, SW1H 0NN|www.apccs.police.uk<br />
Follow Us: Twitter @assocpccs<br />
Visit our website for quick links to the news you need to see today<br />
This communication may contain privileged and confidential information. Any views of opinions expressed are those of the<br />
originator and not necessarily those of the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners'.<br />
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<br />
aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of the information is strictly prohibited. If you have received<br />
this electronic message in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete it from your system.<br />
This communication may contain privileged and confidential information. Any views of opinions expressed are those of the<br />
originator and not necessarily those of the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners'.<br />
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<br />
aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of the information is strictly prohibited. If you have received<br />
this electronic message in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete it from your system.<br />
This communication may contain privileged and confidential information. Any views of opinions expressed are those of the<br />
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<br />
aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of the information is strictly prohibited. If you have received<br />
this electronic message in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete it from your system.<br />
This communication may contain privileged and confidential information. Any views of opinions expressed are those of the<br />
originator and not necessarily those of the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners'.<br />
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<br />
aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of the information is strictly prohibited. If you have received<br />
this electronic message in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete it from your system.
From:<br />
APCCS Clare O" Sullivan<br />
To:<br />
APCCS Clare O" Sullivan<br />
Subject:<br />
GR-A 93/2013: RESTRICTED Victims Commissioning Update<br />
Date: 14 October 2013 11:20:32<br />
Attachments: Letter from Victims Commissioning Working Group to MoJ 11.10.13.pdf<br />
Annex to Victims Working Group Letter 11.10.13.pptx<br />
Dear Police and Crime Commissioners<br />
GR-A 93/2013 – Victims’ Commissioning Update<br />
Please find enclosed a copy of the letter and annex sent on October 11 th from the Working<br />
Group to the Ministry of Justice in relation to commissioning referral arrangements for victims to<br />
support services.<br />
At the General Meeting on October 9 th , it was suggested that expressions of interest should be<br />
submitted by October 11th from those PCC areas that want to pilot local commissioning of<br />
referral arrangements from October 2014. The list of areas that have already expressed their<br />
interest to MoJ in acting as pilots is as follows: London, Dorset, Avon & Somerset, Wiltshire,<br />
Devon & Cornwall, Northamptonshire, Cambridgeshire, Staffordshire and Nottinghamshire. The<br />
four Police and Crime Commissioners from Yorkshire and the Humberside have also expressed<br />
interest in working collaboratively as a region with the Ministry of Justice as a pilot area from<br />
October 2014. Should there be additional areas who wish to pilot and are not represented in<br />
the above list, please do get in touch.<br />
In terms of next steps, the Working Group is seeking a follow up meeting with Ministry of Justice<br />
officials. Ministry of Justice officials will be advising the new Minister for Victims (Damian Green)<br />
on the approach set out by PCCs, and a formal reply from the Department would be anticipated<br />
shortly.<br />
Should further information be helpful, please do not hesitate to get in touch,<br />
Many thanks<br />
Clare O’Sullivan<br />
Clare O’Sullivan|Senior Policy Development Manager – Criminal Justice and Partnerships|The<br />
Association of Police and Crime Commissioners, 07714 399760 | 2 nd Floor, 10 Victoria Street,<br />
London, SW1H 0NN|www.apccs.police.uk<br />
Follow Us: Twitter @assocpccs<br />
Visit our website for quick links to the news you need to see today<br />
This communication may contain privileged and confidential information. Any views of opinions expressed are those of the<br />
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<br />
aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of the information is strictly prohibited. If you have received<br />
this electronic message in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete it from your system.<br />
This communication may contain privileged and confidential information. Any views of opinions expressed are those of the<br />
originator and not necessarily those of the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners'.<br />
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<br />
aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of the information is strictly prohibited. If you have received<br />
this electronic message in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete it from your system.<br />
This communication may contain privileged and confidential information. Any views of opinions expressed are those of the<br />
originator and not necessarily those of the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners'.<br />
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<br />
aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of the information is strictly prohibited. If you have received<br />
this electronic message in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete it from your system.<br />
This communication may contain privileged and confidential information. Any views of opinions expressed are those of the<br />
originator and not necessarily those of the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners'.<br />
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<br />
aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of the information is strictly prohibited. If you have received<br />
this electronic message in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete it from your system.
Buckley, Claire (PA)<br />
From:<br />
APCCS Tania Eagle <br />
Sent: 14 October 2013 13:57<br />
Cc:<br />
Wheatley Bruce David (Police ICT Company)<br />
Subject:<br />
GR-A 94/2013 RESTRICTED - PCC newsletter on ICT<br />
Attachments: HO Police National Systems - Landscape v1.docx; Annex A - Local Systems (2011<br />
position).pdf; Annex B - National Police ICT Services 2013-2014 Charges.xlsx<br />
To:<br />
Cc:<br />
Police and Crime Commissioners<br />
Chief Executives<br />
APCC Team<br />
When he presented to the General Meeting last Wednesday, Bruce Wheatley from the Home Office committed to<br />
providing regular updates to Police and Commissioners on the national police ICT landscape.<br />
Please find attached the first of these briefings, noting the restricted nature of the documents.<br />
Please let me know if you have any queries.<br />
Regards<br />
Tania<br />
Tania Eagle|Business Director|The Association of Police and Crime Commissioners, APCC|07714399755 | 2 nd Floor, 10<br />
Victoria Street, London, SW1H 0NN|www.apccs.police.uk<br />
Follow Us: Twitter @assocpccs<br />
Visit our website for quick links to the news you need to see today<br />
**********************************************************************<br />
This email and any files transmitted with it are private and intended<br />
solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed.<br />
If you have received this email in error please return it to the address<br />
it came from telling them it is not for you and then delete it from your system.<br />
This email message has been swept for computer viruses.<br />
**********************************************************************<br />
**********************************************************************<br />
1
This communication may contain privileged and confidential information. Any views of opinions expressed are those of the originator and not necessarily those of<br />
the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners'.<br />
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,<br />
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<br />
immediately and delete it from your system.<br />
This communication may contain privileged and confidential information. Any views of opinions expressed are those of the originator and not necessarily those of<br />
the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners'.<br />
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,<br />
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<br />
immediately and delete it from your system.<br />
2
Buckley, Claire (PA)<br />
From:<br />
APCCS Joel Charles <br />
Sent: 06 November 2013 11:54<br />
To:<br />
APCCS Joel Charles<br />
Subject:<br />
UPDATE GR-A 95/2013: (Restricted) - Final agenda for the Police and Crime<br />
Commissioners one year on event - 14th November<br />
Attachments:<br />
MAP - St. Ermin's Hotel, Caxton Street, London SW1H OQW.docx; PCCs one year on<br />
agenda - 14th Nov 2013.docx<br />
Dear Police and Crime Commissioners,<br />
UPDATE GR‐A 95/2013: (Restricted) – Final agenda for the Police and Crime Commissioners one year on event ‐ 14th<br />
November<br />
Venue: St. Ermin's Hotel, Caxton Street, London SW1H OQW<br />
Date and Time: 14th November 2013, 10am – 4.30pm<br />
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<br />
event venue is located within 3 minute walk from St James’s Park tube station.<br />
The main event will start at 10am with a keynote address by Tony Lloyd, Chairman of the APCC and Greater Manchester<br />
PCC on the role of Police and Crime Commissioners in policing in England and Wales.<br />
Both the Home Secretary and Policing Minister have been invited to attend and there will be a ministerial address in<br />
the morning.<br />
Following the opening speeches, three PCCs will make a speech on the below issues:<br />
Integrity – Julia Mulligan, North Yorkshire PCC<br />
Mental health – Martyn Underhill, Dorset PCC<br />
Victims – Jane Kennedy, Merseyside PCC<br />
Registration will begin at 9.30am and the main event is planned to start at 10am. Lunch will be provided and we aim to<br />
finish the day by 4.30pm.<br />
We have allocated 3 FREE places to each PCC’s office. If you have still not booked to attend then please email<br />
dawn.osborne@apccs.pnn.police.uk or call tel: 0207 084 8957. Please send this email to any of your officers who are<br />
also down to attend.<br />
We look forward to seeing you on the day.<br />
Kind regards,<br />
Joel<br />
Joel Charles|Communications Manager|The Association of Police and Crime Commissioners, APCC|0770312<strong>41</strong>74 | 2 nd<br />
Floor, 10 Victoria Street, London, SW1H 0NN|www.apccs.police.uk<br />
Follow Us: Twitter @assocpccs<br />
1
Visit our website for quick links to the news you need to see today<br />
This communication may contain privileged and confidential information. Any views of opinions expressed are those of the originator and not necessarily those of<br />
the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners'.<br />
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,<br />
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<br />
immediately and delete it from your system.<br />
This communication may contain privileged and confidential information. Any views of opinions expressed are those of the originator and not necessarily those of<br />
the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners'.<br />
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,<br />
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<br />
immediately and delete it from your system.<br />
2
APCC briefing<br />
Police and Crime Commissioners one year on:<br />
Delivering police accountability<br />
Agenda<br />
Venue: St. Ermin's Hotel, Caxton Street, London SW1H OQW<br />
Date & Time: 14th November 2013, 10am – 4.30pm<br />
9am – Press briefing<br />
9.30am – 10am – Registration<br />
10am – Address by Tony Lloyd, Chairman of the APCC and Greater Manchester PCC on<br />
the role of Police and Crime Commissioners in policing in England and Wales<br />
10.15am – Keynote address by the Rt. Hon Damian Green MP, Minister of State for<br />
Policing, Criminal Justice and Victims<br />
10.45am – PCCs to address delegates of three key issues,<br />
1. Integrity – Julia Mulligan, North Yorkshire PCC<br />
2. Mental health – Martyn Underhill, Dorset PCC<br />
3. Victims – Jane Kennedy, Merseyside PCC<br />
12 pm – BT address on police use of IT and the drive for greater digital engagement with the<br />
public<br />
12.10 pm – Press interviews with PCCs and networking lunch.<br />
1.30pm – End of public session, move to closed meeting on Police ICT with Nick Alston,<br />
Essex PCC<br />
4.30pm - Close<br />
APCC, 10 Victoria Street, London SW1H 0NN<br />
T 020 7084 8957 E enquiries@apccs.pnn.police.uk @AssocPCCs www.apccs.police.uk<br />
The APCC provides support to all Police and Crime Commissioners and policing governance bodies in England, Wales and Northern Ireland
Buckley, Claire (PA)<br />
From:<br />
APCCS Joel Charles <br />
Sent: 08 November 2013 12:24<br />
To:<br />
APCCS Joel Charles<br />
Subject:<br />
UPDATE GR-A 95/2013: (Restricted) - Police and Crime Commissioners one year on<br />
event - 14th November<br />
Attachments:<br />
PCCs one year on agenda - 14th Nov 2013.docx; MAP - St. Ermin's Hotel, Caxton<br />
Street, London SW1H OQW.docx; PCCs_One_Year_On.pdf; One year on - Suggested<br />
lines to take.pdf<br />
To:<br />
Cc:<br />
Police and Crime Commissioners<br />
Police ICT Representatives<br />
Chief Executives<br />
APCC Secretariat<br />
Dear Police and Crime Commissioners,<br />
UPDATE GR‐A 95/2013: (Restricted) – Police and Crime Commissioners one year on event ‐ 14th November<br />
Please find below a more detailed briefing for the one year on event on Thursday 14 th November.<br />
Media on the day<br />
I can now confirm that the BBC will be filming the event live all day for News 24 and all their lunchtime and evening<br />
news bulletins. The BBC have confirmed that the one year on event will be the main domestic news story on the 14th.<br />
BBC correspondent Matthew Amroliwala will be presenting live from St Ermin’s Hotel all day. ITV Daybreak and ITV<br />
News are also interested in filming the event and a range of national newspapers will be attending.<br />
I am working closely with the press to manage PCC interviews and will send out further information early next week.<br />
Because of the high level of media interest I have attached a short briefing on some suggested lines to take which I hope<br />
are useful.<br />
The group representatives have approved a press release for the event which will be sent out next week along with a<br />
copy of the one year on document to the media.<br />
One year on document<br />
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<br />
opportunity to thank the communicators for all their hard work in helping to deliver the final product.<br />
Please note that the document is embargoed until 00.01am Thursday 14th November 2013.<br />
Website for live stream and Twitter hashtag<br />
Please note that the URL for the live stream has now been agreed and will broadcast the event from the below address:<br />
www.bt.com/pcc2013<br />
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<br />
Monday 11th November to promote interest in the event.<br />
When you are communicating about the event on Twitter please use #PCCsYearOne.<br />
Event programme<br />
Venue: St. Ermin's Hotel, Caxton Street, London SW1H OQW<br />
Date and Time: 14th November 2013, 10am – 4.30pm<br />
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<br />
event venue is located within 3 minute walk from St James’s Park tube station.<br />
The main event will start at 10am with a keynote address by Tony Lloyd, Chairman of the APCC and Greater Manchester<br />
PCC on the role of Police and Crime Commissioners in policing in England and Wales.<br />
The Policing Minister will deliver the ministerial address in the morning.<br />
Following the opening speeches, three PCCs will make a speech on the below issues:<br />
Integrity – Julia Mulligan, North Yorkshire PCC<br />
Mental health – Martyn Underhill, Dorset PCC<br />
Victims – Jane Kennedy, Merseyside PCC<br />
Registration will begin at 9.30am and the main event is planned to start at 10am. Lunch will be provided and we aim to<br />
finish the day by 4.30pm.<br />
We have allocated 3 FREE places to each PCC’s office. If you have still not booked to attend then please email<br />
dawn.osborne@apccs.pnn.police.uk or call tel: 0207 084 8957. Please send this email to any of your officers who are<br />
also down to attend.<br />
We look forward to seeing you on the day.<br />
Kind regards,<br />
Joel<br />
Joel Charles|Communications Manager|The Association of Police and Crime Commissioners, APCC|0770312<strong>41</strong>74 | 2 nd<br />
Floor, 10 Victoria Street, London, SW1H 0NN|www.apccs.police.uk<br />
Follow Us: Twitter @assocpccs<br />
Visit our website for quick links to the news you need to see today<br />
This communication may contain privileged and confidential information. Any views of opinions expressed are those of the originator and not necessarily those of<br />
the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners'.<br />
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,<br />
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<br />
2
immediately and delete it from your system.<br />
This communication may contain privileged and confidential information. Any views of opinions expressed are those of the originator and not necessarily those of<br />
the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners'.<br />
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,<br />
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<br />
immediately and delete it from your system.<br />
3
APCC agenda<br />
Police and Crime Commissioners one year on:<br />
Delivering police accountability<br />
Agenda<br />
Venue: St. Ermin's Hotel, Caxton Street, London SW1H OQW<br />
Date & Time: 14th November 2013, 10am – 4.30pm<br />
9am – Press briefing<br />
9.30am – 10am – Registration<br />
10am – Address by Tony Lloyd, Chairman of the APCC and Greater Manchester PCC on<br />
the role of Police and Crime Commissioners in policing in England and Wales<br />
10.15am – Keynote address by the Rt. Hon Damian Green MP, Minister of State for<br />
Policing, Criminal Justice and Victims<br />
10.45am – PCCs to address delegates of three key issues,<br />
1. Integrity – Julia Mulligan, North Yorkshire PCC<br />
2. Mental health – Martyn Underhill, Dorset PCC<br />
3. Victims – Jane Kennedy, Merseyside PCC<br />
12 pm – Address by Stuart Hill, Vice President Central Government and Home Affairs, BT<br />
Global Services on police use of IT and the drive for greater digital engagement with the<br />
public<br />
12.10 pm – Press interviews with PCCs and networking lunch<br />
1.30pm – End of public session, move to closed meeting<br />
1.30pm – 2.30pm – PCC working group and General Sir Nick Parker KCB CBE – update on<br />
the ACPO Review<br />
2.30pm – 4.30pm - Nick Alston, Essex PCC - Police ICT<br />
4.30pm - Close<br />
APCC, 10 Victoria Street, London SW1H 0NN<br />
T 020 7084 8957 E enquiries@apccs.pnn.police.uk @AssocPCCs www.apccs.police.uk<br />
The APCC provides support to all Police and Crime Commissioners and policing governance bodies in England, Wales and Northern Ireland
APCC briefing<br />
Key message for the day<br />
One year on - 14 th November 2013<br />
Suggested lines to take<br />
Today’s event will discuss how Police and Crime Commissioners can maintain and increase public<br />
confidence in policing.<br />
Police and Crime Commissioners (PCCs) are working hard to ensure local communities have a<br />
stronger voice in policing. Working with Chief Constables we are transforming the way forces<br />
interact with the public so that policing in the 21st century is more responsive to communities’<br />
concerns about crime.<br />
This year PCCs have launched campaigns to raise awareness and seek change on many key issues<br />
across the policing landscape. We have called for a review of the Proceeds of Crime Act so that<br />
communities benefit from criminals’ ill-gotten gains and working with partner agencies we are<br />
determined to ensure that detainees and victims of crime with mental health problems receive the<br />
right care, at the right time and in the right place.<br />
We are holding this event to help inform the media and public about the work of Police and Crime<br />
Commissioners one year on.<br />
One year on publication<br />
We are launching ‘Police and Crime Commissioner one year on: Delivering police accountability’<br />
today which covers four key themes: crime, policing, value for money and working in partnership.<br />
The document is a snapshot of PCCs’ work and ideas for the future of local policing.<br />
Cost of the event<br />
BT have sponsored today’s conference so no taxpayers’ money has been used to fund the one year<br />
on event.<br />
Topical issues<br />
ACPO review<br />
Retired military chief General Sir Nick Parker is leading an independent review of the role and<br />
functions of the Association of Chief Police Officers.<br />
Sir Nick has been asked to look at the role played by ACPO in the new policing landscape. We largely<br />
fund the organisation and want to ensure that it is fit for purpose, both operationally and financially,<br />
delivering the appropriate capabilities in a manner that is sustainable and exemplifies a cost<br />
effective use of public money. General Sir Nick Parker will publish a report by the end of this month<br />
for consideration by PCCs.<br />
APCC, 10 Victoria Street, London SW1H 0NN<br />
T 020 7084 8957 E enquiries@apccs.pnn.police.uk @AssocPCCs www.apccs.police.uk<br />
The APCC provides support to all Police and Crime Commissioners and policing governance bodies in England, Wales and Northern Ireland
Alcohol harm<br />
The only way to make further progress on alcohol fuelled crime is to work in conjunction with local<br />
and national partners.<br />
Alcohol crime often overlaps with health issues so it is important to work closely with local Health<br />
and Wellbeing Boards and other health professionals to identify the scale of the problem and take<br />
action to reduce misuse.<br />
There is also a need to find innovative ways to address the adverse effects of the night-time<br />
economy and reduce the demand on police responders. Binge drinking blights towns and cities<br />
across England and Wales. Police and Crime Commissioners are working to change the culture by<br />
working with positive role models such as street pastors who engage with drinkers and offer support<br />
to change their ways. Some Commissioners are looking at ‘drunk tanks’ which house inebriated<br />
people overnight and allow police officers to deal with other crimes.<br />
Anti-social behaviour<br />
By increasing community cohesion and building trust amongst local communities we can diminish<br />
the tendency for people to get involved in anti-social behaviour.<br />
Police and Crime Commissioners have been closely following the progress of the anti-social<br />
behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill. We want the police to be given effective powers to tackle antisocial<br />
behaviour that provide better protection for victims. In particular, we welcome measures to<br />
tackle irresponsible dog ownership but more must be done to tackle dangerous breeds.<br />
One of the key debates is how we divert young people away from committing anti-social behaviour.<br />
A small minority of children and young people commit anti-social behaviour so enforcement<br />
responses need to be proportionate and effective.<br />
It is also important to have a multi-agency approach to tackling anti-social behaviour as the police<br />
are only one part of the solution. By working with local authorities, housing associations and other<br />
agencies we can effectively combat anti-social behaviour and empower victims and communities.<br />
Chief officer terms and conditions<br />
Police and Crime Commissioners who have responsibility for pay and negotiations for police officers<br />
were requested by the wider PCC membership to look into the existing statutory framework<br />
governing chief officer terms, conditions, allowances and expenses. PCCs are seeking to do a stocktake<br />
on whether the current arrangements are adequate and/or may need revision in whole or in<br />
part. Any proposals for change, will be agreed with the wider PCC membership and taken through<br />
the agreed pay negotiation machinery.<br />
Police ICT<br />
A group of PCCs are working together under the leadership of Nick Alston, Police and Crime<br />
Commissioner for Essex, to scope the potential strategic vision for Police ICT. The group are working<br />
out what the options may be for a way forward to provide a central hub for Police ICT in which<br />
Commissioners are closely involved. The idea of a Police ICT Company remains on the table but there<br />
may be other good options which should be explored. The Home Secretary has agreed to give the<br />
PCC working group some time to find a way forward that would enjoy widespread support.
Police integrity or plebgate<br />
We believe that it is essential that the public trusts the process for handling police complaints. The<br />
evidence is that the public have confidence in the police, but there is no room for complacency. The<br />
process must be independent, transparent, involve communities and be fair to those who are under<br />
investigation.<br />
Sexual offences<br />
PCCs are concerned about the increase in sexual offences. Although some of the recorded increase is<br />
related to historical cases this is a worrying trend and which must be addressed. There is also a need<br />
to offer greater support to the victims of sexual offences.<br />
PCCs are very supportive of our local Sexual Assault Referral Centres and other local support services<br />
which continue to play an important role in supporting victims. We must also work to encourage<br />
greater co-ordination between support groups and the police to ensure that victims feel confident to<br />
speak out.<br />
Victims<br />
Police and Crime Commissioners are determined to support the needs of those that may become<br />
victims. With our new responsibilities in the criminal justice area we want a more joined up<br />
approach between criminal justice partners, voluntary and charitable sectors so that we enhance<br />
and improve services for victims. By working together and locally we can put victims at the heart of<br />
the criminal justice system.<br />
Other potential issues you may be challenged on<br />
Senior Salaries review Board<br />
It is the role of the Senior Salaries Review Board (SSRB) to make recommendations to the<br />
Government on the pay of several senior public sector jobs including the judiciary, the military, the<br />
civil service and some senior NHS personnel. From 2014 onwards the SSRB will also make<br />
independent annual recommendations to the Government on the pay of Police and Crime<br />
Commissioners.<br />
As part of its regular process of information gathering, the SSRB asked the APCC to submit written<br />
evidence to inform its recommendations for next year. Evidence submitted outlines the roles,<br />
functions and responsibilities of Police and Crime Commissioners and reflects a broad range of views<br />
made by the membership. The Association has purposefully chosen not to make a collective<br />
comment on the pay of Police and Crime Commissioners in its submission, as it is wholly the<br />
responsibility of the SSRB to make an independent recommendation to Government on this matter.<br />
Please note: The APCC will publish PCCs response to the SSRB consultation to coincide with the final<br />
SSRB report published next year.
Buckley, Claire (PA)<br />
From:<br />
APCCS Joel Charles <br />
Sent: 30 October 2013 15:11<br />
To:<br />
APCCS Joel Charles<br />
Subject:<br />
REMINDER: GR-A 95/2013: (Restricted) - Police and Crime Commissioners One Year On<br />
- book your place today<br />
To:<br />
Cc:<br />
Police and Crime Commissioners<br />
Chief Executives<br />
APCC Secretariat<br />
Dear Police and Crime Commissioners<br />
REMINDER: GR‐A 95/2013: (Restricted) – Police and Crime Commissioners One Year On ‐ book your place today<br />
Venue: St. Ermin's Hotel, Caxton Street, London SW1H OQW<br />
Date and Time: 14th November 2013, 10am – 4.30pm<br />
The APCC will be hosting an event for Police and Crime Commissioners on 14th November 2013 at St Ermin’s Hotel,<br />
Caxton Street, London, SW1H 0QW. BT have kindly sponsored the event.<br />
Registration will begin at 9.30am and the main event is planned to start at 10am. Lunch will be provided and we aim to<br />
finish the day by 4.30pm.<br />
The Home Secretary has been invited to join commissioners on the day to discuss four key themes, cutting crime,<br />
encouraging innovation in policing, delivering better value for money and working effectively in partnership. We will<br />
also be launching a document covering these four themes to stimulate debate.<br />
We have allocated 3 FREE places to each PCC’s office. If you would like to attend please email<br />
dawn.osborne@apccs.pnn.police.uk or call tel: 0207 084 8957 by Friday 1st November.<br />
A full agenda will be sent out shortly.<br />
We look forward to seeing you on the day.<br />
Kind regards,<br />
APCC Secretariat<br />
Joel Charles|Communications Manager|The Association of Police and Crime Commissioners, APCC|0770312<strong>41</strong>74 | 2 nd<br />
Floor, 10 Victoria Street, London, SW1H 0NN|www.apccs.police.uk<br />
Follow Us: Twitter @assocpccs<br />
Visit our website for quick links to the news you need to see today<br />
1
This communication may contain privileged and confidential information. Any views of opinions expressed are those of the originator and not necessarily those of<br />
the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners'.<br />
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,<br />
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<br />
immediately and delete it from your system.<br />
This communication may contain privileged and confidential information. Any views of opinions expressed are those of the originator and not necessarily those of<br />
the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners'.<br />
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,<br />
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<br />
immediately and delete it from your system.<br />
2
Buckley, Claire (PA)<br />
From:<br />
APCCS Joel Charles <br />
Sent: 22 October 2013 10:32<br />
To:<br />
APCCS Joel Charles<br />
Subject:<br />
GR-A 96/2013 (Restricted): Home Office PCC ICT briefing on National Police Systems<br />
and newsletter on interoperability<br />
Attachments:<br />
National Police Systems - more details for PCCs.pdf; Interoperability 1 0.pdf<br />
To:<br />
Cc:<br />
Police and Crime Commissioners<br />
Chief Executives<br />
APCC Secretariat<br />
Dear Police and Crime Commissioners,<br />
GR‐A 96/2013 (Restricted): Home Office PCC ICT briefing on national police systems and newsletter on<br />
interoperability<br />
Please find attached the Home Office briefing on national police systems which follows on from last week’s update. This<br />
week’s newsletter is on Interoperability.<br />
We hope this is helpful; if you have any questions or comments don’t hesitate to get in touch.<br />
Regards,<br />
Joel<br />
APCC Secretariat<br />
Joel Charles|Communications Manager|The Association of Police and Crime Commissioners, APCC|0770312<strong>41</strong>74 | 2 nd<br />
Floor, 10 Victoria Street, London, SW1H 0NN|www.apccs.police.uk<br />
Follow Us: Twitter @assocpccs<br />
Visit our website for quick links to the news you need to see today<br />
This communication may contain privileged and confidential information. Any views of opinions expressed are those of the originator and not necessarily those of<br />
the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners'.<br />
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,<br />
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<br />
immediately and delete it from your system.<br />
This communication may contain privileged and confidential information. Any views of opinions expressed are those of the originator and not necessarily those of<br />
the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners'.<br />
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,<br />
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<br />
immediately and delete it from your system.<br />
1
Buckley, Claire (PA)<br />
From:<br />
APCCS Tania Eagle <br />
Sent: 22 October 2013 14:35<br />
Subject:<br />
GR-A 97/2013 (restricted): Notes from 9th October General Meeting<br />
Attachments:<br />
Minutes draft.doc<br />
To:<br />
Cc:<br />
Police and Crime Commissioners<br />
Chief Executives<br />
APCC Team<br />
Dear Police and Crime Commissioner,<br />
Please find attached the draft notes of 9 th October General Meeting.<br />
I can also confirm that the next General Meeting and Ministerial Engagement will take place on 21 st January 2014 at the<br />
Emmanuel Centre (opposite the Home Office) in Marsham Street, London.<br />
Please let me know if you have any queries.<br />
Regards<br />
Tania<br />
Tania Eagle|Business Director|The Association of Police and Crime Commissioners, APCC|07714399755 | 2 nd Floor, 10<br />
Victoria Street, London, SW1H 0NN|www.apccs.police.uk<br />
Follow Us: Twitter @assocpccs<br />
Visit our website for quick links to the news you need to see today<br />
This communication may contain privileged and confidential information. Any views of opinions expressed are those of the originator and not necessarily those of<br />
the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners'.<br />
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,<br />
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<br />
immediately and delete it from your system.<br />
This communication may contain privileged and confidential information. Any views of opinions expressed are those of the originator and not necessarily those of<br />
the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners'.<br />
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,<br />
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<br />
immediately and delete it from your system.<br />
1
DRAFT - Restricted<br />
Summary of Discussion and Actions: 9 th October 2013<br />
Home Secretary<br />
It was noted that the Home Secretary will make speeches to mark the first year anniversary<br />
for PCCs and would like to use examples of PCC’s achievements over the course of the last<br />
year. [note: the examples being coordinated by the APCC will be provided to the Home<br />
Office for this purpose].<br />
An update in relation to organised crime and launch of the NCA was provided, noting that<br />
the relationship between the NCA and PCCs needs to develop.<br />
It was noted that the Organised Crime Strategy was launched on Monday.<br />
In relation to exploitation by organised crime groups, it was noted that there is an intention<br />
to introduce a Modern Slavery Bill [note: the APCC will seek further information about this]<br />
It was noted that progress is being made in relation to mental health and policing, but the<br />
Home Secretary would welcome feedback on how this is taking effect on the ground [note: it<br />
is proposed that these views are coordinated as part of the group being established to review<br />
mental health issues]<br />
In response to questions:<br />
The Home Secretary would welcome further information regarding research in West<br />
Midlands on the use of cautions (Turning Point)<br />
It was noted that the Home Secretary is still negotiating future regimes with the Department<br />
for Communities and Local Government on precepting<br />
It was noted that there is a need to bring together work being undertaken by PCCs in relation<br />
to integrity, and the conversations the Home Secretary is having with the IPCC<br />
In response to concerns raised about the value for money provided by the IPCC within its<br />
current operating model, the Home Secretary confirmed her appetite to ensure value for<br />
money, and that the scrutiny of the provision of additional funding would be rigorous<br />
In response to queries about the direction of ‘blue light innovation’, it was stated that there<br />
is policy intent to bring fire and police together under PCCs, but details are currently being<br />
worked through [note: the APCC will seek further information about this and provide<br />
feedback to PCCs]<br />
In relation to rehabilitation, the Home Secretary agreed that PCCs should have a role in the<br />
new arrangements. PCCs were reminded that there is a reference group for PCCs in relation<br />
to the transforming rehabilitation agenda, and when views/proposals are agreed these<br />
should be put forward to the Group.<br />
In response to a question about the role PCCs can play in the criminal justice system, and her<br />
views as to the recent Policy Exchange report, the Home Secretary can see potential to<br />
involve PCCs more, but this is something to be considered in the future.
DRAFT - Restricted<br />
Damian Green, Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice<br />
It was noted that the timetable for responding to stage 2 transfers proposals is on schedule<br />
and the Home Office will reply in November<br />
In relation to protecting children and vulnerable people from sexual violence, the Minster<br />
would welcome examples of good practice and innovative local solutions.<br />
In relation to the workforce, the Minister identified a ‘third phase of reform’ to transform the<br />
front line, which include developments in IT to free up police time.<br />
In response to questions<br />
A concern was expressed that child sexual exploitation is being tackled at the front line, but<br />
other strands of exploitation may not being tackled as effectively<br />
In relation to the IPCC transition programme, a concern was expressed that this approach<br />
may lead to undermining the Chief Constables ability to tackle complaints at a local level,<br />
and that an approach which provides greater supervision by the IPCC may be more<br />
beneficial. In response, it was noted that there is a PCC working group on this issues.<br />
In response to proposals to free up police time through developments in IT, it was noted<br />
that some areas of England and Wales do not have comprehensive 4G coverage which has<br />
significant implications for implementation, and needs to be considered by Government<br />
when developing strategies and identifying providers.<br />
Concern was expressed about the impact of diminishing funding streams from other<br />
partners, such as local authorities to partnership working within the criminal justice system<br />
In response to a question about increasing trends in crime, the Minister noted that upward<br />
trends tend to relate to fraud and internet crime, which is due to improvements in<br />
recording.<br />
Shirley Pearce, Chair, College of Policing<br />
Outlined key features of the College of Policing – explaining its ambitions were summarised<br />
in the Strategic Intent document which had been widely circulated for consultation, and that<br />
her key intention was that the College should be an agent of change<br />
The main departments/faculties which the College would be organised around were<br />
explained: setting standards; accreditation of providers; supporting partnership working;<br />
evidence base research; ethics and integrity<br />
The infrastructure was designed to value knowledge and as one of the Governmentappointed<br />
‘what works centres’, it was important that evidence based approaches were<br />
engrained in policing in the same way as they had been in other public sector organisations<br />
such as health for some years.<br />
The evidence base will evolve and change, so must be continuously developed – the College<br />
had written to University Vice Chancellors, seeking a consortium of universities to help them<br />
develop this approach.<br />
To support this, the College were conducting a mapping exercise of existing research in<br />
policing and had established a small fund to enable police, PCCs and universities to bid for<br />
projects to enhance partnership capacity building in 2013/14.
DRAFT - Restricted<br />
In relation to governance, the Board was developing its role and various committees had<br />
been established under it, including the Professional Committee. The College is looking for<br />
PCC engagement in this committee and there was agreement that two or three PCCs should<br />
attend each, meeting based on agenda item and specific areas of interest.<br />
In response to questions<br />
The College would circulate further information to PCCs to explain how to access the<br />
partnership building fund.<br />
In response to concerns that the College had written to universities, but not PCCs about<br />
partnership work, although many PCCs were commissioning local universities to do work,<br />
the College confirmed they were also interested in PCCs letting them know about any such<br />
work to add to their mapping exercise.<br />
On concerns that most PCCs were not in a position to afford major commissions to the<br />
College, it was confirmed that the College funding model is still being discussed, but the aim<br />
is that it should derive 51% of its income from non‐grant sources within a couple of years, so<br />
subscription charges were likely.<br />
In response to further questions/concerns about the arrangements for PCC attendance at<br />
the Professional Committee in future, it was confirmed that this would be agenda driven<br />
and would include PCCs with a particular interest in specific elements/items.<br />
On concerns that reading across too much between health and policing academic<br />
approaches was misleading because elements of the health service was generally less well<br />
trained (e.g first response), it was confirmed that an important part of the work would be<br />
providing an evidence base for policing competencies to ensure continuing high standards.<br />
Anne Owers, Chair, IPCC<br />
IPCCs starting point that complaints were the key to improving policing and community<br />
confidence.<br />
IPCC was supporting its Commissioners locally to analyse what worked in addressing areas<br />
of concern through: sampling complaints handling; looking at work on local resolution; and<br />
examining chief officer formal responses to IPCC recommendations.<br />
However, IPCC cannot reality check this in the same way that PCCs can and better<br />
collaborative working between IPCC Commissioners and PCCs would be helpful in<br />
developing an evidenced approach.<br />
Other problem areas where better collaboration between PCCs and IPCC would be helpful<br />
include: mental health and custody; use of restraint/force (which is no longer recorded in<br />
detail) and preventing harm when used; exploitation (of vulnerable people by police<br />
officers, where there have been almost no conduct referrals), so what is being missed?<br />
IPCC role in investigating PCCs is sensitive and they are conscious they need to put more<br />
resources into this.<br />
In relation to IPCC/PSD transition, the scale of this is still being negotiated with the Home<br />
Office, but the intention is that IPCC should deal with all serious and sensitive cases.
DRAFT - Restricted<br />
In response to questions<br />
In relation to a question about whether the IPCC represented value for money, the police<br />
service conducted 29,000 complaints investigations and IPCC did 120 of the most serious<br />
and complex of these. Their model is based on multi‐disciplinary approach to the most high<br />
profile cases, where there is the greatest risk of JR. They upheld about 50% of appeals on<br />
local investigations, which indicates that things are not perfect within PSDs and need to be<br />
made more consistent.<br />
In response to various questions about media interest in PCC investigations, IPCC confirmed<br />
that their key criteria must be independent transparency, so they have a policy of not<br />
communicating with the PCC before announcing to the press (although they do not name<br />
the individual). PCCs stressed that they believe this is a real problem for them – at least<br />
before IPCC decides whether to investigate – as this is a political football that could bring<br />
the whole system into disrepute. It was suggested that a protocol between IPCC, PCCs and<br />
monitoring officers might be helpful, although the fundamental problem was arguably a<br />
flaw in the legislation which could have looked more closely at aligning PCCs to the local<br />
government regime. There were also specific issues around vexatious complaints – and<br />
concern that this should not end up in the media too.<br />
In response to a question about whether costs would be rechargeable as between IPCC in<br />
local forces assisting with IPCC investigations about the transfer of resources to IPCC, it was<br />
confirmed that this should not be an issues, as the point of the transfer was to enable IPCC<br />
to conduct independent investigations themselves, without using forces to do this for them.<br />
In relation to a question about whether the IPCC thought the whole complaints system<br />
needed much more fundamental reform, to become more focused on the complainant/<br />
victim and less on process/organisational convenience, the IPCC confirmed they were in<br />
agreement.<br />
APCC General Meeting<br />
APCC Articles of Association, Annual Report and Audited Account<br />
The Annual Report and Audited Accounts proposed by Simon Duckworth were endorsed.<br />
The changes to the Articles of Association were considered and the amendments proposed<br />
by the lawyers were agreed.<br />
Police ICT<br />
Nick Alston (PCC for Essex) provided an update in relation to Police ICT, inviting PCCs to take<br />
part in work to establish what is required from a national ICT capability. Bruce Wheatley from<br />
the Home Office attended the meeting to set out the support they will provide, how they will<br />
communicate with and update PCCs, and explain the key milestones over the next few<br />
weeks. A copy of his presentation, together with his contact details is attached at Annex A.<br />
PCCs thanked Nick Alston for his work on this issue.
DRAFT - Restricted<br />
Victims Commissioning<br />
An update on work to develop a transitional approach to commissioning referral and support<br />
for victims was provided by Alun Michael (PCC for South Wales), Kevin Hurley (PCC for<br />
Surrey) and Dorothy Gregson (Chief Executive for Cambridgeshire).<br />
It was explained that the principles underpinning the work on the commissioning of victims<br />
services are to ensure that victims are at the heart of the process, to provide better services<br />
to victims, and put in place better governance of those services. Equally, it is necessary to<br />
find the right balance between national standards and strategies, and local delivery.<br />
The Working Group’s proposal of a transitional approach and greater collaboration between<br />
PCCs and MoJ received broad agreement but it was noted that PCCs wishing to take part as<br />
pilots should confirm so by 11 th October.<br />
It was noted that transitional work from now to October 2014 will be important to develop<br />
information, share emerging thinking, influence nationally delivered services and ensure that<br />
future arrangements are robust.<br />
It was noted that the cost base for the provision of existing services may need to be reviewed<br />
and scrutinised before assumptions are made about future costs. As PCCs are developing<br />
their budgets for 2014/15 and will need early indications of budget implications for the<br />
commissioning of victims commissioning.<br />
It was noted that the ‘journey of the money’ will be to PCCs for them to collaboration and<br />
aggregate budgets.<br />
The British Transport Police Authority will be affected by the changes, but confirmed they<br />
will be willing to fit into the structure agreed by PCCs as long as the victims of crime related<br />
to transport will not be disadvantaged.<br />
Concerns were expressed about the funding model used to distribute funding, and it was<br />
agreed that the Ministry of Justice should be asked to provide options.<br />
Rt Hon Eric Pickles, Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government<br />
The following issues were discussed with Eric Pickles:<br />
Alcohol and the integration of the night‐time economy, which he said PCCs should take a<br />
lead on<br />
The benefits of focusing on ‘issues’ to enable better cooperation between different tiers of<br />
local government and other agencies<br />
In relation to barriers to pooling funding and sharing resources, it was noted that the<br />
judgements and responsibilities of various parties is more relevant than technical issues<br />
preventing shared budgets<br />
He agreed that councils will soon be able to share travellers’ sites
DRAFT - Restricted<br />
It was noted that sharing data and information between partners remains an important issue<br />
In response to proposals to merge fire and police under PCCs, he said that this should be<br />
evolutionary and voluntary<br />
In response to queries on the trigger for referenda in relation to the precept, it was noted<br />
that any area can increase its precept as long as they have a mandate from local people.<br />
Vera Baird, PCC for Northumbria – Vulnerability Programme<br />
Vera Baird, Sue Tauk and David Calvert presented the details of an initiative to improve the<br />
way people who are vulnerable (in relation to alcohol and the night‐time economy) are<br />
identified and supported through the provision of training to professionals and volunteers<br />
who work within that environment.<br />
Northumbria offered to provide further information and support to any other area wishing to<br />
take forward this initiative.<br />
Ian Johnston, PCC for Gwent – Chief Officer Packages<br />
It was noted that a number of PCCs have expressed an interest in reviewing the packages<br />
offered to chief officers as part of their contracts.<br />
It was agreed that consultation questions on this issue will be re‐circulated to PCCs, and that<br />
time will be provided for a more substantive discussion in January.<br />
Mark Burns‐Williamson, PCC for West Yorkshire – Proceeds of Crime Act<br />
Mark Burns Williamson presented his views on the Proceeds of Crime Act, including the<br />
potential to review legislation and ensure a greater proportion of proceeds are returned into<br />
policing and increase transparency of how proceeds are distributed<br />
It was agreed that Mark Burns‐Williamson will provide further information of the legislation<br />
and his proposals for consideration by PCCs.<br />
Martyn Underhill, PCC for Dorset – Mental Health<br />
Martyn Underhill proposed developing a set of criteria/standards that PCCs require from<br />
health providers in relation to mental health<br />
In response, some PCCs felt that the issues relate more to issues in local implementation.<br />
It was agreed that Martyn would arrange a meeting of interested PCCs to explore what the<br />
issues are and what needs to be done. Cambridgeshire offered to provide support to this<br />
work.
DRAFT - Restricted<br />
General Sir Nick Parker, ACPO Review<br />
Sir Parker provided a brief update on his approach to the ACPO Review. The Terms of<br />
Reference are attached at Annex B.<br />
Julia Mulligan, PCC for North Yorkshire – Police Specials and Integrity<br />
Julia Mulligan explained that Oliver Shaw (APCC team) will circulate a letter to those PCC’s<br />
who expressed a commitment in relation to Police Specials as part of their manifesto<br />
commitment with a view to establishing how these commitments can be taken forward.<br />
Julie Mulligan also gave a brief overview of the purpose and scope of the APCC Integrity<br />
Working Group, which had now met for the first time and agreed to progress key strands of<br />
work.<br />
October 2013
Buckley, Claire (PA)<br />
From:<br />
APCCS Tania Eagle <br />
Sent: 25 October 2013 15:02<br />
Subject:<br />
GR-A 99/2013 (restricted): Police ICT Update<br />
Attachments:<br />
20131024LtrtoPCCs.doc<br />
To:<br />
Cc:<br />
Police and Crime Commissioners<br />
Police ICT PCC representatives<br />
Chief Executives<br />
APCC Team<br />
Dear Police and Crime Commissioners<br />
Please find attached a letter from Nick Alston, PCC for Essex, providing an update in relation to the Police ICT<br />
Company. For those who have expressed an interest in taking part in further conference calls/meetings on this issue,<br />
please find details below:<br />
1. 29 th October, 12pm to 1.30pm, conference call (Number: 08444 737373 Pin: 070338)<br />
2. 7 th November, 12.30pm to 2.15pm, meeting in Central London (venue to be confirmed)<br />
3. 14 th November, 2.30pm to 4.30pm, meeting at St Ermins Hotel, London (following the ‘one year on’)<br />
If you have any queries, please let me know.<br />
Regards<br />
Tania<br />
Tania Eagle|Business Director|The Association of Police and Crime Commissioners, APCC|07714399755 | 2 nd Floor, 10<br />
Victoria Street, London, SW1H 0NN|www.apccs.police.uk<br />
Follow Us: Twitter @assocpccs<br />
Visit our website for quick links to the news you need to see today<br />
This communication may contain privileged and confidential information. Any views of opinions expressed are those of the originator and not necessarily those of<br />
the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners'.<br />
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,<br />
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<br />
immediately and delete it from your system.<br />
This communication may contain privileged and confidential information. Any views of opinions expressed are those of the originator and not necessarily those of<br />
the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners'.<br />
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,<br />
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<br />
immediately and delete it from your system.<br />
1
Buckley, Claire (PA)<br />
From:<br />
APCCS Tania Eagle <br />
Sent: 28 October 2013 15:48<br />
Subject:<br />
GR-A 100/2013 (restricted): Police ICT Update<br />
Attachments:<br />
Commercial and Procurement - 281013 v0 4.docx<br />
To:<br />
Cc:<br />
Police and Crime Commissioners<br />
Police ICT PCC and Officers Network<br />
Chief Executives<br />
APCC Team<br />
Dear Police and Crime Commissioners<br />
Please find attached an update report from the Home Office regarding Police ICT. This paper provides a summary of<br />
procurement rules governing police ICT and a list of current national contracts and relevant expiry dates. Those PCCs<br />
and their representatives taking part in the conference call tomorrow will wish to refer to the document during the call.<br />
Please let me know if you have any queries.<br />
Regards<br />
Tania<br />
Tania Eagle|Business Director|The Association of Police and Crime Commissioners, APCC|07714399755 | 2 nd Floor, 10<br />
Victoria Street, London, SW1H 0NN|www.apccs.police.uk<br />
Follow Us: Twitter @assocpccs<br />
Visit our website for quick links to the news you need to see today<br />
This communication may contain privileged and confidential information. Any views of opinions expressed are those of the originator and not necessarily those of<br />
the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners'.<br />
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,<br />
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<br />
immediately and delete it from your system.<br />
This communication may contain privileged and confidential information. Any views of opinions expressed are those of the originator and not necessarily those of<br />
the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners'.<br />
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,<br />
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<br />
immediately and delete it from your system.<br />
1
Buckley, Claire (PA)<br />
From:<br />
APCCS Clare O' Sullivan
Clare O’Sullivan|Senior Policy Development Manager – Criminal Justice and Partnerships|The Association of Police and<br />
Crime Commissioners, 07714 399760 | 2 nd Floor, 10 Victoria Street, London, SW1H 0NN|www.apccs.police.uk<br />
Follow Us: Twitter @assocpccs<br />
Visit our website for quick links to the news you need to see today<br />
This communication may contain privileged and confidential information. Any views of opinions expressed are those of the originator and not necessarily those of<br />
the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners'.<br />
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,<br />
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<br />
immediately and delete it from your system.<br />
This communication may contain privileged and confidential information. Any views of opinions expressed are those of the originator and not necessarily those of<br />
the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners'.<br />
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,<br />
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<br />
immediately and delete it from your system.<br />
This communication may contain privileged and confidential information. Any views of opinions expressed are those of the originator and not necessarily those of<br />
the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners'.<br />
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,<br />
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<br />
immediately and delete it from your system.<br />
This communication may contain privileged and confidential information. Any views of opinions expressed are those of the originator and not necessarily those of<br />
the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners'.<br />
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,<br />
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<br />
immediately and delete it from your system.<br />
2
Buckley, Claire (PA)<br />
From:<br />
APCCS Oliver Shaw <br />
Sent: 29 October 2013 18:08<br />
Subject:<br />
GR-A 102/2013: **Restricted** Letter from Ian Johnston - PNB Update<br />
Attachments:<br />
Letter Ian Johnston - PNB Update 29.10.13.pdf<br />
To: Police and Crime Commissioners<br />
CC: Chief Executives<br />
APCC Team<br />
GR‐A 102/2013: **Restricted** Letter from Ian Johnston – PNB Update<br />
Please find attached an letter from Ian Johnston, Police and Crime Commissioner for Gwent and Chair, Official Side,<br />
PNB.<br />
Regards,<br />
Oliver<br />
Oliver Shaw|Senior Policy Advisor|The Association of Police and Crime Commissioners, APCC|07714399756| 2 nd Floor,<br />
10 Victoria Street, London, SW1H 0NN|www.apccs.police.uk<br />
Follow Us: Twitter @assocpccs<br />
Visit our website for quick links to the news you need to see today<br />
This communication may contain privileged and confidential information. Any views of opinions expressed are those of the originator and not necessarily those of<br />
the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners'.<br />
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,<br />
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<br />
immediately and delete it from your system.<br />
This communication may contain privileged and confidential information. Any views of opinions expressed are those of the originator and not necessarily those of<br />
the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners'.<br />
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,<br />
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<br />
immediately and delete it from your system.<br />
This communication may contain privileged and confidential information. Any views of opinions expressed are those of the originator and not necessarily those of<br />
the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners'.<br />
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,<br />
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<br />
immediately and delete it from your system.<br />
This communication may contain privileged and confidential information. Any views of opinions expressed are those of the originator and not necessarily those of<br />
the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners'.<br />
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,<br />
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<br />
immediately and delete it from your system.<br />
1
From the Gwent Police and Crime Commissioner, Ian Johnston<br />
Dear Colleagues,<br />
RE: PNB Update<br />
29 th October 2013<br />
Having just had the October Quarterly Police Negotiating Board (PNB) I’d like to take a moment to<br />
update you on a couple of matters which I know will be of interest.<br />
Compulsory Severance & Restricted Duties - Arbitration<br />
Those of you at the APCC General meeting in July will recall that there were no strong objections<br />
voiced against the Official Side (of which Commissioners comprise half) proposal to pursue the<br />
introduction of Compulsory Severance for Police Officers and Restricted Duty proposals. My<br />
colleagues and I have worked very hard to see these negotiations through the PNB, however, as you<br />
are likely aware, we were unable to reach agreement and they will be going to the Police Arbitration<br />
Tribunal (PAT) in November.<br />
Once the PAT have made their recommendations, this will be referred to the Home Secretary who<br />
will decide whether to accept, reject or amend the PAT’s recommendation. It’s difficult to anticipate<br />
timeframes, but this could be around Christmas or early 2014.<br />
The above issues are clearly emotive and I know you all have your personal views as to whether or<br />
not you might use the Compulsory Severance and / or Restricted Duty proposals if they are<br />
introduced. While I in no way seek to fetter anyone’s mandate to speak publically on the proceedings<br />
or proposals, I would ask you to keep in mind that any public comment ahead of the Home<br />
Secretary’s decision, particularly that which may conflict with the Official Side’s negotiation position,<br />
does make our job far more difficult. I do fully appreciate that we all have ultimate accountability for<br />
our own force areas and constituents, but it would be extremely helpful if you could nevertheless<br />
bare this in mind over the coming months.<br />
We anticipate that there will be significant media interest, particularly when the PAT make their<br />
recommendation and when the Home Secretary makes her decision. Closer to the time the APCC will<br />
be circulating ‘suggested lines’ and regular updates to assist you in handling any media.<br />
Chief Officer Allowances<br />
At our last APCC meeting you will recall that Commissioners on the PNB were asked to look into the<br />
matter of allowances paid to Chief Officers, particularly with a view to making the regime more<br />
transparent. At last week’s PNB Quarterly meeting, the Chief Police Officers’ Staff Association<br />
(CPOSA) also indicated their desire for greater clarity in this area. They are also seeking clarification<br />
on PCC powers to make payments that might fall out of the existing allowances and expenses<br />
framework.<br />
To update you, Commissioners on the PNB are undertaking a stocktake of the allowances and I would<br />
like to hear from you if there are any specific allowances that you pay which<br />
we should include in the scope of the stocktake, or are of concern to you. I<br />
will write back to you shortly setting out the stocktake and a set of<br />
recommendations for the wider PCC group to consider. Any proposals for<br />
change will need to be taken through the PNB. During this process I will be<br />
liaising closely with CPOSA to ensure they are kept abreast of developments.<br />
Chief Officer Contracts<br />
Also at the last APCC meeting, I reported of discussions around proposals<br />
from the Home Office to amend the duration of Fixed Term Appointments<br />
APCC<br />
2 nd Floor, 10 Victoria Street,<br />
London, SW1H 0NN<br />
T 020 7084 8957<br />
E enquiries@apccs.pnn.police.uk<br />
@AssocPCCs<br />
www.apccs.police.uk<br />
The APCC provides support to all<br />
Police and Crime Commissioners<br />
and policing governance bodies in<br />
England, Wales and Northern<br />
Ireland
for Chief Constables. There was a request at the meeting for my original consultation note to be<br />
recirculated, which was done and the APCC have received a handful of additional responses.<br />
I think it’s now time to marshal a degree on consensus on the matter. Therefore, I propose that we<br />
go back to the Home Office saying that there is general support for contracts of 4 years and then 3<br />
year re-occurring. If the appointment is to be made 12 months (or less) before an election, then it can<br />
only be for a maximum of 3 years. When responding, I will provide copies of all responses made and<br />
note that there is also an alternate preference to have no fixed term contracts.<br />
I intend to write to the Home Office in mid-November, therefore if anyone has any strong objections<br />
to this course of action (or wishes to submit another response) then please let me know.<br />
Finally, I would like to thank all the Commissioners on the various Workforce Boards. We have had an<br />
extremely busy first year and I sense that things will be getting even busier in 2014 and I am very<br />
grateful for everyone’s ongoing support.<br />
If you have any questions concerning the above, please feel free to get in contact with me or you can<br />
contact Oliver Shaw at APCC. Oliver’s details are (oliver.shaw@apccs.pnn.police.uk, 07714399756).<br />
regards,<br />
Ian Johnston<br />
Police and Crime Commissioner for Gwent and Chair, Official Side, PNB
Buckley, Claire (PA)<br />
From:<br />
APCCS Clare O' Sullivan
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,<br />
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<br />
immediately and delete it from your system.<br />
This communication may contain privileged and confidential information. Any views of opinions expressed are those of the originator and not necessarily those of<br />
the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners'.<br />
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,<br />
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<br />
immediately and delete it from your system.<br />
This communication may contain privileged and confidential information. Any views of opinions expressed are those of the originator and not necessarily those of<br />
the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners'.<br />
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,<br />
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<br />
immediately and delete it from your system.<br />
2
HOME OFFICE/VCSE STAKEHOLDER FORUM<br />
Date Monday 21 st October 2013 Time 3:00pm-4:30pm<br />
Location Conference Room 3a, Ground Floor, Peel Block<br />
2 Marsham Street, London SW1P 4DF<br />
Chair Stephen Rimmer, Director General (CPG) Secretary John Harper<br />
Present<br />
Apologies<br />
Ken Sutton – Crime Director (HO)<br />
Michael O’Toole - Cabinet Office<br />
Martyn Underhill – PCC for Dorset<br />
Gemma Lousley –Drugscope<br />
Cat McIntyre (APCC)<br />
Clare O’Sullivan (APCC)<br />
Ralph Michell, Cabinet Office<br />
Jay Downs (Office for Civil Society, Cabinet<br />
Office)<br />
Frances Flaxington -Catch 22<br />
Katie Aston – VCSE team, (CRH), (CPG)<br />
Stephen Bell, OSCT, (HO)<br />
Emily Robinson, Alcohol Concern<br />
Jacqui Fincham, MoJ<br />
Jess Mullen –Clinks<br />
Helen Mathie – Homeless Link<br />
Shane Britton - Revolving Doors Agency<br />
Jim Madden - Neighbourhood Watch and<br />
Home Network<br />
Jayne Pascoe, College of Policing<br />
Margaret Adjaye- Locality<br />
Mark Hallas- Crimestoppers<br />
Neil Cleeveley -NAVCA<br />
Phillipa Harris – Social Firms UK<br />
Susanne Rauprich – NCVYS<br />
Joe Allen, Victim Support<br />
Olof Jonsdottir- Social Enterprise UK<br />
Jo Goodman-NUS<br />
Ruth Breidenbach-Roe (NCVO)<br />
David Richardson- Age UK<br />
Vivienne Hayes-Director-WRC<br />
Sara Featherstone – CRH, (CPG)<br />
Mike Warren – Head of CRH, (CPG)<br />
Davina James-Hanman- AVA<br />
Joe Allen – Victim Support<br />
James Sandbach - CAB<br />
1
1. Welcome and Apologies<br />
1.1 Ken Sutton, Crime Director in CPG, welcomed all participants, including some new<br />
members, to the eighth meeting of the HO/VCSE Stakeholder Forum. He said that he<br />
was standing in for Stephen Rimmer who was running late. Attendees and apologies<br />
are listed above.<br />
2. Minutes and actions from last meeting<br />
2.1 The note of the previous meeting was accepted without amendment. An update<br />
was provided on the actions from the last meeting:<br />
Action 1: Stephen to provide a paper update to members of the Forum on the<br />
Spending Review. Finance colleagues in CPG are to provide a paper update as<br />
requested, this will be circulated with the note of this meeting.<br />
Action 2: CRH to liaise with College of Policing re document of strategic intent and<br />
circulate to members of the forum. Completed.<br />
Action 3: Jayne Pascoe/James Patterson to liaise on victim specific projects for the<br />
Cabinet Office social action fund bid. Completed.<br />
Action 4: Forum members are welcome to attend Stephen Bell’s prevent consultation<br />
meeting being held in 2MS on Thursday 18 th July (3-5pm). If members are interested<br />
in attending or being involved in the work more generally they should let John Harper<br />
know. Completed. Stephen Bell will provide an update to the group on this work<br />
at agenda item 4.<br />
Frances Flaxington asked if there had been a significant response in relation to the<br />
review of the Group’s Terms of Reference. Only one response had been received<br />
(Catch22) but with a new CPG Director General in the offing, it was agreed that it<br />
would be sensible to delay any review until they took up their post.<br />
Action 5: A session on commissioning to be the focus of the next meeting. Completed.<br />
This will be item number 1 on today’s agenda.<br />
3. Commissioning: Update from Michael O’Toole and Jayne Pascoe<br />
3.1 Michael O’Toole provided an update to the group on his role and specific<br />
workstreams currently being taken forward. Key points raised were:<br />
<br />
He has been appointed to open up more public sector business<br />
opportunities for not-for-profit organisations and improve the government’s<br />
business relationship with the VCSE sector and make it easier for these<br />
organisations to tender for public contracts. He will also support the<br />
government to engage more widely on VCSE issues, and find ways to<br />
enable VCSEs to bring their solutions to the public sector market. He felt his<br />
key role was to engage and listen too the sector. Ralph Michell spoke briefly<br />
about two specific reforms which his team in the Cabinet Office are currently<br />
working on – that of reducing bureaucracy around commissioning, and<br />
redefining EU procurement directives. The group asked about timescales<br />
around these reforms. There was no definitive timescale for these, as it was<br />
dependent on variable factors, but it is hoped progress will be made in the<br />
New Year. Information on these reforms will be circulated to the group.<br />
Action 1: CRH to liaise with Cabinet Office to circulate information to Forum<br />
members on ongoing commissioning reforms.<br />
Neil Cleeveley hoped that Government could collectively, across<br />
departments, continue to make the case on behalf of the VCSE to local<br />
delivery agencies.<br />
The Commissioning Academy is a development programme for senior<br />
commissioners from all parts of the public sector. It is currently in pilot<br />
phase, with full roll out planned for 2013. The first cohort has completed the<br />
2
course. 3 PCCs were involved in this pilot and 5 more have expressed an<br />
interest in taking part in future courses. Katie Aston said the Home Office<br />
will work with the APCC to promote the Academy more widely amongst<br />
PCCs over the coming months.<br />
The Academy is not a technical training programme, but is designed to give<br />
participants both contacts and knowledge, helping them to transform their<br />
organisation’s commissioning practice and re-design services delivery.<br />
The Academy will also build an alumni network of senior commissioners<br />
who have the skills, and know-how to tackle the challenges public services<br />
face. Those participating have already considered approaches to<br />
commissioning across agendas.<br />
Commercial Master Classes – A programme designed to build the<br />
voluntary, community and social enterprise sector’s commercial skills for<br />
public service delivery.<br />
A year long programme, participants will attend a two day course (25-30<br />
<br />
<br />
participants per course).<br />
Designed and delivered by a cross-sector partnership, ACEVO, AVANTA,<br />
Capita, Ingeus, NAVCA, NCVO, Serco and Social Enterprise UK, these<br />
masterclasses are the first in a national programme funded by Office for<br />
Civil Society, Cabinet Office with pro-bono support from private sector<br />
partners.<br />
The masterclasses will consider risks associated with contracts, as well the<br />
opportunities – and new delivery mechanisms for contracts.<br />
Jess Mullen asked about take up for the programme, given the current<br />
pressures on the VCSE. Michael O’Toole said that take up had been good<br />
so far. Martyn Underhill asked about attendees roles – Michael O’Toole said<br />
that there were no requirements especially around this – though PCCs Chief<br />
Executives seemed appropriate. Martyn also asked about regional<br />
approaches in respect of the master classes and commissioning more<br />
generally. Work along these lines is being undertaken in Norfolk. Martyn<br />
and Michael will liaise on the specifics of this after this meeting.<br />
Currently the master classes are only being run as a pilot but if they are<br />
successful it is hoped the programme can be rolled out more regularly.<br />
<br />
Michael O’Toole will, through HO colleagues, circulate related links to the<br />
programme.<br />
Action 2: Michael O’Toole and CRH to liaise on circulating related links to<br />
the programme, to Forum members.<br />
<br />
Jacqui Fincham said the MoJ are running workshops around victims service<br />
commissioning. These workshops are free of charge. She was happy to<br />
liaise with CRH and Jess Mullen on appropriate attendance for these. More<br />
widely around victims service provision, it is likely that MoJ funding will be<br />
available for PCCs to bid into. More information on this will be forthcoming<br />
in the next few weeks. She agreed to keep Forum members informed of<br />
progress.<br />
Action 3: CRH, Jacqui Fincham and Jess Mullen to liaise on possible<br />
attendees for MoJ victims workshops.<br />
Jayne Pascoe spoke about the work the College of Policing has been<br />
commissioned to undertake by the APCC. This work is to develop a<br />
commissioning toolkit for PCCs. Building on the work of others it will look to<br />
share learning and good practice. It will emphasise that one size doesn’t fit<br />
all and different approaches will work in different areas. Ken Sutton asked if<br />
this work required any volunteer areas/programmes/VCSEs to step forward<br />
to help complete. Jayne said that yes this is feasible. Cat McIntyre added<br />
practice is sought from those areas where there is expertise. She added<br />
that gathering, collating and sharing good practice effectively are the key<br />
aims of this work. Jayne Pascoe said that a workshop looking to progress<br />
this work will be arranged to take place in December.<br />
3
Martyn Underhill asked if we know whether or not all PCCs have a<br />
commissioning strategy. Jess Mullen said information coming out of the<br />
findings of the SFC work suggested that not all PCCs did have<br />
commissioning strategies.<br />
Susanne Rauprich asked if young people were to be engaged in the<br />
commissioning of services in this area. Jess Mullen said the Clinks<br />
commissioning guidance stressed the importance of user voice in the<br />
development of services. Stephen Rimmer said the commissioning of<br />
victims services is a big challenge for PCCs to undertake also. Jacqui<br />
Fincham said that a decision around victim referral decisions will be made<br />
soon by the MoJ, and added that this will be communicated as soon as is<br />
possible. Stephen Rimmer added that good practice and advice is important<br />
from government and its agencies, particularly around commissioning<br />
cycles, to help ensure that services are commissioned appropriately.<br />
4. PCC Partners Group: Update from Jess Mullen.<br />
4.1 Jess Mullen provided an update to the group on the discussions held at the first<br />
PCC Partners group (following previous discussions held at Forum meetings this<br />
meeting was set up to consider the impact of PCCs on the VCSE, and the<br />
opportunities to engage with them). As well as many of the representatives who attend<br />
Forum meetings – other organisations including SFC network leads and smaller<br />
serorganisations were invited to attend this session. Key points raised were:<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Commissioning – anxieties around PCCs and their willingness to involve and<br />
engage with the VCSE – at all stages of the commissioning process. To<br />
support ongoing APCC and College of Policing work on this, it is felt useful to<br />
consider and build upon the guide on commissioning from voluntary sector<br />
produced by SFC.<br />
Consortia - a concern about PCCs limited capacity to commission from<br />
consortia. Action on this point is thought to centre on influencing, where<br />
appropriate, the Cabinet Office master classes Michael O’Toole spoke about<br />
above.<br />
Concern about knowledge and evidence commissioners make decisions on.<br />
VCSE knows what works but still asked for innovative/creative ideas. Because<br />
of the lack of understanding about complexity of issues they are viewed as<br />
silos and interventions/organisations can fall into the cracks. Particularly with<br />
reference to the VAWG agenda where it is felt there is too much focus on<br />
Domestic Violence, as opposed to sexual violence, stalking etc. The<br />
Women’s Resource Centre with support from HO committed to develop a<br />
survey monkey to promote effective practice. Other sectors also have good<br />
examples and are carrying out surveys etc so opportunity to promote this<br />
together.<br />
National policy issues<br />
<br />
Role of government/APCC/other bodies in promoting social value act. The<br />
group is keen to influence to ensure this is included in any guidance on<br />
commissioning.<br />
Actions<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Work with the APCC and National College of Policing to feed into their work<br />
on commissioning and evidence gathering.<br />
Relevant VCSE organisations to contact PCC Vera Baird to ask for support<br />
in promoting the ‘whole’ strategy to PCCs – around the VAWG issues cited<br />
above. The use of language around the way VAWG is talked about to be<br />
flagged with central government.<br />
Cabinet Office local intelligence teams are also gathering evidence of what<br />
works – including around PCC commissioning so it is hoped this group can<br />
feed into that work too.<br />
4
Make use of the PCC champions for VCSE Sector and those who have<br />
particular special interests.<br />
4.2 Stephen Rimmer thanked Jess for her update and noted in particular the points on<br />
policy influence and unintended use of language. He added that on the point of policy<br />
influence he saw firstly, the development of the Crime Reduction Hub as being crucial<br />
to CPG engagement with the VCSE, and that secondly the work of the ‘CPG Policy<br />
Labs’ will look to the Forum for appropriate VCSE input. He also said that he will<br />
welcome a continuing challenge from the PCC Partners group to this Forum. Katie<br />
Aston added that in respect of the point around VAWG and the use of language,<br />
Forum members are invited to attend a Women’s VCSE sector event being organised<br />
by the Home Office on 8 November. Neil Cleeveley said that he welcomed Stephen’s<br />
comments about challenge, and reiterated the importance of the Social Value act in<br />
helping commissioners – he cited NAVCA guidance on this as well as group<br />
previously convened to consider these issues. Jess Mullen added that Clinks will also<br />
be producing guidance around Transforming Rehabilitation for the VCSE. Neil<br />
Cleeveley added that advice on grant giving is something NAVCA might be able to<br />
advise upon – in relation to APCC work.<br />
5. PCC and APCC Update – Martyn Underhill, Cat McIntyre and Clare<br />
O’Sullivan.<br />
5.1 Stephen Rimmer asked Martyn Underhill if he could provide an overview from his<br />
perspective on engaging with the VCSE. Martin said that in Dorset engagement with<br />
the VCSE is good – he has already signed up to compact agreements with 3<br />
organisations, and he understands the requirements under the Social Value Act. He<br />
said that following election to the post many PCCs found the timescales too short to<br />
fully come to grips with commissioning requirements so pass-ported over plans given<br />
to them by police authorities. It is felt by all PCCs that the next financial year is the real<br />
opportunity for them to make their mark. He added that he is opening a Victims<br />
Bureau in ten days, staffed fully by trained volunteers. He feels there is more we can<br />
do with volunteers – tapping into the Olympic model. He felt some of the key<br />
challenges PCCs faced were around; the transforming rehabilitation programme of<br />
work, provider lobbying, consulting with/the non engagement of smaller specialist<br />
organisations.<br />
5.2 Stephen Rimmer thanked Martyn for his contribution and noted the point on<br />
making better use of volunteers – he felt it really re-defined public space in London<br />
during the Olympics. Susanne Rauprich asked about Martyn’s engagement with<br />
young people, and whether or not he had signed up to the NCVYS Young Persons<br />
Charter. He said that Dorset had to the latter and in respect of engaging young people<br />
he had made connections with the UK Youth Parliament. All members of the Forum<br />
agreed with the concerns expressed by Martyn in respect of the Transforming<br />
Rehabilitation agenda, especially with regard to timescales. Jim Madden also asked<br />
Martyn about his thoughts on regional partnerships – and how set in stone are these.<br />
Martyn said he was quite flexible in this respect, and was happy to collaborate across<br />
areas/agendas where appropriate.<br />
6. Serious and Organised Crime Strategy – Refresh: Update.<br />
6.1 Stephen Bell provided an update to the group on the work of his team in refreshing<br />
the Serious and Organised Crime Strategy – and the input of the Forum. Key points<br />
raised were:<br />
<br />
The new strategy had been published on 7 October (hard copies of the<br />
strategy were circulated to Forum members). He thanked members of the<br />
Forum who had inputted into the sub group set up to seek VCSE<br />
engagement, particularly around victims. He directed Forum members to<br />
focus on the four strands of the new strategy which are; protect, prepare,<br />
pursue, prevent. Following publication work will focus in implementation.<br />
5
Key to this is partnership working. To help facilitate this he suggested that<br />
the VCSE group already established continue to help his team.<br />
Stephen Rimmer welcomed Stephen’s update and asked if the sub group<br />
could look to coincide with Forum meeting dates, and he also asked if PCCs<br />
could be involved in this work. Stephen Bell said that he will action Stephen<br />
Rimmer’s requests. Jess Mullen asked about links with NOMs work around<br />
offender rehabilitation in the strategy. Stephen Bell said that they had been<br />
working closely with MoJ colleagues on this work too.<br />
Action 4: Stephen Bell to work with CRH colleagues on co-ordinating VCSE sub<br />
group meetings on the new strategy to coincide with Forum meetings, and to<br />
consider PCC involvement in this group.<br />
7. Any other business<br />
7.1 Katie Aston referenced the work of the Local Intelligence Team in Cabinet Office<br />
and their request for information on good practice examples around social action from<br />
the VCSE. Examples from Forum members are welcome in the following areas;<br />
Dorset, Nottinghamshire, Bedfordshire, West Mercia, Cheshire, and Cleveland.<br />
Action 5: Forum members to send any good practice examples around social<br />
action to Katie Aston/John Harper, in the areas listed above.<br />
7.2 Stephen Rimmer said that he will be moving on from his current post to a role in the<br />
West Midlands. He thanked everyone in attendance for their hard work and<br />
commitment in this area of work. He said that he Ken Sutton will pick up this portfolio of<br />
work in the interim, and added that a successor to him will be appointed in due course.<br />
8. Date of next meeting.<br />
8.1 The next meeting will take place on Tuesday 14 th January 2014, 3:00pm-4:30pm,<br />
Conference Room 2, Ground Floor, Peel Building, 2 Marsham Street, London, SW1P<br />
4DF.<br />
6
Buckley, Claire (PA)<br />
From:<br />
APCCS Joel Charles <br />
Sent: 01 November 2013 12:52<br />
To:<br />
APCCS Joel Charles<br />
Subject:<br />
GR-A 105/2013 (Restricted): Home Affairs Select Committee inquiry on PCCs<br />
To: Police and Crime Commissioners<br />
CC: Chief Executives<br />
APPC Secretariat<br />
Dear Police and Crime Commissioners,<br />
GR‐A 104/2013 Restricted: Home Affairs Select Committee inquiry on PCCs<br />
The Home Affairs Select Committee (HASC) are planning to issue the terms of reference for their inquiry on PCCs today.<br />
I have been sent a rough outline for the PCC inquiry below:<br />
• The effectiveness of PCCs in reducing crime and delivering an effective police service within their police force<br />
area;<br />
• The role of PCCs in holding their chief constables to account;<br />
• The role of police and crime panels in holding their PCCs to account;<br />
• The division of functions and staff between PCCs and chief constables following the Stage 2 transfers under the<br />
Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011;<br />
• The role of PCCs in budget and precept setting;<br />
• The effectiveness of PCCs in promoting local policing priorities;<br />
• Progress to date by PCCs on establishing collaboration agreements with other PCCs, policing organisations and<br />
partners; and<br />
• Transparency of and reporting by PCCs to date.<br />
So far the committee has set two dates for evidence sessions with PCCs, the 19 th and 26 th November.<br />
On Tuesday 19 th November, the committee has asked that the three group representatives give evidence to the<br />
committee.<br />
On Tuesday 26 th November, I understand that the committee will be sending out invitations to Ann Barnes, Katy<br />
Bourne, Bob Jones and Bill Longmore to give evidence.<br />
Both meetings are likely to start at 2.45pm on both dates and questioning should last no more than an hour.<br />
I will keep you updated when I receive further information.<br />
We hope that this is useful, please do not hesitate to get in touch if further information would be helpful.<br />
Best wishes,<br />
Joel Charles<br />
1
Joel Charles|Communications Manager|The Association of Police and Crime Commissioners, APCC|0770312<strong>41</strong>74 | 2 nd<br />
Floor, 10 Victoria Street, London, SW1H 0NN|www.apccs.police.uk<br />
Follow Us: Twitter @assocpccs<br />
Visit our website for quick links to the news you need to see today<br />
This communication may contain privileged and confidential information. Any views of opinions expressed are those of the originator and not necessarily those of<br />
the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners'.<br />
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,<br />
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<br />
immediately and delete it from your system.<br />
This communication may contain privileged and confidential information. Any views of opinions expressed are those of the originator and not necessarily those of<br />
the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners'.<br />
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,<br />
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<br />
immediately and delete it from your system.<br />
2
Buckley, Claire (PA)<br />
From:<br />
APCCS Tania Eagle <br />
Sent: 04 November 2013 16:46<br />
Subject:<br />
GR-A 106/2013 (restricted): Police ICT Update<br />
Attachments:<br />
29.10.13 ICTConferenceCall notes.docx; Annex A - Local Systems (2011 position).pdf<br />
To:<br />
Cc:<br />
Police and Crime Commissioners<br />
Chief Executives<br />
ICT representatives<br />
APCC Team<br />
Dear Police and Crime Commissioners<br />
Please find attached the notes of the conference call that took place last week and some information on the range of<br />
local ICT systems.<br />
Please note that the meeting scheduled for Thursday 7 th November will now take place by conference call from 12pm<br />
to 1.30pm (Number: 08444 737373 Pin: 070338). This will be followed by a meeting at 2.30pm on 14 th November at<br />
the St Ermins Hotel, London.<br />
Further information for the call on Thursday will be circulated beforehand.<br />
Please let me know if you have any queries<br />
Regards<br />
Tania<br />
Tania Eagle|Business Director|The Association of Police and Crime Commissioners, APCC|07714399755 | 2 nd Floor, 10<br />
Victoria Street, London, SW1H 0NN|www.apccs.police.uk<br />
Follow Us: Twitter @assocpccs<br />
Visit our website for quick links to the news you need to see today<br />
This communication may contain privileged and confidential information. Any views of opinions expressed are those of the originator and not necessarily those of<br />
the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners'.<br />
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,<br />
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<br />
immediately and delete it from your system.<br />
This communication may contain privileged and confidential information. Any views of opinions expressed are those of the originator and not necessarily those of<br />
the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners'.<br />
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,<br />
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<br />
immediately and delete it from your system.<br />
1
Buckley, Claire (PA)<br />
From:<br />
APCCS Clare O' Sullivan
This communication may contain privileged and confidential information. Any views of opinions expressed are those of the originator and not necessarily those of<br />
the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners'.<br />
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,<br />
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<br />
immediately and delete it from your system.<br />
This communication may contain privileged and confidential information. Any views of opinions expressed are those of the originator and not necessarily those of<br />
the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners'.<br />
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,<br />
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<br />
immediately and delete it from your system.<br />
2
Buckley, Claire (PA)<br />
From:<br />
APCCS Tania Eagle <br />
Sent: 06 November 2013 16:47<br />
Subject:<br />
GR-A 108/2013 (restricted) - Police ICT Update<br />
Attachments:<br />
Police ICT paper 051113 Final.docx; Government ICT Strategy - PCC Newsletter v1.docx<br />
To:<br />
Cc:<br />
Police and Crime Commissioners<br />
Police ICT Representatives<br />
Chief Executives<br />
APCC Team<br />
Dear Police and Crime Commissioners<br />
For those who wish to take part, please note that the next conference call on Police ICT will take place at 12pm –<br />
1.30pm tomorrow (7 th November) ‐ Number: 08444 737373<br />
Pin: 070338<br />
A paper developed by Nick Alston is attached for information. The agenda is outlined below:<br />
1. Summary of conclusions from conversations to date.<br />
2. Discussion of attached DRAFT straw‐man paper ‐ is this close to summarising a majority view?<br />
3. How can PCCs work together to address issues in ICT?<br />
4. What are the alternatives to the Police ICT Company model?<br />
5. How do we reach a consensus?<br />
6. What should the outcomes for the meeting on 14 th November be, and what should the agenda include?<br />
In addition, please find attached the latest newsletter from the Home Office, which provides an overview of the<br />
Government’s ICT Strategy.<br />
Please let me know if you have any queries.<br />
Regards<br />
Tania<br />
Tania Eagle|Business Director|The Association of Police and Crime Commissioners, APCC|07714399755 | 2 nd Floor, 10<br />
Victoria Street, London, SW1H 0NN|www.apccs.police.uk<br />
Follow Us: Twitter @assocpccs<br />
Visit our website for quick links to the news you need to see today<br />
This communication may contain privileged and confidential information. Any views of opinions expressed are those of the originator and not necessarily those of<br />
the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners'.<br />
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,<br />
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<br />
immediately and delete it from your system.<br />
1
This communication may contain privileged and confidential information. Any views of opinions expressed are those of the originator and not necessarily those of<br />
the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners'.<br />
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,<br />
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<br />
immediately and delete it from your system.<br />
2
Buckley, Claire (PA)<br />
From:<br />
APCCS Cat Mclntyre <br />
Sent: 08 November 2013 11:03<br />
Cc:<br />
APCCS Mark Castle; APCCS Tania Eagle; APCCS Cat Mclntyre; APCCS Oliver Shaw;<br />
APCCS Clare O' Sullivan; APCCS Dawn Osborne; APCCS Simon Efford; APCCS Joel<br />
Charles; Apccs Support<br />
Subject:<br />
GR-A 109/2013: **RESTRICTED** College of Policing Professional Committee Papers<br />
Attachments:<br />
AllPapers13November.zip; Draft Agenda 13.11.13.doc<br />
TO:<br />
CC:<br />
Police and Crime Commissioners<br />
Chief Executives<br />
APCC Secretariat<br />
Dear Police and Crime Commissioner<br />
GR‐A 109/2013: **RESTRICTED** College of Policing Professional Committee Papers<br />
Please find attached the papers for the College of Policing Professional Committee due to be held next Wednesday, 13 th<br />
November. The original proposed agenda was circulated to Police and Crime Commissioners under GR‐A 92 on 10<br />
October, but we only received the full papers yesterday and could not forward these on at the time because our email<br />
systems were down. The meeting papers are in the zip folder attached, and I have also attached the original draft<br />
agenda sent in October, as the papers do not appear to include a separate agenda.<br />
You will recall that the current agreement we have with the College of Policing to help overcome concerns about the<br />
lack of engagement for PCCs at Professional Committee level, is that the agenda will be circulated early to Police and<br />
Crime Commissioners, followed by the full papers nearer the date. The aim is to allow PCCs either to attend the<br />
Professional Committee if they have a particular interest in an area, or to pass their comments and concerns to us, so<br />
that these can be raised at the Committee on their behalf. At present, only one PCC has to requested to attend the<br />
Professional Committee Meeting on 13 November, but if anyone else has a particular interest in an agenda item and<br />
would like to do so, or has any particular comments on the attached papers they would wish us to raise, please let me<br />
know as soon as possible.<br />
We are aware that several PCCs have expressed concerns about being swamped by a large number of papers and<br />
relatively short notice in this way, which gives them and their staff little time to digest and analyse the contents. We<br />
will work with the College of Policing to see if we can find ways to improve this situation.<br />
Do please get in touch with me if you have any queries.<br />
Regards<br />
Cat McIntyre<br />
1
Please note my email address has changed to: cat.mcintyre@apccs.pnn.police.uk<br />
Cat McIntyre | Policy Lead | The Association of Police and Crime Commissioners (APCC) | 07714 399 754 | 2 nd Floor, 10<br />
Victoria Street, London, SW1H 0NN|www.apccs.police.uk<br />
Follow Us: Twitter @assocpccs<br />
Visit our website for quick links to the news you need to see today<br />
This communication may contain privileged and confidential information. Any views of opinions expressed are those of the originator and not necessarily those of<br />
the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners'.<br />
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,<br />
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<br />
immediately and delete it from your system.<br />
This communication may contain privileged and confidential information. Any views of opinions expressed are those of the originator and not necessarily those of<br />
the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners'.<br />
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,<br />
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<br />
immediately and delete it from your system.<br />
2
NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED<br />
Title of meeting: Professional Committee<br />
Date: 13 November 2013<br />
Time: 11:00 -14:00pm (Break for lunch 12:30-13:00)<br />
Venue:<br />
Rm 1.10, Riverside House, 2a Southwark Bridge Rd, SE1 9HA.<br />
Agenda<br />
No. Title Lead<br />
1 Minutes and Actions from Previous Meeting Alex Marshall<br />
2 IPCC<br />
To cover new role of IPCC, relationship with College and feedback of<br />
lessons learnt<br />
3 Learning and Development Strategy for the Police<br />
Service<br />
To be presented to Committee for approval<br />
4 EDHR Strategy<br />
Detailed action plan to support delivery of the strategy for committee<br />
approval<br />
5 Update on Undercover Work<br />
Update on work agreed by Professional Committee in March<br />
6 Update on Local Policing Programme<br />
(New lead appointed for the programme)<br />
7 Direct Entry Update<br />
Summary of initial costed options for taking forward DE proposals.<br />
8 Future Confidential Units Operating Model<br />
To approve revised standards for confidential units.<br />
TBC<br />
Mike Cunningham<br />
Alf Hitchcock<br />
John Murphy<br />
Simon Cole<br />
Mike Cunningham<br />
DCC Lewis<br />
Benjamin/John<br />
Murphy<br />
9 Section 5 Public Order Act Guidance<br />
New guidance relating to changes in legislation<br />
Lynne Owens<br />
10 Commission to Review Management of Police Medical<br />
Appeal Boards<br />
Mike Cunningham<br />
Proposal setting out potential parameters of the review<br />
11 Verbal update:<br />
College transformation programme<br />
Alex Marshall<br />
12 To note:<br />
Gateway Group Update<br />
Sara Thornton<br />
Secretariat update<br />
13 AOB Alex Marshall<br />
Date and time of next Professional Committee meeting:<br />
Wednesday 5 January 2014<br />
Riverside House, London<br />
Professional Committee<br />
Agenda Date: 13 November 2013
College of Policing<br />
Title of Meeting: Professional Committee<br />
Date: 11 September 2013<br />
Time: 11:00am – 14:00pm<br />
Venue: Room 1.10, Riverside House, 2a Southwark Bridge Rd, London SE1 9HA<br />
Chair: Alex Marshall, College of Policing Chief Executive<br />
Attendees:<br />
Mark Castle (MCA)<br />
Association of Police and Crime Commissioners<br />
Jackie Cheer (JC)<br />
EDHR BA<br />
Mike Cunningham (MCU) Workforce Development BA<br />
Karen Daber (KD)<br />
College Integrity Programme<br />
David Hardcastle (DH) College Chief of Staff<br />
Chris Eyre (CE)<br />
Criminal Justice BA<br />
Sir Peter Fahy (PF) ACPO Vice President<br />
Steve Finnigan (SF) Performance Management BA<br />
Nick Gargan (NGA) Finance and Resources BA<br />
Nigel Green (NGR)<br />
Association of Special Constabulary Chief Officers<br />
Sarah Knapper (SK) Police Federation of England and Wales<br />
Julia Lawrence (JL) Police Federation of England and Wales<br />
Jon Murphy (JM)<br />
Crime BA<br />
Caryl Nobbs (CN)<br />
Unison<br />
Lynne Owens (LO)<br />
Uniformed Operations BA<br />
Simon Parr (SP)<br />
Information Management BA<br />
Ian Rennie (IR)<br />
Police Federation of England and Wales<br />
Steve Smith (SS)<br />
Police Federation of England and Wales<br />
Peter Spindler (SP) Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary<br />
Sara Thornton (ST) ACPO Vice President<br />
Tracey Gilles (TG)<br />
College Programme and Projects Office<br />
Giles Herdale (GH) College Practice Improvement Unit<br />
Mike Russell (MR)<br />
College Efficiency & Knowledge Support Unit<br />
Sharon Gernon-Booth (SGB) College Efficiency & Knowledge Support Unit<br />
Natalie Davison (ND) College Marketing & Communications<br />
Everett Henry (EH) College EDHR Unit<br />
Charlie Phelps (CP) College Leadership and Talent Unit<br />
Rose Bartlett (RB)<br />
College Workforce Policy & Strategy Unit<br />
Oliver Bolton (OB)<br />
College Secretariat<br />
Harbinder Dhaliwal (HD) College Secretariat<br />
Faye Bosworth (Secretary) College Secretariat<br />
Sara Champion (SC) College Secretariat<br />
Apologies:<br />
Simon Cole, Cressida Dick, Alf Hitchcock, Sir Hugh Orde, Gavin Thomas, Andrew<br />
Trotter, Ian Readhead.<br />
1. Minutes and Actions from Previous Meeting.<br />
1.1 The Chair opened the meeting and welcomed members to the College’s new London<br />
premises. He also introduced the College’s new Chief of Staff, Caroline Marlborough.<br />
1.2 Members agreed the minutes of the previous meeting held on 3 July 2013 as a true<br />
record. The Chair confirmed that the majority of the actions had been discharged.<br />
1.3 NGA said the actions on austerity would be picked up after the ACPO conference and<br />
brought back in January. The Finance and Resources, Futures, Workforce Development<br />
and Performance Management BAs regular meetings have been reinstated to help prepare<br />
key messages for the election and future spending rounds.<br />
1.4 The Chair said work had begun to understand the totality of current policing demand,<br />
focused around the five definitions of police forces to build an accurate picture of demand<br />
across the service. NGA asked to be involved with this work.<br />
1
College of Policing<br />
1.5 JM said legal issues needed to be resolved before the Interim Online Research and<br />
Investigation Guidance can be forwarded to Chief Constables’ Council.<br />
2. HMIC Presentation on Recent Policing Reviews and Forward Programme of Work<br />
2.1 PS gave a presentation setting out HMIC’s current and forward programme of work and<br />
recommendations for the College to progress from recent HMIC reports. The Committee<br />
requested a more consistent approach to all HMIC recommendations, including<br />
consideration of the cost of implementation.<br />
2.4 The Committee raised specific concerns about the forthcoming inspection of Domestic<br />
Abuse that appeared to focus on the police response in isolation and asked HMIC to<br />
consider widening the focus of the review, recognising the role of other agencies. The<br />
impact of increasing pressure on local authority budgets and resultant loss of important<br />
local domestic abuse services was also raised. PF proposed that the Chair of the<br />
Professional Committee write to the Home Secretary to raise these concerns.<br />
Action: The Chair to write to the Home Secretary expressing the Professional<br />
Committee’s concerns with i) the narrow focus of the domestic abuse review and the need<br />
to recognise the delivery role of other agencies ii) the pressure on partner agencies’<br />
budgets and their capability to respond to domestic abuse.<br />
3. Performance Management Commission<br />
3.1 The Committee considered a commission to develop a programme of work on<br />
performance management. It was discussed that there needs to be a more balanced<br />
approach to driving performance; it’s not solely about numbers and targets, but about<br />
professional judgement, use of discretion and quality of service.<br />
3.2 Given the potential breadth of this programme, members suggested an initial focus on:<br />
i) understanding the totality and current nature of demand for the service;<br />
ii) establishing a clear picture of how performance is currently measured; and<br />
iii) considering the implications of performance management in the context of<br />
austerity and the multi-agency delivery environment.<br />
Resourcing of the programme was also discussed and BA leads agreed to help canvass<br />
potential short-term input from appropriately experienced officers from their BA/forces.<br />
Decision: The Committee approved the proposal with a steer on early priorities.<br />
Action: Business Area leads to help identify short-term input from appropriately<br />
experienced officers/staff<br />
4. Progression of Under-Represented Groups Commission<br />
4.1 A commission setting out a programme of work, to support the progression of underrepresented<br />
groups was presented to the Committee. There was debate on how the<br />
programme’s objectives could be best achieved and a suggestion that in order to achieve<br />
real impact and transformation the proposals could be even bolder and wider in scope. It<br />
was felt that the current employment and legal frameworks coupled with diminishing<br />
opportunities for promotion, presents real challenges and highlights the need to consider<br />
a more lateral approach to BME progression.<br />
4.2 IR emphasised that it was a serious issue that the service had failed to attract, recruit and<br />
retain BME officers; he said there are reasons why BME candidates don’t want to join the<br />
service and we need to address those issues first. He indicated that the Federation was<br />
fully supportive of the paper and positive action so long as it was proportionate and within<br />
the law, but information on how this would be justified was lacking. He also warned<br />
against favouring one part of the service over others as this had created resentment in<br />
2
College of Policing<br />
the past, especially during times of limited promotions. NGR also offered ASCCOs support<br />
and requested to be involved with the programme.<br />
Decision: The Committee approved the proposal and will be kept informed of progress of<br />
the programme.<br />
5. People Strategy<br />
5.1 MCU introduced a commission to develop a National People Strategy for Policing, setting<br />
out the Service’s workforce development and management priorities for 2014 - 18. He<br />
suggested the Service faced unprecedented levels of change and the Strategy would help<br />
the service understand and respond to these changes specifically in terms of better<br />
resource management bringing together good practice from around the country. The<br />
concept of wellbeing would be an important concept underpinning the strategy and its<br />
development would be operationally led.<br />
5.2 JM spoke of an initiative within his force that looked at wellbeing and the management of<br />
sickness that had received positive feedback from staff and the staff associations. The<br />
Chair said this work linked with professionalising the service, ensuring staff maintain and<br />
enhance their skills.<br />
Decision: The Committee approved the proposal to start the development of a National<br />
Police People Strategy and will be kept updated on this as work progresses.<br />
6. Direct Entry Commission<br />
6.1 MCU introduced a Home Office commission for the College to take forward Direct Entry<br />
recommendations from the Winsor report, specifically<br />
i) a fast track scheme to inspector;<br />
ii) a direct entry scheme to superintendent rank, and<br />
iii) a plan for facilitating the appointment of Chief Constables from overseas.<br />
The initial focus would be to develop costed options and recommendations to support<br />
implementation.<br />
6.2 The Chair said that the Metropolitan Police had expressed a desire to progress the<br />
inspector and superintendent schemes imminently, and had asked the College to develop<br />
national standards. LO believed there needed to be a better understanding of the problem<br />
that direct entry was trying to solve. She also felt there was a strong need to try to<br />
influence the commission so as to achieve the outcome of making the service more<br />
diverse. Finally there was some criticism that the proposed schemes didn’t include<br />
suitable options for progression of existing staff.<br />
6.3 NGA favoured the inspector scheme but suggested pay could be a major issue. He also<br />
said he was keen to be involved with the development of this work. DH raised a number<br />
of issues on behalf of the Superintendents Association, firstly that they haven’t yet had<br />
sight of the outcomes from the Home Office consultation, and they are concerned by the<br />
lack of an equality impact assessment accompanying the proposals. They would support<br />
the recommendation to progress phase 1 deliverables, but not phase 2 at this stage, and<br />
would seek to be a member of any project board that is set up. SP was concerned that<br />
when the recommendations are looked at in isolation the bigger issues of morale can be<br />
lost and that compulsory severance also needed to be considered.<br />
6.4 ST was supportive of the College setting the standards in this area but emphasised<br />
support to those already on the HPDS needed to be ensured. She also raised issues<br />
around how a suitable test would be devised to implement the proposals, whether costs<br />
would lie nationally or locally and the need to clarify timescales and targets for diversity.<br />
IR said the Police Federation opposed direct entry to Superintendent rank given the<br />
majority of work at this level was operational so there is a high risk to the public and<br />
officers, given the level of experience and knowledge required for this rank. He also said<br />
3
College of Policing<br />
that the PFEW, in relation to the fast-track scheme, support HPDS and would support a<br />
review of HPDS, and it is supportive of facilitating the appointment of Chief Constables<br />
from overseas. He went on to state that care was needed with regard to selection and<br />
that if people are not right for the role this needed to be conveyed to them, which may<br />
not have happened in the past. Issues were also raised around timescales, payment of<br />
salaries and that the scheme could lead to a single employment framework. MCU accepted<br />
the comments and agreed to set the paper within a broader context whilst emphasising<br />
the urgency to get on with some of the specifics.<br />
Decision: The Committee recommended approval and further consideration of the direct<br />
entry commission to the College Board.<br />
7. Commission from the APCC on Commissioning Support for PCCs<br />
7.1 The Committee considered a commission from the APCC for the College to identify good<br />
practice in commissioning. The initial focus is for the College to facilitate an event for<br />
PCCs and their public sector partners to share evidence and learning on what works, and<br />
to identify what is required to build capability to commission effectively in the future.<br />
Decision: The Committee approved the proposal to take forward work on developing<br />
commissioning support for PCCs.<br />
8. Information Management<br />
8.1 The Committee were informed of a number of significant changes underway in relation to<br />
information management including:<br />
i) changes to the Government Classification Policy and security markings;<br />
ii) a review of the National Policing Risk Appetite;<br />
iii) review of Management of Police Information; and<br />
iv) new guidance on the use of mobile devices.<br />
These changes will enable a more digitised service, with scope for improved sharing of<br />
information across policing and government. CE said that the message that information<br />
would be available to staff when and where they need it must be made explicit and linked<br />
to the Policing Vision 2016.<br />
Decision: The Committee noted the paper.<br />
Action: Information Management Business Area to put a discussion paper on<br />
implementation of the Government Classification Policy to Chief Constables’ Council for<br />
further consideration.<br />
9. Armed Support to CBRN<br />
9.1 LO introduced a paper seeking endorsement of a national statement of<br />
requirements and Concept of Operations for providing armed support to CBRN operations.<br />
This would provide significant savings to forces if adopted.<br />
Decision: The Committee approved the statement of requirements and concept of<br />
operations for armed support to CBRN.<br />
10. National Police Interoperability Working Group Funding<br />
10.1 Options for funding the future work of the NPIWG were discussed at the meeting.<br />
Members also discussed the need for a standardised approach to these types of requests<br />
for funding.<br />
Decision: The Committee agreed that this work should be subsumed into the College.<br />
Actions:<br />
i) Alex Marshall and Lynne Owens to review and agree funding issues for this work.<br />
4
College of Policing<br />
ii) ACPO Presidential team and College CEO to consider a more consistent and transparent<br />
approach for funding national policing programmes that are currently supported through a<br />
variety of ad hoc funding arrangements.<br />
11a. Integrity Programme Update<br />
11a.1 Members noted a progress update on the Integrity programme. Major developments<br />
included the Code of Ethics phase 3 consultation draft, the development of the struck off<br />
list and development of vetting processes.<br />
11a.2 SS raised concerns about the level of consultation underpinning the development of the<br />
Code of Ethics and suggested greater engagement was required prior to circulation to the<br />
wider workforce. He felt the current document was not fit for purpose. The Chair asked SS<br />
to raise these concerns at the Integrity Programme Board on 12 September. JC then gave<br />
a progress update on the creation of an ethics committee and said that a paper would be<br />
circulated on this shortly.<br />
Decision: The Committee endorsed the programme’s progress to date.<br />
11b. Protecting the Public from Dangerous People<br />
11b.1 GH introduced a paper proposing the development of an accreditation regime, including<br />
formal elements of continuing professional development, to improve standards for the<br />
investigation of high risk areas. He said the detail still needed to be worked out and that<br />
this would be brought back, along with proposal on how it would work in practice. JL said<br />
it needed to be clear where this would sit within the PIP review and asked for equality<br />
issues to be considered because a large proportion of women sit within public protection<br />
roles.<br />
Decisions: The Committee approved the proposal but suggested a broader review to<br />
determine where accreditation should apply across different policing roles.<br />
Action: The College to review and develop proposals setting out which policing roles may<br />
require formal accreditation and the process for taking this forward.<br />
12. Guidance on National Fitness Testing<br />
12.1 MCU introduced interim guidance on job related fitness testing and was seeking the<br />
Committee’s endorsement of the PAB approved guidance. LO raised concerns with regard<br />
to supporting frontline supervisors who manage the small percentage of officers who have<br />
failed the test. ST was disappointed at the narrow application and watering down of the<br />
recommendations and suggested referral of the document to Chief Constables’ Council.<br />
12.2 The Chair went on to question the interim status of the guidance. IR said this was to<br />
enable forces to implement and monitor the impact of the proposals over the next 12<br />
months. He went on to say that the test was scientific and justifiable and that the staged<br />
process would allow evaluation to determine whether it discriminated against certain<br />
groups.<br />
Decision: The Committee approved the interim guidance.<br />
Action: i) The guidance to be referred to Chief Constables’ Council for operational<br />
implementation. ii) The status of PAB issued guidance to be determined.<br />
13. College Design and Transformation<br />
13.1 The Chair gave an update on the College design work and told members that a strategic<br />
intent document would be launched on 24 September and he invited members to<br />
comment on this by December 17th. The College Board would be reviewing the Business<br />
Plan at its next meeting and Rob Beckley is currently leading work on the implementation<br />
plan. He also said Simon Cole would be working with the College design the Strategic<br />
Command Course 2014 over the next six weeks.<br />
5
College of Policing<br />
14. APP Update<br />
14.1 ST asked members to note the circulated paper.<br />
15. Secretariat Update<br />
15.1 The Chair told members that the College Secretariat have begun work with BAs, including<br />
staff officers, to gather information to develop a BA forward programme of work. The<br />
intention was to develop a planned approach to projects and programmes going forward<br />
rather than being reactive. He also referred to an up-to-date list of BA Partners within the<br />
College for members to link in to. Finally he informed members that APP would be going<br />
live from 24 October 13.<br />
16. AOB<br />
16.1 JM informed members of a paper to Chief Constables’ Council seeking funding of £3,000<br />
from each force to continue funding for the ‘Ugly Mugs’ charity.<br />
16.2 JL made members aware of a survey, developed with ASCCO, to canvass whether<br />
special constables would like to become members of the Federation. She asked<br />
members to ensure that all specials are made aware of this survey within their force.<br />
16.3 SP canvassed member’s thoughts on a chief officer secondment to either the Home Office<br />
or the College, for the airwave replacement programme. Members agreed for this option<br />
to be pursued.<br />
****Meeting Closed****<br />
6
College of Policing<br />
11 Sept 2013 Professional Committee<br />
No Agenda<br />
Item<br />
Action Owner Status Notes<br />
1. HMIC<br />
Presentation<br />
2. Performance<br />
Management<br />
The Chair to write to the Home Secretary expressing the<br />
Professional Committee’s concerns with:<br />
i) the narrow focus of the domestic abuse review and the need<br />
to recognise the delivery role of other agencies, ii) the<br />
pressure on partner agencies’ budgets and their capability to<br />
respond to domestic abuse.<br />
Business Area leads to help identify short term input from<br />
appropriately experienced officers<br />
College CEO Amber Letter to HS drafted<br />
Heads of Business<br />
Areas<br />
Green<br />
Complete<br />
3. Information<br />
Management<br />
Update<br />
4. NPIWG<br />
Funding<br />
Information Management Business Area to put a discussion<br />
paper on implementation of the Government Classification<br />
Programme to Chief Constables Council for further<br />
consideration.<br />
i) Alex Marshall and Lynne Owens to review and agree funding<br />
issues for this work. ii) ACPO Presidential team and College<br />
CEO to consider a more consistent and transparent approach<br />
for funding national policing programmes that are currently<br />
supported through a variety of ad hoc funding arrangements.<br />
Head of the<br />
Information<br />
Management BA<br />
Head Uniform Ops<br />
BA & College CEO.<br />
ACPO Presidential<br />
team and College<br />
CEO<br />
Green<br />
Complete<br />
Amber CEO agreed funding for 2014/15<br />
with DCC Chesterman<br />
Mtg to discuss approach<br />
arranged for 4/12/13<br />
5. Protecting<br />
the public<br />
The College to review and develop proposals setting out which<br />
policing roles may require formal accreditation and the process<br />
for taking this forward.<br />
College Amber Helen Schofield & Giles Herdale<br />
taking this work forward<br />
6. Interim<br />
guidance on<br />
fitness<br />
testing<br />
i) The guidance is to be forwarded to Chief Constables’ Council<br />
for consideration of operational implementation<br />
ii) The status of PAB issued guidance to be determined<br />
Head of Workforce<br />
Development BA<br />
College<br />
Green<br />
Complete<br />
Purpose of PAB is to advise Home<br />
Sec only.<br />
7
NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED<br />
Name of meeting: Professional Committee<br />
Date of meeting: 13/11/2013<br />
Item lead at meeting: CC Mike Cunningham; Charles Phelps College of Policing.<br />
Agenda item number: 2<br />
Title of paper:<br />
Fast-Track and Direct Entry<br />
1. Issue<br />
1.1 The Professional Committee of 11 th September 2013 agreed for the College to<br />
commence work relating to the anticipated commission emanating from The<br />
Independent Review of Police Officer and Staff Remuneration and Conditions – Final<br />
Report, Winsor Part 2.<br />
1.2 As agreed for Phase 1, this paper sets out:<br />
a) A costed options paper with recommendations concerning the implementation of a<br />
fast-track constable to inspector scheme;<br />
b) A costed options paper with recommendations concerning the implementation of<br />
superintendent direct entry scheme; and<br />
c) A discussion paper outlining recommendations for direct entry at chief constable<br />
level.<br />
2. Recommendations<br />
2.1 That the Professional Committee agrees the recommended schemes so that the project<br />
can move to Phase 2 which is to deliver:<br />
a) Detailed design and implementation of the Fast-Track to Inspector Scheme;<br />
b) Detailed design and implementation of a superintendent direct entry scheme;<br />
c) Work to support any ‘new to the service’ chief officer scheme; and<br />
d) A paper outlining how the officers on the current HPDS scheme will be supported<br />
and that the investment in those officers remains of benefit to forces.<br />
2.2 That the recommendations be taken to the College Board.<br />
2.3 That chief constables, through Chief Constables’ Council, and Police and Crime<br />
Commissioners are consulted on these recommendations.<br />
2.4 That the College continue to undertake Phase 2 under the governance of CC Mike<br />
Cunningham, National Policing Lead for Workforce Development.<br />
3. Summary<br />
3.1 The commission has now been received from the Home Office, as has the Government’s<br />
response to the consultation it carried out. The commission is in full at Appendix A.<br />
Professional Committee Date: 22/01/2014<br />
Agenda Item No.2<br />
Author: Charles Phelps
NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED<br />
3.2 In the meantime, the College has, through a project set up in anticipation of this<br />
commission, consulted with the Service on how such schemes could work though a User<br />
Group chaired by DCC Giles York, an internal College Technical Advisory Group and<br />
through group and individual discussions with stakeholders. These groups report to a<br />
Project Board chaired by CC Mike Cunningham.<br />
3.3 The schemes are being developed as part of an overall approach to flexible entry and<br />
whilst they must be able to stand on their own, they will be influenced by and influence<br />
overall leadership development throughout the Service. Any learning from these<br />
schemes will be adopted in the wider approach. Through this approach, the College has<br />
developed recommendations with options for how the schemes could operate in a way<br />
that meets the differing workforce needs of forces. The Fast-Track Inspector Scheme is<br />
described at Appendix B and the Direct Entry Superintendent Scheme is described at<br />
Appendix C.<br />
3.4 Concurrently, we have identified potential costs in delivering these two schemes and<br />
have written a full financial business case. A summary of the costs are shown at<br />
Appendix D and this has been submitted to the Home Office although final costs will<br />
depend greatly on how the schemes are finally delivered. The aim of gaining additional<br />
resource is to allow the College to properly support forces in delivering these schemes.<br />
In brief, the potential costs are £1.758m in 2013/14; £3.846m in 2014/15; £5.187m in<br />
2015/16 and £5.275m in 2016/17.<br />
4. Supporting information / Consideration<br />
4.1 The commission states that the principles the Government want to see are:<br />
A Fast-Track to Inspector Scheme that is comprised of internal and external<br />
candidates who are promoted to inspector within three years. The external<br />
candidates must be graduates. There should be a minimum annual cohort of 80.<br />
A direct entry scheme at the rank of superintendent with a training scheme lasting<br />
15-18 months. There should be a minimum annual cohort of 20.<br />
A plan for facilitating the appointment of chief constables from overseas and<br />
providing a list of ranks, forces and countries that will be eligible as set out in the<br />
amendment to the Anti Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill.<br />
4.2 It is worthwhile re-iterating that the Fast-Track to Inspector Scheme will be in addition<br />
to those officers who are currently on the High Potential Development Scheme, which<br />
has approximately 300 members. Cohort Six will not finish until 2019.<br />
4.3 The College has in developing the schemes referred to, and borne in mind, the Home<br />
Office consultation and the Government’s response, which was published on the 14 th<br />
October.<br />
4.4 In developing and delivering the schemes the College will engage in partnerships and<br />
collaborations with other bodies, academic, public, private and third sector to ensure the<br />
widest possible thinking is brought to the schemes.<br />
4.5 At the time of writing, in response to a letter sent by the College to forces asking for<br />
indicative numbers for both schemes, 26 forces have replied with a demand for five<br />
superintendents from the Metropolitan Police only, and a demand of up to 43 graduate<br />
entrants from 13 forces in the first year. Two additional forces have indicated the<br />
requirement for one direct entry superintendent each in year two and three and 20<br />
Professional Committee Date: 13/11/2013<br />
Agenda Item No. 2<br />
Author: Charles Phelps
NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED<br />
forces have indicated they would aim for up to 46 current constables to join the scheme<br />
in 2015.<br />
4.6 A draft communication plan has been developed and is at Appendix E; whilst the plan<br />
and resulting actions will depend greatly on demand from forces, the overarching<br />
messages are that:<br />
The College recognises the high level of talent already across UK policing;<br />
These schemes aim to open up recruitment to attract the very best talent into<br />
policing and bring in new perspectives and backgrounds;<br />
The College of Policing is working in partnership with police forces in England and<br />
Wales to ensure the right people are selected for each scheme; and<br />
As the professional body for policing, the College is committed to ensuring the<br />
highest standards are met and maintained by candidates selected to participate in<br />
these schemes.<br />
4.7 In relation to direct entry at chief constable, a brief paper is at Appendix F and asks for<br />
consideration as to the approach to be taken.<br />
Author name:<br />
Charles Phelps<br />
Author job title: Head of Leadership and Talent<br />
Author email:<br />
charles.phelps@college.pnn.police.uk<br />
Author tel number: 01256 602188<br />
Sponsor (if not Author): CC Mike Cunningham<br />
-----------------------------------<br />
Professional Committee Date: 13/11/2013<br />
Agenda Item No. 2<br />
Author: Charles Phelps
Appendix A: The Commission<br />
16 September 2013<br />
Dear Alex,<br />
The Government wants to ensure that UK policing is opened up to a wider pool<br />
of talent, individuals who will bring new perspectives and diverse backgrounds to<br />
support the continuous development of world-class police. As policing continues<br />
to evolve police leaders will need different and better tools to respond to future<br />
challenges which is why providing more routes to leadership roles is so<br />
important. By opening up the police to a wider pool of talent, forces will be able<br />
to bring in people with diverse backgrounds and new perspectives.<br />
Tom Winsor’s Independent Review of Police Officers’ and Staff Remuneration and<br />
Conditions set out proposals for direct entry schemes at inspector,<br />
superintendent and chief constable ranks which the Government consulted on<br />
earlier in the year. We will be publishing the response document in October.<br />
We have said that it will be for the College of Policing, as the body responsible<br />
for setting standards and developing professionalism in the police, to lead on<br />
developing and implementing these schemes.<br />
The consultation focussed on how the schemes should operate and in designing<br />
the schemes you should consider the responses but it will be down to you to<br />
make decisions based on what is best for policing.<br />
The principles the Government want to see are:<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
A fast track scheme to inspector that is comprised of internal and external<br />
candidates who are promoted to inspector within three years.<br />
The external candidates must be graduates. There should be a minimum<br />
annual cohort of 80.<br />
A direct entry scheme at the rank of superintendent with a training<br />
scheme lasting 15-18 months. There should be a minimum annual cohort<br />
of 20.<br />
A plan for facilitating the appointment of chief constables from overseas<br />
and providing a list of ranks, forces and countries that will be eligible as<br />
set out in the amendment to the Anti Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing<br />
Bill.<br />
We are aware that you have commenced some preliminary work and hope that<br />
you can build on that so that we will see the first officers starting on these<br />
schemes in 2014/15.
Appendix B: Constable to Inspector Fast-Track<br />
1. Overview of Scheme<br />
1.1 This scheme will select graduate applicants from outside of the service and<br />
provide them with a three-year development programme that will equip them<br />
with the skills, knowledge and experience required to be promoted to the rank of<br />
inspector upon successful completion. Police staff and special constables will<br />
also be eligible to apply; they will not need to be graduates.<br />
1.2 The scheme is also aimed at highly talented constables who will join the<br />
external candidates (after their first year) and be promoted to inspector after<br />
completing a two-year development programme. On an exceptional basis, police<br />
staff or special constables who are highly qualified in policing could take the 2-<br />
year programme<br />
1.3 The development programme will be focused on gaining operational<br />
competence and then on leadership and management. Much of the development<br />
programme will take place in forces with leadership modules delivered by, or in<br />
partnership with, the College of Policing. Scheme members will be regularly<br />
assessed throughout the scheme to ensure they are meeting the standards<br />
required to be promoted in the timeframes of the scheme.<br />
1.4 The scheme is aimed at those with the potential to reach inspector rank<br />
within two/three years and who will continue to progress to the most senior<br />
ranks (at least superintendent) of the service once graduating from the scheme.<br />
2. Aims of the Constable to Inspector Fast-Track Scheme<br />
2.1 Open up entry to the service to individuals who will bring new perspectives<br />
and diverse backgrounds to support the continuous development of policing.<br />
2.2 Offer career progression to graduates in line with other professions such as<br />
armed forces, finance and industry, law, medicine and accountancy to attract the<br />
most talented graduates.<br />
2.3 Attract, identify and develop the most talented constables, specials and<br />
police staff from within the service.<br />
2.4 Offer a development programme and promotion mechanism to enable the<br />
most talented to advance to the rank of inspector within two years for serving<br />
constables and three years for police staff, special constables and external<br />
candidates.<br />
2.5 Develop a cadre of officers with the skills, experience and capacity to reach<br />
the senior ranks of the service, at least superintendent, to impact on and<br />
influence the management and culture of the service.<br />
Appendix B Page 1 of 6
3. Scheme Principles<br />
3.1 There will be a focus on operational knowledge and skills, leadership and<br />
management.<br />
3.2 Forces must take responsibility for their officers, providing them with the<br />
support and opportunities set out by the College of Policing and promote them in<br />
the timeframe the scheme sets out.<br />
3.3 Participants will undergo regular assessments.<br />
3.4 Those not meeting standards, set by the College of Policing, will exit the<br />
scheme and revert to a traditional career path<br />
3.5 Cohort size will be determined by forces’ workforce planning and the<br />
numbers meeting national standards.<br />
4. Timeframe for Cohort 1<br />
March 2014<br />
March 2014<br />
April – May 2014<br />
June 2014<br />
September 2014<br />
December 2014<br />
February 2015<br />
May 2015<br />
September 2015<br />
September 2015 – September 2017<br />
September 2017<br />
Market externally to graduates<br />
Market internally to police staff and<br />
special constables<br />
Force selection<br />
National Assessment Centre<br />
Commence programme – 1 year<br />
condensed constable training and<br />
leadership development<br />
Market to serving constables<br />
In-force selection of serving constables<br />
National assessment centre for serving<br />
constables<br />
Serving constables commence scheme,<br />
joining stream of graduates, police<br />
staff and specials – whole cohort<br />
promoted to sergeant<br />
Structured development programme<br />
including specific postings in force and<br />
College approved leadership modules.<br />
Assessment throughout to ensure<br />
meeting national standards<br />
Final assessment and promotion to<br />
inspector<br />
5. Marketing and Attraction<br />
5.1 Approach: A range of marketing strategies could be employed. For<br />
external graduates this could include targeted social media, graduate<br />
publications, including those aimed of under-represented groups, press<br />
advertising and on campus activity at specific universities, selected by location<br />
and target demographic. Existing force communication channels as per HPDS<br />
will be used to market the scheme to constables, police staff and special<br />
constables. The College intend to procure a specialist marketing agency to<br />
develop the creative concepts and material.<br />
Appendix B Page 2 of 6
5.2 Rationale: Targeted cost-effective solutions to attract top graduates,<br />
including those from under-represented groups to meet the specific needs of<br />
forces. The College’s role will be to provide national brand awareness and a<br />
consistent message to support forces’ local campaigns.<br />
5.3 Costs: Final decisions regarding the marketing spend will be proportionate<br />
to the requirement set out by forces. The table below shows the range of<br />
activities that can be used at various spending levels.<br />
Costs Activities<br />
£100k Creative development of marketing concepts £30,000<br />
Online activity and website advertising £30,000<br />
Social Media activity £30,000<br />
Times Top 100 £10,000<br />
£200k As above plus<br />
Targeted advertising in graduate publications £30,000<br />
BME specific advertising £20,000<br />
On campus activity £10,000<br />
Mobile app creation £20,000<br />
Promotional merchandise £2,000<br />
£300k As above plus<br />
National media advertising £100,000<br />
6. Eligibility criteria<br />
6.1 Approach: Each cohort will contain both internal (constables, police staff<br />
including PCSOs and special constables) and external applicants (graduates).<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Constables – must be serving officers at the rank of constable at the<br />
time of application. They may hold an OSPRE part 1 for sergeants pass<br />
but must not be substantive in rank. Do not need to be a graduate. They<br />
cannot be a current member of the HPDS.<br />
Police Staff – employed by a police force as a member of staff or PCSO.<br />
Do not need to be a graduate. Must meet the same educational, medical,<br />
fitness standards and eligibility required of a regular constable.<br />
Special Constables – serving member of the special constabulary. Do<br />
not need to be a graduate. Must meet the same educational, medical,<br />
fitness standards and eligibility required of a regular constable.<br />
External Applicants (Graduates) – not currently employed by a police<br />
force. Must meet the same educational, medical, fitness standards and<br />
eligibility required of a regular constable and be a graduate with a<br />
minimum of a 2:2 degree.<br />
6.2 Rationale: Serving officers, police staff and special constables do not need<br />
to be graduates; a decision based on the consultation responses requesting<br />
acknowledgement of skills and experience other than educational attainment.<br />
For graduate applicants minimum standard to be set at 2:2, based on research<br />
regarding adverse impact on under-represented groups if set higher.<br />
7. Recruitment<br />
7.1 Approach: Recruitment will be force led; the College will provide support to<br />
assist with this part of the process through the development of a ‘sifting’ pack’.<br />
It is intended that this would include items such as:<br />
Appendix B Page 3 of 6
a standardised national application form which all applicants are required<br />
to complete, but which is assessed at a force level;<br />
a ‘realistic job preview’ self assessment tool to help candidates identify<br />
whether they are both suited to the demands of working for the Police<br />
Service and aware of the specific challenges and expectations of the fasttrack<br />
scheme;<br />
a telephone screening questionnaire based on the ‘Indicators of High<br />
Potential’ framework;<br />
advice and guidance about the use of psychometric tests; and<br />
advice and support in organising local open days/familiarisation events<br />
which candidates could be required to attend.<br />
7.2 If sufficient forces take part in the scheme, the College would intend to<br />
develop a national on-line sifting tool to assist forces with the potential<br />
burden of a high volume of applications.<br />
7.3 Rationale: Given the timeframe for delivery and the cost of building a<br />
central recruitment team and function, this approach is seen as the most<br />
effective. Forces have indicated that they would want to take responsibility for<br />
initial recruitment.<br />
7.4 Costs: No additional costs as support provided through existing College<br />
resources, apart from the potential procurement of an on-line national sifting<br />
tool at £100,000.<br />
8. Selection<br />
8.1 Approach: Candidates selected by forces will attend a national assessment<br />
centre. This will be designed using the same methodology the HPDS<br />
assessment, but designed to meet the additional requirements of the new<br />
scheme with new exercises and a wider group of assessors.<br />
8.2 Applicants will not need to undertake a separate Police SEARCH ®<br />
Assessment Centre; the criteria required to join the Police Service as a constable<br />
will be incorporated into the national selection process.<br />
8.3 Rationale: Assessment Centre methodology used by the College is robust,<br />
fit for purpose, ensures national standards are met and was supported in the<br />
Home Office consultation. The College will ensure the Assessment Centre<br />
incorporates competencies such as creativity, ability to challenge and change<br />
culture, and integrity. Incorporating criteria required in SEARCH ® Assessment<br />
Centre will make the selection process more streamlined and comparable to<br />
other graduate employers.<br />
8.4 Costs: The costs of the Assessment Centre for the internal stream can<br />
largely be subsumed within business as usual as it replaces the delivery of the<br />
current HPDS Assessment Centre. The cost of designing the Assessment Centre<br />
for external applicants would be up to £330,000 and up to £175,000 to deliver.<br />
9. Development Programme<br />
9.1 Approach: The Fast-Track programme will accelerate the first year at<br />
constable in their force for external applicants, streamlining the Certificate of<br />
Knowledge in Policing (CKP), the Diploma and the Initial Police Learning and<br />
Development Programme (IPLDP). College input will be light touch but provide<br />
Appendix B Page 4 of 6
support and guidance to every force that will be in a slightly different position.<br />
There will be few abstractions to distract candidates. The two-year programme<br />
at sergeant level will be more stretching and challenging and the College will<br />
intervene with training opportunities either delivered in-house or by partners.<br />
9.2 Rationale: It is essential that operational experience is maximised. The<br />
College will source the most cost-effective method for delivery to ensure<br />
delegates have the necessary knowledge and skills to succeed.<br />
9.3 Costs: Will be up to £180,000 per annum per cohort (excluding staff costs),<br />
depending upon the approach taken to delivery options and cohort size.<br />
10. Programme Support<br />
10.1 Approach: The College will provide standards and guidance to forces<br />
regarding in-force support structures, such as mentors and assessors. It will<br />
also provide forces and scheme members with a dedicated College contact.<br />
10.2 Rationale: Forces will need to have a structure in place to support their<br />
scheme members on this demanding programme and ensure they have the<br />
necessary development opportunities. Our experience from the HPDS shows<br />
that forces benefit from guidance on spotting talent and in implementing and<br />
managing talent schemes. The support provided to scheme members on the<br />
HPDS through the development advisers will be even more important on this<br />
more challenging scheme.<br />
10.3 Costs: Some of the College resources providing programme support would<br />
be re-directed to support delivery of the other national talent schemes; the costs<br />
associated with the fast-track would be approximately £460,000 per annum.<br />
11. Ongoing Assessment<br />
11.1 Approach: The College will give clear guidance and support to forces<br />
regarding the work-based assessment of scheme members and assist with<br />
verification processes in line with the National Police Promotion Framework<br />
(NPPF). There will also be a number of assessments provided by the College<br />
such as legal knowledge, psychometrics and 360 appraisals. It is intended that<br />
OSPRE I for sergeant and inspector will be merged for fast-track delegates to<br />
provide one examination; a pass will be required prior to the officer becoming a<br />
substantive sergeant but they could potentially take up earlier supervisory<br />
responsibilities.<br />
11.2 Rationale: For a scheme with set promotion timescales it is vital the<br />
officers are assessed to ensure competence. This needs to be a regular, robust<br />
assessment and a shared responsibility of forces and the College.<br />
11.3 Costs: Design costs up to £220,000. Delivery costs up to £50,000 per<br />
annum.<br />
12. Evaluation<br />
12.1 Approach: Once the scheme is fully developed an evaluation scheme will<br />
be developed to examine participation by forces, costs, communication, and<br />
quantitative and qualitative information, including progression and quality of<br />
candidates.<br />
Appendix B Page 5 of 6
12.2 Rationale: The commission asks for the schemes to be reviewed after five<br />
years, but ongoing evaluation to learn lessons will be out in place using the<br />
College principles of continuous improvement.<br />
12.3 Costs: Subsumed into normal College business.<br />
--------------------------------------<br />
Appendix B Page 6 of 6
Appendix C: Entry at Superintendent<br />
1. Overview of Scheme<br />
1.1 Entry at superintendent is an 18-month development programme that aims<br />
to attract highly talented leaders from outside of the Service. The development<br />
programme will provide those who have had highly successful careers in other<br />
professions or sectors at a senior level with the skills and knowledge required to<br />
be effective operational superintendents. Scheme members will be assessed<br />
throughout to ensure they are meeting the required standards.<br />
1.2 It is intended that the scheme will be launched in early 2014 with the first<br />
cohort of direct entry superintendents being selected in spring 2014. They will<br />
join the Service in September 2014 and if successful in their final assessments,<br />
complete the development programme at the beginning of 2016. The Home<br />
Office have indicated that it will fund the salaries of the superintendents for the<br />
duration of the development programme.<br />
2. Aims of the Scheme<br />
2.1 Open up entry to the service to individuals who will bring new perspectives<br />
and diverse backgrounds to support the continuous development of policing.<br />
2.2 Provide a development programme that will ensure superintendent direct<br />
entrants are operationally capable in the superintendent role and inspire<br />
confidence in officers, staff and the public.<br />
2.3 To create a cohort that have the potential to further develop and acquire the<br />
skills and experience to progress to chief officer ranks.<br />
3. Timeframe for Cohort 1<br />
February 2014<br />
March 2014<br />
April 2014<br />
September 2014<br />
September 2014 – March 2016<br />
March 2016<br />
Market the scheme<br />
Force selection<br />
National Assessment Centre<br />
Join force as a superintendent<br />
Development programme delivered by<br />
College of Policing and force, including<br />
on assessments throughout to national<br />
standards<br />
Final assessment and made<br />
substantive in rank. Take up post with<br />
force.<br />
4. Marketing and Attraction<br />
4.1 Approach: A range of marketing strategies could be employed. This could<br />
include online activity, adverts in specialist publications such as The Economist<br />
and publications aimed at under-represented groups and national media. The<br />
Appendix C Page 1 of 4
RESTRICTED<br />
marketing strategy needs to attract the right candidates and discourage those<br />
who are unsuitable, with the aim of a manageable volume of high quality<br />
applicants. The College will procure a specialist marketing agency to develop<br />
the creative concepts and material.<br />
4.2 Rationale: Targeted cost-effective solutions to attract top talent from<br />
outside the Service, including those from under-represented groups to meet the<br />
specific needs of forces. Desire for consistency of messaging met by providing<br />
marketing material to forces. The Entry at Superintendent Scheme is a<br />
fundamental change in police recruitment and is seeking to attract from a wider<br />
and more diverse pool of talent. The success of the scheme relies heavily on the<br />
quality of the candidates it attracts and therefore the quality and outcome of the<br />
marketing activity are fundamental to the success of the scheme.<br />
4.3 Costs: Final decisions regarding the marketing spend will be proportionate<br />
to the requirement. The table below shows the range of activities that can be<br />
used at various spending levels. Should just one or two forces wish to take part,<br />
then marketing and attraction costs could potentially be funded solely by those<br />
forces.<br />
Costs Activities<br />
£95k Creative development of marketing concepts £30,000<br />
Online activity and website advertising £35,000<br />
Social media activity £25,00<br />
£190k As above plus<br />
BME specific advertising £20,000<br />
Regional press £75,000<br />
£440k As above plus<br />
Targeted advertising (e.g. Economist, Management Today) £30,000<br />
Mobile App creation £20,000<br />
National media adverts £200,000<br />
5. Recruitment<br />
5.1 Approach: Recruitment will be force led; the College will provide support to<br />
assist with this part of the process through the development of a ‘sifting’ pack.<br />
It is intended that this would include items such as:<br />
a standardised national application form which all applicants are required<br />
to complete but which is assessed at a force level;<br />
a ‘realistic job preview’ self assessment tool to help candidates identify<br />
whether they are both suited to the demands of working for the police<br />
service and aware of the specific challenges and expectations of the Direct<br />
Entry scheme;<br />
<br />
<br />
advice and guidance about the use of psychometric tests; and<br />
advice and support in organising local open days/familiarisation events<br />
which candidates could be required to attend.<br />
5.2 Rationale: Given the timeframe for delivery, the likely numbers required<br />
and the cost of building a central recruitment team and function, this approach is<br />
seen as the most effective. Forces have indicated that they would want to take<br />
responsibility for initial recruitment and suitability.<br />
Appendix C Page 2 of 4
RESTRICTED<br />
6. Selection<br />
6.1 Approach: Candidates selected by forces will attend a National Assessment<br />
Centre. A new National Assessment Centre will be designed using the same<br />
methodology as Senior PNAC but adapted to meet the additional requirements of<br />
this scheme. Standards for passing will be set at the highest level and provide<br />
sufficient challenge to participants to differentiate exceptional performance.<br />
6.2 Applicants will not need to undertake the Police SEARCH ® Assessment<br />
Centre. The College will ensure the Assessment Centre tests integrity and<br />
ethics, resilience and includes psychometric assessments.<br />
6.3 Rationale: A process which seeks to select only a very few candidates of<br />
the highest quality must be seen to be highly challenging whilst transparent and<br />
valid.<br />
6.4 Costs: The cost of designing the Assessment Centre would be up to<br />
£220,000 and up to £175,000 to deliver, depending on numbers.<br />
7.0 Development Programme<br />
7.1 Approach: Significant design work will be needed on this new scheme.<br />
Focus groups with superintendents are taking place to inform how best the<br />
programme should be structured. These officers will need broad exposure to<br />
policing, the provision of specialist skills and shadowing opportunities.<br />
Therefore, most of the 18 month development programme will be spent in force.<br />
It is assumed that those selected for the scheme will already be exceptional<br />
leaders with many outstanding qualities and this development programme will<br />
seek to give them the necessary policing context and operational skills to<br />
succeed at superintendent level.<br />
7.2 The College will provide relevant training interventions either delivered in<br />
house or by partners.<br />
7.3 Rationale: A comprehensive programme will mitigate the risk of those<br />
without extensive policing experience commanding challenging operational<br />
events as the senior officer and, in many cases, the ultimate decision-maker.<br />
7.4 Costs: £60,000 per annum per cohort (excluding staff costs); this will<br />
depend on approach taken to delivery options and cohort size.<br />
8. Programme Support<br />
8.1 Approach: The College will provide standards and guidance to forces<br />
regarding in-force support structures, such as operational support and guidance,<br />
mentoring from peers and senior officers and in-force assessors. It will also<br />
provide forces and scheme members with a dedicated College contact.<br />
8.2 Rationale: Forces will need to have a structure in place to support their<br />
scheme members on this demanding programme and ensure they have the<br />
necessary development opportunities. Our experience from the HPDS shows<br />
Appendix C Page 3 of 4
RESTRICTED<br />
that forces benefit from guidance in implementing and managing talent schemes<br />
in-force. Given the limited resources in force the College would provide coaching<br />
support to scheme members and facilitate the delegates to be part of a cohort.<br />
8.3 Costs: Some of the College resources providing programme support would<br />
be re-directed to support delivery of the other national talent schemes; the costs<br />
associated with the fast-track would be approximately £460,000 per annum.<br />
9. Assessment throughout Programme<br />
9.1 Approach: Scheme members will be assessed throughout the programme<br />
and if not deemed to be safe and competent in all aspects will not be appointed<br />
as a superintendent. The College is taking legal advice as to what the<br />
employment status should be of such delegates and how those who do not show<br />
operational competence could be managed.<br />
9.2 The College will design an assessment process that is regular and robust to<br />
be carried out by forces and by trained College or outsourced staff. There will be<br />
a requirement to pass a legal knowledge examination relevant to the<br />
superintendent rank as well as assessments of operational capability and<br />
decision making. This could include Silver and Gold Command assessments<br />
9.3 Rationale: It is important that the capability of scheme participants is<br />
regularly assessed in view of the potential risks to the organisation, officers and<br />
public. There should be shared ownership by the College and forces of the<br />
decision to ‘graduate’ to fully independent superintendent.<br />
9.4 Costs: Design costs up to £220,000. Delivery costs up to £50,000 per<br />
annum.<br />
10. Evaluation<br />
10.1 Approach: Once the scheme is fully developed an evaluation scheme will<br />
be developed to examine participation by forces, costs, communication, and<br />
quantitative and qualitative information, including progression and quality of<br />
candidates.<br />
10.2 Rationale: The commission asks for the schemes to be reviewed after five<br />
years but ongoing evaluation to learn lessons will be out in place using the<br />
College principles of continuous improvement.<br />
10.3 Costs: Subsumed into normal College business.<br />
------------------------<br />
Appendix C Page 4 of 4
Appendix D: Summary of Costs<br />
The College of Policing has been commissioned by the Home Office to deliver the<br />
Fast Track Inspector and Direct Entry Superintendents Programmes.<br />
The budget for the current programmes (the High Potential Development<br />
Scheme (HPDS)) is £1.3m. The HPDS is to continue for five years and therefore<br />
additional resources to deliver the new programmes is required, from outside the<br />
College or by re-prioritising work. However, this comes at a time when the<br />
College’s budget is reducing and demand rising.<br />
The table below sets out the commitment the College could provide using<br />
current HPDS resources, some of which would be re-prioritised onto this work<br />
and without impacting on other programmes, and the potential additional<br />
resources required to deliver a world-class programme.<br />
Oct13-Mar14 Apr14-Mar15 Apr15-Mar16<br />
Apr16-Mar17<br />
Marketing £777,500 £797,500 £782,500 £782,500<br />
Selection Assessments £725,000 £430,000 £525,000 £525,000<br />
Ongoing Assessments £540,000 £100,000 £100,000<br />
Staffing £256,000 £920,000 £920,000 £920,000<br />
Training Delivery £167,772 £309,316 £397,260<br />
Superintendents’<br />
Salaries<br />
Total Additional<br />
Funding From Home<br />
Office Required<br />
Total Commitment<br />
From College<br />
£992,000 £2,550,000 £2,550,000<br />
£1,382,500 £3,532,272 £4,736,816 £4,824,760<br />
£376,000 £315,000 £450,000 £450,000<br />
Total Cost £1,758,500 3,846,272 £5,186,816 £5,274,760<br />
The salary of the superintendents is the largest cost (for up to 20 joiners) at<br />
£1.0m for 2014-15 and £2.5m thereafter. To encourage forces to take part,<br />
payment of that salary whilst ‘in training’ would be an incentive; as would<br />
payment of salaries of Fast-Track graduate inspectors, where many forces do<br />
not anticipate vacancies in the three year timescale. However, this does not<br />
appear to be an issue with internal and serving officers joining the scheme.<br />
Leaving aside salaries and the use of current HPDS resources we have identified<br />
a requirement for £1.382m in 2013/14; £2.540m in 2014/15, £2.186m in<br />
2015/16 and £2.274m in 2016/17 to deliver the schemes as anticipated by the<br />
Government’s response. It is accepted that the College could absorb a<br />
proportion of the training costs relating to the use of bed space and classrooms<br />
whilst the College has that capacity. It is also proposed that the College could<br />
contribute from its one-off, non-repeatable, under-spend in this financial year.<br />
Marketing<br />
There is a range of activities that could take place as the table below<br />
demonstrates (not including agency fees at 10%). With no additional resources,<br />
Appendix D Page 1 of 3
attraction activities will be left to interested forces. With some additional<br />
resources, the College can take more of the lead in national marketing and<br />
attraction activities to support forces. Should the full requirement be met, the<br />
College will deliver a different, more pro-active marketing and attraction<br />
strategy in support of forces to emphasise the step forward for policing.<br />
Costs Activities<br />
£100k Creative development of marketing material for both schemes £60k<br />
Online activity and website advertising £40,000<br />
£200k As above plus<br />
Online activity and website advertising £65,000<br />
Times top 100 (grads) £10,000<br />
Social media activity (grads) £30,000<br />
Targeted advertising (e.g. The Economist) £35,000<br />
£400k As above plus<br />
Social media activity (grads) £55,000<br />
Targeted advertising (e.g. Economist, Management Today) £60,000<br />
Graduate publications £30,000<br />
Niche press (BME) £20,000<br />
Regional Press £75,000<br />
On Campus activity £10,000<br />
Mobile App creation: 2 x £40,000<br />
£800k As above plus<br />
Targeted advertising (e.g. Economist, Management Today) £100,000<br />
Niche press (BME) £40,000<br />
On Campus activity £10,000<br />
National Press £300,000<br />
Promotional merchandise £2,000<br />
Setting aside salaries and marketing, this requires £0.7m to deliver a world class<br />
programme for 2013/14; £2m in 2014/15 and £1.5m p.a. thereafter. The costs<br />
outlined below are based on the fact that the College currently has its own<br />
estate on which to deliver the programmes.<br />
Assessment<br />
With no extra resource, selection assessment will be delivered within the current<br />
HPDS programmes with similar exercises and assessors. With additional resource<br />
in 2013/14 of up to £450k new assessment processes and centres can be<br />
designed. In subsequent years, an additional resource of £310k for each year<br />
for the two additional assessment centres (on top of the current HPDS) is<br />
required. With this full resource, the College can deliver new national filtering<br />
mechanisms to support forces, new exercises, a wider assessor pool and timings<br />
to meet the needs of graduates, police officers and police staff. With less than<br />
this, inevitably there will be fewer assessment centres and less investment in<br />
new processes, exercises and assessors.<br />
Training and Leadership Development<br />
With no additional resource, leadership development would remain with forces.<br />
We estimate that the required supporting provision by the College, when all the<br />
cohorts are in place will cost up to £400k per annum. With this resource, the<br />
College can provide up to 12 days a year group development for the Fast Track<br />
Inspectors and up to 9 weeks for Direct Entry Superintendents over 18 months.<br />
This development will be aimed at ensuring they have operational competence<br />
Appendix D Page 2 of 3
and leadership credibility. With this full resource, training content and delivery<br />
will be more individual, comprehensive and involve a wider range of external<br />
bodies. With a more limited resource, at for example £200k, College leadership<br />
support will be limited to current College products, delivered by forces, with<br />
some College support of those products and support for delegates will be limited<br />
to group events.<br />
Support and assessment of delegates in-force<br />
With no additional resource, the College is able to offer guidance to forces and<br />
individuals as it does now with the HPDS but it would be limited as the HPDS is<br />
continuing. Winsor and the Government’s response to the consultation envisage<br />
on-going assessment and support. The below sets out additional resources<br />
required to deliver the support to both forces and individuals on the schemes<br />
and to ensure the schemes are successful.<br />
Costs for Activities<br />
2014/15<br />
£540k Development of a new development centre approach to continually<br />
assess Direct Entry Superintendent delegates and design of a new<br />
law examination for both schemes rather than relying on current<br />
products.<br />
Ongoing<br />
costs<br />
£90k Continuing updating and delivery of the law examination for both<br />
schemes<br />
£180k Provision of three additional experienced managers to offer support<br />
and guidance to delegates on both schemes plus oversee<br />
assessments to ensure they are valid, robust and fairly applied.<br />
£450k Provision of up to 5 seconded superintendents to act as mentors and<br />
guides for direct entry superintendents to take the cost away from<br />
forces. This resource can also support the inspector's scheme.<br />
£55k Provision to additional support for the College to promote and<br />
manage the schemes and be the point of contact for forces<br />
£775k Ongoing annual costs<br />
Without the seconded superintendents, the costs could be reduced to £325k per<br />
annum, but the primary support for Direct Entry Superintendents will then<br />
remain with forces. With the full resource provided, the College will be able to<br />
offer full, tailored support for graduates and direct entry superintendents; a<br />
factor we have seen important with the HPDS officers, who are under less<br />
pressure than delegates on these two new schemes with the tight timescales<br />
and high expectations placed upon them.<br />
Over the next weeks we will have a clearer picture of the demand and take-up<br />
from forces but an early indication of the support available from Government will<br />
help the College indicate the support they can give forces, which in turn may<br />
encourage greater participation in the schemes.<br />
---------------------------------<br />
Appendix D Page 3 of 3
Appendix E: Direct Entry communications and<br />
engagement strategy<br />
Project lead: Charles Phelps<br />
Strategy owner: Kate Tonge, Head of Marketing and Communications<br />
Version: ONE<br />
Date of update: N/A<br />
1. Background:<br />
The College of Policing has been commissioned by the Home Office to<br />
implement three direct entry schemes, which are part of the Winsor<br />
Review recommendations.<br />
The schemes are:<br />
Fast track to inspector rank in three years<br />
Direct entry to superintendent rank<br />
Chief Constable recruitment for those with international policing<br />
experience<br />
The College of Policing is responsible for promoting the schemes to police<br />
forces for adoption, removing barriers to recruitment and quality assuring<br />
the successful candidates.<br />
The Home Office expects these new routes into a policing career will<br />
contribute towards changes in the culture of policing, introduce new<br />
perspectives and new ways of working.<br />
The Home Office requires that the first candidates for fast track entry and<br />
superintendent rank direct entry will be recruited and in training by<br />
September 2014. This requires a recruitment campaign from January<br />
2014 and a selection processes completed by March and July 2014<br />
respectively.<br />
Most of the recruitment and initial selection will be the responsibility of<br />
participating forces. The College of Policing will administer the national<br />
assessment elements to complete the selection process.<br />
Research across forces to date indicates that around 15 forces are<br />
interested in participating in the fast track scheme and possibly up to<br />
three forces wish to participate in the direct entry scheme.<br />
Up to 60 new officers are expected to be required to fulfil the fast track<br />
entry requirements of forces. Indicative statistics suggest this will require<br />
in the region of 400 applications to achieve the required numbers.<br />
A total of five to seven people are expected to be required to fulfil the<br />
Superintendent Direct Entry requirements. Indicative statistics suggest<br />
this requires in the region of 40 applications to achieve the required<br />
numbers.<br />
Appendix E Page 1 of 6
2. Aim:<br />
To deliver effective, cost-efficient communications and engagement on<br />
behalf of the College of Policing to September 2014 that contributes<br />
towards the successful delivery of the outcomes for the Direct Entry<br />
project which is:<br />
<br />
To meet the needs of participating forces for the recruitment of<br />
2014/15 candidates within the required timescales<br />
3. Objectives:<br />
The aim of this strategy will be achieved by:<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Developing a communications and engagement action plan that<br />
takes a phased approach to the delivery of communications and<br />
engagement activity, defined as:<br />
Phase one: Pre-programme launch communications and<br />
engagement (to January 2014)<br />
Phase two: Implementation communications and<br />
engagement (January to March 2014)<br />
Phase three: Transition to business as usual<br />
communications and engagement for the College of Policing<br />
(March – September 2014)<br />
Developing and delivering bespoke communications activity for the<br />
first two schemes to be introduced, specifically:<br />
Fast track to inspector<br />
Direct entry to superintendent<br />
Providing timely, accurate communications and engagement which<br />
clearly and consistently explain the role of the College of Policing in<br />
the recruitment and training processes for each scheme<br />
Ensuring a consistent approach to the use of the College of Policing<br />
brand and identity by participating forces in a way that enables<br />
local force identity to prevail<br />
Managing the commercial communications requirements of the<br />
programme throughout its life in the most cost-efficient way<br />
Managing the reputation of the College of Policing throughout the<br />
life of the programme in a way that minimises risk and maximises<br />
opportunities to strengthen it, particularly with forces<br />
Delivering communications and engagement activity using the most<br />
effective available tactics that reflects the needs of the stakeholder<br />
and audience groups being targeted.<br />
Maintaining a continuous process of assessment and evaluation of<br />
tactics to contribute towards an evidence base of what works for<br />
future campaigns.<br />
Appendix E Page 2 of 6
4. Stakeholders and audiences<br />
The following stakeholders and audiences are identified as relevant to this<br />
strategy and its delivery.<br />
Stakeholders are those individuals and groups who are affected by or can<br />
influence the delivery of the Direct Entry programme. Two-way<br />
communications and engagement tactics are most appropriate for<br />
stakeholders.<br />
Audiences are those individuals and groups who should be kept informed<br />
of the progress of the Direct Entry programme. This is largely through<br />
one-way communications tactics.<br />
This list will evolve throughout the life of this strategy and will be kept<br />
under review by the strategy owner and the project director. They will not<br />
be changed without the approval of the project director.<br />
STAKEHOLDERS<br />
Police officers in England and Wales<br />
– segmented according to need<br />
throughout the life of the strategy<br />
Chief Constables<br />
Police and Crime Commissioners<br />
Police Federation<br />
Superintendents’ Association<br />
ACPO<br />
Home Office<br />
Home Secretary<br />
Policing Minister<br />
Heads of HR in policing<br />
Heads of Learning and Development<br />
in policing<br />
Potential candidates for the fast<br />
track and direct entry schemes*<br />
Specialist police and business media<br />
outlets<br />
Media consumed by potential<br />
candidates for fast track and direct<br />
entry<br />
Members of the College of Policing<br />
Professional Committee<br />
Members of the College of Policing<br />
Board<br />
College of Policing staff in specific,<br />
associated areas<br />
AUDIENCES<br />
Members of the public<br />
All College of Policing staff<br />
All officers, police staff and<br />
volunteers working in policing<br />
across England and Wales.<br />
Partners in health authorities, local<br />
authorities and other local partner<br />
bodies.<br />
*Further research is currently being undertaken by the College of Policing<br />
in partnership with the Metropolitan Police Service to properly understand<br />
this stakeholder group and the best ways to target them.<br />
Appendix E Page 3 of 6
This evidence will be made available to the strategy owner to assist in its<br />
effective delivery.<br />
5. Key messages<br />
These key messages will be used consistently throughout the life of this<br />
strategy. They will be kept under continuous review by the owner of this<br />
strategy and the project director. Changes in the key messages can only<br />
be made with the agreement of the Project Board.<br />
Top line key messages:<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
The College recognises the high level of talent already across UK<br />
policing<br />
These schemes aim to open up recruitment to attract the very best<br />
talent into policing and bring in new perspectives and backgrounds.<br />
The College of Policing is working in partnership with police forces<br />
in England and Wales to ensure the right people are selected for<br />
each scheme<br />
As the professional body for policing, the College is committed to<br />
ensuring the highest standards are met and maintained by<br />
candidates selected to participate in these schemes<br />
In addition the following key messages are identified as specific to each<br />
scheme being implemented during the life of this strategy:<br />
Fast track entry:<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Fast track entry is an inclusive scheme<br />
It is open to university graduates, existing police officers and police<br />
staff<br />
Candidates must be able to demonstrate their operational credibility<br />
throughout the scheme to successfully achieve the rank of inspector<br />
in three years.<br />
Direct entry:<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Candidates must be able to demonstrate a proven high level of<br />
leadership and management skills to join the scheme<br />
A high level of police training will be provided to all successful<br />
candidates<br />
Direct entry superintendents must be able to demonstrate their<br />
operational effectiveness and competence as a superintendent to be<br />
successful<br />
Appendix E Page 4 of 6
Further specific key messages will be developed to meet the evolving<br />
needs of the project. They will be approved by the project director.<br />
6. Tactics<br />
A comprehensive communications and engagement action plan will be<br />
developed to deliver against this strategy.<br />
The widest possible range of available communications and engagement<br />
tactics will be deployed in support of this strategy throughout its life.<br />
Tactics will include:<br />
Media communications and engagement<br />
Internal communications<br />
Marketing communications<br />
Digital communications, including social media<br />
The use of tactics will be subject to consultation and the approval of the<br />
Project Director and the Project Board.<br />
7. Resources and budget<br />
A budget of up to £777,500 has been identified for the delivery of<br />
communications and engagement activity in support of this project in<br />
2013/14.<br />
Where additional budget is required, it will be identified by the project<br />
director before activity is undertaken.<br />
Additional communications and engagement resources to deliver this<br />
strategy will be recruited by the project director in consultation with the<br />
strategy owner.<br />
This resource will be responsible for developing, fully costing and<br />
delivering the communications action plan for this strategy. At this stage,<br />
it is expected that a project communications resource will be required to<br />
work full time to January 2014 with workloads kept under regular review.<br />
Resource requirements may reduce from January onwards.<br />
From September 2014 it is anticipated that Direct Entry communications<br />
and engagement can be transferred to the College of Policing MarComms<br />
Unit for ongoing maintenance and delivery.<br />
The project communications resource will work closely in partnership with<br />
the project team and the College MarComms unit.<br />
The Head of MarComms, as the strategy owner, will be a member of the<br />
Project Board. The project communications resource will be a member of<br />
the Technical Advisory Group.<br />
Appendix E Page 5 of 6
8. Risks and issues<br />
The following communications and engagement risks and issues are<br />
identified. It is recommended that these are reviewed by the Project<br />
Board and included in the project risk register rather than being<br />
maintained separately.<br />
Risk Likelihood Mitigation<br />
Medium/<br />
high<br />
The College of Policing is perceived<br />
to be an extension of the Home<br />
Office<br />
Recruitment campaigns are not<br />
successful in indentifying sufficient<br />
candidates to meet the needs of<br />
participating forces<br />
The project fails to meet the<br />
timescales required for recruitment<br />
and selection<br />
Project alienates existing members<br />
of police services in England and<br />
Wales as members of the College<br />
of Policing<br />
Debate in the media / social media<br />
about the cost/benefit of the<br />
schemes (particularly direct entry<br />
to superintendent rank)<br />
Medium<br />
TBA<br />
TBA<br />
High<br />
9. Evaluation and performance management<br />
Key messages clearly<br />
reflect the College’s<br />
independent role as the<br />
professional body for all<br />
in policing<br />
Recruitment marketing<br />
activity is carefully<br />
targeted to the most<br />
appropriate / likely<br />
stakeholders.<br />
College of Policing<br />
reputation management<br />
communications and<br />
engagement in place<br />
Project communications<br />
and engagement activity<br />
is linked into other<br />
College of Policing<br />
MarComms activity<br />
College of Policing<br />
reputation management<br />
communications and<br />
engagement in place<br />
Regular evaluation and assessment of the effectiveness and efficiency of<br />
communications and engagement in achieving the aim of this strategy will<br />
be reported regularly to the project director and the project board. A mix<br />
of quantitative and qualitative measures will be developed and<br />
consistently used throughout the life of this strategy.<br />
Evaluation and performance management will be developed and delivered<br />
by the project communications resource, in consultation with the strategy<br />
owner and the project director.<br />
Kate Tonge<br />
Head of MarComms; October 2013<br />
Appendix E Page 6 of 6
Appendix F: Discussion paper outlining recommendations for<br />
direct entry at chief constable level.<br />
Background<br />
1. The commission asks for a plan for facilitating the appointment of chief constables<br />
from overseas and providing a list of ranks, forces and countries that will be<br />
eligible as set out in the amendment to the Anti Social Behaviour, Crime and<br />
Policing Bill.<br />
2. The Home Secretary’s letter to Parliament announcing the scheme states that<br />
“PCCs should have the ability to choose their chief constable not only from the<br />
senior ranks in the United Kingdom, but also from other countries with a similar<br />
legal framework and policing model to ours. This will enable PCCs to choose the<br />
very best person for the job.”<br />
Home Office Fact Sheet October 2014<br />
3. The Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011 provides that in order to be<br />
appointed as a chief constable they must have served as a constable in the UK.<br />
Tom Winsor’s recommendation was that this should be amended to include, as an<br />
alternative, service in a role equivalent to a chief officer overseas, in a common<br />
law jurisdiction which practises policing by consent.<br />
4. Clause 126 accordingly provides that a person can be appointed as a chief<br />
constable if they have served as a constable in the UK or if they have been a<br />
police officer in an approved overseas force at the approved rank.<br />
5. It also provides that the College of Policing will be responsible for making<br />
designations as to which countries, police forces and ranks can be considered. The<br />
designation will have to be approved by the Home Secretary.<br />
6. As part of the wider work on implementing direct entry, the College of Policing has<br />
been commissioned to design a process for helping PCCs to manage integrating a<br />
chief constable appointed from overseas into their workforce. For example, this<br />
could include developing an individual learning package.<br />
7. It will still be for PCCs to appoint chief constables – or for the Home Secretary to<br />
make a recommendation to Her Majesty in the case of the appointment of the<br />
Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police Service. The provision will not affect the<br />
terms and conditions for chief constables.<br />
Consultation<br />
8. In the Home Office Consultation document, Question 30 explained that the review<br />
suggested that training for chief constables from overseas should be tailored to<br />
Appendix F Page 1 of 3
meet the needs of the individual but should include several broad areas of<br />
knowledge and expertise which include: the political and criminal justice context of<br />
policing in England and Wales; operational command in England and Wales; the<br />
legal responsibilities of chief constables; managing in the police; and working with<br />
other agencies. Respondents were asked to what extent they agreed or disagreed<br />
with this suggestion.<br />
9. Question 31 explained that the review also suggested that a newly appointed chief<br />
constable should be offered contact with an established chief constable as an<br />
advisor during their initial first few weeks. Respondents were asked to what extent<br />
they agreed or disagreed with this suggestion<br />
10. Almost half of respondents agreed with proposals set out at question 30. However,<br />
45% of respondents did not agree. Over half of respondents agreed that a newly<br />
appointed chief constable should be offered contact with an established police<br />
constable as an advisor during their initial first few weeks.<br />
11. Of the PCCs who responded, most agreed with the recommendations and the<br />
principle of direct entry at chief constable. Police forces provided mixed responses<br />
to questions 30 and 31. One force did not support employing chief constables from<br />
overseas. Others tended to agree with both proposals. It was suggested that new<br />
appointees would need a range of contacts across the public and private sectors to<br />
stimulate new ideas and understand the political and cultural differences that<br />
exist.<br />
12. Staff associations tended to disagree with the proposals. The PFEW, PSAEW and<br />
ACPO said they were against the principle of direct entry at chief constable level.<br />
The reasons given include that there is enough talent within UK police forces; UK<br />
policing experience is important; and the UK culture of a more restrained use of<br />
force.<br />
Government response<br />
13. The Government wants to give PCCs the choice to choose their chief constable, not<br />
only from the senior ranks in the United Kingdom, but also from other countries<br />
with a similar legal framework and policing model to ours, so that they can choose<br />
the very best person for the job. In most cases we would expect that will be<br />
someone who is a serving police officer in the UK. Therefore the number of chief<br />
constables going through this process is likely to be small and should therefore be<br />
done on an individual and bespoke basis.<br />
14. In designing each programme, we would expect the College of Policing to provide<br />
an analysis of training needs and an individual learning package to ensure that<br />
those appointed have the knowledge they need to apply the skills from their<br />
previous roles to the context of policing in the UK.<br />
College remit and proposed work<br />
15 This work fits with the College remit to define standards, which inevitably include<br />
standards for recruitment and appointment of Chief Constables from overseas.<br />
16. There has been some debate about how wide the College’s approach should be.<br />
Some have argued that the commission is too narrow in its approach and is not<br />
allowing the College to define the full set of eligibility and recruitment standards -<br />
countries, forces, ranks, qualifications and competencies.<br />
Appendix F Page 2 of 3
17. However, this debate seems to be resolved by the fact that Section 38 of the<br />
Police Reform and Anti Social Responsibility Act gives responsibility to Police and<br />
Crime Commissioners for selecting and appointing Chief Constables. Neither the<br />
Home Secretary, nor the College of Policing can prescribe how PCCs select their<br />
Chief Constable.<br />
18. Considering the specific nature of the commission from the Home Office and<br />
acknowledging the responsibility of the PCC to select and appoint the Chief<br />
Constable. It is recommended that the majority of the work associated with this<br />
commission could be achieved through research to explore and establish:<br />
a. Countries with similar policing styles – policing by consent<br />
b. Forces within those countries that may be of a suitable size and complexity to<br />
match that of UK policing<br />
c. The span of control and the operational responsibilities of appropriate ranks<br />
within those Forces to determine which would be comparable to chief officer<br />
roles in the UK.<br />
19. It is suggested that we commission RAI to conduct or procure the work described<br />
at paragraph 18.<br />
20. The College will be mindful, in its new roles, to co-ordinate or support the<br />
development necessary for any new chief constables taking up such a post from<br />
an oversees force.<br />
21. The College will also review and where necessary revise its Guidance to PCCs with<br />
new standards that are agreed, plus any additional work that may be necessary<br />
for such appointments. The College will continue to advise PCCs on an individual<br />
basis as it does now.<br />
---------------------------------------<br />
Appendix F Page 3 of 3
RESTRICTED<br />
Name of meeting: Professional Committee<br />
Date of meeting: 13 November 2013<br />
Item lead at meeting: ACC Benjamin<br />
Agenda item number: 4<br />
Title of paper: Confidential Unit Operating Model (CUOM)<br />
1. Issue: To consider the outcomes of the Home Office Confidential Unit Operating Model<br />
Project and recognise its broader impact upon the developing law enforcement<br />
landscape.<br />
2. Recommendation<br />
2.1. That the Committee agrees to place the Confidential Unit Operating Model as reflected in<br />
the Authorised Professional Practice for Confidential Units.<br />
3. Summary<br />
3.1 The CUOM project is part of the Home Office Communications Capabilities Development<br />
programme which is focussed on maintaining law enforcement’s ability to acquire and<br />
exploit lawful intercept material and communications data. The project seeks to<br />
transform the way in which covert law enforcement is organised and supported at<br />
national, regional and local levels to enhance our future sensitive intelligence<br />
management and handling, building upon current capabilities and good practice. It seeks<br />
to support Government strategy to tackle serious organised crime and other areas<br />
where the effective use of intelligence is essential to maximise the effectiveness of<br />
operational and partner assets.<br />
3.2 This project has been running for over two years with the full support and involvement<br />
of the stakeholder community, including the College of Policing and the National Policing<br />
Lead. It supports both the creation of the National Crime Agency and the Regional<br />
Organised Crime Unit (ROCU) Capabilities Development programme work and has been<br />
subject of regular highlight reporting to the Organised Crime Portfolio. On 10<br />
September the operating model was endorsed by Crime Business Area for presentation<br />
to the Professional Committee.<br />
3.3 It is important for the design and standards to transition to Authorised Professional<br />
Practice as soon as possible to establish the approach across the stakeholder<br />
community, allow for implementation to be sustained in the future and provide the<br />
foundation for continuous improvement.<br />
Professional Committee Date: 13 November 2013<br />
Agenda Item No. 4<br />
Author: Scott McKenna
4. Supporting information / Consideration<br />
Background<br />
4.1. Confidential Units are deployed in all UK police and UK law enforcement agencies. Their<br />
purpose is to provide a secure and accredited environment within which to acquire,<br />
process and disseminate the most sensitive forms of intelligence.<br />
4.2. The Confidential Unit Operating Model (CUOM) project was established to transform the<br />
way in which covert law enforcement is organised to support improved sensitive<br />
intelligence management and sharing at local, regional and national levels. It exists to<br />
enhance the performance and effectiveness of Confidential Units to make better use of<br />
intelligence, including communications data, to drive better operational outcomes. It<br />
will achieve this through more effective exploitation of overt and sensitive intelligence in<br />
order to provide a rich intelligence picture that will assist the prioritisation and focus of<br />
operational resources.<br />
4.3. The project has already defined and agreed a common operating model and piloted key<br />
elements of it with the operational community. In doing so it worked closely with the<br />
law enforcement community and the College of Policing. It is now proposed to roll the<br />
operating model out across policing, focussing in the first instance on the NCA, ROCUs<br />
and large metropolitan forces. Once complete, the project will review which, if any,<br />
elements of the model need to implemented with local forces.<br />
Impact across College business areas<br />
4.4. This paper is linked to the College of Policing priority objective which relates to the<br />
delivery of Authorised Professional Practice.<br />
4.5. The CUOM design includes a section covering “Roles, Skills and Knowledge” and the<br />
CUOM Board has commissioned the College of Policing to consider and develop bespoke<br />
training for Confidential Unit staff in the future. Work is also being undertaken with<br />
investigative and intelligence training to ensure that new and developing ways of<br />
working in the sensitive intelligence field are produced in consultation with the senior<br />
investigator and intelligence manager communities.<br />
Internal and external consultation<br />
4.6. Throughout its lifecycle the CUOM project has engaged extensively with the stakeholder<br />
community. The CUOM Board comprises representatives from across UK law<br />
enforcement as well as ACPO (TAM), national agencies, GCHQ and CPS. The Board has<br />
been supported by an Advisory Group, made up from representatives of the operational<br />
community, and sub-groups were created to review and challenge specific elements of<br />
the operating model.<br />
4.7. The National Policing Lead for Intelligence and the National Intelligence Model Review<br />
lead have both identified and endorsed elements of the CUOM design, including a new<br />
information handling process, as being significant steps forward in professionalising the<br />
way in which law enforcement manages intelligence.<br />
Professional Committee Date: 13 November 2013<br />
Agenda Item No. 4<br />
Author: Scott McKenna
4.8. The project is fully endorsed and supported by the National Crime Agency and ROCU<br />
Capabilities Board, who see it as a key enabler to the new Agency and the uplift of ROCU<br />
capabilities.<br />
4.9. To ensure that operational risk was appropriately managed, a number of workstreams<br />
within the operating model were piloted in a number of forces. The lessons learned from<br />
those pilots informed the final design of the operating model.<br />
Impacts including – public interest; finance; HR; EDHR<br />
4.10 The CUOM has a developing benefits framework which the Home Office will be<br />
monitoring closely over the coming months. This framework will seek to identify and<br />
measure the tangible benefits of CUOM to the law enforcement community. Areas<br />
which are forming part of the benefits statement include:<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Creating greater and richer flows of intelligence;<br />
Improving the security and process of intelligence handling, allowing for greater<br />
opportunities to produce actionable intelligence and to protect information<br />
sources;<br />
Providing access to a greater number of analytical datasets and opportunities to<br />
exploit intelligence; and<br />
Providing an enabler to transform the overt, covert intelligence landscape to<br />
better inform and support the National Intelligence Model and to effectively<br />
utilise intelligence and analytical resources.<br />
Next steps<br />
4.11 To commission the CUOM Project to continue its work with the College of Policing APP<br />
Team to update the existing Confidential Unit APP to incorporate the CUOM Design and<br />
Standards.<br />
Author name:<br />
Scott McKenna<br />
Author job title: Staff Officer for ACC Lewis Benjamin<br />
Author email:<br />
Scott.McKenna@homeoffice.x.gsi.gov.uk<br />
Author tel number: 01926 <strong>41</strong>5004<br />
Sponsor (if not Author): ACC Benjamin<br />
Professional Committee Date: 13 November 2013<br />
Agenda Item No. 4<br />
Author: Scott McKenna
NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED<br />
Name of meeting: Professional Committee<br />
Date of meeting: 13 November 2013<br />
Item lead at meeting:<br />
Agenda item number: 5<br />
Title of paper: Guidance on the Amendment to Sections 5(1) and 6(4) of the<br />
Public Order Act 1986<br />
1. Issue<br />
1.1 Section 57 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013 Act will amend sections 5(1) and 6(4) of<br />
the Public Order Act 1986 to remove the word ‘insulting’. The amendment is expected<br />
to come into force early 2014, but no commencement date has yet been set. The<br />
College of Policing has drafted guidance (Annex A) to outline the implications of this<br />
amendment.<br />
2. Recommendation<br />
2.1 The Professional Committee is requested to endorse the guidance for publication.<br />
3. Summary<br />
3.1 The College of Policing was approached by the Home Office in April 2013 and asked to<br />
develop guidance for the police service on the legislative and operational implications<br />
of removing the word ‘insulting’.<br />
3.2 The guidance has been developed by the College’s Practice Improvement Unit (PIU)<br />
and endorsed by ACPO. Section 4 of this covering paper presents further context on<br />
the associated development, consultation and quality assurance processes.<br />
3.3 The guidance is brief and unpacks the legal and operational impacts of removing the<br />
word ‘insulting’. For example, it covers the implications from an ECHR perspective (i.e.<br />
Article 10 – Right to Freedom of Expression) and a hate crime perspective.<br />
3.4 The Professional Committee is requested to endorse the guidance so that:<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
It can be published and disseminated to the service ahead of commencement (as a<br />
link from the publically accessible Public Order Authorised Professional Practice);<br />
An assessment can be made as to whether the National Curriculum (e.g. relevant<br />
modules of the Initial Police Learning and Development Programme) requires any<br />
revision/update ahead of commencement; and<br />
Communication plans can be developed to inform the police service of the changes<br />
to section 5(1) and 6(4) of the Public Order Act 1986.<br />
Professional Committee Date: 13 November 2013<br />
Agenda Item No. 5<br />
Author: Frank Pike
4. Supporting information / Consideration<br />
4.1 The scoping and drafting of the guidance was undertaken by the PIU with input from a<br />
number of sources including:<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
The Public Order Unit (Home Office);<br />
The National Public Order and Public Safety (POPS) Working Group;<br />
Uniform Operational Support (College of Policing);<br />
Legal Services (College of Policing);<br />
Equality, Diversity and Human Rights (College of Policing); and<br />
Learning Strategy and Development (College of Policing).<br />
4.2 The draft was endorsed for wider consultation by POPS in September 2013. The draft<br />
was made available to forces via the ACPO Intranet. It was also made available to<br />
other interested parties who had contributed to the 2011 Home Office consultation<br />
which resulted in the law being changed (e.g. Reform Section 5, Civil Liberty Groups,<br />
Christian Groups). It was also circulated to the Crown Prosecution Service, Police<br />
Federation, Police Superintendents Association, UNISON, and the Association of Police<br />
and Crime Commissioners.<br />
4.3 The feedback received from consultation was positive. A handful of minor amendments<br />
were made in response to feedback and the final draft was endorsed by POPS. The final<br />
draft has also been through the College’s legal/EDHR validation and editorial process<br />
(i.e. product authoring and College publishing).<br />
4.4 If endorsed by the Professional Committee, the guidance will be set in the professional<br />
College template for external publications (this includes adding the appropriate<br />
copyright/licence assertion notice). Relevant links will be added and activated (e.g. to<br />
the APP website which is launching on 24 October).<br />
Author name:<br />
Frank Pike<br />
Author job title: Professional Practice Developer<br />
Author email:<br />
frank.pike@college.pnn.police.uk<br />
Author tel number: 07770 5973<strong>41</strong><br />
Sponsor (if not Author):<br />
Professional Committee Date: 13 November, 2013<br />
Agenda Item No. 5<br />
Author: Frank Pike
Not protectively marked<br />
Annex A<br />
Guidance on the<br />
Amendment to Sections<br />
5(1) and 6(4) of the Public<br />
Order Act 1986<br />
Submitted for Professional Committee<br />
endorsement<br />
Draft Guidance on the Amendment to Sections 5(1) and 6(4) of the Public Order Act<br />
1986<br />
Professional Committee (13/11/13)
Not protectively marked<br />
Note: © Copyright information and assertion notice will be inserted here, as appropriate.<br />
Draft Guidance on the Amendment to Sections 5(1) and 6(4) of the Public Order Act<br />
1986<br />
Professional Committee (13/11/13)<br />
2
Not protectively marked<br />
Contents<br />
1 Introduction 4<br />
2 Amended wording 5<br />
3 Context of the amendment 6<br />
4 Legal implications 7<br />
5 Operational implications 11<br />
Draft Guidance on the Amendment to Sections 5(1) and 6(4) of the Public Order Act<br />
1986<br />
Professional Committee (13/11/13)<br />
3
Not protectively marked<br />
1 Introduction<br />
1.1 Section 57 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013 will amend sections 5(1) and<br />
6(4) of the Public Order Act 1986 to remove the word ‘insulting’. The<br />
amendment is expected to come into force early 2014 but no<br />
commencement date has yet been set.<br />
1.2 The purpose of this guidance is to:<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
present the amended wording of section 5(1) and 6(4) of the Public<br />
Order Act 1986<br />
provide the context to the amendment<br />
highlight the legal and operational practice implications of the<br />
amendment.<br />
1.3 In addition to this guidance, the police service is responding to the<br />
amendment by ensuring that other products (eg, Authorised Professional<br />
Practice (APP), training) are updated before the amendment to the Public<br />
Order Act 1986 comes into force.<br />
Draft Guidance on the Amendment to Sections 5(1) and 6(4) of the Public Order Act<br />
1986<br />
Professional Committee (13/11/13)<br />
4
Not protectively marked<br />
2 Amended wording<br />
2.1 When section 57 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013 comes into force, the<br />
word ‘insulting’ will be removed so that section 5(1) of the Public Order<br />
Act 1986 will provide:<br />
A person is guilty of an offence if he—<br />
(a) uses threatening or abusive words or behaviour, or<br />
disorderly behaviour, or<br />
(b) displays any writing, sign or other visible<br />
representation which is threatening or abusive<br />
within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused<br />
harassment, alarm or distress thereby.<br />
2.2 At the same time, the word ‘insulting’ will also be removed from section<br />
6(4) of the Public Order Act 1986 so that it will provide:<br />
A person is guilty of an offence under section 5 only if<br />
he intends his words or behaviour or the writing, sign or<br />
other visible representation, to be threatening or<br />
abusive, or is aware that it may be threatening or<br />
abusive or (as the case may be) he intends his<br />
behaviour to be or may be aware that it may be<br />
disorderly.<br />
2.3 The section 5(3) defences to this offence will remain the same. They apply<br />
where the accused proves that:<br />
(a) he had no reason to believe that there was any<br />
person within hearing or sight who was likely to be<br />
caused harassment, alarm or distress, or<br />
(b) he was inside a dwelling and had no reason to<br />
believe that the words or behaviour used, or the writing,<br />
sign or other visible representation displayed, would be<br />
heard or seen by a person outside that or any other<br />
dwelling, or<br />
(c) his conduct was reasonable.<br />
Draft Guidance on the Amendment to Sections 5(1) and 6(4) of the Public Order Act<br />
1986<br />
Professional Committee (13/11/13)<br />
5
Not protectively marked<br />
3 Context of the amendment<br />
3.1 The Government has a duty to balance the protection of the public with<br />
the need to protect individual civil liberties. Within this context, the<br />
Government published a consultation paper 1 in 2011 seeking views on the<br />
value of the word ‘insulting’ in section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986,<br />
whether it is consistent with the right to freedom of expression, and the<br />
risk of removing it from section 5.<br />
3.2 The consultation received nearly 3,000 responses and raised a number of<br />
complex issues (see the summary of responses and government<br />
response 2 ). In summary, the majority of respondents indicated support for<br />
reform of section 5 and removal of the word ‘insulting’ on the grounds that<br />
this would enhance the protection to the right of freedom of expression<br />
under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).<br />
Concerns were raised, however, that removing ‘insulting’ from section 5<br />
might signal a tolerance of hate crime, low level harassment and<br />
disrespectful behaviour.<br />
3.3 On considering the findings of the consultation, the Government decided<br />
to pursue removing the word ‘insulting’ from section 5. This decision was<br />
informed by parliamentary debates during the passage of the Crime and<br />
Courts Bill. The Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) also offered<br />
assurances that ‘insulting’ could be safely removed on the grounds that it<br />
would not hinder the ability of the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) to<br />
prosecute as the DPP could not identify any past cases where the<br />
behaviour leading to a conviction could not be described as ‘abusive’ as<br />
well as ‘insulting’. (See p 3 of the summary of responses and government<br />
response 3 .)<br />
3.4 This process culminated in the decision to remove the word ‘insulting’<br />
(from a date to be appointed by Statutory Instrument) from sections 5(1)<br />
and 6(4) of the Public Order Act 1986.<br />
3.5 The remainder of this guidance focuses on the legal and operational<br />
practice implications for police officers as a result of the impending<br />
amendment.<br />
1 Home Office (2011) Consultation on police powers to promote and maintain public<br />
order. London: Home Office.<br />
2 Home Office (2013) Consultation on police powers to promote and maintain public<br />
order: Summary of consultation responses and the government response. London: Home<br />
Office.<br />
3 Ibid.<br />
Draft Guidance on the Amendment to Sections 5(1) and 6(4) of the Public Order Act 6<br />
1986<br />
Professional Committee (13/11/13)
Not protectively marked<br />
4 Legal implications<br />
4.1 When the amendment comes into force, words or behaviour that are<br />
merely ‘insulting’, or the displaying of writing, signs or other visible<br />
representations which are merely ‘insulting’, within the hearing of<br />
someone likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress, will no longer<br />
constitute a criminal offence under section 5(1).<br />
4.2 This chapter focuses on the various powers which may be relevant to an<br />
officer faced with a situation where they are considering the use of section<br />
5 as an offence. The legislation presented underpins chapter 5 of this<br />
guidance on operational practice implications, and the two chapters should<br />
be read in conjunction with each other.<br />
4.3 Public Order Act 1986<br />
4.3.1 Section 6(1) of the Human Rights Act 1998 states that, 'It is unlawful for a<br />
public authority to act in a way which is incompatible with a Convention<br />
right.’ Officers must ensure, therefore, they do not apply section 5 of the<br />
Public Order Act 1986 in a way which is incompatible with the provisions<br />
of the ECHR, in particular Article 10 which relates to the freedom of<br />
expression (noting that Article 10 is a qualified right). When an officer<br />
considers using section 5 as an offence, they will first have to assess:<br />
.<br />
whether an offence is being committed under the ‘abusive’ or<br />
‘threatening’ limbs<br />
ECHR Article 10.<br />
4.3.2 For further advice on assessing Article 10, see the APP on public order<br />
(The rights to freedom of belief and expression). Advice on the use of<br />
section 5 in different contexts can also be found in CPS legal guidance on<br />
Public Protests and Nudity in Public Places – Guidance on handling cases of<br />
Naturism.<br />
4.3.3 Note: although there is no legal requirement to do so, officers should<br />
consider giving a warning prior to making an arrest for section 5 offences.<br />
Making an arrest without first giving a warning may subsequently be<br />
found to have constituted a disproportionate restriction on the person’s<br />
right of freedom of expression 4 .<br />
4.3.4 It is also important to note that section 4A of the Public Order Act 1986<br />
will retain the ‘insulting’ limb:<br />
A person is guilty of an offence if, with intent to cause<br />
a person harassment, alarm or distress, he—<br />
4 For further information, see Beggs, J., Thomas, G. and Rickard, S. (2012) Public order:<br />
Law and Practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.<br />
Draft Guidance on the Amendment to Sections 5(1) and 6(4) of the Public Order Act 7<br />
1986<br />
Professional Committee (13/11/13)
Not protectively marked<br />
(a) uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or<br />
behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or<br />
(b) displays any writing, sign or other visible<br />
representation which is threatening, abusive or<br />
insulting, thereby causing that or another person<br />
harassment, alarm or distress.<br />
4.3.5 More serious, planned and malicious incidents of insulting behaviour, eg,<br />
the burning of poppy wreaths on Remembrance Sunday (see CPS v Haque<br />
and Choudhury Judgment (7 March 2011)), could still constitute an<br />
offence under section 4A. In cases where such words or behaviour are<br />
used, officers will have to consider whether:<br />
there was intent to cause harm; and<br />
such harm has been caused.<br />
4.3.6 It should also be stressed that, while it is clear that a police officer may be<br />
caused harassment, alarm or distress, they are usually expected to<br />
display a greater degree of fortitude than members of the public. For an<br />
officer to be caused harassment, alarm or distress, the conduct<br />
complained of must go beyond that which he or she would regularly come<br />
across in the ordinary course of police duties (see DPP v Orum [1989] 1<br />
WLR 88).<br />
4.3.7 Finally, section 4 of the Public Order Act 1986 (fear or provocation of<br />
violence) will also retain the ‘insulting’ limb. This provision makes it an<br />
offence to use threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour<br />
towards another person – or to distribute or display to another person any<br />
writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive<br />
or insulting – with the intention of causing them to believe that immediate<br />
unlawful violence will be used against them, or of provoking such<br />
violence.<br />
4.3.8 See the APP on public order for the wider legal considerations associated<br />
with the Public Order Act 1986.<br />
4.4 Breach of the peace<br />
4.4.1 A breach of the peace is committed when an individual causes harm, or<br />
appears likely to cause harm, to a person, or in that person’s presence, to<br />
his or her property, or puts that person in fear of such harm being done<br />
through an assault, affray, a riot, unlawful assembly or other disturbance.<br />
4.4.2 Although there is no criminal offence of breach of the peace for which<br />
someone can be prosecuted, the specific power of arrest to prevent a<br />
breach of the peace can be used to remove people from a situation where<br />
an imminent breach is reasonably anticipated.<br />
Draft Guidance on the Amendment to Sections 5(1) and 6(4) of the Public Order Act<br />
1986<br />
Professional Committee (13/11/13)<br />
8
Not protectively marked<br />
4.4.3 If the behaviour does subsequently escalate to the abusive or threatening<br />
threshold, a prosecution under section 5 may be appropriate. Under<br />
section 4A, it is also possible to prosecute for using insulting, abusive or<br />
threatening language or behaviour, provided that the offence meets the<br />
test of intentionally causing harassment, alarm or distress.<br />
4.5 Harassment and hate crime<br />
4.5.1 Section 5 will continue to provide protection from threatening or abusive<br />
words and behaviour. Insulting words or behaviour with intent will also<br />
still be covered by section 4A of the Public Order Act 1986, as will<br />
intentional abuse and threats. It is worth reinforcing, however, that there<br />
are other relevant powers available to officers to respond to allegations of<br />
harassment and hate crime.<br />
4.5.2 See the APP on public order and the forthcoming hate crime strategy (to<br />
be published by the College of Policing) for the wider legal considerations<br />
associated with harassment and hate crime.<br />
4.6 Harassment<br />
4.6.1 Under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, a person must not<br />
pursue a course of conduct which amounts to the harassment of another<br />
and which they know, or ought to know, amounts to the harassment of<br />
the other. Harassing a person includes alarming or causing distress to that<br />
person. A course of conduct must involve conduct on at least two<br />
occasions.<br />
4.7 Hate crime and the Public Order Act 1986<br />
4.7.1 Section 31 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 designated section 5 of the<br />
Public Order Act 1986 as an offence that could be charged as racially or<br />
religiously aggravated. This will remain the case for threatening or abusive<br />
words or behaviour under section 5, and for threatening, abusive or<br />
insulting behaviour under section 4A.<br />
4.7.2 Sections 18 and 19 of the Public Order Act 1986 provide a similar offence<br />
to section 4A where there is evidence of intent to stir up racial hatred or<br />
that racial hatred is likely to be stirred up.<br />
Section 18:<br />
(1) A person who uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or<br />
behaviour, or displays any written material which is threatening,<br />
abusive or insulting, is guilty of an offence if—<br />
(a) he intends thereby to stir up racial hatred, or<br />
Draft Guidance on the Amendment to Sections 5(1) and 6(4) of the Public Order Act<br />
1986<br />
Professional Committee (13/11/13)<br />
9
Not protectively marked<br />
(b) having regard to all the circumstances racial hatred is likely to<br />
be stirred up thereby.<br />
Section 19:<br />
(1) A person who publishes or distributes written material which is<br />
threatening, abusive or insulting is guilty of an offence if—<br />
(a) he intends thereby to stir up racial hatred, or<br />
(b) having regard to all the circumstances racial hatred is likely to<br />
be stirred up thereby.<br />
4.7.3 Additionally, section 29B of the Public Order Act 1986 makes it an offence<br />
for a person to use threatening words or behaviour, or to display any<br />
written material which is threatening, with the intention to stir up religious<br />
hatred.<br />
4.7.4 Note: section 29J of the Public Order Act 1986 is designed to protect<br />
freedom of expression, providing:<br />
Nothing in this Part shall be read or given effect in a way<br />
which prohibits or restricts discussion, criticism or<br />
expressions of antipathy, dislike, ridicule, insult or abuse<br />
of particular religions or the beliefs or practices of their<br />
adherents, or of any other belief system or the beliefs or<br />
practices of its adherents, or proselytising or urging<br />
adherents of a different religion or belief system to cease<br />
practicing their religion or belief system.<br />
4.7.5 Section 29B of the Public Order Act 1986 also makes it an offence for a<br />
person to use threatening words or behaviour, or display any written<br />
material which is threatening, with the intention to stir up hatred against<br />
a group of people defined by reference to their sexual orientation.<br />
4.7.6 Note: section 29JA of the Public Order Act 1986 is designed to protect<br />
freedom of expression, stating:<br />
In this Part, for the avoidance of doubt, the discussion or<br />
criticism of sexual conduct or practices or the urging of<br />
persons to refrain from or modify such conduct or<br />
practices shall not be taken of itself to be threatening or<br />
intended to stir up hatred.<br />
4.7.7 The consent of the Attorney General is required for a prosecution under<br />
sections 18, 19 and 29B.<br />
4.7.8 For information on other specific hate crime offences, see the forthcoming<br />
hate crime strategy.<br />
Draft Guidance on the Amendment to Sections 5(1) and 6(4) of the Public Order Act<br />
1986<br />
Professional Committee (13/11/13)<br />
10
Not protectively marked<br />
5 Operational implications<br />
5.1 The National Decision Model (NDM) provides the framework to help<br />
officers respond effectively to any situation or incident: it should,<br />
therefore, underpin an officer’s approach to dealing with situations or<br />
incidents where section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986 might apply.<br />
5.2 This chapter presents the NDM and highlights some relevant points from<br />
the perspective of section 5 which can guide decision making.<br />
5.3 The NDM is a cyclical model made up of five stages and underpinned by<br />
the College of Policing’s forthcoming Code of Ethics for policing in England<br />
and Wales.<br />
5.4 For more information, see the APP on the National Decision Model.<br />
Draft Guidance on the Amendment to Sections 5(1) and 6(4) of the Public Order Act<br />
1986<br />
Professional Committee (13/11/13)<br />
11
Not protectively marked<br />
5.5 Gather information and intelligence<br />
5.5.1 Example questions:<br />
what is being said or displayed?<br />
what behaviour is being demonstrated?<br />
is anybody being threatened, insulted or abused?<br />
is there evidence of harassment, alarm or distress?<br />
what is the location of the alleged offence?<br />
are there any witnesses?<br />
5.6 Assess threat and risk and develop a working strategy<br />
5.6.1 Assess:<br />
content of the words or behaviour<br />
context/circumstances of the words/behaviour<br />
intention of the person speaking or acting<br />
probable impact<br />
Article 10 of the ECHR (freedom of expression).<br />
5.7 Consider powers and policy<br />
5.7.1 Key consideration:<br />
has the amendment to section 5(1) and 6(4) of the Public Order Act<br />
1986 come into force? If yes, words or behaviour that are merely<br />
insulting, or the displaying of writing, signs or other visible<br />
representations which are merely insulting, within the hearing of<br />
someone likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress will no<br />
longer constitute a criminal offence.<br />
5.7.2 Other considerations:<br />
have the words or behaviour been assessed as threatening or<br />
abusive and is there evidence of harassment, alarm or distress?<br />
If so, section 5(1) of the Public Order Act 1986 will still apply.<br />
have the words or behaviour been assessed as threatening,<br />
insulting or abusive and is there evidence of intent to cause<br />
harassment, alarm or distress? If so, section 4A of the Public<br />
Order Act 1986 will apply.<br />
Draft Guidance on the Amendment to Sections 5(1) and 6(4) of the Public Order Act<br />
1986<br />
Professional Committee (13/11/13)<br />
12
Not protectively marked<br />
have the words or behaviour been assessed as threatening,<br />
insulting or abusive and is there evidence of fear or provocation<br />
of violence? If so, section 4 of the Public Order Act 1986 will apply.<br />
has a breach of the peace been committed?<br />
has harassment or hate crime taken place?<br />
Article 10 of the ECHR (freedom of expression) protections – for<br />
example, sections 29J and 29JA of the Public Order Act 1986.<br />
5.7.3 This guidance, in conjunction with other relevant sources (eg, forthcoming<br />
hate crime strategy and the APP on public order), can help to ensure that<br />
officers have the appropriate powers and policy context.<br />
5.8 Identify options and contingencies<br />
5.8.1 This stage involves considering the different ways to make a particular<br />
decision (or resolve a situation). Officers should consider whether any<br />
options they intend to pursue are:<br />
proportionate<br />
legal<br />
accountable<br />
necessary.<br />
5.8.2 Potential options include:<br />
no further action<br />
warning<br />
summons<br />
dispersal<br />
fixed penalty notice<br />
arrest.<br />
5.9 Take action and review<br />
5.9.1 Example of ‘action’ considerations:<br />
respond – implement the selected option(s)<br />
record – if required, the action that was taken, along with the<br />
rationale for it<br />
monitor – what happened as a result of the decisions made.<br />
Draft Guidance on the Amendment to Sections 5(1) and 6(4) of the Public Order Act<br />
1986<br />
Professional Committee (13/11/13)<br />
13
Not protectively marked<br />
5.9.2 Example of ‘review’ questions:<br />
what lessons can be taken from how things turned out?<br />
what might be done differently next time?<br />
Draft Guidance on the Amendment to Sections 5(1) and 6(4) of the Public Order Act<br />
1986<br />
Professional Committee (13/11/13)<br />
14
NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED<br />
Name of meeting: Professional Committee<br />
Date of meeting: 13 November 2013<br />
Item lead at meeting: CC Mike Cunningham<br />
Agenda item number: 7<br />
Title of paper: Commission to review force management of Police<br />
Medical Appeal Boards (PMABs)<br />
1. Issue<br />
1.1 The Workforce Development Business Area has identified that there are emerging<br />
issues relating to the Service’s management of Police Medical Appeal Boards (PMABs)<br />
and, in order to ensure that forces are effectively discharging their responsibilities, has<br />
requested that the College of Policing conduct a review and assessment of forces’<br />
management of this process.<br />
2. Recommendations<br />
2.1 That the College agree to conduct a scoping exercise to determine the remit for a<br />
formal review and the resources required to review the service’s management of Ill<br />
Health Retirements (IHRs), Injury on Duty Awards (IoDs) and PMABs. And that the<br />
College does not include IHR reviews as part of this scoping exercise.<br />
3. Summary<br />
3.1 PMABs are effectively appeals against forces’ management and assessment of IHRs and<br />
IoDs forces’ management of PMABs are inextricably linked to the initial assessment. It<br />
is therefore advisable that any review incorporates an assessment of the Service’s<br />
management of these processes as well as their management of PMABs.<br />
3.2 IHRs and IoDs are financial payments given to injured officers and are governed by<br />
regulations made under the Police Pensions Act 1976. Management of the IHRs and<br />
IoDs processes require a complex understanding of medical, regulatory and legal<br />
issues and the responsibility for this rests with the Chief Officer in their capacity as the<br />
Police Pension Authority (this was with the Police Authorities prior to the introduction of<br />
PCCs). Where an officer is dissatisfied with the outcome of the Police Pension<br />
Authority’s decision they can appeal to the PMAB.<br />
3.3 IHRs, IoDs and subsequent PMAB hearings have significant resource implications for<br />
forces and in 2010 the NPIA made an assessment of this cost as part of the evidence<br />
submitted for the Winsor Review. From this assessment it was identified that in<br />
October 2009, Health Management Ltd 1 reported that between November 2008 and<br />
1 PMABs are managed by private companies on behalf of the Home Office.<br />
Professional Committee Date: 13 November, 2013<br />
Agenda Item No. 7<br />
Author: Matt Johnson
October 2009 they had received 271 appeals of which 116 had been heard at PMAB 2 . It<br />
was estimated that the cost of managing the 116 cases would be approximately £1<br />
million and this did not include costs associated with the IHRs and IoDs paid to injured<br />
officers, appeals yet to be heard, administration costs or any costs associated with<br />
cases going to judicial review. At that time, Health Management Ltd reported that of<br />
the 271 applications, 95 cases had been withdrawn. While withdrawals happen for<br />
various reasons and at varying stages of the process, each application would have<br />
undergone the injury award assessment and would therefore still represent a<br />
significant cost to forces.<br />
3.4 Management of IHRs also have a direct impact on forces’ ability to deploy and manage<br />
their workforce. At the time of writing arbitration is pending on the proposed way<br />
forward- debated within the PNB/PAB following the Winsor Review recommendations<br />
regarding management of officers on restricted duties. The number of officers currently<br />
on restricted duties is a direct result of policy decisions in 2006 to reduce the number<br />
of IHRs. It is foreseeable that the current work to reduce the number of restricted<br />
officers will increase the number of officers seeking IHR. It is also foreseeable that the<br />
introduction of fitness testing to the service will also have a bearing on the number of<br />
IHR requests.<br />
3.5 Through engagement with HR and OH practitioners the NPIA identified that each force<br />
approached the management of this issue differently, dependant on their workload and<br />
the resources made available to them. Even prior to the regulatory responsibility<br />
passing to the Chief Officer it was common practice for police authorities to delegate<br />
this role to forces and this was done with little strategic governance. While this work<br />
was (and still is) primarily delegated to HR there is subsequently varying levels of<br />
engagement from occupational health professionals and force legal services with<br />
significant variance in the roles of these departments between forces. The NPIA<br />
identified that this variance was to the detriment of the Service, resulting in duplication<br />
of effort, unnecessary cost and ultimately disparity in IHR and IoD decisions, with<br />
similar claims receiving significantly different injury awards.<br />
3.6 Case law resulting from PMAB decisions and judicial reviews of PMAB decisions are<br />
proving problematic for forces trying to assess IHRs and IoDs. In the submission of<br />
evidence to the Winsor Review, the NPIA identified a lack of consistency in how forces<br />
interpret case law, with some forces obtaining legal advice but some assessing IHRs<br />
and IoDs and preparing for PMABs without engaging the support of any recognised<br />
legal professional. The quasi-legal capacity of the PMAB is therefore having a profound<br />
effect on individual forces’ ability to manage this process. Where an individual force<br />
fails to properly present at a PMAB, or fails to be suitably robust and challenge in the<br />
event of a perverse decision, all forces will be bound by the decision.<br />
3.7 In reaching the decision on whether to retire an officer (and the level of benefits they<br />
are to receive), the Police Pension Authority must refer certain questions to a medical<br />
practitioner selected by them, commonly referred to as the SMP. The SMP plays a<br />
significant role in helping to determine if an officer is to be retired on ill-health grounds<br />
and, if so, what level of benefit they are to receive. For the purposes of the PMAB it is<br />
important that it is recognised that this role is ‘quasi-legal’ and therefore the SMP role<br />
is, by implication, not solely restricted to medical opinion. Many forces are experiencing<br />
increasing difficulty in identifying suitable doctors to perform this role.<br />
2 This number is high due to a backlog due to the mismanagement of the previous contract and does not reflect the average<br />
number of cases per financial year.<br />
Professional Committee Date: 13 November 13<br />
Agenda Item No. 7<br />
Author: Matt Johnston
3.8 At present there are limited training opportunities available and no centrally accredited<br />
qualification for staff and SMPs. SMPs and force personnel are therefore reliant on their<br />
experience of the work, personal endeavour and ad hoc training they have been given<br />
by their employers. Prior to its closure, the NPIA ran training events in an attempt to<br />
assist forces. It was recognised at that time that these provisions were inadequate for<br />
the Service’s overall needs as ongoing changes in case law require frequent training<br />
revisions and updates. In addition to this, in order to maintain frontline services, forces<br />
have made significant cuts to HR and occupational health provisions. This has further<br />
reduced the corporate knowledge in the service with regards to management of these<br />
complex processes.<br />
3.9 In addition to the above there are also provisions within regulations for forces to<br />
review IHR decisions (IoDs are one-off payments and there is no provision to review<br />
them). The use of this provision remains controversial and its use is keenly challenged<br />
by the officers in question and NARPO. There have also been a number of significant<br />
high court decisions that have further clouded the issue. Due to this many forces, while<br />
encouraged to do so by the Home Office, are reluctant to initiate reviews fearing that<br />
the cost and work associated is a false economy compared to the financial saving<br />
generated by any reduction in IHR banding. A review of the services management of<br />
IHRs and IoDs would be a considerable piece of work in its own right and there may be<br />
benefit in seeking to review this issue separately once the review of IHR and IoD has<br />
been conducted and forces have been able to consider the review’s recommendations.<br />
4. Supporting information / Consideration<br />
4.1 The Home Office is currently developing new Police (Injury Benefit) Regulations 2013.<br />
The release of these regulations could potentially serve as an opportunity to realign<br />
and improve force practices and processes on this issue.<br />
4.2 The Home Office is currently in the process of retendering the contract for the PMAB.<br />
5. Resources<br />
The breadth and complexity of this issue makes it difficult to assess the resource<br />
commitments required to conduct a broad review of all forces. The proposed scoping<br />
exercise would still be a sizable piece of work but the resource commitment would be<br />
predominantly a human and time commitment from the College staff.<br />
Author name:<br />
Matt Johnston<br />
Author job title:<br />
Policy Manager of Occupational Health, Safety and Welfare<br />
Author email:<br />
matt.johnston@college.pnn.police.uk<br />
Author tel number: 0203 113 7406<br />
Sponsor (if not Author): CC Mike Cunningham<br />
Professional Committee Date: 13 November 13<br />
Agenda Item No. 7<br />
Author: Matt Johnston
NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED<br />
Name of meeting: Professional Committee<br />
Date of meeting: 13 November 2013<br />
Item lead at meeting: CC Lynne Owens<br />
Agenda item number: 8<br />
Title of paper: JESIP Joint Doctrine<br />
1. Issue<br />
1.1. The purpose of the paper is to provide the Professional Committee with an executive<br />
overview of:<br />
<br />
<br />
The purpose and progress made to date with the JESIP programme; and<br />
The proposed Joint Doctrine guidance and training which has been developed as<br />
part of the JESIP programme, and the impact it may have on existing police<br />
practice and guidance.<br />
1.2. This follows the paper being presented to Chief Constable’s Council on 18 th October<br />
2013. The JESIP Doctrine was agreed, but it was felt that the impact on policing practice<br />
required it to also be put before Professional Committee.<br />
2 Recommendation<br />
2.1 To commission the College of Policing to make adjustments to existing service-specific<br />
Authorised Professional Practice (APP) and the National Policing Curriculum to<br />
recognise and reflect the JESIP doctrine.<br />
2.2 To commission the College of Policing to provide ongoing support for the delivery of<br />
JESIP.<br />
3. Summary<br />
3.1 JESIP has been initiated by the Government in the wake of a succession of enquiry<br />
reports into major incidents throughout the United Kingdom spanning the last twenty<br />
five years. A common theme in many of these reports has been that the three main<br />
emergency services could and should have worked more effectively together as a<br />
whole and that had they done so more lives may have been saved. Whilst there has<br />
been some local work in response to individual recommendations a national approach<br />
to joint emergency services working and mutual aid has not been put in place. JESIP<br />
has been designed to address these issues.<br />
3.2 The programme has cross-governmental support and is overseen by a Ministerial Board<br />
chaired by the Home Secretary. This Board also includes senior ministerial<br />
representation from the Cabinet Office, Department for Health, Department for<br />
Communities and Local Government, together with the relevant emergency services<br />
Professional Committee Date: 13 November 2013<br />
Agenda Item No. 8 Author: T/DCC Charlie Hall
NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED<br />
inspectorate functions. The three emergency services are represented on this Board<br />
by three strategic leads, Chief Constable Lynne Owens, Chief Fire Officer Roy Wilsher<br />
and Chief Executive Dr Anthony Marsh.<br />
3.3 The overall effect of JESIP will be to provide a consistent joint emergency services<br />
response to incidents. They will be trained in the application of joint command decision<br />
and assessment models and the roles and responsibilities of the individual services,<br />
leading to a coherent and commonly understood way of working. The three emergency<br />
services jointly working to a set of shared and agreed common operating principles<br />
(joint doctrine).<br />
4. JESIP Joint Doctrine<br />
4.1 The doctrine has been compiled through a series of working groups involving a range<br />
of key stakeholders across the blue light services and government departments. This<br />
has included representation from the College of Policing, National Ambulance Resilience<br />
Unit, the Fire Service College and the Civil Contingencies’ Secretariat amongst many<br />
others.<br />
4.2 The draft doctrine was circulated for consultation to all 105 organisations comprising<br />
the three blue light services during the summer. The responses have been considered<br />
by the working groups and informed the updating of the doctrine as necessary. A<br />
quality assurance panel has also sat to review the doctrine document resulting in the<br />
final version of the doctrine that is attached at Appendix A.<br />
4.3 The doctrine centres around five principles for joint working between the emergency<br />
services, these being:<br />
Co-location<br />
Communication<br />
Co-ordination<br />
Joint Understanding of risk<br />
Shared situational awareness<br />
4.4 Key elements of the doctrine include a joint decision making model (substantially<br />
based around the national decision making model used in policing) and the METHANE<br />
situational awareness model (consistent with the model used throughout the health<br />
service). The latter of these represents a change from the SAD CHALETS situational<br />
awareness models used in policing and the Fire and Rescue Services.<br />
4.5 Whilst each service already has standalone policy and procedural guidance that covers<br />
their response to major incidents, this inevitably includes some differences between<br />
the models and approaches adopted. The JESIP doctrine overcomes this, but as a<br />
consequence does introduce some slight changes for each of the emergency services to<br />
their existing policy and procedures. In most areas these represent minor adjustments<br />
and the JESIP team is working with the College of Policing, National Ambulance<br />
Resilience Unit and Chief Fire Officers Association to ensure that these become<br />
reflected and incorporated into single service policy and procedural guidance.<br />
4.6 The doctrine then provides the basis for the development and delivery of training<br />
products to the three services and subsequent exercise regimes that will embed these<br />
ways of working across the services. It is intended that the yet to be established tri-<br />
Professional Committee Date: 13 November 2013<br />
Agenda Item No. 8<br />
Author: T/DCC Charlie Hall
NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED<br />
service governance board will provide the legacy governance arrangements for the<br />
JESIP approach, which will include owning and amending the JESIP doctrine into the<br />
future<br />
5. Training<br />
5.1 The delivery of training to responders and key personnel across the three emergency<br />
services is essential to be able to deliver the JESIP programme.<br />
5.2 The programme team has developed, working closely with the College of Policing and<br />
subject matter experts from the three services, a series of JESIP training products.<br />
These products will enable the doctrine and joint working arrangements to be<br />
consistently delivered to responders across the three emergency services. The first<br />
two training products have been robustly tested via a number of pilot courses and<br />
evaluated during the summer months.<br />
5.3 The training products comprise:<br />
On-Scene Commander course (1 day)<br />
Tactical Commander course (1 day)<br />
Control room commander course (under development)<br />
National e-learning awareness package suitable for all emergency<br />
responder staff (under development).<br />
5.4 The primary audience for delivery of the multi-agency courses are those commanders<br />
in the three emergency services (police, fire and ambulance) responsible for the initial<br />
response to a major or complex incident. Consultation has taken place with all 105<br />
organisations that comprise the emergency services across England and Wales to<br />
identify the numbers of personnel that will require training through the on-scene<br />
commander, tactical commander and control room courses. The numbers do vary<br />
between organisations dependent upon size and the way in which these functions are<br />
discharged. On average the numbers declared represent approximately 200 staff<br />
within each organisation.<br />
5.5 Training courses will be delivered locally via a multi-agency training team. Each of the<br />
105 services has been requested to identify two individuals to assist in the delivery of<br />
local training. These individuals will undertake the train trainer courses, commencing<br />
in October. On completion of the train the trainer courses local areas are then able to<br />
commence the broader roll-out of JESIP training to local staff. Many services have<br />
already put arrangements in place to deliver this training and some have negotiated<br />
regional arrangements to share resources. It is an expectation of the Ministerial Board<br />
that this training will be largely complete by September 2014.<br />
5.6 The training is primarily intended for delivery to the three main emergency services to<br />
achieve national interoperability and enhance mutual aid capacity. A number of Local<br />
Resilience Forums (LRFs) have expressed a desire for this to be extended to include<br />
other category 1 and 2 responders. Such involvement is not being co-ordinated by the<br />
JESIP programme team but LRFs are able to utilise the products to deliver these to<br />
other responders as deemed appropriate on a local basis.<br />
Professional Committee Date: 13 November 2013<br />
Agenda Item No. 8<br />
Author: T/DCC Charlie Hall
NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED<br />
6. Conclusion<br />
6.1 The Joint Doctrine is critical to the success of the JESIP programme. It needs to be<br />
both evident and effective during major incidents and this will only be possible if it is<br />
embedded in routine work. The support of the Professional Committee is sought to<br />
allow this Joint Doctrine to be absorbed into APP and recognised as standard Policing<br />
Practice.<br />
Lynne Owens<br />
Chief Constable<br />
Head of National Uniform Operations Business Area<br />
Author name: DCC Charlie Hall<br />
Author job title: JESIP Lead, UK Interoperability Portfolio<br />
Author email:<br />
Author tel number:<br />
Sponsor (if not Author): CC Lynne Owens<br />
Professional Committee Date: 13 November 2013<br />
Agenda Item No. 8<br />
Author: T/DCC Charlie Hall
JOINT DOCTRINE: THE<br />
INTEROPERABILITY<br />
FRAMEWORK<br />
JESIP<br />
JOINT EMERGENCY SERVICES<br />
INTEROPERABILITY PROGRAMME<br />
Working Together – Saving Lives
JOINT DOCTRINE:<br />
THE INTEROPERABILITY<br />
FRAMEWORK
Foreword<br />
Welcome to the first edition of the “Joint Doctrine: the interoperability framework”. This guidance<br />
focuses on police, fire and ambulance interoperability in the early stages of the response to<br />
a major or complex incident. Its purpose is to provide emergency service commanders with a<br />
framework to enable them to respond together as effectively as possible.<br />
This guidance has been developed by police, fire and ambulance service colleagues as part of<br />
the Joint Emergency Services Interoperability Programme (JESIP). This is a nationally recognised<br />
tri-service programme, staffed solely by representatives from the blue-light services, and which<br />
has the full support of Chief Officers and Government Departments; the Home Office, Cabinet<br />
Office, Department for Communities and Local Government and the Department of Health. The<br />
programme was set up at the Home Secretary’s request following a number of public enquiries<br />
which said joint working between the three emergency services would enhance the collective<br />
ability to save lives and reduce harm. Major and complex incidents do not happen very often. But<br />
when they do we need to ensure that we have the most efficient, effective and, most importantly,<br />
joined-up response that is possible. The public will expect no less.<br />
As a living document this doctrine will be subject to future changes and improvements, as it is<br />
tested and embedded into business as usual. We, as three services, need to ensure that the<br />
ethos of working together becomes embedded within our organisations at every level.<br />
We are extremely grateful to those individuals and their supporting organisations who have<br />
contributed up to this point. If you have any comments about the document, or any questions as to<br />
how you might act upon this doctrine, please email them to JESIP@homeoffice.x.gsi.gov.uk<br />
Yours faithfully,<br />
CFO Roy Wilsher CC Lynne Owens CEO Anthony Marsh
Contents<br />
Part 1 – Principles for Joint Working<br />
1. Introduction – Doctrine and Guidance 1<br />
2. The Need for Interoperability 2<br />
3. Principles for Joint Working 3<br />
Annex A 5<br />
Annex B 7<br />
Part 2 – Ways of Working<br />
1. Ways of Working 10<br />
2. The Joint Decision Model (JDM) 11<br />
3. Operational, Tactical and Strategic Levels of Command 16<br />
Annexes<br />
Annex C 20<br />
Annex D 22<br />
Annex E 23<br />
Annex F 24
PART 1 – PRINCIPLES FOR<br />
JOINT WORKING
1. Introduction – Doctrine and Guidance<br />
The structure for managing the local multi-agency response to emergencies is based upon the<br />
Civil Contingencies Act (2004), which imposes a legal duty on Category 1 responders to assess<br />
risk, plan for emergencies and to co-operate and share information with other emergency<br />
response organisations. The Act is supported by two sets of guidance; ‘Emergency Preparedness’<br />
and ‘Emergency Response & Recovery’ (ER&R). Emergency Preparedness deals with the preemergency<br />
(planning) phase. ER&R describes the multi-agency framework for responding to and<br />
recovering from emergencies in the UK.<br />
This publication complements ER&R by focussing specifically on the interoperability of the<br />
three emergency services in the early stages of response to a rapid onset localised emergency.<br />
Its purpose is to provide emergency service commanders with a framework to enable them to<br />
effectively respond together. However, the principles described are also applicable to the wider<br />
range of Category 1 and 2 response organisations, and can be applied to smaller scale incidents,<br />
wide-area emergencies, and pre-planned operations.<br />
This Doctrine focuses on the interoperability of the three emergency services whilst also<br />
acknowledging that emergency response is a multi-agency activity and the resolution of an<br />
emergency will usually involve collaboration with other Category 1 and 2 responders and partner<br />
organisations. Doctrine sets out the way responders should train and operate and is built upon a<br />
common backbone which defines terminology, principles and ways of working. Joint Doctrine sets<br />
out what responders should do and how they should do it in a multi-agency working environment,<br />
in order to achieve the degree of interoperability that is essential to a successful joint response. It<br />
does not constitute a set of rules to be applied without thought, but rather seeks to guide, explain<br />
and inform.<br />
The Joint Doctrine is an essential element in the hierarchy of guidance shown in Figure 1. It<br />
provides commanders, at the scene and elsewhere, with generic guidance on what actions they<br />
should undertake when responding to major and complex incidents and the principles are equally<br />
relevant to day-to-day joint operations. The guidance contained within this publication should be<br />
reflected consistently within individual organisations’ guidance, instructions to their personnel<br />
and in training. Separate publications set out specialist ways of working that will apply in specific<br />
circumstances such as Chemical, Biological, Radiological and Nuclear (CBRN) incidents or<br />
Marauding Terrorist Firearms Attacks (MTFA). These specialist response documents should also<br />
reflect the generic guidance contained within this publication.<br />
Figure 1 - Emergency Response Documentation Hierarchy for the emergency services<br />
1
2. The Need for Interoperability<br />
The blue light services, including police, fire and ambulance, will usually be the first to arrive at<br />
the scene of a rapid onset emergency. To achieve the best possible outcomes, all responders will<br />
need to be able to work together effectively as soon as they arrive at the scene.<br />
The requirement for a joint response is not new to the emergency services and should already<br />
be in place for routine day to day working. However the findings of, and the lessons identified by,<br />
many public enquiries and inquests have highlighted cases where the emergency services should<br />
have worked better together and shown much greater levels of co-operation and co-ordination.<br />
There is a requirement for better co-ordination and co-operation between the three emergency<br />
services who are normally the primary on-scene responders in response to a rapid onset<br />
emergency. Therefore, while the principles of interoperability are also applicable to the wider<br />
range of Category 1 and 2 responders, this document is focussed upon the emergency services<br />
element of the response.<br />
Interoperability is defined as the extent to which organisations can work together coherently<br />
as a matter of routine. To ensure interoperability exists between the emergency services in<br />
England, Wales and Scotland, which might involve cross-border mutual aid at any time, all<br />
responder organisations must make certain that their single service response arrangements,<br />
and local procedures, are in alignment with this Joint Doctrine and in accordance with the Civil<br />
Contingencies Act 2004 guidance set out in Emergency Response and Recovery.<br />
Commanders, at every level, should be able to demonstrate that they have received appropriate<br />
interoperability training in both their preparation and response arrangements to ensure the<br />
highest possible levels of joint working. With appropriate training and exercising between the<br />
emergency services, and also other Category 1 and 2 responders, the joint response will be<br />
significantly more effective in saving lives and reducing harm.<br />
2.1 Definitions<br />
There are a number of terms that are fundamental to successful joint working and these must be<br />
understood by all responders. These include; Command, Control, Co-ordination, Communication,<br />
Major Incident, Emergency, Joint Working, Joint Understanding of Risk, and Joint Learning. The<br />
definitions for these, and a short explanation of each, can be found at Annex A.<br />
2
3. Principles for Joint Working<br />
The principles must be applied by responders when they are determining an appropriate course of<br />
action and should be reflected in Joint or Standard Operating Procedures for joint working in the<br />
response to, and co-ordination, of an emergency.<br />
The public expects that the emergency services will work together, particularly in the initial<br />
response, in order to preserve life and reduce harm at any emergency. The purpose of clear,<br />
simple principles is to help commanders to take action under pressure that will enable the<br />
achievement of successful outcomes. This simplicity is of paramount importance in the early<br />
stages of an incident or emergency, when clear, robust decisions and actions need to be taken<br />
with minimum delay in an often rapidly changing environment. At the scene, the expected<br />
sequence of actions would comprise the first meeting of police, fire and ambulance commanders<br />
(co-location); a joint assessment of the situation and prevailing risks (communication, joint risk<br />
assessment and shared situational awareness); and a co-ordinated plan for action.<br />
3.1 Co-location<br />
Co-location of commanders is essential and allows those commanders to perform the functions<br />
of command, control and co-ordination, face to face, at a single and easily identified location. This<br />
is known as the Forward Command Post (FCP), which is a location near to the scene, where the<br />
response by the emergency services is managed.<br />
3.2 Communication<br />
Communication is the passage of clear, unambiguous and timely information relevant to an<br />
emergency situation. Meaningful and effective communication underpins effective joint working.<br />
The sharing of information, free of acronyms, across service boundaries is essential to operational<br />
success. This starts through pre-planning and between Control Rooms prior to deployment of<br />
resources.<br />
Communication is the capability to exchange reliable and accurate information i.e. critical<br />
information about hazards, risks and threats, as well as understanding each organisations<br />
responsibilities and capabilities. The understanding of any information shared ensures the<br />
achievement of shared situational awareness which underpins the best possible outcomes of an<br />
incident. Common symbols and terminology should be used to communicate common meaning<br />
amongst all responders. Further information about symbols and terminology can be found in<br />
Annex B.<br />
This guidance is not intended to provide specific advice on the technical solutions that are<br />
available to the emergency services. A technical solution already exists for the blue light services,<br />
the replacement of which is subject to a separate, cross-governmental and emergency service<br />
programme.<br />
3
3.3 Co-ordination<br />
Co-ordination involves the integration of the priorities, resources, decision making and response<br />
activities of each emergency service in order to avoid potential conflicts, prevent duplication of<br />
effort, minimise risk and promote successful outcomes. Effective co-ordination generally requires<br />
one service to act in a “lead” capacity, such as chairing co-ordination meetings and ensuring<br />
an effective response. The lead service will usually be the Police Service. However, in certain<br />
circumstances other services/agencies may be a more appropriate choice, depending upon the<br />
nature of the emergency, the phase of the response and the capabilities required.<br />
3.4 Joint understanding of risk<br />
Risk arises from threats and/or hazards which will be seen, understood and treated differently<br />
by different emergency services. In the context of a joint response, sharing information and<br />
understanding about the likelihood and potential impact of risks and the availability and<br />
implications of potential control measures will ensure, as far as is reasonably practicable, that<br />
the agreed aim and objectives are not compromised. This will include ensuring the safety of<br />
responders and mitigating the impact of risks on members of the public, infrastructure and the<br />
environment. Further information on the joint assessment of risk can be found in Part 2 – Ways of<br />
Working.<br />
3.5 Shared situational awareness<br />
This is a common understanding of the circumstances and immediate consequences of the<br />
emergency, together with an appreciation of the available capabilities and emergency services’<br />
priorities. Achieving shared situational awareness is essential for effective interoperability in<br />
the emergency response and can be achieved by using the Joint Decision Model found in Part<br />
2 – Ways of Working. Shared situational awareness relates not only to a common understanding<br />
between incident commanders, but also between control rooms and all tiers of the command<br />
structure.<br />
4
Annex A<br />
Definition of Key Terms in Interoperability<br />
Capability - A demonstrable ability to respond to and recover from a particular threat or hazard.<br />
Command - The exercise of vested authority, that is associated with a role or rank within an<br />
organisation, to give direction in order to achieve defined objectives. Command is carried out by<br />
those who have been given authority (through role or rank) over others, for a specific operation<br />
or incident, to make decisions and give direction in order to achieve jointly defined and agreed<br />
objectives. Personnel who provide subject matter expertise or advice do so in support of the<br />
Operations or Tactical Commander and as part of the Command Support Team.<br />
Commander - Personnel who, by function or rank, are charged with ensuring the readiness of<br />
their teams, forces or organisations to discharge their stated duties and obligations.<br />
Control - The application of authority, combined with the capability to manage resources, in order<br />
to achieve defined objectives. Control is defined as the authority and capability of an organisation<br />
to direct the actions of its own personnel. While one emergency service cannot exercise command<br />
over another, it may be appropriate for service commanders to grant the authority to exercise<br />
control of their organisations’ personnel or assets to a co-ordinating group or commander of<br />
the designated lead service, within a specified time, place or circumstance, in order for defined<br />
response objectives to be achieved. However, such temporary transfer of control does not imply<br />
that the guiding responsibility for the physical activities of those resources has been transferred.<br />
Co-ordination - The integration of multi-agency efforts and available capabilities, which may be<br />
interdependent, in order to achieve defined objectives. Co-ordination occurs at one or more of<br />
three ascending levels - Operational, Tactical and Strategic, with national level co-ordination in the<br />
most serious of emergencies.<br />
Emergency - An event or situation which threatens serious damage to human welfare in a place in<br />
the UK, the environment of a place in the UK, or the security of the UK or of a place in the UK.<br />
Joint Learning - The identification of lessons from exercises or operations that are relevant<br />
to joint working and the process of effecting and embedding change in organisations and<br />
behaviours in response to those lessons. Learning is the process of developing knowledge, skills,<br />
attitudes and behaviours. It is therefore essential that lessons identified about joint working, from<br />
event or exercise debriefs or other mechanisms, should be captured, assessed, shared and acted<br />
upon jointly in order to promote continuous improvement but also to confirm good practice where<br />
it is identified.<br />
Joint Working - The ability of two or more responder organisations to work efficiently together<br />
to achieve a common aim through agreed prioritisation of effort. The public expects that the<br />
emergency services will work together, particularly in the initial response emergency, in order to<br />
preserve life and reduce harm. Individual Police, Fire & Rescue Service or Ambulance Service<br />
priorities must not override the degree of multi-agency co-operation required to efficiently and<br />
effectively work together. The aim is to use the available resources to the best collective effect to<br />
achieve the jointly agreed objectives for a successful response. It is essential that the activities of<br />
one responder service do not impede or detract from the efficiency of another.<br />
5
Major Incident – An event or situation requiring a response under one or more of the emergency<br />
services’ major incident plans. A major incident may be declared by a single blue-light service, or<br />
jointly. It is feasible that only one service may determine an emergency as a major incident based<br />
on the type of incident and scale of their resources required. This may not necessarily mean it is a<br />
major incident for all other services.<br />
Personal Data - Data which relates to a living individual or group who can be identified from the<br />
data and includes any expression of opinion about the individual and any indications of intentions<br />
in respect of the individual. (Data Protection Act 1998).<br />
Rapid Onset Emergency – An emergency which develops quickly and usually with immediate<br />
effects, thereby limiting the time available to consider response options.<br />
Responsibility - Guiding responsibility is reflected in parent single service policy and authorised<br />
operating procedures for the allocated resources.<br />
Rising Tide Emergency – Event or situation with a lead-in time of days, weeks or even months<br />
e.g. health pandemic, flooding or pop concert, the final impact of which may not be apparent early<br />
on.<br />
Sensitive Personal Data - Personal data consisting of information as to (including but not<br />
exclusively): race/ ethnic origin, religious beliefs, physical or mental health and commission or<br />
alleged commission of any offence. (Data Protection Act 1998).<br />
6
Annex B<br />
Common Terminology in Emergency Management<br />
One of the barriers to achieving shared situational awareness is the use of terminology that either<br />
means different things to different people, or is simply not understood across different services.<br />
Defining commonly understood terminology is desirable and to a large degree attainable, but<br />
emergency responders must always be attentive to the risk that their own understanding of<br />
concepts and specific terms is either not understood, or misunderstood, by others. Where the<br />
potential for confusion exists, responders should ensure that they use plain English.<br />
A lexicon of common terminology has been established to define and promote commonly<br />
understood terms in emergency management and this is introduced below, together with specific<br />
definitions for terms critical to interoperability. Also introduced below is the set of common map<br />
symbols which are linked to the lexicon and should be adopted by emergency responders.<br />
Lexicon of Common Terminology for UK Emergency Management<br />
Without a common understanding of what specific terms, phrases and associated map symbols<br />
mean, multi-agency working will always carry the risk of potentially serious misunderstandings, the<br />
consequences of which could be extremely severe. Since 2007, the Civil Contingencies Secretariat<br />
in the Cabinet Office has been working with a wide range of partners to build and maintain a<br />
single, authoritative point of reference for civil protection terminology and map symbology. These<br />
are summarised below.<br />
A lexicon is a collection of terms from a specific area of work or knowledge that are defined and<br />
associated with additional user-relevant information. This lexicon establishes common, agreed<br />
definitions for terms used in multi-agency emergency management. It is updated regularly and is<br />
available online at:<br />
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/emergency-responder-interoperability-lexicon<br />
Emergency services and other responders are encouraged to cross-reference definitions given<br />
in their own organisation’s documents to the lexicon, and to adopt the definitions given in<br />
the lexicon. Such convergence on common terminology is a fundamental building block for<br />
interoperability.<br />
In some cases specific terms or acronyms can have two or more meanings. This is not desirable,<br />
as there is potential for confusion. It reinforces the point that in spite of tools such as the lexicon,<br />
achieving commonly understood terminology is the responsibility of emergency responders on the<br />
ground. Where there is any doubt at all about what is meant by a specific term then individuals<br />
must check and confirm there is a common understanding.<br />
Where additional terms should be included in the lexicon, or responders wish to discuss existing<br />
definitions then contact details can be found through the web link above. The Cabinet Office<br />
hold and maintain the lexicon as a single, authoritative point of reference, but the emergency<br />
responder community shares the responsibility to maintain and grow the lexicon, so all<br />
communications are welcomed.<br />
7
Common Map Symbology for UK Emergency Management<br />
Maps are widely used in emergency management, but if different organisations use different map<br />
symbols to denote the same feature (e.g. a rendezvous point (RVP) or inner cordon) then there is<br />
scope for dangerous confusion and the potential of the map as a tool to co-ordinate multi-agency<br />
operations is severely curtailed. For this reason, the Cabinet Office and Ordnance Survey (OS)<br />
have collaborated in developing and disseminating a core set of common map symbols for use in<br />
emergency management.<br />
These can be found online and there is a link to the download page on the OS website at:<br />
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/emergency-responder-interoperability-commonmap-symbols<br />
At the present time the symbol set is limited to the following core features:<br />
• Incidents and hazards<br />
• Command, Control, Coordination or Communication sites<br />
• Assets<br />
• Infrastructure<br />
• Cordons, zones and areas.<br />
The symbols are developed from a number of basic building blocks, illustrated below:<br />
Generic inner cordon<br />
(with castellation on the inside)<br />
Generic outer cordon<br />
(with castellation on the outside)<br />
8
PART 2 – WAYS OF<br />
WORKING<br />
9
1. Ways of Working<br />
All personnel called upon to respond to an emergency situation must be suitably trained and<br />
equipped to carry out and discharge the duties they are assigned to. It is possible that during<br />
the early stages of an incident response, members of one service may spontaneously carry out<br />
tasks normally the responsibility of another. However, as soon as sufficient personnel are in place,<br />
unequivocal command and control of functions for which that service is normally responsible,<br />
must be put in place.<br />
Local Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) or similar instructions/directives must include<br />
direction that promotes ways of working that allow for integrated effort to take place with partner<br />
agencies. Such SOPs will need to focus on specific actions and considerations, as necessary,<br />
for the discharge of specific functions. However, these instructions should also make clear, at<br />
the outset, the paramount need to work jointly with multi-agency commanders and to avoid any<br />
conflict of effort between different responder organisations.<br />
The use of the Joint Decision Model (JDM), which includes the approach to establishing shared<br />
situational awareness and undertaking a joint assessment of risk, will enable efficient and<br />
effective joint working amongst the blue light responders and help determine their priorities for<br />
action.<br />
10
2. The Joint Decision Model (JDM)<br />
A wide range of decision-making models exist, including specific models used by the individual<br />
emergency services. Such models exist to practically support decision makers working under<br />
difficult circumstances, and a guiding principle is that they should not be over-complicated. One<br />
of the difficulties facing commanders from different organisations in a joint emergency response<br />
is how to bring together the available information, reconcile objectives and then make effective<br />
decisions together. The Joint Decision Model (JDM), shown at Figure 2, has been developed to<br />
enable this to happen.<br />
In common with most decision models, the JDM is organised around three primary considerations:<br />
Situation: what is happening, what are the impacts, what are the risks, what might happen and<br />
what is being done about it? Situational awareness is having an appropriate knowledge of these<br />
factors.<br />
Direction: what end-state is desired, what are the aims and objectives of the emergency response<br />
and what overarching values and priorities will inform and guide this?<br />
Action: what needs to be decided and what needs to be done to resolve the situation and achieve<br />
the desired end state?<br />
The JDM develops these considerations and sets out the various stages of how joint decisions<br />
should be reached. One of the guiding principles of the JDM is that decision makers will use their<br />
judgement and experience in deciding what additional questions to ask and considerations to<br />
take into account, to reach a jointly agreed decision. They must therefore be free to interpret the<br />
JDM for themselves, reasonably and according to the circumstances facing them at any given<br />
time. Strict adherence to the stepped process outlined in the JDM should always be secondary to<br />
achieving desired outcomes, particularly in time sensitive situations. A detailed and well-practised<br />
understanding of the JDM will facilitate clear and ordered thinking under stress. The following<br />
sections summarise the questions and considerations that commanders should think about in<br />
following the model.<br />
The JDM can be used for a rapid onset or a rising tide emergency to enable the establishment of<br />
shared situational awareness.<br />
11
Figure 2 - The Joint Decision Model<br />
2.1 Working Together – Saving Lives, Reducing Harm<br />
Joint decisions must be made with reference to the over arching or primary aim of any response<br />
to an emergency: to save lives and reduce harm. This is achieved through a co-ordinated, multiagency<br />
response. Decision makers should have this uppermost in their minds throughout the<br />
decision making process.<br />
2.2 Gather and share information and intelligence<br />
Situational awareness is about having appropriate answers to the following questions: what<br />
is happening, what are the impacts, what are the risks, what might happen and what is being<br />
done about it? In the context of the Joint Decision Model, shared situational awareness<br />
becomes critically important. Shared situational awareness is achieved by sharing information<br />
and understanding between the organisations involved, to build a stronger, multi-dimensional<br />
awareness of events, their implications, associated risks and potential outcomes.<br />
For major and complex emergencies, whether a rapid onset or a rising tide event, it is a simple<br />
fact that no one service can initially appreciate all relevant dimensions of an emergency. This<br />
deeper and wider understanding will only come from meaningful communication between<br />
the emergency services and other emergency responders. This should be built upon agreed<br />
procedures to share the required information and a commitment to use commonly understood<br />
terminology rather than service-specific terminology or jargon where this may impede<br />
understanding. In simple terms, commanders cannot assume other emergency service personnel<br />
see things or say things in the same way, and a sustained effort is required to reach a common<br />
view and understanding of events, risks and their implications.<br />
Decision making in the context of an emergency, including decisions involving the sharing<br />
of information, does not remove the statutory obligations of agencies or individuals, but it is<br />
recognised that such decisions are made against an overriding priority to save life and reduce<br />
harm.<br />
12
The sharing of personal data and sensitive personal data (including Police intelligence) requires<br />
further consideration before sharing across agencies and the JDM can be used as a tool to guide<br />
decision making on what to release and to whom. In particular, in considering the legal and policy<br />
implications, the following are relevant:<br />
• A legal framework to share information is required – in an ‘emergency’ situation this will<br />
generally come from Common Law (save life/property), the Crime and Disorder Act 1998<br />
or the Civil Contingencies Act 2004<br />
• Formal Information Sharing Agreements (ISA) may exist between some or all responding<br />
agencies but such existence does not prohibit sharing of information outside of these ISAs<br />
• There should be a specific purpose for sharing information<br />
• Information shared needs to be proportionate to the purpose and no more than necessary<br />
• The need to inform the recipient if any of the information is potentially unreliable or<br />
inaccurate<br />
• The need to ensure that the information is shared safely and securely – it must comply<br />
with the Government Protective Marking Scheme (GPMS – replaced by the Classifications<br />
Policy in 2014) if appropriate<br />
• What information is shared, when, with whom and why, should be recorded.<br />
The following mnemonic should be used when passing information, in the initial stages, between<br />
emergency responders and Control Rooms to enable the establishment of shared situational<br />
awareness:<br />
• Major incident declared?<br />
• Exact location;<br />
• Type of incident e.g. explosion, building collapse;<br />
• Hazards present, potential or suspected;<br />
• Access – routes that are safe to use;<br />
• Number, type, severity of casualties;<br />
• Emergency services now present and those required.<br />
2.3 Jointly assess risks, develop a working strategy<br />
Understanding risk is central to emergency response. The Civil Contingencies Act places a<br />
requirement on all Category 1 responders to have an accurate and shared understanding of<br />
the risks which would or may affect the geographical area for which they are responsible. A key<br />
task for commanders is to build and maintain a common understanding of the full range of risks<br />
and the way that those risks may be increased, reduced or controlled by decisions made and<br />
subsequent actions taken. In a major or complex emergency the blue light services will have<br />
unique insights into those risks and by sharing that knowledge, a common understanding can be<br />
established.<br />
The joint assessment of risk is the process by which commanders work towards a common<br />
understanding of threats, hazards and the likelihood of them being realised, in order to inform<br />
decisions on deployments and the risk control measures that are required. Risk mitigation<br />
measures to be employed by individual services also need to be understood by the other<br />
responding organisations in order to ensure any potential for unintended consequences are<br />
identified in advance of activity commencing. A joint assessment of the prevailing risks also limits<br />
13
the likelihood of any service following a course of action in which the other services are unable to<br />
participate. This, therefore, increases the operational effectiveness and efficiency of the response<br />
as well as the probability of a successful resolution of the incident.<br />
It is rare for a complete or perfect picture to exist and therefore a working strategy, for a rapid<br />
onset emergency, should be based on the information available at the time. The following should<br />
be taken into account when developing a working strategy:<br />
• What are the aims and objectives to be achieved?<br />
• Who by – Police, Fire, Ambulance and partner organisations?<br />
• When – timescales, deadlines and milestones?<br />
• Where – what locations?<br />
• Why – what is the rationale? Is this consistent with the overall strategic aims and<br />
objectives?<br />
• How are these tasks going to be achieved?<br />
In order to deliver an effective integrated multi-agency operational response plan, the following<br />
key steps must be undertaken:<br />
Identification of hazards – this will begin from the initial call received by a Control Room and will<br />
continue as first responders arrive on scene. Information gathered by individual agencies must<br />
be disseminated to all first responders and control rooms effectively. The use of the mnemonic<br />
METHANE will assist in a common approach.<br />
Dynamic Risk Assessment – undertaken by individual agencies, reflecting the tasks / objectives<br />
to be achieved, the hazards that have been identified and the likelihood of harm from those<br />
hazards.<br />
Identification of the tasks - each individual agency should identify and consider the specific tasks<br />
to be achieved according to its own role and responsibilities.<br />
Apply control measures – each agency should consider and apply appropriate control measures<br />
to ensure any risk is as low as reasonably practicable<br />
Integrated multi-agency operational response plan – the development of this plan should<br />
consider the outcomes of the hazard assessment and service risk assessments, within the<br />
context of the agreed priorities for the incident.<br />
Recording of decision– the outcomes of the joint assessment of risk should be recorded,<br />
together with the identified priorities and the agreed multi-agency response plan, when resources<br />
permit. It is acknowledged that in the early stages of the incident this may not be possible, but it<br />
should be noted that post-incident scrutiny inevitably focuses on the earliest decision making.<br />
14
2.4 Consider powers, policies and procedures<br />
Decision making in an emergency will be focussed on how to achieve the desired end state and<br />
there will always be various constraints and considerations that will shape how this is achieved.<br />
Powers, policies and procedures relate to any relevant laws, operating procedures or policies<br />
that may impact on the desired response plan and the capabilities that are available to be<br />
deployed. They may impact on how individual services will need to operate and co-operate in<br />
order to achieve the agreed aims and objectives. In the context of a joint response, a common<br />
understanding of any relevant powers, policies, capabilities and procedures is essential in order<br />
that the activities of one service compliment and do not compromise, the approach of the other<br />
services.<br />
2.5 Identify options and contingencies<br />
There will almost always be more than one option to achieve the desired end state and it is good<br />
practice that a range of options are identified and rigorously evaluated. Any potential option or<br />
course of action should be evaluated with respect to:<br />
• Suitability – does it fit with the strategic direction?<br />
• Feasibility – in resource terms can it be done?<br />
• Acceptability – is it legal, morally defensible and justifiable?<br />
An option may include deploying resources, briefing the public (mainstream and social media) or<br />
developing a contingency or emergency plan. Whichever options are chosen, it is essential that<br />
commanders are clear what they are required to carry out and there should be clearly agreed<br />
procedures for communicating any decision to defer, abort or initiate a specific tactic.<br />
Contingencies relate to events that may occur and the arrangements that are put in place to<br />
respond to them should they occur. For example, strong evidence may suggest that an emergency<br />
is being successfully managed and the impacts safely controlled, but there remains a likelihood<br />
that the situation could deteriorate with significant impacts. Simply hoping for the best is not<br />
a defensible option and a contingency in this case may be to define measures to adjust the<br />
response should the situation deteriorate.<br />
2.6 Take action and review what happened<br />
Building situational awareness, setting direction and evaluating options all lead to taking the<br />
actions that are judged to be the most effective and efficient in resolving an emergency and<br />
returning to a new normality. As the JDM is a continuous loop, it is essential that the results of<br />
those actions are fed back into the first box – Gather and share information and intelligence<br />
– which establishes shared situational awareness. This will, in turn, shape any revision to the<br />
direction and risk assessment and the cycle continues.<br />
15
3. Operational, Tactical and Strategic Levels of Command<br />
The Operational, Tactical and Strategic are tiers of command adopted by each of the emergency<br />
services, and most partner emergency response organisations, are role, not rank, related. These<br />
functions are broadly equivalent to those described as Bronze, Silver and Gold in other documents<br />
about emergency procedures. It should be understood that the titles do not convey seniority of<br />
service or rank, but depict the function carried out by that particular person or group. The over<br />
arching response structure is shown at Figure 3.<br />
For the purpose of clarity, this document refers only to the generic tiers of command and not<br />
individual service-specific functional activities. In essence, there must be a clear and identified<br />
commander responsible for co-ordinating their service’s activity at each of the identified command<br />
levels.<br />
It is essential that the appointed commanders of each service, operating at every level, liaise with<br />
each other at the earliest opportunity. Operational Commanders, particularly, must make every<br />
effort to achieve the closest co-ordination by meeting face-to-face.<br />
3.1 Operational<br />
The Operational Commander will control and deploy the resources of their respective service<br />
within a functional or geographical area and implement direction provided by the Tactical<br />
commander. As the incident progresses and more resources attend the scene, the level of<br />
supervision will increase in proportion.<br />
It is vital that both Operational and Tactical Commanders of each service are easily identifiable<br />
on the incident ground. By using this universal structure, the emergency services will be able to<br />
communicate with each other and understand each other’s functions and authority. The roles and<br />
responsibilities of Operational Commanders are at Annex D.<br />
3.2 Tactical<br />
The Tactical Commander will be located where they can maintain effective tactical command of<br />
the operation. This includes consideration of effective joint working with other services and other<br />
factors such as access to communications systems. They should attend the scene dependent<br />
on these considerations and the nature of the incident. For example, a single contained scene<br />
with limited wider impact – more likely to attend scene; multiple scenes or mobile threat and<br />
significant wider impact – more likely to command from an established control room. The roles<br />
and responsibilities of Tactical Commanders are at Annex E.<br />
16
3.3 Strategic<br />
Figure 3 - Overarching Response Structure<br />
The Strategic Commander in overall charge of each service is responsible for formulating the<br />
strategy for the incident. Each Strategic Commander has overall command of the resources of<br />
their own organisation, but will delegate implementation decisions to their respective tactical<br />
level commanders. At the earliest opportunity, a strategic group will determine/confirm a specific<br />
response strategy and record a strategy statement. The roles and responsibilities of Strategic<br />
Commanders are shown at Annex F.<br />
3.4 Inter-agency resources<br />
Any service may request the temporary assistance of personnel and equipment of another.<br />
In these circumstances, while the supporting service will relinquish the immediate control<br />
of those resources to the other service for the duration of the task, it will nevertheless keep<br />
overall command of its personnel and equipment at all times. Personnel from one service who<br />
help another in this way should only be given tasks for which they are trained and should not<br />
supplement the other service in a potentially dangerous way.<br />
There is also a network of National Inter-Agency Liaison Officers (NILO) who are trained and<br />
qualified to provide advice as part of the Command Support Team.<br />
3.5 Overarching Response Structure<br />
The details of the operation and co-ordination of sub-national and national levels for emergency<br />
response can be found in the UK Government Concept of Operations and the relevant chapters of<br />
Emergency Response and Recovery. The nature and severity of the emergency will determine the<br />
need for the involvement of the sub-national and national tiers, whilst its location will dictate the<br />
potential engagement of the Devolved Administrations in Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales.<br />
The purpose of the national level, whether managed by a Lead Government Department (LGD)<br />
or cross-government working conducted through the Cabinet Office Briefing Rooms (COBR), is<br />
to address co-ordination across all relevant government departments and across and between<br />
multiple local Strategic Coordinating Groups (SCGs). This includes the marshalling, prioritisation<br />
17
and allocation of scarce national resources (e.g. heavy lift helicopters) to local control. The<br />
invocation of national and sub-national arrangements do not relieve or override the local<br />
responsibilities of the SCG, which remain unchanged, although their considerations will be<br />
informed and influenced by national policies, strategy and coordinating instructions. The roles<br />
and responsibilities of an SCG together with a standing agenda, are shown at Annex G.<br />
3.6 Joint Learning<br />
Many post-event debriefs and inquiries have highlighted specific learning points to improve future<br />
response efforts. Single service debriefs and post-event investigations have similarly highlighted<br />
the need for internal improvements.<br />
In order to facilitate operational debriefing and to provide evidence for inquiries (whether judicial,<br />
public, technical, inquest or of some other form), it is essential to keep records. Single-agency and<br />
inter-agency debriefing processes should aim to capture information while memories are fresh.<br />
For this reason a joint hot debrief should be undertaken by commanders as soon as practicable<br />
following the event.<br />
Learning is the acquisition and development of knowledge, skills and attitudes which determine<br />
behaviour and how people will respond to circumstances. All three elements are important. How<br />
people learn is far from straightforward and it may be achieved through direct experience, study of<br />
the experience and insights of others, or being taught, either formally or in various informal ways.<br />
It is important to distinguish between lessons identified and lessons learned. Identifying lessons<br />
is the process of extracting and communicating issues that require some form of change to<br />
avoid negative events occurring again, or to reinforce good practice. Learning lessons is the<br />
more complex process of making and embedding those changes in a way that is reflected in how<br />
organisations operate and individuals behave.<br />
Joint learning describes both the identification of lessons relevant to joint working, and the<br />
process of learning those lessons. Individual services have their own approaches for identifying<br />
and learning lessons, but building and sustaining interoperability requires that these lessons are<br />
shared in order that unintended consequences (e.g. change that enhances the efficiency of single<br />
service operations but to the detriment of the effectiveness of joint operations) are minimised,<br />
and opportunities for greater interoperability are realised. This requires a commitment to sharing<br />
and prioritising lessons with implications for joint working.<br />
Lesson identification, dissemination and the development of subsequent action plans to make<br />
and embed change should be undertaken through a formal debrief process managed by the<br />
Local Resilience Forum (LRF).Further work is being undertaken by JESIP as part of the legacy<br />
arrangements to ensure that lessons identified from joint working are referred to a national Tri-<br />
Service Governance Board for consideration. This will ensure that any associated action, either<br />
single or joint service, as a result of this joint learning of lessons, is made, and the changes<br />
embedded into how organisations operate and individuals behave. Part of this work will be<br />
to consider the opportunities for joint debriefs and how this can be facilitated and formally<br />
structured.
ANNEXES<br />
C. Operational Commander Roles and Responsibilities<br />
D. Tactical Commander Roles and Responsibilities<br />
E. Strategic Commander Roles and Responsibilities<br />
F. Strategic Coordination Group Roles and Responsibilities<br />
19
Annex C<br />
Operational Commander Roles & Responsibilities<br />
The over arching aim of the Operational Commander is to ensure rapid and effective actions are<br />
implemented that save lives, minimise harm and mitigate the incident. To achieve this you will<br />
need to:<br />
• Make an initial assessment of the situation and ensure appropriate resources are<br />
requested and where appropriate, that a declaration of a major incident takes place;<br />
• Have an understanding of the role of each agency in the effective management and<br />
coordination of victims, survivors and relatives;<br />
• Use the Joint Decision Model (JDM) to establish shared situational awareness by agreeing<br />
a common view of the situation, its consequences and potential outcomes and the actions<br />
required for its resolution;<br />
• Carry out a briefing at the earliest opportunity. Ensure the message is clear and<br />
commonly understood, at regular intervals;<br />
• Convene joint meetings and use the JDM to share and coordinate information, intelligence<br />
and operational plans, to ensure multi-agency compatibility and a clear understanding of<br />
the initial tactical priorities and ongoing tactics;<br />
• Using the JDM, maintain shared situational awareness through effective communication to<br />
all multi-agency organisations, to assist in the implementation of the operational plan;<br />
• Using the JDM, construct a joint action plan, and priorities necessary for its execution, in<br />
sufficient detail for each service to have a clear understanding of the other responders’<br />
future activities by nature, location and time. Understand all the multi-agency on-scene<br />
commander roles, core responsibilities, requirements and capabilities (including gaps);<br />
• Identify and agree the triggers, signals and arrangements for the emergency evacuation of<br />
the scene or area within it, or similar urgent control measures.<br />
• Using the JDM, conduct, record and share ongoing dynamic risk assessments, putting in<br />
place appropriate control measures with appropriate actions and review;<br />
• Understand how continually changing hazards/risks affect each organisation and work<br />
with your multi-agency colleagues to address these issues;<br />
• Ensure your legal and statutory responsibilities are met and action them in relation to the<br />
health, safety and welfare of individuals from your organisation during the response;<br />
• Make and share decisions within your agreed level of responsibility, being cognisant of<br />
consequence management, and disseminate these decisions for action to multi-agency<br />
colleagues;<br />
• Using the JDM, identify and action the challenges your organisation’s operational plan may<br />
cause multi-agency partners;<br />
• Determine whether the situation requires the activation of the next level of command<br />
support (Tactical Coordinating Group (TCG)) and make appropriate recommendation;<br />
• Update the Tactical Commander on any changes, including any variation in agreed multiagency<br />
tactics within their geographical/functional area of responsibility;<br />
20
• Ensure appropriate support at the scene by your organisation, in terms of communications<br />
operatives and loggists - if available NILO support or equivalent should be provided. The<br />
amount and type of support will be determined by the incident and requirements from the<br />
on scene commander;<br />
• Consider organisational post-incident procedures.<br />
21
Annex D<br />
Tactical Commander Key Roles and Responsibilities<br />
The overarching aim of the Tactical Commander is to ensure rapid and effective actions are<br />
implemented that save lives and reduce harm. The Joint Decision Model (JDM) should be used as<br />
the standing agenda for Tactical Co-ordinating Group (TCG) meetings. To achieve the overarching<br />
aim, you will need to:<br />
• Be aware of and understand the multi-agency command structure, commander roles,<br />
responsibilities, requirements and capabilities (including gaps) and monitor the on-scene<br />
command structure including functional roles;<br />
• Determine whether the situation merits the activation of the strategic level of coordination<br />
and recommend accordingly;<br />
• Establish a common view of the situation between the responder agencies. Initiate<br />
(if appropriate) and identify the chair of a multi-agency TCG meeting at the earliest<br />
opportunity, and then at regular intervals, to ensure shared situational awareness;<br />
• Construct and agree the overall joint intent, objectives and concept of operations for their<br />
achievement within a joint plan. At regular intervals assess and disseminate, through<br />
the appropriate communication links, the available information and intelligence to<br />
properly evaluate threats, hazards, vulnerabilities and own actions in order to establish<br />
and maintain multi-agency shared situational awareness and promote effective decision<br />
making;<br />
• Provide accurate and timely information to inform and protect communities, working with<br />
the media and utilising social media through a multi-agency approach;<br />
• Understand how continually changing threats and hazards affect each organisation and<br />
work with multi-agency colleagues to conduct joint dynamic risk assessments, putting in<br />
place appropriate mitigation and management arrangements to continually monitor and<br />
respond to the changing nature of emergencies for your organisation;<br />
• Ensure your legal and statutory responsibilities are met and doctrine considered in<br />
relation to the health, safety, human rights, data protection and welfare of individuals from<br />
your organisation during the response;<br />
• Share and co-ordinate operational plans to ensure multi-agency compatibility and<br />
understanding of both the initial tactical priorities and ongoing tactics;<br />
• Identify and agree a common multi-agency forward control point for all Operational<br />
Commanders and remain suitably located in order to maintain effective tactical command<br />
of the incident or operation and maintain shared situational awareness;<br />
• Manage and coordinate, where required, multi-agency resources and activities, providing a<br />
joined-up and directed response;<br />
• Liaise with relevant organisations to address the longer-term priorities of restoring<br />
essential services, and help to facilitate the recovery of affected communities;<br />
• Ensure that all tactical decisions made, and the rationale behind them, are documented<br />
in a decision log, to ensure that a clear audit trail exists for all multi-agency debriefs and<br />
future multi-agency learning;<br />
• Facilitate or make available debriefing facilities (supporting the Operational Commander<br />
and debriefing them).<br />
22
Annex E<br />
Strategic Commander Roles & Responsibilities<br />
• Protect life, property and the environment;<br />
• Set, review, communicate and update the strategy, based on available intelligence and the<br />
threat and risk;<br />
• Attend and possibly chair a Strategic Co-ordinating Group (SCG), if established, or consider<br />
the need to request that a SCG is set up;<br />
• Consult partner agencies and community groups when determining the strategy;<br />
• Become involved in making tactical level decisions, where appropriate;<br />
• Consider setting tactical parameters within which the Tactical Tier can work;<br />
• Become involved in briefings where appropriate;<br />
• Remain available to other agency Strategic or Tactical Tiers of Command, to ensure that<br />
appropriate communication mechanisms exist at a local, regional and national level;<br />
• Ensure that, where appropriate, command protocols are set, agreed and understood by all<br />
relevant parties;<br />
• Secure strategic resources in order to resolve the incident and prioritise the allocation of<br />
resources, where appropriate;<br />
• Ensure that there are clear lines of communication between Category 1 and 2 responders<br />
and appropriate agencies;<br />
• Review and ensure the resilience and effectiveness of the command team, identify the<br />
requirements for assistance from the wider resilience community and manage them<br />
accordingly;<br />
• Plan beyond the immediate response phase for recovering from the emergency and<br />
returning to normality;<br />
• Have overall responsibility within the command structure for health and safety, diversity,<br />
equality and human rights compliance and ensuring that relevant impact assessments are<br />
completed;<br />
• Identify the level of support needed to resolve the incident or operation and resource your<br />
agency’s response;<br />
• Have responsibility for the development of communication and media strategies;<br />
• Carry out a post-incident hot debrief, and debrief.<br />
23
Annex F<br />
Strategic Coordinating Group Roles & Responsibilities<br />
The purpose of an SCG (as set out in the non-statutory guidance contained in Emergency<br />
Response and Recovery) is to: take overall responsibility for the multi-agency management of<br />
the emergency and establish the policy and strategic framework within which lower levels of<br />
command and co-ordinating groups will work.The SCG will:<br />
• Determine and promulgate a clear strategic aim and objectives and review them regularly;<br />
• Establish a policy framework for the overall management of the event or situation;<br />
• Prioritise the requirements of the tactical tier and allocate personnel and resources<br />
accordingly;<br />
• Formulate and implement media handling and public communication plans, potentially<br />
delegating this to one responding agency; and<br />
• Direct planning and operations beyond the immediate response in order to facilitate the<br />
recovery process.<br />
The SCG does not have the collective authority to issue executive orders to individual responder<br />
agencies. Each organisation retains its own command authority and defined responsibilities, and<br />
exercises command of its own operations in the normal way. However, the co-ordinated direction<br />
and instructions that the SCG produce will be converted by each responder into appropriate<br />
commands down its own command structure and transmitted directly to all subordinate Tactical<br />
Co-ordinating Groups. These are well practised and understood arrangements that are used<br />
regularly across the country.<br />
It will normally, but not always, be the role of the police to co-ordinate activity with other<br />
organisations and therefore to chair the SCG. The police are particularly likely to field an SCG chair<br />
where there is an immediate threat to human life, a possibility that the emergency was a result of<br />
criminal or terrorist activity, or where there are significant public order implications. Under these<br />
circumstances, the same person may be the Police Strategic Commander and the SCG Chair. In<br />
other types of emergency, for instance certain health or maritime scenarios, an agency other than<br />
the police may initiate and lead the SCG.<br />
The SCG may take more than an hour to set up and obtain a clear picture of unfolding events. As a<br />
first priority it must formulate a strategy with key objectives that will encompass and provide focus<br />
for all of the activity of the responding organisations. To ensure that coordinated effort is enabled,<br />
even before the SCG first meets, a working strategy should be immediately available to promote<br />
priority actions. When the SCG meets and gains a full understanding of the situation, they should<br />
then review and amend the working strategy and adjust objectives and priorities as necessary. A<br />
working strategy that should be used as the default initial start point is provided overleaf, together<br />
with initial objectives and enabling actions for further consideration<br />
The SCG should be based at an appropriate location away from the scene. The location at which<br />
the SCG meets,with its supporting staff in place, is referred to as the Strategic Coordination<br />
Centre. This will usually, but not always be at the headquarters of the lead service or organisation<br />
24
(e.g. police headquarters). The location of meetings may change when another agency takes the<br />
lead for the Recovery Co-ordination Group when the focus moves from response to recovery.<br />
SCG STANDING STRATEGY AND MEETING AGENDA<br />
Standing Strategy to Enable the Immediate Response Activity to any<br />
Emergency Situation<br />
To contain the situation in order to save lives and limit the effect of both the direct consequences<br />
created by the emergency event and any indirect consequences caused by responder activity.<br />
Governing Objectives<br />
• Protect and preserve life;<br />
• Mitigate and minimise the impact of challenging events;<br />
• Maintain life support infrastructure and essential services;<br />
• Promote restoration and improvement activity in the aftermath of a challenging event.<br />
Enabling Activity<br />
The following activities will need to be in place to promote an effective response:<br />
• The creation and sharing of a Common Information Picture of unfolding events across all<br />
of the responding organisations;<br />
• Simplified procedures for making joint decisions and issue of timely direction;<br />
• Prioritisation of tasks;<br />
• Allocation of finite resources;<br />
• Cross boundary co-operation between partners.<br />
Functional Activities<br />
The governing objectives above are designed to encompass but not prioritise (that is the function<br />
of commanders at every level) the following list of activities:<br />
• Saving and preserving human life;<br />
• Relieving suffering;<br />
• Containing the emergency, limiting its escalation and spread;<br />
• Providing the public and businesses with warnings, information and advice;<br />
• Protecting the health and safety of responding personnel;<br />
• Safeguarding the environment;<br />
• As far as is reasonably practicable protecting property;<br />
• Maintaining or restoring critical activities;<br />
• Maintaining normal services at an appropriate level;<br />
• Promoting and facilitating self-help within the community;<br />
• Facilitating investigations and inquiries (by scene preservation, record keeping);<br />
• Facilitating the recovery of the community (including humanitarian assistance, economic<br />
infrastructure and environmental impacts);<br />
25
• Evaluating the response and recovery effort;<br />
• Identifying and taking action to implement lessons learnt;<br />
• Upholding the rule of law.<br />
26
SCG Meeting - Standing Agenda<br />
Preliminaries: Pre notified seating plan by organisation & name plates for attendees in place<br />
Item<br />
Lead<br />
1. Introductions (by exception and only where deemed necessary) Chair<br />
2. Declaration of items for urgent attention Chair<br />
3. Confirmation of decisions on urgent items Chair<br />
Adjourn as Necessary to Action Urgent Issues<br />
4. Situational briefing (including any clarifications or recent updates from Chief of Staff/<br />
attendees by exception onlyInformation Manager/Attendees<br />
5. Review and agree strategy and priorities Chair<br />
6. Review outstanding actions and their effect Chair<br />
i. Determine new strategic actions required<br />
ii. Allocate responsibility for agreed actions<br />
7. Confirm date and time of next meeting (alongside an established meeting rhythm)Chair<br />
Post Meeting: Distribute record of decisions, ensure decision log is<br />
updated & complete<br />
Sec/Chair<br />
27
JESIP<br />
JOINT EMERGENCY SERVICES<br />
INTEROPERABILITY PROGRAMME<br />
Working Together – Saving Lives<br />
JESIP website: www.jesip.org.uk<br />
JESIP email: jesip@homeoffice.x.gsi.gov.uk<br />
HO_02046_G
NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED<br />
Name of meeting: Professional Committee<br />
Date of meeting: 13 November 2013<br />
Item lead at meeting: Rob Beckley<br />
Agenda item number: 9<br />
Title of paper: Volunteer PCSOs/Patrolling Volunteers<br />
1. Issue<br />
1.1 The purpose of this paper is to brief the Professional Committee on the<br />
options in respect of the setting up of “Volunteer PCSOs” and other patrolling<br />
volunteer schemes. It focuses in particular on the issues concerning powers<br />
that could be assigned to such roles. It seeks the endorsement of the<br />
Professional Committee for an approach to Government to ensure there is<br />
legislative under-pinning of any powers that might be used by volunteer<br />
PSCOs.<br />
2. Recommendations<br />
2.1 It is recommended that the:<br />
<br />
Professional Committee support the concept of volunteer PCSOs if<br />
individual forces decide to pursue it as a policing option;<br />
Citizens in Policing Portfolio oversee this development to ensure<br />
consistency of approach and style;<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Home Office is engaged to determine whether there would be support for<br />
the limited trial of designation of powers to volunteer PCSOs in one or<br />
more forces;<br />
Citizens in Policing Portfolio approach the Home Office to ensure the issue<br />
of powers is addressed by them in any future legislation; and the<br />
College of Policing carries out an analysis of the powers that are deemed<br />
most relevant and useful. This could include evidence of the extent and<br />
frequency of the use of current PCSO powers, especially in rural areas.<br />
3. Summary<br />
3.1 There is a growing appetite for the development of a patrolling volunteer<br />
that broadens the Citizens in Policing Programme.<br />
NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED<br />
Professional Committee Date 13 November 2013:<br />
Agenda Item No. 9<br />
Author: DCC Rob Beckley, Co- Author DCC Michael Banks<br />
Version 1
NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED<br />
3.2 With the introduction of Police and Crime Commissioners there are many<br />
that want to broaden active citizenship in policing. A number have made a<br />
commitment to increase visibility in a time of reducing resource. Some have<br />
talked about developing patrolling volunteers and have talked about<br />
developing this concept regardless of whether it is taken up more widely in<br />
the service. It is, of course, a matter for individual Chief Constables and<br />
PCCs to adopt the options available that provide the best benefit to their<br />
individual communities and force areas.<br />
3.3 The law relating to accreditation of powers and its relevance to volunteers is<br />
unclear. There is a fundamental issue as to whether volunteers can be given<br />
designated powers. Home Office and College of Policing legal advice has<br />
suggested that there is a risk if current powers under CSAS or PCSO<br />
legislation are extended to include volunteers.<br />
The Concept – Features and Powers<br />
3.4 The concept of uniformed patrolling volunteers is usually articulated as<br />
including the following features:<br />
I. Visible Reassurance: The volunteers must be a visible presence. They<br />
must embody the concept of communities helping themselves whilst<br />
maintaining a clear link to the Policing Family.<br />
II. Police Direction and Control: They should be uniformed and be<br />
directed and controlled by the police, or have the ability to be directed<br />
and controlled by the police.<br />
III. Ability to deal with low level issues: Mirroring the PCSO role, these<br />
volunteers should have powers to deal with issues as necessary. They<br />
must have the resource that allows them to do the job they have been<br />
asked to do.<br />
IV. Accountability: The volunteers must be committed and accountable to<br />
their communities, creating an extension to the existing Police<br />
Volunteer Family.<br />
3.5 Setting up a patrolling volunteer cohort in policing in effect provides a ‘third<br />
pillar’ of volunteering within the Police 1 :<br />
Police Officers<br />
Police Staff<br />
PCSOs<br />
Special Constabulary<br />
Police Support Volunteers<br />
[Patrolling Volunteer]<br />
1 Direct Volunteering – directed and controlled. This differentiates between this form of volunteering and links<br />
to the Voluntary Sector.<br />
NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED<br />
Professional Committee Date: 13 November 2013<br />
Agenda Item No. 9<br />
DCC Rob Beckley, Co- Author DCC Michael Banks<br />
Version 1
NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED<br />
3.6 There is a consistent view that any volunteer PCSOs (or similar concept)<br />
should have limited powers. There are three types of designated power that<br />
could be considered:<br />
S.38 Police Reform Act – provides for the designation of powers to,<br />
amongst others, PCSOs. Legislation requires that the CC appoints<br />
as a ‘member of staff’. Whilst there is no definition of ‘member of<br />
staff’, Home Office legal advice suggested that the wording of the<br />
Act suggests this requires them to be an employee.<br />
S.<strong>41</strong> Police Reform Act – commonly known as CSAS – provides for the<br />
accreditation of organisations other than the police for the purposes<br />
of community safety. It allows individuals to be accredited with<br />
relevant powers, necessary to achieve their role. It also requires<br />
that they are employees.<br />
<br />
Special Constables – attested as regular constables. They hold<br />
officer under legislation and are paid an allowance, but not salaried.<br />
They have full officer powers.<br />
3.7 Providing volunteers with powers has recently been pioneered by the<br />
National Crime Agency. The NCA has created volunteers, some with powers.<br />
They have used legislation to establish ‘NCA Specials’; these Volunteers are<br />
called ‘unpaid employees’, they operate under contracts of employment and<br />
are subject to similar direction and control that applies to their paid staff.<br />
These have, however, been created through primary legislation which does<br />
not apply to the wider public service.<br />
Options:<br />
Option 1 – Maintaining Volunteer Street Patrols without powers<br />
3.8 The option of Patrolling Volunteers without designated powers remains<br />
popular in many parts of the UK. They provide visibility and reassurance to<br />
communities without training, legal or cost implications.<br />
3.9 Existing examples may be adapted to other disciplines; Rural Community<br />
Watch in Avon and Somerset Constabulary for example provides volunteer<br />
reassurance on horseback. This has proven to be very successful, assisted<br />
with events and missing persons searches without the need for delegated<br />
powers.<br />
3.10 However, this is felt to be insufficient for some forces who wish to create<br />
volunteer PCSOs. It may be a suitable ‘temporary solution’ whilst any<br />
necessary primary legislation is sought – in the East Midlands Region,<br />
Lincolnshire and Northamptonshire have offered to run a trial that would also<br />
provide weight to any argument surrounding the need for powers.<br />
Option 2 – Accredited Volunteers<br />
NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED<br />
Professional Committee Date: 13 November 2013<br />
Agenda Item No. 9<br />
DCC Rob Beckley, Co- Author DCC Michael Banks<br />
Version 1
NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED<br />
3.11 This concept currently operates in the form of Auxiliary Community<br />
Protection Officers in Nottinghamshire. The uniformed officers are accredited<br />
under CSAS. Though volunteers, they are designated with a wide range of<br />
powers according to need. They sit under the Local Authority and<br />
predominantly deal with environmental issues, though have powers to deal<br />
with similar issues to PCSOs.<br />
3.12 The legality of this concept is currently under review.<br />
3.13 This option does not allow the volunteer to sit directly within the police, but<br />
affords all the powers and other considerations required within the<br />
aforementioned ‘primary features’. By not sitting within the police, there is<br />
also a potential cost share between the police and Local Authority.<br />
3.14 The individuals cannot be directed and controlled by the police, CSAS does<br />
not permit this. They would therefore need to be directed by Local Authority.<br />
3.15 There is an alternative within this concept to host these volunteers within<br />
the Voluntary/Community Sector, as opposed to Local Authority.<br />
Option 3 – Volunteer PCSOs<br />
3.16 This concept provides an option sitting directly within the Police Family,<br />
exercising the same powers and carrying the same responsibilities as paid<br />
PCSOs.<br />
3.17 Following legal advice there is debate over whether legislation would be<br />
required to enable their introduction. This would be a long term option if<br />
primary legislation is required, based on the standard timescales for primary<br />
legislation change.<br />
3.18 The cost for such an option would sit with the police, but will be solely<br />
directed and controlled by the police. Such direction and control is a<br />
favoured option amongst, for example, Lincolnshire in setting out their<br />
expectations of the concept.<br />
Option 4 – Second Tier of Special Constabulary<br />
3.19 Within the Special Constabulary sit more powers than are required within this<br />
concept. However, the thrust behind the concept is to achieve an old style<br />
‘Parish Constable’. This sits as easily within a modified Special Constabulary<br />
as within the Citizens in Policing Portfolio.<br />
3.20 There are two ways to achieve this: limiting powers conferred upon them<br />
(requiring changes to primary legislation); or limiting their deployment (SCs<br />
would still be obliged to use their powers as necessary) operating in a similar<br />
way to the current ‘Beat Manager’.<br />
NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED<br />
Professional Committee Date: 13 November 2013<br />
Agenda Item No. 9<br />
DCC Rob Beckley, Co- Author DCC Michael Banks<br />
Version 1
NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED<br />
3.21 To designate fewer powers on a Special Constable again requires changes to<br />
primary legislation; this would solely be a deployment option for an<br />
expanded Special Constabulary.<br />
3.22 Given the hard work in developing a more professional consistency this<br />
option is not favoured by the Special Constabulary or the Workforce<br />
Development Business Area.<br />
Cost<br />
3.23 Volunteering is not free, but offers excellent value for money and further<br />
qualitative benefits. Any decision would require careful assessment of the<br />
infrastructure requirements to properly support these volunteers.<br />
The key issue – can a volunteer be an employee?<br />
3.24 There is no clear legal view on whether volunteers can be deemed an<br />
“employee” and thus take on current powers. A previous Supreme Court<br />
Case 2 stated that an individual was not an employee for the purposes of the<br />
case as they didn’t have a contract. The judgement did not go on to say<br />
whether a volunteer can be contracted. This is still unclear.<br />
3.25 Therefore, it may be that ‘volunteer’ and ‘employee’ are mutually exclusive<br />
terms and there are many complications surrounding this argument.<br />
Certainly, the PSV Programme historically maintained the distinction<br />
between volunteers and employees to prevent legal challenge 3<br />
3.26 Any volunteering ‘solution’ that involves a ‘contract of employment’, or<br />
conditions that create and employer/employee relationship will be subject to<br />
liabilities incumbent upon the police service or host organisation that need to<br />
be carefully considered. These liabilities include rights over unfair dismissal,<br />
employment relations act, working time directive, anti-discrimination<br />
legislation, and health and safety legislation. It is questionable though<br />
whether this would concern a force, that would hopefully welcome proper<br />
treatment of their volunteers.<br />
3.27 If a contracted volunteer is deemed to be an employee under the Minimum<br />
Wage Act, for example, they would not fit the exclusion under s.44, and<br />
therefore, they would have to be paid as an employee. If they are classed as<br />
a volunteer they may not satisfy the ‘employee’ requirements for accredited<br />
powers and therefore, any power exercised may be illegal.<br />
3.28 If a force were to accredit or designate powers, it creates a risk. Legal advice<br />
suggests it would be a waiting game for a legal challenge of any concept, but<br />
if successful the results could foreseeably require repayment of any illegally<br />
issued fines, dependent on the judgement.<br />
2 Sussex CAB<br />
3 PSVs have taken Forces to Court on two times to our knowledge – both failed due to not being able to prove<br />
and employer/ee relationship. Additionally, the RNLI in some cases store all their volunteer documents in a<br />
separate room to their employees documents, such is their sensitivity to this.<br />
NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED<br />
Professional Committee Date: 13 November 2013<br />
Agenda Item No. 9<br />
DCC Rob Beckley, Co- Author DCC Michael Banks<br />
Version 1
NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED<br />
Other risks<br />
3.29 Variations in practice: Differing options may create a confusing landscape.<br />
Individual forces may implement different solutions or lobby independently<br />
for legislative change.<br />
3.30 Concerns over Job Substitution: The risk often raised by many on hearing<br />
the term ‘volunteer PCSO’ is that it is a backdoor way to make PCSOs<br />
redundant. If anything the commitment of PCCs and Chief Constables<br />
indicate the opposite intention. The longstanding principle of the PSV<br />
programme is that ‘Volunteers provide additionally, not job substitution’.<br />
3.31 Reputation: The legal issues surrounding these options could result in a risk<br />
for the reputation of the police service. The CSAS scheme has been<br />
controversial in the past and this could be extended to a volunteer patrolling<br />
scheme especially if it is not placed within a clear legal framework. Also,<br />
while PCSOs are now lauded as a cornerstone of Neighbourhood Policing in<br />
the vast majority of public media and forums, there is a risk that<br />
volunteering might re-ignite the debate of ‘policing on the cheap’.<br />
4. Supporting information / Consideration<br />
4.1 The idea of a “volunteer PCSO” was raised in the Flanagan Report in 2008. At<br />
the time the idea did not gain a lot of traction. Proposals were discussed with<br />
Ministers but there was not an appetite to change legislation or risk any<br />
dispute with unions.<br />
4.2 In the intervening period there has been an increase in citizen patrols such as<br />
Street Watch (linked closely with the Police and established in 19 forces) and<br />
Street Pastors and Angels (faith based and more independent of the police).<br />
4.3 Since the election of Police and Crime Commissioners, there has been much<br />
more debate around this idea, especially the concept of volunteer PCSOs.<br />
Some PCCs are keen on the idea of volunteer PCSOs, whilst others mooted<br />
the idea of Parish Constables or community patrols with limited powers. The<br />
PCC of Lincolnshire, for example, has publically pledged to develop a<br />
volunteer PCSO scheme and other PCCs are very interested in the idea.<br />
4.4 Those who wish to develop such schemes have a consistent vision based on<br />
the provision of opportunities for volunteer members of the public being<br />
active, visible on the streets, and empowered to make our communities safer.<br />
There is not, however, consensus on the actual solution.<br />
4.5 This paper seeks the support of the Professional Committee, and is also<br />
intended to be submitted to the next Chief Constables Council meeting for<br />
further approval.<br />
NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED<br />
Professional Committee Date: 13 November 2013<br />
Agenda Item No. 9<br />
DCC Rob Beckley, Co- Author DCC Michael Banks<br />
Version 1
NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED<br />
Author name:<br />
DCC Rob Beckley, Co- Author DCC Michael Banks<br />
(Following CiPP portfolio handover and update)<br />
Author job title: Chief Operating Officer, College of Policing<br />
(DCC Michael Banks: National Policing Lead for Citizens<br />
in Policing)<br />
Author email:<br />
Rob.Beckely@college.pnn.police.uk<br />
(Michael.Banks@durham.pnn.police.uk)<br />
Author tel. number: (0191 375 2265)<br />
Sponsor:<br />
Chief Constable Simon Cole (National Lead Local<br />
Policing & Partnership Business Area.<br />
NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED<br />
Professional Committee Date: 13 November 2013<br />
Agenda Item No. 9<br />
DCC Rob Beckley, Co- Author DCC Michael Banks<br />
Version 1
NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED<br />
Name of meeting: Professional Committee<br />
Date of meeting: 13 th November 2013<br />
Item lead at meeting: Karen Daber<br />
Agenda item number: 10<br />
Title of paper: Integrity Programme Update November 2013<br />
1 Issue – provision of an update on the Integrity Programme<br />
2 Recommendations<br />
2.1 That the Professional Committee endorses progress made to date, and raises any<br />
significant issues for consideration by the Programme Team.<br />
3 Summary<br />
3.1 The Code of Ethics was launched for public consultation on 24 th October 2013 (copy of<br />
the draft Code is attached at Annex A).<br />
3.2 The first draft of the literature review to identify what works to reduce wrongdoing in<br />
policing and non-policing organisations has been delivered as part of the Evidence Base<br />
Workstream.<br />
3.3 Professor Shirley Pearce and Alex Marshall attended the Home Affairs Select Committee<br />
(HASC) to give evidence about integrity and ethics. To date one recommendation has<br />
been received which is being considered by the programme team.<br />
3.4 The programme will produce a report summarising the phase 1 deliverables and the<br />
lessons learned.<br />
3.5 Scoping for phase 2 of the programme is underway, this will include National<br />
implementation.<br />
4 Supporting information / Consideration<br />
4.1 The implementation strategy and plan will include feedback from the public and forcelevel<br />
consultation. It will also be informed by work ongoing with this year’s Strategic<br />
Command Course delegates who have been assigned a piece of work that will involve<br />
devising a plan to promote higher levels of integrity and ethics within their<br />
organisations.<br />
4.2 Update on the force-level internal questionnaire on the Code of Ethics: so far there have<br />
been 212 responses to the questionnaire. There are currently 16 forces who have<br />
responded. This includes five responses from chief officers. We have 39 responses<br />
Professional Committee Date: 7 th November 2013<br />
Agenda Item No. 10<br />
Author: Karen Daber
from the Met, which comparative to the size of the force, is not very many. The largest<br />
response has come from police staff, 64 responses, followed by PCs, 61 responses. The<br />
responses are currently being analysed to identify themes to inform the next<br />
implementation phase.<br />
4.3 The College Integrity mail box has received 74 emails about the Code of Ethics.<br />
4.4 The draft national Code of Practice for Vetting is with subject matter experts for<br />
feedback. Legal opinion is being sought on the code. The College of Policing will review<br />
its own internal management and security vetting accordingly. This work is advancing<br />
to provide additional clarity and consistency for vetting of chief officers and those<br />
aspiring to senior rank, as is revised guidance over the detail supporting flagstone<br />
markers on the Police National Database.<br />
4.5 CPOSA, DCC David Griffin, has been consulted over vetting of chief officers and has<br />
considered the proposals and has no issues.<br />
4.6 Consultation to date indicates there has been broad support for the proposal of a two<br />
tier register of “struck off” officers. Legal opinion is being sought, particularly as to<br />
whether the misconduct regime still applies if an officer resigns or retires.<br />
4.7 A single national register will be compiled from data gathered from Heads of<br />
Professional Standards departments. This single national register will be held internally.<br />
Only after such time that the relevant and appropriate legal safeguards have been<br />
received will names be made publicly available.<br />
4.8 A web-page is being developed that provides accessibility and transparency for chief<br />
officer reward packages, gifts and hospitality and business interests.<br />
4.9 Body worn cameras: there has been a great deal of interest to take part in the trials. A<br />
follow-up meeting has been arranged with the Metropolitan Police Service on the scope<br />
of Body Worn Video trials in London. Body Worn Video trials to support Essex in relation<br />
to domestic abuse have been agreed. The College Research Analysis and Information<br />
Unit continue to progress this work.<br />
4.10 The Workforce Development Workstream has undertaken preparatory work in the form<br />
of focus groups with operational officers and will extend this to embed the Code of<br />
Ethics within recruitment, retention and progression in the police service.<br />
4.11 Work is progressing towards a 360° feedback system to further promote and embed<br />
integrity; to explore and encourage mentoring and coaching schemes, particularly for<br />
chief officers; and to benchmark and provide guidance for chief officer PDRs. A<br />
substantial element of this workstream is ensuring integrity is a focus on all College of<br />
Policing products and services.<br />
Author name:<br />
Karen Daber<br />
Author job title: Senior Responsible Owner<br />
Author email:<br />
Karen.daber@college.pnn.police.uk<br />
Author tel number: Programme Office: 0203 113 7959<br />
Email: Integrity.Team@college.pnn.police.uk<br />
Sponsor:<br />
Home Secretary<br />
Professional Committee Date: 7 th November 2013<br />
Agenda Item No. 10<br />
Author: Karen Daber
NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED<br />
Name of meeting: Professional Committee<br />
Date of meeting: 13 November 2013<br />
Item lead at meeting: Alex Marshall<br />
Agenda item number: 11<br />
Title of paper:<br />
College of Policing Consultation Process for Regulations and Codes<br />
of Practice<br />
1. Issue<br />
1.1 To seek approval for a proposed Consultation Group and consultation process for<br />
introducing Regulations, Codes of Practice and relevant guidance as defined in the Anti-<br />
Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill.<br />
2. Recommendation<br />
2.1 That the Professional Committee:<br />
approves the proposed establishment of a Consultation Group as outlined in this<br />
paper; and<br />
notes that a more detailed proposal and draft Terms of Reference will be presented<br />
to the Professional Committee in January 2014.<br />
3. Summary<br />
3.1 This paper sets out the approach to consultation that the College of Policing intends to<br />
take, should the proposed powers in the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill<br />
gain Royal Assent. Those powers relate to the College developing or revising Police<br />
Regulations, guidance and Codes of Practice, as defined within the legislation.<br />
3.2 The development of Police Regulations is currently overseen by the Police Advisory<br />
Board of England and Wales (PABEW), at which the staff associations and other<br />
stakeholders negotiate a position to present to the Home Secretary. The transfer of<br />
powers to the College require the establishment of a new consultation body and<br />
process to support the development and implementation of Regulations, Codes of<br />
Practice and relevant guidance.<br />
3.3 All of those consulted have agreed that early and inclusive consultation results in better<br />
Regulations that are robust and workable.<br />
4. Supporting information / Consideration<br />
4.1 The Current position<br />
Professional Committee Date: 22/01/2014<br />
Agenda Item No. 11<br />
Author: David Hardcastle
4.2 The Police Act 1996 confers a power on the Home Secretary to issue police Regulations<br />
and Codes of Practice to chief officers and, where necessary, to make regulations<br />
regarding police practice or procedure.<br />
4.3 Under current arrangements these Regulations and Codes of Practice are developed<br />
and enacted by the Home Office and a formal consultation process for Regulations<br />
takes place through the PABEW. Part 10 of the current Bill transfers to the College<br />
some of the responsibilities now exercised by PABEW and PABEW will, therefore, no<br />
longer be the consultation body.<br />
5. The Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill<br />
5.1 Part 10 of the Bill confers upon the College a range of statutory powers that will enable<br />
it to meet its objectives. They are related to:<br />
the preparation of Police Regulations that the Home Secretary will make;<br />
the issuing of Codes of Practice, with the approval of the Home Secretary; and<br />
the issuing of guidance relating to police staff and contractors.<br />
Further detail is attached as Annex A.<br />
5.2 The College is required to consult with the National Crime Agency on draft Regulations,<br />
but the Bill does not set out any procedure for consultation with staff associations,<br />
unions or any other interested parties in the development of the Regulations, Codes of<br />
Practice or guidance as defined by the Bill.<br />
6. Decision Making Process<br />
6.1 The Board Ways of Working and Professional Committee Terms of Reference make<br />
clear that the Board has not delegated authority to the Professional Committee to sign<br />
off draft Regulations, Codes of Practice or guidance (as defined in the Bill). All such<br />
products must be approved by the Board. As with other work of the Professional<br />
Committee, the Chief Constables’ Council will have a role in considering operational<br />
implementation.<br />
6.2 The College’s decision making processes also includes referral to PCCs, particularly in<br />
relation to issues of resources and PCCs are represented on the Professional<br />
Committee. The College is seeking the views of the Police and Crime Commissioners on<br />
how best to gather their views and contributions in the development of Regulations,<br />
Codes of Practice and guidance.<br />
6.3 It is proposed that the relevant national policing Business Areas would lead the work<br />
on the development of the draft products. (For the Regulations and guidance, this<br />
would largely be the Workforce Development Business Area). As the Business Areas<br />
and their Portfolios and Working Groups are becoming more representative of the<br />
service and its partners, the project teams developing new products would include a<br />
range of perspectives ,such as Police and Crime Commissioners, members of staff<br />
associations and unions, representatives of relevant third sector bodies and<br />
government departments, as appropriate.<br />
Professional Committee Date: 13 November 2013<br />
Agenda Item No. 11<br />
Author: David Hardcastle
6.4 The project team will consult with the Consultation Group collate the feedback. A<br />
summary of these views would be included when the draft Regulation, Code or<br />
guidance was submitted to the Professional Committee for consideration.<br />
7. Consultation Process<br />
7.1 In the development of Regulations and Codes of Practice, there will be many different<br />
perspectives to consider and the consultation process needs to be inclusive of the key<br />
stakeholders, including PCCs and their teams.<br />
7.2 In the new landscape that includes a police pay review body, the Police Advisory Board<br />
and the College of Policing, we need to develop clear links between the various<br />
consultation groups. The frequency, membership and scope for each will need to fit its<br />
individual purpose but, as the responsibilities of each body impact on operational<br />
policing, they must all be aware of each others' work.<br />
7.3 The Business Area should seek the involvement of the College Consultation Group (see<br />
below) at an early stage and actively consider their feedback before submitting draft<br />
Regulations, Codes or guidance to the Professional Committee.<br />
7.4 The Professional Committee will ensure that it considers the summary of any<br />
consultation when making any recommendation to the College Board.<br />
7.5 Where the Professional Committee feels they would benefit from further information<br />
from the consultative group they will request this via the relevant national policing<br />
Business Area lead.<br />
7.6 The College Board will also ensure that it considers the summary of any consultation<br />
when making any decision and before it seeks approval from the Home Secretary to<br />
amend or introduce a new Regulation or Code of Practice.<br />
7.7 Where the College Board feels they would benefit from further information from the<br />
Consultation Group they will request this via the College Chief Executive.<br />
8. College of Policing Consultative Group<br />
8.1 Terms of Reference<br />
8.1.1 Recognising the complexity of the consultation landscape, it is necessary to define the<br />
scope and role of this group. Clear terms of reference will set out the scope of the<br />
consultation, frequency of the meetings, requirements for the Chair and membership of<br />
the Group. Whilst this paper focuses on the College Consultation Group, we recognise<br />
that there is likely to be a requirement to establish more specific technical advisory<br />
groups for specific issues.<br />
8.2 Scope<br />
8.2.1 The proposed scope of this Consultation Group includes consultation on :<br />
<br />
<br />
the amendment or development of new Police Regulations;<br />
the development or revision of Codes of Practice; and<br />
Professional Committee Date: 13 November 2013<br />
Agenda Item No. 11<br />
Author: David Hardcastle
the issuing of guidance regarding the qualifications, experience and training for<br />
police staff and contractors.<br />
8.2.2 The Group must be able to influence the development of new or revised Regulations,<br />
Codes of Practice and guidance. It will be a consultative group, rather than a<br />
negotiating body and may not always reach consensus. This is acceptable and the<br />
different views should be included within the consultation summary that will be<br />
submitted to the Professional Committee and College Board.<br />
8.2.3 The Consultative Group will have no responsibility for matters relating to pay and<br />
conditions. These will fall within the scope of other bodies.<br />
8.3 Frequency<br />
8.3.1 The experience of those involved in the PNB is that regular meetings are beneficial and,<br />
therefore, the consultation group should meet at least three times a year.<br />
8.4 Chair<br />
8.4.1 To ensure a consistent approach to the consultation process and to provide the College<br />
Board with confidence in the process, the view of the stakeholders is that the Chair of<br />
the Consultative Group should be independent of the police but be knowledgeable<br />
about policing.<br />
8.4.2 It has been suggested that the Chair could be one of the independent members of the<br />
College Board or another individual independent of the College.<br />
8.5 Membership<br />
8.5.1 The group needs to ensure that it is representative of the key stakeholders. The<br />
Consultation Group members could be:<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Police and Crime Commissioners;<br />
Association of Chief Police Officers;<br />
Police Federation of England and Wales;<br />
Superintendents Association of England and Wales;<br />
Chief Police Officers Staff Association;<br />
Police Staff representation; and<br />
Association of Special Constabulary Chief Officers.<br />
8.5.2 The Home Office are not currently listed as members of the Consultation Group, but<br />
they will play a key role in ensuring the regulation or Code of Practice satisfies the<br />
requirements of the Home Secretary when laying it before parliament. A separate<br />
process will be put in place to manage this.<br />
Professional Committee Date: 13 November 2013<br />
Agenda Item No. 11<br />
Author: David Hardcastle
9. Consultation on this proposal<br />
9.1 On 25 September 2013, the College wrote to all Police and Crime Commissioners<br />
(through the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners), Police Superintendents’<br />
Association Police Federation, Association of Chief Police Officers, Local Government<br />
Association and the Independent Chair of the PAB seeking their views on this<br />
consultation process.<br />
9.2 To date, responses have been received from the Police Superintendents’ Association,<br />
Police Federation, Local Government Association, Association of Chief Police Officers<br />
and Independent Chair of PAB. Their feedback has been incorporated into the proposals<br />
within this report.<br />
9.3 The one area where there has not been complete agreement is in relation to the Chair<br />
of the group. All believe the Chair should be independent, but views are split as to<br />
whether they should be independent of the College or an independent member of the<br />
College Board. Those who have responded have stated they would be prepared to work<br />
with either approach.<br />
10. Next steps<br />
10.1 Subject to the approval of the Professional Committee, a more detailed proposal, draft<br />
Terms of Reference will be developed and brought back to the Professional Committee<br />
in January 2014, before submitting to the College Board for approval.<br />
Author name:<br />
David Hardcastle<br />
Author job title: College of Policing<br />
Author email:<br />
david.hardcastle@hampshire.pnn.police.uk<br />
Author tel number: 07881 850315<br />
Sponsor (if not Author): CC Alex Marshall<br />
Professional Committee Date: 13 November 2013<br />
Agenda Item No. 11<br />
Author: David Hardcastle
ANNEX A<br />
DETAIL OF PROPOSED POWERS<br />
1. Regulations<br />
The College will have the power to prepare Police Regulations in respect of:<br />
i. the ranks held by police officers and special constables<br />
ii. the qualifications required for appointment to and promotion within police forces<br />
and special constabulary<br />
iii. the period of probation for police officers and special constables<br />
iv. the maintenance of personal records of members of police forces and special<br />
constabulary<br />
v. police training<br />
vi. the qualifications for deployment to perform particular tasks<br />
vii. police practice and procedure.<br />
The power to make specific regulations remains with the Home Secretary. If the<br />
College submits draft regulations on the matters listed above, the Bill provides that the<br />
Home Secretary will make those regulations unless she considers that:<br />
i. doing so would impair the efficiency or effectiveness of the police<br />
ii. it would be unlawful to do so or<br />
iii. it would for some other reason be wrong to do so.<br />
2. Codes of Practice<br />
The College will have the power to issue, with the approval of the Home Secretary,<br />
Codes of Practice relating to chief officers’ discharge of their functions if the College<br />
consider that it is necessary:<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
to promote the efficiency and effectiveness of police forces generally<br />
to facilitate the carrying out of joint or co-ordinated operations between forces or<br />
for any other reason in the national interests.<br />
3. Guidance<br />
As the College will also set standards for police staff and some staff working for third<br />
party contractors, the Bill also creates a new, narrower power to issue guidance in relation<br />
to the experience, qualifications and training of police staff and contractors. This guidance<br />
can be addressed to local policing bodies (PCCs) as well as Chief Officers. Guidance must<br />
be published, but is not subject to the requirements for HS approval and laying before<br />
Parliament that apply to codes.<br />
Professional Committee Date: 13 November 2013<br />
Agenda Item No. 11<br />
Author: David Hardcastle
NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED<br />
Name of meeting: Professional Committee<br />
Date of meeting: 13/11/2013<br />
Item lead at meeting: CC Sara Thornton<br />
Agenda item number: 13<br />
Title of paper: Gateway Group/APP Update<br />
1. Issue – This note provides an update from the last two Gateway Group meetings (17 th<br />
September and 14 th October) and highlights the products which are scheduled for the<br />
next Gateway Group meetings on November 19 th and December 18 th .<br />
2. Summary<br />
2.1 The following products were presented and discussed at the last two Gateway Group<br />
meetings:<br />
Product<br />
Lawful and Effective Use of Covert<br />
Techniques (APP)<br />
ACPO National DVI Strategy 2013 –<br />
2016 (Revised Strategy)<br />
ACPO Children and Young People<br />
Strategy 2013 – 2016 (Revised<br />
Strategy)<br />
Decision<br />
(17/09/13) Endorsed<br />
(17/09/13) Endorsed at meeting but<br />
also submitted to October’s Chiefs’<br />
Council for their endorsement.<br />
(17/09/13) This was not endorsed due<br />
to concerns over the content – it did<br />
not read as a strategy and their were<br />
also concerns over potential duplication<br />
with existing APP. This was<br />
communicated back to the portfolio who<br />
submitted the product.<br />
ACPO/CEOP Advice on the Use of Publicity<br />
in Missing Children Cases (Reference<br />
Material)<br />
ACPO/CEOP Child Rescue Alert Guidance<br />
(Reference Material – Revised Guidance)<br />
ACPO Guide to Investigating Child Deaths<br />
(Reference Material – Revised Guidance)<br />
(17/09/13) Endorsed as interim<br />
reference material pending inclusion<br />
into Violence and Public Protection APP.<br />
(17/09/13) Endorsed as reference<br />
material pending inclusion into Violence<br />
and Public Protection APP.<br />
(17/09/13) Endorsed as interim<br />
reference material pending inclusion<br />
into Violence and Public Protection APP.<br />
Professional Committee Date: 13 November 2013<br />
Agenda Item No. 13<br />
Author: Frank Pike
Information sharing agreement between<br />
Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Education<br />
Children’s Services and Skills and the<br />
Association of Chief Police Officers<br />
(Information Sharing Agreement)<br />
(17/09/13) This ISA was submitted to<br />
October’s Chiefs’ Council for<br />
endorsement.<br />
ACPO Data Protection: Manual of Guidance (14/10/13) Endorsed as interim<br />
Part 1 Standards (Reference Material – reference material pending inclusion<br />
Revised Guidance)<br />
into Information Management APP.<br />
2.2 The Gateway Group function will move into the College of Policing in 2014. It will still<br />
cover APP and ACPO products. The Chair has requested that the following papers are<br />
presented to the December (and final) Professional Practice Steering Group meeting for<br />
discussion:<br />
<br />
<br />
The College’s plans regarding Gateway Group function and membership;<br />
The College’s intentions regarding the licensing of APP.<br />
2.3 The following APP products are scheduled for endorsement at the next two Gateway<br />
Group meetings:<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Financial Investigation;<br />
Child Sexual Exploitation and Child Abuse (modules from Violence and Public<br />
Protection APP);<br />
Firearms Licensing.<br />
3. Recommendations<br />
3.1. The Professional Committee is invited to note this update.<br />
Author name:<br />
Frank Pike<br />
Author job title: Professional Practice Developer<br />
Author email:<br />
frank.pike@college.pnn.police.uk<br />
Author tel number: 07770 5973<strong>41</strong><br />
Sponsor (if not Author): CC Sara Thornton<br />
Professional Committee Date: 13 November 2013<br />
Agenda Item No. 13<br />
Author: Frank Pike
NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED<br />
Name of meeting: Professional Committee<br />
Date of meeting: 13 November 2013<br />
Item lead at meeting: Oliver Bolton<br />
Agenda item number: 14<br />
Title of paper: Secretariat Update<br />
1. Issue: Provides an update from the College Secretariat in relation to:<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Supporting Business Areas to map future work<br />
Clarifying the clearance and sign off routes<br />
Overview of new and emerging commissions<br />
2. Recommendations<br />
2.1 That the Committee notes:<br />
i) Continuing support for BAs to map their future programme of work;<br />
ii) Updated Commissioning and sign off map<br />
iii) The update on new and emerging commissions.<br />
3. Summary<br />
Forward planning of business area work<br />
3.1 At the first Professional Committee Heads of BAs helpfully shared their priorities over<br />
the forthcoming 24 months and in March a commitment was made to map these out<br />
into a forward look. To take forward this work, the College Secretariat has been<br />
consulting with BA staff officers to develop a template to easily capture the details of<br />
the priority pieces of work planned by Business Areas over the next 24 months. The<br />
template also captures areas that may require research and evaluation input from the<br />
College as well as the key risks facing each area in the near to medium term.<br />
3.2 Engagement with Business Areas on completing the template will be led by the<br />
College Business Area Partners with support from the College Secretariat and the<br />
Research, Analysis and Information Unit.<br />
Updated Commissioning and Sign-Off map<br />
3.3 A small focus group comprising staff officers, office of ACPO and College<br />
representatives has been working on a clearer way to represent the process by which<br />
work is commissioned and signed-off, whether at Business Area, Gateway Group or<br />
Professional Committee level. This is needed as there is currently a lack of clarity on<br />
where work should be routed, this can result in late engagement with the relevant<br />
leads / secretariats. Early engagement helps identify not only the correct pathway for<br />
the work to follow with the appropriate level of oversight, but also clarifies the need<br />
Professional Committee Date: 13 November 2013<br />
Agenda Item No. 14<br />
Author: Oliver Bolton
for the work, any wider interdependencies and possible evaluation options that might<br />
need to be built into the scope from the beginning.<br />
3.4 The output of this focus group was shared with the Business Area Leads’ staff officers<br />
meeting on 31 st October [and agreed and will be cascaded to all relevant<br />
stakeholders].<br />
4. Update on new and emerging commissions<br />
4.1 Annex 1 provides an overview of incoming requests to the College. There are<br />
currently three new and emerging commissions. Of these:<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Review of selection, training and support for undercover officers<br />
Review of training needs around stop and search<br />
Developing a College response to Lord Victor Adebowale report on<br />
recommendations on mental health.<br />
4.2 A number of other areas of work, including work around e-crime/ cyber/ fraud are<br />
currently being scoped into specific programmes of work for future consideration by<br />
the Professional Committee.<br />
Author name:<br />
Oliver Bolton<br />
Author job title: Secretariat Lead, College Corporate Governance<br />
Author email:<br />
oliver.bolton@college.pnn.police.uk<br />
Author tel number: 07525 988 644<br />
Sponsor (if not Author): Alex Marshall<br />
Professional Committee Date: 13 November 2013<br />
Agenda Item No. 14<br />
Author: Oliver Bolton
NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED<br />
No.<br />
Strategic<br />
Context<br />
Initial Contact Issue College / BA<br />
Lead(s)<br />
Initial Response<br />
Next Steps<br />
1<br />
2<br />
Link to<br />
Integrity<br />
Programme<br />
Importance<br />
of stop and<br />
search to<br />
ministers<br />
and the<br />
public<br />
NUWG 20/09/13<br />
Initial HO Enquiry<br />
(Jon de<br />
Sounsa/Jon<br />
Martin) 11/10/13<br />
Review of Selection, Training<br />
and Support for Undercover<br />
Officers<br />
Stop and Search: Package of<br />
training - IPLDP/Probationer<br />
training, standalone for existing<br />
substantive officers and<br />
refresher training. All should be<br />
assessed with failure resulting<br />
in an officer being unable to<br />
carry out stop and search<br />
Gordon<br />
Ryan/C.<br />
McGuigan<br />
College:<br />
Everett Henry<br />
& Helen<br />
Schofield<br />
BA:EDHR<br />
Reviewing HO request<br />
against work already<br />
underway and planned.<br />
Further meetings with Cmdr Richard Martin and<br />
Det Ch Supt Neil Hunter (HMIC) to discuss<br />
requirements due to announcement of HMIC<br />
inspection of all UC Units which may change<br />
original scope. Remit of work to be defined<br />
following this.<br />
Discussion with key stakeholders scheduled for<br />
18 th November.<br />
3<br />
Mental<br />
Health<br />
agenda<br />
Victor Adebowale<br />
report<br />
The Dept Health Concordat and<br />
the Lord Victor Adebowale<br />
report recommendations on<br />
Mental Health<br />
Everett Henry<br />
Cmr Jones<br />
Undertaking initial scoping<br />
work<br />
College Mental Health Group meeting is being<br />
arranged for Nov to provide time for the<br />
recommendations to be considered and agreed<br />
by Cmr Christine Jones, Home office and NHS<br />
England<br />
Professional Committee Date: 13 November 2013<br />
Agenda Item No. 14 Author: Oliver Bolton
Buckley, Claire (PA)<br />
From:<br />
APCCS Oliver Shaw <br />
Sent: 08 November 2013 13:53<br />
Subject:<br />
GR-A 110/2013: **RESTRICTED** Feedback from Mutual Aid Steering Group<br />
Attachments:<br />
301013 MUTUAL AID STEERING GROUP MEETING.pdf<br />
TO:<br />
CC:<br />
Police and Crime Commissioners<br />
Chief Executives<br />
APCC Secretariat<br />
Dear Police and Crime Commissioner<br />
GR‐A 110/2013: **RESTRICTED** Feedback from Mutual Aid Steering Group<br />
Please find attached feedback from Commissioners Jane Kennedy and Ian Johnston from the Mutual Aid Steering Group<br />
held on 30 October 2013. Commissioners Kennedy and Johnston are seeking feedback on the proposal that mutual aid<br />
be provided to Northern Ireland as the primary contingency for that Force. The attached note provides further<br />
background and detail. Please feel free to forward any comments to myself and I will pass them to Commissioners<br />
Kennedy and Johnston.<br />
Regards,<br />
Oliver<br />
Oliver Shaw|Senior Policy Advisor|The Association of Police and Crime Commissioners, APCC|07714399756| 2 nd Floor,<br />
10 Victoria Street, London, SW1H 0NN|www.apccs.police.uk<br />
Follow Us: Twitter @assocpccs<br />
Visit our website for quick links to the news you need to see today<br />
This communication may contain privileged and confidential information. Any views of opinions expressed are those of the originator and not necessarily those of<br />
the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners'.<br />
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,<br />
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<br />
immediately and delete it from your system.<br />
This communication may contain privileged and confidential information. Any views of opinions expressed are those of the originator and not necessarily those of<br />
the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners'.<br />
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,<br />
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<br />
immediately and delete it from your system.<br />
This communication may contain privileged and confidential information. Any views of opinions expressed are those of the originator and not necessarily those of<br />
the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners'.<br />
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,<br />
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<br />
immediately and delete it from your system.<br />
1
This communication may contain privileged and confidential information. Any views of opinions expressed are those of the originator and not necessarily those of<br />
the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners'.<br />
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,<br />
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<br />
immediately and delete it from your system.<br />
2
STEERING GROUP (2): Government Review of UK-wide Mutual Aid<br />
Arrangements<br />
HELD ON<br />
30 OCTOBER 2013 AT HOME OFFICE, MARSHAM STREET, LONDON<br />
Ian Johnston and Jane Kennedy represented the APCC at the Mutual Aid<br />
Steering Group meeting held on 30 October 2013. It would be helpful to have<br />
a steer from PCC colleagues regarding their views on the proposal that<br />
mutual aid be provided to NI as the primary contingency for that Force.<br />
The meeting was attended by a range of people, including Sir Hugh Orde and<br />
CC Ian Learmonth representing ACPO, CC Matt Baggott (PSNI), representatives<br />
from Scotland and Northern Ireland government and police forces, the<br />
Metropolitan Police, HMIC and was chaired by Stephen Rimmer with other<br />
Home Office officials in attendance.<br />
The group examined the UK-wide mutual aid reassurance requirements. The<br />
current reporting arrangements around significant mutual aid deployments<br />
(according to the briefing notes for the meeting) are:<br />
Unclear, who needs what and why;<br />
Inconsistent from event to event; and<br />
Variable in the nature of reassurance provided.<br />
The purpose of the meeting was to seek agreement to review the current UKwide<br />
arrangements to ensure future decisions are transparent, timely and<br />
provide appropriate levels of reassurance to all the relevant partners.<br />
A significant part of the meeting was taken up discussing the relationship<br />
between the Home Office, the Northern Ireland Office and the Northern<br />
Ireland Policing Board in relation to current and future staffing levels in PSNI.<br />
Matt Baggott, Chief Constable of PSNI feels he will be unable to appropriately<br />
staff the “Marching Season”, given his current staffing levels. He argued<br />
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<br />
position must be that PSNI can use the facilities of NPoCC to seek mutual<br />
aid and that this should be understood and agreed.<br />
Ian Learmonth provided an up-date on recent experience and argued that the<br />
operational aspects of providing mutual aid are working very well. There are<br />
sufficient numbers of public order trained officers and planning is in place to<br />
provide the extra training required to deliver mutual aid to Northern Ireland.<br />
The Police Federation of England and Wales have been fully consulted and<br />
have concerns regarding the safety of UK officers in the armed environment of<br />
NI.<br />
Whilst a good deal of the meeting focussed on providing mutual aid for<br />
Northern Ireland, the group also discussed the Commonwealth Games to be<br />
held in Scotland in 2014.<br />
In terms of implications for Police & Crime Commissioners reference was<br />
made to the requirement to sign-off the Section 60 forms. It was apparent<br />
that the ACPO view in the room was that decisions regarding mutual aid are<br />
very much operational matters which fall within the remit of a chief officer’s<br />
responsibilities. Both Ian and Jane agree with that but there are many<br />
implications which follow from a decision to become the contingency for<br />
mutual aid to Northern Ireland. This is also understood by Chief Officers and<br />
all sides look to a resolution of the dispute within Northern Ireland and<br />
Government about the resourcing of public order there.<br />
Whilst Forces recoup monies in relation to providing trained officers for mutual<br />
aid, there remains the question of officer absence from their home Forces. We<br />
understand that the funding of mutual aid is provided by the Force receiving<br />
the aid.<br />
There are two further meetings planned for this group.
Buckley, Claire (PA)<br />
From:<br />
APCCS Tania Eagle <br />
Sent: 08 November 2013 15:29<br />
Subject:<br />
GR-A 111/2013 (restricted): Police ICT Update<br />
Attachments:<br />
07 11 13 ICTConferenceCall notes v2.docx<br />
To:<br />
Cc:<br />
Police and Crime Commissioners<br />
Chief Executives<br />
APCC Team<br />
Dear Police and Crime Commissioners<br />
Please find attached the notes from the conference all that took place on Police ICT yesterday. Please note that this is<br />
subject to checking with the Home Office.<br />
Papers for the meeting on 14 th November will be provided on Tuesday.<br />
Please let me know if you have any queries.<br />
Regards<br />
Tania<br />
Tania Eagle|Business Director|The Association of Police and Crime Commissioners, APCC|07714399755 | 2 nd Floor, 10<br />
Victoria Street, London, SW1H 0NN|www.apccs.police.uk<br />
Follow Us: Twitter @assocpccs<br />
Visit our website for quick links to the news you need to see today<br />
This communication may contain privileged and confidential information. Any views of opinions expressed are those of the originator and not necessarily those of<br />
the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners'.<br />
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,<br />
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<br />
immediately and delete it from your system.<br />
This communication may contain privileged and confidential information. Any views of opinions expressed are those of the originator and not necessarily those of<br />
the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners'.<br />
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,<br />
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<br />
immediately and delete it from your system.<br />
1
Buckley, Claire (PA)<br />
From:<br />
APCCS Tania Eagle <br />
Sent: 12 November 2013 17:12<br />
Subject:<br />
GR-A 112/2013 (restricted): Launch of Independent Review of ACPO<br />
To:<br />
Cc:<br />
Police and Crime Commissioners<br />
Chief Executives<br />
APCC Team<br />
Dear Police and Crime Commissioners<br />
Following consultation between the ACPO Review Working Group and General Sir Nick Parker, it has been agreed that<br />
Sir Nick will publish his report at 4pm on Thursday 14 th November. All Police and Crime Commissioners will be sent an<br />
electronic copy of the report under strict embargo at 5pm on Wednesday.<br />
Before making their proposals, the ACPO Review Working Group would like to consult Police and Crime Commissioners,<br />
Chief Constables and other key national stakeholders. Therefore a closed session will be held for Police and Crime<br />
Commissioners only on Thursday between 1.30pm and 2.30pm at the St Ermin’s Hotel where the ACPO Review Working<br />
Group will talk through the main recommendations in the report and their initial observations.<br />
The Working Group Members are very happy to talk to any PCC not due to attend on Thursday beforehand, as a<br />
reminder, the Working Group Members are below:<br />
Labour – Jane Kennedy<br />
Conservative – Matthew Ellis<br />
Independent – Martyn Underhill<br />
Other Policing Governance Bodies – Simon Duckworth<br />
Finally, we have been informed by the Home Office that the Home Secretary expects to attend the event on Thursday<br />
over lunch at 1pm for half an hour.<br />
Please let me know if you have any queries.<br />
Regards<br />
Tania<br />
Tania Eagle|Business Director|The Association of Police and Crime Commissioners, APCC|07714399755 | 2 nd Floor, 10<br />
Victoria Street, London, SW1H 0NN|www.apccs.police.uk<br />
Follow Us: Twitter @assocpccs<br />
Visit our website for quick links to the news you need to see today<br />
1
This communication may contain privileged and confidential information. Any views of opinions expressed are those of the originator and not necessarily those of<br />
the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners'.<br />
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,<br />
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<br />
immediately and delete it from your system.<br />
This communication may contain privileged and confidential information. Any views of opinions expressed are those of the originator and not necessarily those of<br />
the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners'.<br />
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,<br />
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<br />
immediately and delete it from your system.<br />
2
Buckley, Claire (PA)<br />
From:<br />
APCCS Tania Eagle <br />
Sent: 13 November 2013 17:00<br />
Subject:<br />
GR-A 114/2013 (restricted): Independent Review of ACPO - Report<br />
Attachments:<br />
FINAL REPORT UNDER EMBARGO 12.11.13.pdf; ACPO Organisation Overview<br />
FINAL.pdf; General Sir Nick Parker KCB CBE - Biography.docx<br />
To:<br />
Cc:<br />
Police and Crime Commissioners<br />
Chief Executives<br />
APCC Team<br />
Dear Police and Crime Commissioners<br />
Please find attached a copy of the report by General Sir Nick Parker, commissioned by the ACPO Review Working<br />
Group. An enclosure to the report and a biography of Sir Nick are also attached.<br />
The report is under embargo until 4pm tomorrow, Thursday 14 th November.<br />
Please let me know if you have any queries.<br />
Regards<br />
Tania<br />
Tania Eagle|Business Director|The Association of Police and Crime Commissioners, APCC|07714399755 | 2 nd Floor, 10<br />
Victoria Street, London, SW1H 0NN|www.apccs.police.uk<br />
Follow Us: Twitter @assocpccs<br />
Visit our website for quick links to the news you need to see today<br />
This communication may contain privileged and confidential information. Any views of opinions expressed are those of the originator and not necessarily those of<br />
the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners'.<br />
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,<br />
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<br />
immediately and delete it from your system.<br />
This communication may contain privileged and confidential information. Any views of opinions expressed are those of the originator and not necessarily those of<br />
the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners'.<br />
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,<br />
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<br />
immediately and delete it from your system.<br />
1
APCC & Independent Review<br />
Organisation of the Association of Chief Police<br />
Officers (ACPO)<br />
THE PARTHENON GROUP<br />
Boston • London • Mumbai • San Francisco<br />
30 th October, 2013
Research Completed<br />
Background Information<br />
Parthenon’s Approach<br />
Primary Research Interviews Conducted<br />
• Parthenon were contacted to aggregate key financial<br />
and governance data from ACPO and its national<br />
units to support Sir Nick Parker’s report to PCCs<br />
• Parthenon leveraged warm leads provided by ACPO<br />
and National Unit contacts to set up calls with key<br />
stakeholders, and sourced further interviews through<br />
calls conducted<br />
• All information in this report has been provided by<br />
ACPO and National Units via calls and privately<br />
supplied documentation and has been verified by key<br />
ACPO stakeholders<br />
ACPO Central Representatives (n=2)<br />
• Ian Readhead, Interim CEO ACPO Central<br />
• David Murphy, ACPO Finance Manager<br />
APCC Representatives (n=2)<br />
• Mark Castle, APCC C-EO<br />
• Tania Eagle, Programme Manager, APCC<br />
National Unit Representatives (n=16)<br />
• Ian Readhead, Portfolio Lead Data<br />
Protection & <strong>FOI</strong><br />
• Supt. Jo Rogerson, Head of Unit, NPoCC<br />
• Chief Inspector Mark Wise, Head of Unit, <strong>FOI</strong><br />
• Chief Constable Simon Parr, Head of IMBA<br />
• DCI Gordon Roberts, Head of Unit, AVCIS<br />
• Richard Childs, Managing Director, CPI<br />
• Alan McInnes, General Manager, CPI<br />
• Dep. Chief Constable David Griffin, Vice<br />
Chair CPOSA<br />
• Jen Williams, National Co-ordinator, DVI<br />
• Chief Constable Jon Murphy, Head of Crime<br />
BA<br />
• Cdr Steve Rodhouse, Organised Crime<br />
Working Group<br />
• Detective Inspector Nevin Hunter, Head of<br />
Unit, NWCU*<br />
• Det. Chief Supt. Iain O’Brien, Head of Unit,<br />
NABIS<br />
• Chief Inspector Tracy Goddard-King, TAM<br />
• Susan Francis, Finance Advisor, ACRO<br />
• Senior Manager, ACRO<br />
DDYYCODE_##<br />
Note: * information submitted via email only<br />
Source: Parthenon Calls<br />
2
Agenda<br />
Overview of ACPO<br />
Overview by Unit<br />
DDYYCODE_##<br />
3
ACPO<br />
ACPO Core Functions<br />
CPOSA<br />
(Chief Police Officer<br />
Staff Association)<br />
ACPO<br />
National Unit (Private)<br />
National Unit<br />
ACPO Cost Centres<br />
Staff Association<br />
• Staff<br />
association for<br />
Chief Police<br />
Officers & those<br />
of equivalent<br />
rank<br />
NATIONAL OPERATIONAL<br />
POLICING SERVICES<br />
Provide governance, guidance & support for array<br />
of operational areas of policing on a national level<br />
PROFESSIONAL VOICE OF<br />
THE SERVICE<br />
Professional forum for CPOs to share ideas,<br />
expertise, best practice & co-ordinate resources<br />
CORPORATE FUNCTIONS<br />
‘ACPO Central’<br />
Administrative support for ACPO & select<br />
associated organisations<br />
AVCIS<br />
(ACPO Vehicle<br />
Crime Intelligence<br />
Services)<br />
CPI<br />
(Crime Prevention<br />
Initiatives)<br />
NaBIS<br />
(National Ballistics<br />
Intelligence Service)<br />
<strong>FOI</strong>- CRU<br />
(Freedom of<br />
Information Central<br />
Referral Unit)<br />
NWCU<br />
(National Wildlife<br />
Crime Unit)<br />
ACRO<br />
(ACPO Criminal<br />
Records Office)<br />
TAM<br />
(ACPO<br />
Terrorism & Allied<br />
Matters )<br />
NPoCC<br />
(National Police<br />
Coordination<br />
Centre)<br />
DVI<br />
(Disaster Victim<br />
Identification)<br />
• Reduces<br />
vehicle &<br />
vehicleenabled<br />
crime by<br />
building<br />
knowledge,<br />
data &<br />
insight in the<br />
vehicle crime<br />
management<br />
process<br />
• Supports<br />
crime<br />
reduction &<br />
prevention by<br />
promoting<br />
principles of<br />
‘Secured by<br />
Design’<br />
initiative for<br />
premises,<br />
products &<br />
services<br />
• Provides<br />
support to<br />
help solve<br />
firearms<br />
crimes incl.<br />
registry of all<br />
firearms<br />
material<br />
recovered<br />
• Co-ordinates<br />
Freedom of<br />
Information<br />
requests<br />
such that<br />
consistent<br />
high quality<br />
information is<br />
in the public<br />
domain<br />
• Gathers<br />
intelligence<br />
of wildlife<br />
crime at a<br />
centralized<br />
national level<br />
and delivers<br />
best practice<br />
• Organises<br />
centralised<br />
management<br />
of criminal<br />
record<br />
information &<br />
improves link<br />
between<br />
criminal<br />
records &<br />
biometric<br />
information<br />
• Co-ordinates<br />
& develops<br />
the Counter<br />
Terrorism<br />
network in<br />
England &<br />
Wales<br />
• Assesses the<br />
national<br />
capacity to<br />
deal with all<br />
the national<br />
threat areas<br />
• Co-ordinates<br />
UK police<br />
and<br />
specialist<br />
non-police<br />
capability to<br />
deal with<br />
victim<br />
identification<br />
DDYYCODE_##<br />
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, <strong>FOI</strong> and NWU invoicing costs<br />
Source: ACPO budgets<br />
4
ACPO<br />
National Policing Business Areas and ACPO National Units<br />
• Heads of National Policing Business Areas are un-paid, voluntary positions taken on by Chief Constables in addition to their other duties.<br />
Complex Business Areas may comprise a number of National Policing Portfolios and Working Groups focusing on more specific topics<br />
• Heads are responsible for being the expert in their business area, and for devising national guidelines for which they seek the approval of<br />
the Chief Constable’s Council. They also liaise with other key stakeholders on this topic (College of Policing, Home Office, HMIC etc.)<br />
• It has been agreed that the work currently done by National Business Area heads in developing national standards and police practice are<br />
now integrated within the College of Policing<br />
• Generally the costs incurred by Heads of Business Areas and their related activities are often borne by their home force<br />
• Where relevant, Heads of Business Areas oversee the work of ACPO National Units falling within their remit. NPoCC does not fall within a<br />
business area (reporting instead to its own oversight board). CPI also does not fall within a National Policing Business Area*<br />
National Policing Business Areas<br />
Crime<br />
Criminal<br />
Justice<br />
Equality,<br />
Diversity, &<br />
Human<br />
RIghts<br />
Finances &<br />
Resources<br />
Futures<br />
Information<br />
Management<br />
Local<br />
Policing &<br />
Partnerships<br />
Performance<br />
Management<br />
Presidential<br />
Terrorism &<br />
Allied Matters<br />
Uniformed<br />
Operations<br />
Workforce<br />
Development<br />
Jon Murphy Simon Parr Cressida Dick Lynne Owens<br />
Acquisitive<br />
Crime<br />
Violence &<br />
Public<br />
Protection<br />
Data Protection<br />
& Information<br />
Management<br />
Selected National<br />
Policing Portfolios<br />
Civil<br />
Contingencies<br />
Peter Vaughan<br />
Acquisitive Crime Lead<br />
Steven Rodhouse<br />
Lead for Organised Crime<br />
Ian Readhead<br />
Director of Information<br />
Charlie Hall<br />
Lead for Civil Contingencies<br />
Debbie Simpson<br />
DVI Working Group Lead<br />
AVCIS<br />
NWCU<br />
NABIS<br />
<strong>FOI</strong><br />
ACRO<br />
ACPO National<br />
Units<br />
TAM<br />
DVI<br />
DDYYCODE_##<br />
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<br />
Source: ACPO information, National Unit information, Parthenon calls<br />
5
ACPO<br />
Key bodies related to ACPO<br />
Chief Constable’s Council<br />
College of Policing<br />
National Crime Agency<br />
Description<br />
• The senior operational decisionmaking<br />
body for the Association of<br />
Chief Police Officers. It provides a<br />
forum to discuss and consider<br />
issues and challenges in operational<br />
policing and, alongside the College of<br />
Policing, agree national standards and<br />
common approaches.<br />
• Its role also includes securing national<br />
interoperability and coordination of<br />
policing work, and providing value for<br />
money for the citizen<br />
• Sets standards for the police service<br />
on training, development, skills and<br />
qualifications. It will also provide<br />
maximum support to help the service<br />
implement these standards<br />
• The work of the National Policing<br />
Business Areas (formerly under<br />
ACPO) in developing national<br />
standards and police practice is now<br />
integrated under the College of<br />
Policing<br />
• Professional body for police officers<br />
in England & Wales*<br />
• Highly visible agency of operational<br />
crime fighters protecting the public<br />
from the damage inflicted by serious,<br />
organised and complex crime in the<br />
UK<br />
• Includes 4 operational commands –<br />
Border Policing, Economic Crime,<br />
Organised Crime and Child<br />
Exploitation and Online Protection –<br />
and also a National Cyber Crime Unit<br />
Key Role<br />
Operational<br />
Oversight<br />
Strategy & Policy<br />
Oversight<br />
Operational<br />
Oversight<br />
Scope<br />
All areas of<br />
policing<br />
Organised<br />
Crime<br />
DDYYCODE_##<br />
Note: *The College of Policing does not represent police officers in Scotland and N. Ireland<br />
Source: ACPO information<br />
6
ACPO<br />
Funding flow for ACPO National Units (2013/14)<br />
Funding source<br />
Total Other: £472K<br />
£259K from Sponsorship/Royalties****<br />
£140Kfrom Membership/Events:<br />
£47K from Handling charges:<br />
£1,200K<br />
(Contribution from<br />
PCCs to support<br />
ACPO Central costs)<br />
Police Forces<br />
£<strong>41</strong>0K<br />
(Contribution for<br />
running of ACPO<br />
National Units)*<br />
£1,243K<br />
(PCC<br />
contributions to<br />
NABIS database)<br />
£1,100K to ACRO<br />
(Share of PCC<br />
Contributions to<br />
PNC)<br />
Central Admin & Fund distributor<br />
Operational Unit (Total Annual Budget)<br />
Private/Commercial Unit<br />
Staff Association<br />
Income Generating Unit<br />
Flow of funds to Unit<br />
Flow of funds from Unit<br />
CPOSA<br />
£50K (for<br />
support staff)<br />
ACPO Central<br />
(£2,150K)<br />
Home Office<br />
Total: £150K<br />
(£25K royalties<br />
for use of<br />
ACPO Logo<br />
£122K for<br />
overheads)<br />
£1,665K<br />
£355K<br />
£75K<br />
£136K<br />
£261K<br />
(for logo<br />
Royalty<br />
payments)<br />
£2,887K<br />
(For International<br />
Projects)<br />
£10,900K £1,300K<br />
£400K<br />
c.£5K fee<br />
for ISDEP<br />
support*****<br />
£28K<br />
for HR/ Finance<br />
& other admin<br />
support<br />
£10K<br />
for HR/ Finance<br />
& other admin<br />
support<br />
AVCIS<br />
CPI<br />
NABIS<br />
<strong>FOI</strong><br />
NWCU<br />
ACRO<br />
TAM<br />
NPoCC<br />
DVI<br />
(£1,247K)<br />
(£1,281K)**<br />
(£2,908)<br />
(£386K)<br />
(£453K)<br />
(£11,575K)<br />
(£11,300K)***<br />
(£1,300K)<br />
(£500K)<br />
Generates £1,247K<br />
(£900K from FLA, £108K<br />
from NFU, £100K from<br />
Tracker)<br />
Generates £1,281K<br />
in revenues<br />
Total: £31K<br />
£20K from RSS<br />
£10K from ACPOS<br />
£1k from Training<br />
Generates £7,600K in<br />
revenues mainly from<br />
police certificates<br />
Total: £378K<br />
£136K from DEFRA<br />
£45K from Scottish Exec.<br />
£30K from Scottish National Heritage<br />
£5K from N. Ireland Office<br />
Total: £371K<br />
£150K from Channel Grant<br />
£130K from training costs<br />
£91K from DCLG<br />
Total: £100K<br />
£100K from FCO<br />
Other sources<br />
DDYYCODE_##<br />
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, <strong>FOI</strong><br />
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<br />
2013/14 represent back-dated payments and are not representative of other years. ***** an annual 2% fee of budgeted ISDEP expenditure<br />
Source: ACPO budgets<br />
7
ACPO<br />
Police Force Contributions to ACPO (2013/14)<br />
£1.2m<br />
dedicated to<br />
operate ACPO<br />
organisation.<br />
Represents<br />
ACPO<br />
Governance of ACPO National Units<br />
AVCIS CPI NABIS <strong>FOI</strong> NWCU ACRO TAM NPoCC DVI<br />
Day-to-Day Lead<br />
Gordon<br />
Roberts<br />
(Head of Unit)<br />
Richard<br />
Childs<br />
(Managing<br />
Director)<br />
Iain O’Brien<br />
(Head of Unit)<br />
Mark Wise<br />
(Manager of<br />
<strong>FOI</strong>)<br />
Nevin Hunter<br />
(Head of Unit)<br />
Paul Brooks<br />
(Head of<br />
ACRO)<br />
Cressida<br />
Dick<br />
(Director of<br />
Strategy)<br />
Jo Rogerson<br />
(Head of Unit)<br />
Jen Williams<br />
(DVI Coordinator)<br />
National Policing<br />
Portfolio /<br />
Working Group<br />
Lead<br />
(where relevant)<br />
n/a<br />
David Zinzan<br />
(Lead for<br />
Crime<br />
Prevention*)<br />
Steve<br />
Rodhouse<br />
(Lead,<br />
Organised<br />
Crime<br />
Working<br />
Group)<br />
Ian Readhead<br />
(Portfolio<br />
Lead, Data<br />
Protection &<br />
<strong>FOI</strong>)<br />
Peter<br />
Vaughan**<br />
(Portfolio Lead<br />
for Acquisitive<br />
Crime)<br />
Ian Readhead<br />
(Portfolio<br />
Lead, Data<br />
Protection &<br />
<strong>FOI</strong>)<br />
n/a<br />
Stuart<br />
Williams<br />
(Strategic<br />
Lead)<br />
Debbie<br />
Simpson<br />
(DVI Working<br />
Group Lead)<br />
National Policing<br />
Lead<br />
(where relevant)<br />
n/a<br />
n/a<br />
Jon Murphy<br />
(Head of<br />
Crime<br />
Business<br />
Area)<br />
Simon Parr<br />
(Head of<br />
Information<br />
Management<br />
Business Area<br />
– IMBA)<br />
Jon Murphy<br />
(Head of<br />
Crime<br />
Business<br />
Area)<br />
Simon Parr<br />
(Head of<br />
Information<br />
Management<br />
Business Area<br />
– IMBA)<br />
Cressida<br />
Dick<br />
(Head of<br />
Terrorism and<br />
Allied Matters<br />
Business<br />
Area)<br />
n/a<br />
Lynne Owens<br />
(Head of<br />
Uniform<br />
Operation<br />
Business<br />
Area)<br />
Oversight /<br />
Governance<br />
Board<br />
AVCIS<br />
Governance<br />
Board<br />
(Chair: Max<br />
Sahota)<br />
CPI<br />
Governance<br />
Board<br />
(Chair: Sir<br />
Hugh Orde)<br />
NABIS Joint<br />
Management<br />
Group<br />
(Chair: Steve<br />
Rodhouse)<br />
Information<br />
Management<br />
Business<br />
Area<br />
(Head: Simon<br />
Parr)<br />
Crime<br />
Business<br />
Area<br />
(Head: Jon<br />
Murphy)<br />
Tripartite<br />
Governance<br />
Board<br />
(Chair: Sir<br />
Hugh Orde)<br />
Joint Counter<br />
Terrorism<br />
Oversight<br />
Group<br />
(Chair:<br />
Cressida Dick)<br />
NPoCC<br />
Oversight<br />
Board<br />
(Chair: Sir<br />
Hugh Orde)<br />
Budget:<br />
Home Office<br />
Policy &<br />
Strategy:<br />
Chief<br />
Constable’s<br />
Council<br />
The governance and reporting structure for ACPO national units is somewhat complex and there are mixed views on ultimate<br />
accountability for each unit<br />
DDYYCODE_##<br />
Note: *National Policing Business Area. **R. Berry from October 31 st 2013<br />
Source: Internal ACPO documentation and Parthenon Interviews<br />
9
Dependency<br />
on<br />
ACPO Central<br />
Paid<br />
Unpaid<br />
ACPO<br />
Use of ACPO Central Resources by national unit<br />
Use of<br />
ACPO<br />
Central<br />
Resources<br />
AVCIS<br />
CPOSA<br />
CPI<br />
NaBIS<br />
<strong>FOI</strong> - CRU NWCU ACRO<br />
TAM NPoCC DVI<br />
None<br />
Staff time<br />
(£50k)<br />
Overheads<br />
(£122k)<br />
None<br />
None<br />
None<br />
None<br />
2% fee for<br />
financial<br />
services<br />
HR &<br />
Finance and<br />
other admin<br />
support<br />
(£28k)<br />
HR &<br />
Finance<br />
and other<br />
admin<br />
support<br />
(£10k)<br />
None<br />
None<br />
None<br />
• Use of<br />
press<br />
office<br />
• Invoices<br />
police<br />
forces on<br />
behalf of<br />
national<br />
unit<br />
• Use of<br />
press office<br />
• Invoices<br />
police<br />
forces on<br />
behalf of<br />
national<br />
unit<br />
• Use of<br />
press office<br />
• ACPO<br />
Central<br />
processes<br />
some IT<br />
costs<br />
• Use of<br />
press<br />
office<br />
• Use of<br />
press<br />
office<br />
• Use of<br />
press<br />
office<br />
• Use of<br />
ACPO<br />
finance<br />
team<br />
• Use of<br />
press<br />
office<br />
DDYYCODE_##<br />
10
Agenda<br />
Overview of ACPO<br />
Overview by Unit<br />
DDYYCODE_##<br />
11
ACPO<br />
ACPO Central – 1 of 2<br />
MISSION<br />
“To provide the necessary corporate functions to support the ACPO<br />
infra-structure and other associated organisations”<br />
GOVERNANCE &<br />
ACCOUNTABILITY<br />
BACKGROUND<br />
& ACTIVITIES<br />
Provides administrative, HR & financial services support for the ACPO infrastructure and associated<br />
policing organisations:<br />
1. Provides Secretariat to CCC & to publish endorsed ACPO guidance & standards<br />
2. HR, Event Management, Facilities, IT & Office Management for ACPO organisation<br />
3. Financial Services for ACPO and array of associated policing organisations, e.g. distribution of PCC<br />
funds<br />
4. Membership services & administrative support to CPOSA<br />
5. Company secretary for ACPO CPI<br />
6. Staff for financial & administrative support for CPI Ltd.<br />
PCCs (56%), CHARGES TO NATIONAL UNITS (20%), OTHER (14%)<br />
ACPO President<br />
• Corporate governance<br />
board comprised of eight<br />
Directors headed by elected<br />
ACPO President; currently<br />
Sir Hugh Orde<br />
FUNDING<br />
PROVISION<br />
LOCATION<br />
ACPO HQ<br />
• Funding in 2013/14 will be reliant on PCC Contributions and charges to national units for services<br />
rendered*<br />
• Remainder to come from a variety of smaller income streams including royalties, membership<br />
subscriptions, conferences and exhibitions<br />
ANNUAL BUDGET<br />
£2,150,824<br />
FULL TIME EMPLOYEES<br />
17 FTEs<br />
AUDIT &<br />
PERFORMANCE<br />
MONITORING<br />
Financial Audit:<br />
Formal External Audit<br />
Performance Monitoring:<br />
Board of Directors<br />
DDYYCODE_##<br />
Note: *CPOSA, CPI, ACRO<br />
Source: Internal ACPO documentation and Parthenon Interviews<br />
12
ACPO<br />
ACPO Central – 2 of 2<br />
ORGANISATION<br />
PRESIDENT<br />
Sir Hugh Orde<br />
Staff Officer<br />
Private Office<br />
1 FTE<br />
INTERIM CEO<br />
PA<br />
1 FTE<br />
d<br />
Ian Readhead<br />
POLICY<br />
COMMUNICATIONS<br />
FINANCE<br />
OFFICE SUPPORT<br />
HR MANAGER<br />
2 FTEs<br />
6 FTEs<br />
3 FTEs<br />
2 FTEs<br />
1 FTE<br />
2013/14 BUDGET<br />
PCC contributions £1,200,000<br />
ACRO funding contribution £261,027<br />
ACPO CPI overheads charge £149,640<br />
Sponsorship / royalties £259,440<br />
CPOSA staff time charge £49,917<br />
Handling Charge - other funds £46,520<br />
Subscriptions/Events £140,500<br />
Other £43,780<br />
Total Income £2,150,824<br />
• Besides PCC contributions, ACPO earns some<br />
income as some National Units are charged<br />
for use of ACPO staff time & overheads<br />
• ACPO members pay £150 for annual<br />
membership<br />
• ACPO also earns Royalties for use of ACPO<br />
logo (e.g. from CPI)<br />
EXPENDITURE £<br />
Office Costs 476,997<br />
Staff Costs 1,686,729<br />
Meeting & Other Member Costs 4,460<br />
Activity Costs 3,439<br />
Finance Costs 1,245<br />
Other Costs 21,832<br />
Total Expenditure 2,194,702<br />
DDYYCODE_##<br />
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<br />
to back-dated payments<br />
Source: Internal ACPO documentation and Parthenon Interviews<br />
13
ACPO<br />
National Ballistics Intelligence Service (NABIS) – 1 of 3<br />
MISSION<br />
CORE<br />
FUNCTIONS<br />
“To implement an efficient system of work to meet the Operational and Business<br />
requirements for the UK Criminal Use of Firearms Strategy and Doctrine Development”<br />
Provides standardisation and consistency of approach to enable more effective monitoring of gun crime:<br />
1. Conducts forensic analysis on all ballistic material used in crime, through 4 forensic hubs, ensuring<br />
every ballistic item goes through a standardised forensic process<br />
2. Registers all firearms material recovered, seized or surrendered<br />
3. Manages a national database relating to people, incidents and locations involved in the Criminal Use<br />
of Firearms<br />
4. Produces intelligence products regarding the availability and use of firearms to influence legislation<br />
GOVERNANCE &<br />
ACCOUNTABILITY<br />
Steve Rodhouse,<br />
Chair Joint<br />
Management Group<br />
FUNDING<br />
PROVISION<br />
PCCs (100%)<br />
• Contribution based on level of gun crime*<br />
• Funding has moved from 3-year cycle to annual funding due to uncertainty regarding future<br />
organisational structure<br />
• There is a joint<br />
management group with<br />
representatives from NCA<br />
and the forces<br />
AUDIT &<br />
PERFORMANCE<br />
MONITORING<br />
LOCATION<br />
WEST MIDLANDS<br />
POLICE & GREATER<br />
MANCHESTER POLICE<br />
ANNUAL BUDGET<br />
£1,243,205<br />
FULL TIME EMPLOYEES<br />
39.5 FTEs<br />
Financial Audit:<br />
Formal External Audit<br />
Performance Monitoring:<br />
Crime Business Area with clear<br />
performance standards that must<br />
be met for forensic services<br />
DDYYCODE_##<br />
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<br />
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<br />
Source: Internal ACPO documentation and Parthenon Interviews<br />
14
ACPO<br />
National Ballistics Intelligence Service (NABIS) – 2 of 3<br />
ORGANISATION<br />
HEAD<br />
Det. Chief. Supt.<br />
Iain O’Brien<br />
FORENSIC SERVICES<br />
21 FTEs<br />
INTELLIGENCE<br />
9.5 FTEs*<br />
KNOWLEDGE &<br />
COMMUNICATIONS/<br />
BUSINESS SUPPORT<br />
8 FTEs<br />
2013/14 BUDGET<br />
Police Forces (England & Wales) £1,243,205<br />
TOTAL INCOME (BUDGET 2013/14) £1,243,205<br />
Forensic Services £930,700<br />
Intelligence £249,400<br />
Knowledge & Communications £238,400<br />
Business Support & Estates £246,500<br />
TOTAL COSTS (BUDGET 2013/14) £1,665,000<br />
• 79% of costs are staff costs<br />
• Forensic services account<br />
for 56% of costs<br />
• Business Support accounts<br />
for 15% of costs<br />
• Intelligence accounts for<br />
15% of costs<br />
• Knowledge and<br />
communications account for<br />
14% of costs<br />
DDYYCODE_##<br />
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.<br />
Source: Internal ACPO documentation and Parthenon Interviews<br />
15
ACPO<br />
National Ballistics Intelligence Service (NABIS) – 3 of 3<br />
BACKGROUND<br />
& ACTIVITIES<br />
• NABIS was created in 2008 to provide support on a national basis to help solve firearms crimes, through a number of activities:<br />
– Registry of all firearms material recovered, seized or surrendered<br />
– Forensic analysis on all ballistic material used in crime through 4 forensic hubs (London, Manchester, Birmingham & Glasgow):<br />
– 56% of NABIS budget allocated to forensic services<br />
– In 2012/13 NABIS dealt with 2011 forensic examinations<br />
– Fast time intelligence linking individual crimes within 48 hours in urgent cases and intelligence products on a tactical and strategic level<br />
– National database relating to people, incidents & locations involved in the Criminal Use of Firearms<br />
– Operational support to forces in relation to major incidents, such as the discovery of ‘gun factories’ or one-off incidents, such as the<br />
Derrick Bird incident in Cumbria<br />
– Best practice advice, firearms tracing capability and identifying opportunities for legislative change<br />
• NABIS operates as an autonomous organisation in, it is not a legal entity and relies on 2 host forces, West Midlands Police and Greater<br />
Manchester Police, to manage employment and staffing as well as IT and Transport arrangements<br />
• NABIS was created out of a need to remove submission volume costs from forces as previously forces were constrained by<br />
Forensic Service provider costs from submitting all gun crime related ballistic items, now through the subscription model<br />
forces can submit any volume of items without additional cost<br />
• “This is a critical unit with regard to the prevention and detection of gun crime. PCCs will be aware that weapons used by<br />
criminals in Manchester will then be transferred to London for other criminal activity” – ACPO<br />
DEPENDENCY<br />
ON PCC<br />
FUNDING<br />
• Fully dependent on PCC contributions<br />
• Services NABIS provides are fully utilised and<br />
paid for by forces<br />
DDYYCODE_##<br />
Source: Internal ACPO documentation and Parthenon Interviews<br />
16
ACPO<br />
ACPO <strong>FOI</strong> Central Referral Unit (<strong>FOI</strong> CRU) – 1 of 3<br />
MISSION<br />
“To nationally coordinate Freedom of Information requests which have<br />
been made to Chief Officers”<br />
GOVERNANCE &<br />
ACCOUNTABILITY<br />
CORE<br />
FUNCTIONS<br />
FUNDING<br />
PROVISION<br />
Freedom of Information requests are critical as police service accountability remains at the heart of<br />
public opinion. However, as Freedom of Information is not a core operational policing priority, the <strong>FOI</strong><br />
CRU acts to provide expert advice and expertise in terms of <strong>FOI</strong> requests to forces:<br />
1. Coordinates <strong>FOI</strong> requests such that consistent, high quality information is in the public domain<br />
2. Ensures there is no disclosure of information which could threaten national security<br />
3. Deal with all referrals that come under a certain subject matter that could threaten national security<br />
(~2.5K requests per year)<br />
4. Experts and consultants on <strong>FOI</strong> requests, providing guidance to <strong>FOI</strong> Officers within forces<br />
5. Provide training to <strong>FOI</strong> Officers and other police staff and related organisations<br />
6. Acts as a central hub for certain media requests (has relationships with media agencies) to avoid<br />
each force responding to all media requests<br />
PCCs (~90%) & OTHER (~10%)<br />
• Police force contribution based on FSS* formula<br />
• ~10% of income from other sources: ACPOS, Road Safety Support Ltd (RSS) and training income<br />
Simon Parr<br />
• Oversight is provided by the<br />
Information Management<br />
Business Area<br />
AUDIT &<br />
PERFORMANCE<br />
MONITORING<br />
LOCATION<br />
ANNUAL BUDGET<br />
FULL TIME EMPLOYEES<br />
Financial Audit:<br />
Formal External Audit<br />
HAMPSHIRE<br />
CONSTABULARY<br />
£355,000<br />
10 FTEs<br />
Performance Monitoring:<br />
Informational Commissioner’s Office<br />
with a 10-day time frame to provide<br />
advice monitored by the ICO<br />
DDYYCODE_##<br />
Note: *FSS = government formula spending share<br />
Source: Internal ACPO documentation and Parthenon Interviews<br />
17
ACPO<br />
ACPO <strong>FOI</strong> Central Referral Unit (<strong>FOI</strong> CRU) – 2 of 3<br />
ORGANISATION<br />
UNIT MANAGER<br />
Chief Inspector Mark Wise<br />
POLICE STAFF MANAGER<br />
POLICE DEPUTY STAFF<br />
MANAGER*<br />
ACPO <strong>FOI</strong> DECISION<br />
MAKER<br />
POLICE STAFF<br />
REFERRAL OFFICERS<br />
ADMINISTRATOR<br />
1 FTE<br />
1 FTE<br />
1 FTE<br />
4 FTEs<br />
1 FTE (job share)<br />
2013/14 BUDGET<br />
Police Force contributions £355,000<br />
ACPO Scotland Income (Lump sum for Scottish forces) £10,000<br />
RSS (Payment from Road Safety Support for <strong>FOI</strong> requests on speed cameras) £20,000<br />
Training Course Income (Charges for <strong>FOI</strong> training for non-ACPO members e.g. Home Office) £1,000<br />
TOTAL INCOME (BUDGET 2013/14) £386,000<br />
Staff Costs (Salaries of 9 staff) £296,600<br />
Premises Costs (Premises Recharge from ACRO) £70,268<br />
Other Costs (Inc. IT & Communications, Supplies & Services, Travel & Subsistence) £19,600<br />
TOTAL COSTS (BUDGET 2013/14) £386,468<br />
• The <strong>FOI</strong> CRU receives an<br />
additional £31K from other<br />
sources<br />
• Staff costs account for the<br />
majority of all costs. ACPO DP<br />
Officer role (Ian Readhead) is<br />
funded directly by ACRO<br />
• The <strong>FOI</strong> CRU pays ACRO for<br />
premises costs and associated<br />
services (HR, finance, IT)<br />
DDYYCODE_##<br />
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 <strong>FOI</strong><br />
budget documents<br />
Source: Internal ACPO documentation and Parthenon Interviews<br />
18
ACPO<br />
ACPO <strong>FOI</strong> Central Referral Unit (<strong>FOI</strong> CRU) – 3 of 3<br />
BACKGROUND<br />
& ACTIVITIES<br />
• The Freedom of Information Act went live across the 44 forces on 1 January 2005 supported by an ACPO Project Team ensuring<br />
adequate national training, central coordination and support. A key element of this central support was the establishment of an <strong>FOI</strong> CRU<br />
to manage national <strong>FOI</strong> activity<br />
• The unit dealt with ~2,000 <strong>FOI</strong> requests in 2012 (with media requests representing ~35-45%) and continues to see growth in the provision<br />
of advice and guidance to forces as <strong>FOI</strong> requests increase (total ~36K requests to <strong>FOI</strong> Officers in forces)<br />
• Researches centralised ACPO lead advice and ensures that a standardised national approach to responses is provided to reduce the<br />
chance of inappropriate information disclosure (and leading to fines)<br />
• Represents the police service within the National Security Liaison Group (NSLG) in co-ordinating requests, reducing the risk of the<br />
inappropriate disclosure of National Security information<br />
• Provides 1-day / 2-day training to Police Staff (~600 training places). Since 2011 national training has been provided to 310 delegates<br />
(<strong>FOI</strong> Officers within forces). This is the only police specific <strong>FOI</strong> training in the country<br />
• Other responsibilities include representing Chief Officers at the Information Commissioner’s Office and at Tribunals where forces face<br />
substantial legal expenses in protecting their information (winning the case in Devon and Cornwall re ANPR cameras) and providing<br />
advice on high profile issues (e.g. the Savile enquiry, Hillsborough disclosure, Olympics and Human Tissue Audit)<br />
• The <strong>FOI</strong> CRU protects the reputation of the police force and avoids forces being charged heavy fines from Information Commissioners<br />
through developing a relationship with this department and giving expert advice to police forces<br />
DEPENDENCY<br />
ON PCC<br />
FUNDING<br />
• The majority of funding is from police forces and any<br />
reduction in resources would mean that Individual<br />
police forces would have to respond to more <strong>FOI</strong><br />
requests (e.g. media requests)<br />
• Other implications are that Policing Business Leads<br />
would be contacted by each force to advise on<br />
requests relating to their specialty rather than one<br />
central request from the <strong>FOI</strong> CRU<br />
DDYYCODE_##<br />
Source: Internal ACPO documentation and Parthenon Interviews<br />
19
ACPO<br />
ACPO National Wildlife Crime Unit (NWCU) – 1 of 3<br />
MISSION<br />
“Provide a centralised capacity for intelligence, analysis and<br />
investigative support relating to national wildlife crime”<br />
GOVERNANCE &<br />
ACCOUNTABILITY<br />
CORE<br />
FUNCTIONS<br />
FUNDING<br />
PROVISION<br />
Assists in the prevention and detection of wildlife crime on a national level:<br />
1. Maintains UK-wide intelligence database relating to people, vehicles and locations involved with<br />
wildlife crime<br />
2. Provides direct operational support to forces via specialist Investigative Support Officers<br />
3. Provides specialist advice and coordination for wildlife crime investigations, e.g. to police, other<br />
agencies<br />
4. Act as a conduit for international police for wildlife-related crime enquiries<br />
5. Provide intelligence products in line with National intelligence Model (NIM)<br />
PCCs (17%) & OTHER (83%)<br />
• Other stakeholders that provide funding include DEFRA, the Home Office, the Department of<br />
Environment, Northern Ireland and the Scottish Government<br />
Jon Murphy<br />
• The NWCU Head<br />
ultimately reports into the<br />
Head of the Crime<br />
Business Area who in turn<br />
reports to the Chief<br />
Constable’s Council on<br />
areas of policy and<br />
strategy<br />
• The NWCU has a<br />
governing board with key<br />
funding agencies and host<br />
force representatives<br />
AUDIT &<br />
PERFORMANCE<br />
MONITORING<br />
LOCATION<br />
ANNUAL BUDGET 2013/14<br />
FULL TIME EMPLOYEES<br />
Financial Audit:<br />
Formal external audit<br />
POLICE SCOTLAND*<br />
£452,000<br />
10 FTEs**<br />
Performance Monitoring:<br />
Governance board sets<br />
performance framework against<br />
which to measure output<br />
DDYYCODE_##<br />
Note: *premises & infrastructure. Finance & HR located with North Wales Police., ** + 2 PTEs, ***from October 31 st 2013. Currently TCC Bernard Lawson<br />
Source: Internal ACPO documentation and Parthenon Interviews<br />
20
ACPO<br />
ACPO National Wildlife Crime Unit (NWCU) – 2 of 3<br />
ORGANISATION<br />
HEAD<br />
Detective Inspector<br />
Nevin Hunter<br />
• 7 staff are office-based in Scotland, 5 staff work from<br />
home (Head of Unit, 3x ISOs, Internet Intelligence)<br />
INTELLIGENCE<br />
INVESTIGATIVE SUPPORT<br />
ANALYSIS<br />
INDEXING<br />
INTERNET INTELLIGENCE<br />
2 FTEs + 2 PTEs<br />
3 FTEs<br />
2 FTEs<br />
1 FTE<br />
1 FTE<br />
2013/14 BUDGET<br />
Home Office £136,000<br />
DEFRA (Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs) £136,000<br />
ACPO £75,000<br />
Scottish Executive £45,000<br />
NI Office £5,000<br />
Additional Income SNH (Scottish National Heritage) £30,000<br />
Internet Project £25,500<br />
TOTAL INCOME (BUDGET 2013/14) £452,500<br />
• Salaries account for ~77%<br />
of all costs<br />
Pay (Salaries of 8 staff) £360,776<br />
Other Costs (Inc. office costs, equipment, travel, training) £110,500<br />
TOTAL COSTS (BUDGET 2013/14) £471,276<br />
IN YEAR DEFECIT -£18,776<br />
DDYYCODE_##<br />
Source: Internal ACPO documentation and Parthenon Interviews<br />
21
ACPO<br />
ACPO National Wildlife Crime Unit (NWCU) – 3 of 3<br />
BACKGROUND<br />
& ACTIVITIES<br />
• Wildlife crime is any action which contravenes current legislation governing the protection of the UK’s wild animals and<br />
plants, e.g. hare coursing, poaching, persecution of animals and birds and the trade in ivory, rhino horn and other species<br />
• NWCUs main role is to assist in the detection and prevention of such crimes by obtaining & disseminating information from a<br />
wide range of organisations & by assisting police forces in investigations via its analysis, e.g. highlight local/national threats<br />
• Provides direct operational support to forces via specialist Investigative Support Officers and support to Operation SHREWD<br />
– the NCA pilot investigation involving serious and organised crime groups<br />
• NWCU also the conduit between the police force and PAW UK, a steering group meeting twice yearly to raise awareness of<br />
wildlife crime, develop relevant new legislation and regulation, as well enforce existing laws<br />
• Other members include, Police, UKBA, DEFRA, Home Office, NRW, SNH and many more<br />
• The NWCU is an integral part of the Acquisitive Crime Threat Reduction Board contributing to the draft UK Threat<br />
Assessment for 2013<br />
• The unit has been very active over the last 2 years especially dealing with the coordinated crime of theft of rhino horn from<br />
museums; in the last year they have produced ~3000 intelligence logs<br />
• “In October 2012, the Parliament Environmental Audit Committee noted that this committee had submitted more intelligence<br />
to Interpol than the combined effort of the USA, China, Australia, New Zealand, Canada and South Africa over the same<br />
period. More recently an early day motion was signed by over 100 MP’s calling on the Government to continue to secure<br />
their full funding for the unit from the Home Office. This is a unit which appears to have significant political support and is<br />
also recognised for their expertise by a number of non-government organisations” - ACPO<br />
DEPENDENCY<br />
ON PCC<br />
FUNDING<br />
• PCC currently fund £75,000 p.a. of NWCUs annual<br />
budget (~17%) so there is low dependency on<br />
police force contributions<br />
DDYYCODE_##<br />
Source: Internal ACPO documentation and Parthenon Interviews<br />
22
ACPO<br />
ACPO Criminal Records Office (ACRO) – 1 of 4<br />
MISSION<br />
“Founded in 2006 to organise the management of criminal record information<br />
& improve the links between criminal records & biometric information”<br />
GOVERNANCE &<br />
ACCOUNTABILITY<br />
CORE<br />
FUNCTIONS<br />
FUNDING<br />
PROVISION<br />
LOCATION<br />
HAMPSHIRE<br />
CONSTABULARY<br />
Provides an array of services based on the management & distribution of criminal records & biometric<br />
information at a national level<br />
1. Centralises national criminal records data, collecting information from across all forces; ensures data<br />
is standardised and consistent. Additionally updates current database with historical microfiche data<br />
2. Distributes data to relevant police & non-police parties where appropriate (e.g. Police Certificates,<br />
Subject Access etc.)<br />
3. Supports operational crime-fighting at local level through specific projects (e.g. ViSOR data project to<br />
track violent sex offenders)<br />
4. Builds formal international agreements to exchange criminal data to enhance national databases and<br />
in turn support operational policing both in the UK and abroad<br />
INCOME (~70%), PNC SURCHARGE TO PCCs (~10%) & OTHER<br />
• A surcharge to Police Force checks of the Police National Computer (PNC) generates £900k used to<br />
provide services back to the UK PCCs (£200K is ‘safeguarded’ for microfiche services)<br />
• The Home Office and governments of Scotland and N. Ireland provide funding to support exchange of<br />
criminal conviction info by UKCA-ECR & NEU-ECR of £2.9m<br />
• Generates £7.6M of own revenues from services rendered, most notably Police Certificates service<br />
ANNUAL BUDGET 2013/14<br />
£11,575,000<br />
FULL TIME EMPLOYEES<br />
250 FTEs<br />
Sir Hugh Orde, Chair<br />
of Tripartite<br />
Governance Board<br />
• The ACRO Head reports<br />
into the Head of Information<br />
Management Business Area<br />
• The UK Central Authority<br />
element of ACRO is owned<br />
by the Home Secretary and<br />
has a board chaired by the<br />
Home Office<br />
AUDIT &<br />
PERFORMANCE<br />
MONITORING<br />
Financial Audit:<br />
Formal financial audit<br />
Performance Monitoring:<br />
Select areas are subject to targets,<br />
e.g. must respond to all Subject<br />
Access requests within 40 days<br />
DDYYCODE_##<br />
Note: X<br />
Source: ACRO website, ACRO Financial Report 12/13, ACPO internal documents, Parthenon interviews<br />
23
ACPO<br />
ACPO Criminal Records Office (ACRO) – 2 of 4<br />
ORGANISATION*<br />
Head of ACRO<br />
Supt. Paul Brooks<br />
Senior Manager<br />
(ICCE)<br />
Senior Manager<br />
(CRIO, Central)<br />
Senior Manager<br />
(Bureau)<br />
65 FTEs<br />
36 FTEs<br />
71 FTEs<br />
International Criminal<br />
Conviction Exchange<br />
Criminal Records,<br />
Intelligence, & Operations<br />
Central Services<br />
Bureau<br />
UKCA Exchange of<br />
Criminal Records<br />
(58 FTEs)<br />
Non EU Exchange of<br />
Criminal Records<br />
International Development<br />
(2 FTEs)<br />
Criminal Records<br />
(3 FTEs)<br />
Intelligence<br />
(8 FTEs)<br />
National Operations<br />
(2 FTEs)<br />
Finance<br />
(8 FTEs)<br />
HR<br />
(3 FTEs)<br />
Media<br />
(2 FTEs)<br />
Business Support<br />
(5 FTEs)<br />
Police Certificates<br />
(25 FTEs)<br />
Subject Access<br />
(10 FTEs)<br />
PNC Services<br />
(NPA & BRC)<br />
(11 FTEs)<br />
ACRO Support Team<br />
(10 FTEs)<br />
Customer Services<br />
(10 FTEs)<br />
DDYYCODE_##<br />
Note: * Only includes permanent staff, not all staff represented in sub-divisions shown, e.g. SMT, IT, on secondment etc.<br />
Source: ACRO internal documents<br />
24
ACPO<br />
ACPO Criminal Records Office (ACRO) – 3 of 4<br />
2013/14 BUDGET<br />
Expenditure by Business Area<br />
Business Area<br />
International Criminal Conviction<br />
Exchange (ICCE)<br />
Criminal Records, Intelligence &<br />
Operations (CRIO)<br />
Expenditure<br />
£4,120K<br />
£665K<br />
Criminal Records £176K<br />
Intelligence £373K<br />
Operations £117K<br />
Central Services<br />
Bureau<br />
Police Certificates<br />
£2,551K<br />
£6,337K<br />
£3,672K<br />
Subject Access £577K<br />
PNC Services £563K<br />
Police Certificates £6,500,000<br />
Subject Access £390,000<br />
Non-Police Agencies £500,000<br />
ICPC £210,000<br />
Police Force PNC Contribution for ACRO & Microfiche £1,087,824<br />
Home Office Grant £2,887,000<br />
TOTAL INCOME £11,574,824<br />
Employee Related Expenses £7,250,314<br />
IT & Communications £8<strong>41</strong>,000<br />
Premises Related Expenses £1,131,886<br />
Supplies & Services £1,014,742<br />
Transport Related Expenses £1,500<br />
Travel & Subsistence £433,400<br />
TOTAL EXPENDITURE £10,672,842<br />
ACRO Contribution to UK-CA £1,233,000<br />
ACRO Contribution to EFEN Project £110,000<br />
ACRO Contribution to ACPO Logo £261,000<br />
CATT Case £350,000<br />
ADDITIONAL EXPENDITURE £1,954,000<br />
DDYYCODE_##<br />
Note: Budget may differ slightly from ACRO 2013/14 budget documents due to manual adjustments on specific line items<br />
Source: Internal ACRO Documents<br />
25
ACPO<br />
ACPO Criminal Records Office (ACRO) – 4 of 4<br />
BACKGROUND<br />
& ACTIVITIES<br />
• Bureau: Police Certificate service performs UK criminal record checks for people emigrating to a number of countries including<br />
Australia Canada, NZ, SA & US, generating significant ACRO income (c.£7.6m 2013/14).* Subject Access service delivers personal<br />
criminal record information to individual’s who request it; 2/3rds Forces opt-in to service (cost to operate £300k) . PNC Services work<br />
with authorised Non-Police Agencies to coordinate prosecutions with PNC data, e.g. UKBA, MoJ; also manages Back Record<br />
Conversion from NIS to convert historic microfiche records (cost: ~£550K p.a.)<br />
• Criminal Records, Intelligence &Operations: Criminal Records team employs Policy Officers to work with Home Office to develop<br />
criminal records policy/process, as well as providing advisory services to Forces & non-police organisations. Intelligence team<br />
currently focused on coordinating with ViSOR system to deliver information on UK nationals convicted abroad to ensure notification of<br />
local police force MAPPA team on individual’s return (cost: ~£345K p.a.). Operations team supporting Operation Nutmeg efforts to<br />
manage DNA retrieval from offenders convicted prior to implementation of current legislation; also assists HMIC Savile enquiry and<br />
putting in place the response of the police service with regard to the management of information (cost: ~£120K p.a.);<br />
• International Criminal Conviction Exchange (~£600K charge, 33% funded by ACRO)<br />
−<br />
−<br />
−<br />
UKCA-ECR acts on behalf of Home Office to support operational policing in the UK and overseas by exchanging criminal<br />
conviction information between EU states; NEU-ECR supports operational policing between 188 Non-EU Interpol Countries via<br />
mutual exchange of criminal conviction information between international agencies. Keep national databases up to date<br />
International Development team aims to improve & increase the international exchange of criminal conviction data by building<br />
formal relationships with countries outside EU-ECR where UK nationals commit crime and whose nationals commit crime in the UK<br />
2 additional projects with separate funding: ECRIS* Support Programme (ESP) which seeks to develop the electronic channel for<br />
distribution of international conviction data and the ECRIS Fingerprint Exchange Network (EFEN) to support wider use of<br />
fingerprints to support EU criminal records exchange; co-funded by the EC<br />
DEPENDENCY<br />
ON PCC<br />
FUNDING<br />
• While police forces contribute to costs of PNC,<br />
ACRO generates most of funding from<br />
commercial activities<br />
• Nevertheless, forces benefit exponentially from<br />
contributions to ACRO; for every £1 invested by<br />
PCC, ACRO re-invests £2.50-3 into services<br />
that benefit Police Forces directly<br />
DDYYCODE_##<br />
Note: *incl. special project working to prohibit UK sex offenders from working with children abroad<br />
Source: Internal ACPO documentation and Parthenon Interviews<br />
26
ACPO<br />
ACPO Terrorism and Allied Matters (TAM) – 1 of 3<br />
MISSION<br />
CORE<br />
FUNCTIONS<br />
FUNDING<br />
PROVISION<br />
“Leading and coordinating the direction and development of the capability and supporting infrastructure<br />
within the police service to reduce the risk to the UK and its interests overseas from the threat of terrorism<br />
and domestic extremism”<br />
Coordinates and develops the Counter Terrorism network in England and Wales by acting as the ‘office’<br />
to a network of ~3.8K staff across regional CT hubs in terms of policy, strategy, finance, executive<br />
support and governance:<br />
1. Make recommendations to Home Office Ministers on the distribution of National CT Specific Grants<br />
(both revenue and capital)<br />
2. Develops strategy, delivering the interpretation of the Government’s national, terrorism strategy<br />
(CONTEST) for the police service<br />
3. Manages performance of the CT network and reports to the Government<br />
HOME OFFICE (~97%), OTHER (~3%)<br />
• TAM receive a National CT Specific Grant from the Home Office and other income on a grant basis<br />
• ACPO liable to cover £100K of costs including PNN and salaries<br />
• ACPO also manages the finance of a European Commission funded project on behalf of ACPO TAM<br />
entitled ‘Improving Security by Democratic Participation’ (£224K) which is separate from TAM’s<br />
budget<br />
GOVERNANCE &<br />
ACCOUNTABILITY<br />
Cressida Dick, Chair<br />
Joint Counter<br />
Terrorism Oversight<br />
Group<br />
• The Joint Counter Terrorism<br />
Oversight Group is then<br />
held to account by a<br />
number of high level formal<br />
meetings with<br />
representatives from across<br />
Counter Terrorism policing<br />
AUDIT &<br />
PERFORMANCE<br />
MONITORING<br />
LOCATION<br />
ACPO HQ<br />
ANNUAL BUDGET<br />
£11,300,000<br />
FULL TIME EMPLOYEES<br />
147 FTEs<br />
Financial Audit:<br />
Through MPOAC; Members of the<br />
Home Office sit on TAM’s internal<br />
Finance and Workforce Planning<br />
Board and approve expenditure<br />
Performance Monitoring:<br />
Oversight Group<br />
DDYYCODE_##<br />
Source: Internal ACPO documentation and Parthenon Interviews<br />
27
ACPO<br />
ACPO Terrorism and Allied Matters (TAM) – 2 of 3<br />
ORGANISATION<br />
UNIT MANAGER<br />
Asst. Commissioner<br />
Cressida Dick<br />
• Protect and Prepare guide the national police service in the<br />
delivery of Protect activity<br />
• Prevent & Intelligence gather intelligence across the network to<br />
prevent, disrupt and prosecute terrorist activities<br />
Corporate Capability<br />
Protect & Prepare<br />
Resources<br />
Prevent & Intelligence<br />
28 FTEs<br />
39 FTEs<br />
18 FTEs<br />
62 FTEs<br />
FUNDING PROVISION<br />
National CT Specific Grant (From HO) £10,886,362<br />
Recovery of Training Course Costs (National CT Security Office recovers training costs) £130,000<br />
DCLG (The DCLG* funds a post in the National Community Tension Team) £91,300<br />
Channel grant (Funds diversionary activity in Prevent Delivery Unit) £150,000<br />
TOTAL INCOME (BUDGET 2013/14) £11,257,662<br />
Police Pay £2,998,045<br />
Police Staff Pay £2,029,318<br />
Other employment costs £248,556<br />
Premises Costs £2,001,366<br />
Transport Costs £321,192<br />
Supplies and Services £1,291,178<br />
Employee Expenditure (this covers secondment costs) £2,368,007<br />
TOTAL EXPENDITURE (BUDGET 2013/14) £11,257,662<br />
• ~50% of all costs are<br />
staff costs<br />
• ACPO(TAM) recovers<br />
training costs for CT<br />
Security Advisors from<br />
the forces<br />
• *The Department for<br />
Communities & Local<br />
Government funds a<br />
post in the National<br />
Community Tension<br />
Team<br />
DDYYCODE_##<br />
Source: Internal ACPO documentation and Parthenon Interviews<br />
28
ACPO<br />
ACPO Terrorism and Allied Matters (TAM) – 3 of 3<br />
BACKGROUND<br />
& ACTIVITIES<br />
• Established in 1977 as an ACPO sub-committee and became a full business area of ACPO in January 2001<br />
• Combines and coordinates all major CT projects and manages performance across a CT network: Over the past several years ACPO<br />
TAM has overseen the development of the ACPO counter-terrorism network, a series of dedicated counter-terrorism policing units that<br />
have been established across England and Wales. These units are regionally based and resourced by 'lead' police forces. Their role<br />
includes the gathering of intelligence and evidence to help prevent, disrupt and prosecute terrorist activities<br />
• Responsible for police service strategy on non-operational counter-terrorism and domestic extremism nationally. Provides coordination,<br />
funding and the development and delivery of projects and policy which directly support and enhance the work of the Counter Terrorism<br />
policing network<br />
• ACP (TAM) are responsible for non-operational coordination of this network (~3.8K staff), with the ACPO Counter Terrorism Coordination<br />
Centre (an offshoot of ACPO TAM which now sits in the Met) responsible for operational coordination<br />
• Liaises with policy colleagues, Government and other external partners on behalf of the police service, working to the priorities set out in<br />
the ACPO (TAM) UK Counter Terrorism and Domestic Extremism Policing Strategy<br />
• Makes recommendations to Home Office Ministers on the distribution of National CT Specific Grants (both revenue and capital).<br />
Decisions are made by ministers and the funding is distributed by the HO directly to Forces, and is not held at ACPO. National CT<br />
Specific Grant funding totals £251m revenue and £4M capital (2013/14), funds a regionally based CT National Network. This is<br />
administered on behalf of the HO by TAM, including the routine functions of financial reports, forecasting and budgeting<br />
• TAM is currently undergoing a review of its accountability and organisational structure to have clearer defined reporting lines and how it<br />
fits within the UK Counter Terrorism Network<br />
• No impact as funding from the Home Office<br />
DEPENDENCY<br />
ON PCC<br />
FUNDING<br />
DDYYCODE_##<br />
Source: Internal ACPO documentation and Parthenon Interviews<br />
29
ACPO<br />
NPoCC (National Police Coordination Centre) – 1 of 3<br />
MISSION<br />
“Responsible for ensuring policing resilience during major events that<br />
are beyond the capacity of a single force”<br />
GOVERNANCE &<br />
ACCOUNTABILITY<br />
CORE<br />
FUNCTIONS<br />
FUNDING<br />
PROVISION<br />
Assesses the national capacity and coordinates a national response to major threats in order to support<br />
local forces when required:<br />
1. Collects detail from each police force on their capacity to deal with the major threat areas<br />
2. Gathers a national picture of how the country can deal with these threats and the time scale in which<br />
they can receive assistance<br />
3. Aims to understand which resources ACPO regions have locally to understand what resources there<br />
are nationally<br />
4. Establishes and co-ordinates continuous testing and exercising regimes to ensure there is effective<br />
capability and mobilisation of national forces if and when it is required<br />
HOME OFFICE (100%)<br />
• In FY 2012/13 PNICC was funded by force contributions of £0.56M. Towards the end of 2012 future<br />
funding for the new and enhanced function – the NPOCC – was agreed. The Home Office has agreed<br />
to resource this new unit through a funding grand of £1.3M per annum<br />
Sir Hugh Orde,<br />
Chair of Oversight<br />
Board<br />
• The Oversight Board<br />
consists of representatives<br />
from the PCCs, Home<br />
Office, Cabinet Office and<br />
the HMIC<br />
AUDIT &<br />
PERFORMANCE<br />
MONITORING<br />
LOCATION<br />
ANNUAL BUDGET<br />
FULL TIME EMPLOYEES<br />
Financial Audit:<br />
External audit through Home<br />
Office<br />
ACPO HQ<br />
£1,300,000<br />
10 FTEs<br />
Performance Monitoring:<br />
Through CCs, PCCs,<br />
Oversight Board & NPPSB*<br />
(every 2 months)<br />
DDYYCODE_##<br />
Note: *NPPSB: National Police Protective Services Board<br />
Source: Internal ACPO documentation and Parthenon Interviews<br />
30
ACPO<br />
NPoCC (National Police Coordination Centre) – 2 of 3<br />
ORGANISATION<br />
ACC Strategy Lead<br />
ACC Stuart Williams<br />
Superintendent<br />
1 FTE<br />
Chief Inspector<br />
1 FTE<br />
Project Manager<br />
1 FTE<br />
CAPACITY PROJECT<br />
2 FTEs<br />
TESTING & EXERCISING<br />
2 FTEs<br />
MOBILISATION<br />
2 FTEs<br />
2013/14 BUDGET<br />
Home Office Grant £1,300,000<br />
TOTAL INCOME (BUDGET 2013/14) £1,300,000<br />
Staff Costs (Salaries for 10 staff) £815,000<br />
Premises Costs (Inc. rates and utilities) £196,000<br />
Contingency & Surge Capacity Costs (Mutual Aid, Surge Capacity & Additional expenses) £167,000<br />
Payment to ACPO for staff use (HR & Finance) £28,000<br />
Other Costs (Inc. IT, Testing & Exercising Activities) £159,000<br />
TOTAL COSTS (BUDGET 2013/14) £1,365,000<br />
• Staff costs account for ~60% of<br />
all costs<br />
• NPoCC pay £28K to ACPO for<br />
use of HR and Finance staff<br />
• In addition, the Home Office<br />
provides a grant for the Mercury<br />
IT project which is separately<br />
funded<br />
DEFECIT (BUDGET 2013/14) -£65,000<br />
DDYYCODE_##<br />
Source: Internal ACPO documentation and Parthenon Interviews<br />
31
ACPO<br />
NPoCC (National Police Coordination Centre) – 3 of 3<br />
BACKGROUND<br />
& ACTIVITIES<br />
• Core responsibilities are to ensure policing resilience during major events, for example the movement of 16 Police Support Units (PSUs)<br />
from across the Police Service in order to assist the Metropolitan Police deal with the riots in London<br />
• Prior to 2012, the Police National Information & Co-ordination Centre (PNICC) had 2 FTEs providing a 24-7 on-call service<br />
• The evolution of PNICC, following the success of the enhanced unit in supporting the 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games, was given<br />
impetus by the report entitled ‘Protecting the Public’; recognising the lack of a ‘fit-for-purpose co-ordinating mechanism to mobilise police<br />
resources to assist individual forces facing severe challenges, such as a civil emergency or serious public disorder’<br />
• The NPoCC undertakes several functions to co-ordinate a multi-disciplinary response to a wide range of threats, through working with<br />
partners and intelligence agencies to undertake horizon scanning in respect of potential threats<br />
• Ensures that the right capacity and capability is available to address the threats identified in the Strategic Policing Requirement and a<br />
range of other operational requirement documents<br />
• The unit has an on-going operational role, supporting forces in responding to large scale operational challenges and maintains a capacity<br />
to scale up and mobilise forces effectively in times of civil emergency. At such times it co-ordinates and prioritise resources for forces<br />
whilst supporting senior officers and the machinery of government<br />
• As part of the requirement to develop a national IT solution (Mercury) in order to enhance the management process, NPoCC received a<br />
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<br />
conference in Northern Ireland. Further work is now being completed to ensure that NPoCC can use the system on a business as usual<br />
basis for resource management<br />
• No impact from funding removal as 100% funded<br />
by the Home Office<br />
DEPENDENCY<br />
ON PCC<br />
FUNDING<br />
DDYYCODE_##<br />
Source: Internal ACPO documentation and Parthenon Interviews<br />
32
ACPO<br />
UK Disaster Victim Identification (DVI) – 1 of 3<br />
MISSION<br />
CORE<br />
FUNCTIONS<br />
FUNDING<br />
PROVISION<br />
“Maintain capability and capacity to deliver disaster victim identification in the<br />
UK and abroad where British nationals are killed”<br />
Responsible for supplementing local, regional and international arrangements for dealing with the<br />
recovery and identification of the dead by coordinating the UK specialist capability of trained and<br />
equipped staff and developing best practice in terms of DVI activities<br />
1. Co-ordinates DVI resources: policing resources, forensic scientists, coroners, voluntary agencies<br />
etc.<br />
2. Charged by Foreign and Commonwealth Offices to coordinate deployment overseas when needed<br />
3. Ensures DVI training is standardised and up to date through involvement in testing and exercising<br />
with training run by the College of Policing; at times also assist with the delivery of training<br />
4. Missing persons investigations<br />
HOME OFFICE GRANT (80%) & FOREIGN & COMMONWEALTH<br />
OFFICE (20%)<br />
• Funded directly by the Home Office and Foreign & Commonwealth Office<br />
GOVERNANCE &<br />
ACCOUNTABILITY<br />
Chief Constable’s<br />
Council<br />
• The DVI reports to the<br />
portfolio lead for<br />
Emergency Procedures<br />
who in turn reports to the<br />
Uniformed Operations<br />
Business Area. Ultimate<br />
accountability with policy<br />
and strategy lies with the<br />
Chief Constable’s Council<br />
• The DVI also has a steering<br />
group to oversee the work<br />
of the unit and a<br />
Sponsorship Board cochaired<br />
by the Home Office<br />
and the Foreign &<br />
Commonwealth Office<br />
AUDIT &<br />
PERFORMANCE<br />
MONITORING<br />
LOCATION<br />
ACPO HQ<br />
ANNUAL BUDGET<br />
£500,000*<br />
FULL TIME EMPLOYEES<br />
2 FTEs<br />
Financial Audit:<br />
Formal external audit through<br />
Home Office<br />
Performance Monitoring:<br />
Reporting through steering<br />
group with half-year reporting<br />
to the Home Office<br />
DDYYCODE_##<br />
Note: *The DVIs budget may vary significantly from year to year; funding is based on agreed activities for the financial year<br />
Source: Internal ACPO documentation and Parthenon Interviews<br />
33
ACPO<br />
UK Disaster Victim Identification (DVI) – 2 of 3<br />
ORGANISATION<br />
DVI National Co-ordinator<br />
Officer Jen Williams<br />
• Use ACPO resources such as finance staff for<br />
invoicing and HR for recruitment<br />
• For certain projects bring Police Officers from<br />
forces in as extra resources<br />
Deputy DVI Co-ordinator<br />
2013/14 BUDGET<br />
Foreign & Commonwealth Office Grant £100,000<br />
Home Office Grant £400,000<br />
TOTAL INCOME (BUDGET 2013/14) £500,000<br />
Staff Costs £187,000<br />
Premises and Facilities (Inc. office costs: IT, phone, administrative support) £30,500<br />
Training (Inc. funding for Casualty Bureau, combined workshops etc.) £118,500<br />
Exercising (multi-agency exercise to maintain DVI capacity) £95,000<br />
Other (Software costs, conference attendence, travel expenses etc.) £69,000<br />
TOTAL COSTS (BUDGET 2013/14) £500,000<br />
• The DVI has a fixed budget<br />
depending on the year’s activities<br />
(agreed upfront)<br />
• 37% of 2013/14 costs are staff<br />
costs<br />
• 24% of 2013/14 costs are for<br />
providing training<br />
DDYYCODE_##<br />
Source: Internal ACPO documentation and Parthenon Interviews<br />
34
ACPO<br />
UK Disaster Victim Identification (DVI) – 3 of 3<br />
BACKGROUND<br />
& ACTIVITIES<br />
• The UK DVI response was established following the Boxing Day Indian Ocean Tsunami (2004) and the subsequent terrorist<br />
attack on London in July 2005<br />
• The learning from these incidents was that there was no standardisation of training and people were putting themselves<br />
forward as DVI trained and were not deployable<br />
• Lord Justice Clarke’s Public Enquiry into the identification of victims following major transport accidents recommended the<br />
introduction of the role of the Senior Identification Manager and set the principles for DVI<br />
• The UKDVI is responsible for the delivery of the UK DVI Strategy, advice and guidance to the FCO re deaths abroad,<br />
through the use of the FCO grant<br />
• The UKDVI also is responsible for co-ordination and assessment of requirements for resources for incidents at home and<br />
abroad<br />
• The DVI also ensures standardisation of training for all levels of DVI response, working with the College of Policing to assist<br />
in the delivery of courses (such as the Senior Identification Manager Course)<br />
• Prepares strategy and policy documents and liaises between Government Departments and UK policing for DVI<br />
• Fully funded by the Home Office, therefore no impact from PCC funding removal<br />
DEPENDENCY<br />
ON PCC<br />
FUNDING<br />
DDYYCODE_##<br />
Source: Internal ACPO documentation and Parthenon Interviews<br />
35
ACPO<br />
ACPO Criminal Prevention Initiatives (CPI) – 1 of 3<br />
MISSION<br />
“To reduce crime and fear of crime by development, application and promotion<br />
of the principles of ‘Secured by Design’”<br />
GOVERNANCE &<br />
ACCOUNTABILITY<br />
CORE<br />
FUNCTIONS<br />
FUNDING<br />
PROVISION<br />
Takes the lead on crime prevention for private, public and commercial premises within communities by<br />
developing police approved standards on crime prevention techniques/equipment.<br />
1. Awards ‘Secured by Design’ and ‘Police Preferred Specification’ as a free endorsement to premises<br />
& place-based initiatives vetted by police to confirm that proven they conform to design &<br />
construction criteria which make it less likely to be subject to crime<br />
2. Identifies national/internationally-recognised standards which suggest the design and/or manufacture<br />
of a product or delivery of a service makes it more resistant to crime (e.g. security system). If<br />
standards achieved, CPI licenses ‘Secured by Design’ logo and ‘Police Preferred Specification’ to<br />
products for a period of up to 3 years; key revenue stream<br />
3. Also involved with a variety of other National Crime Prevention initiatives due to visible position in<br />
area, and lack of alternative organisational lead<br />
CPI LTD. IS A SELF-FUNDING (100%) NOT-FOR-PROFIT COMPANY<br />
• Generates annual turnover £1.5m-2m (2011/12) from accreditation process (renewed every 3 years)<br />
& £1.50 of each URN security system application fee to fund staff policy involvement<br />
• Pay annualised fee of £25k for use of ACPO logo on a monthly basis; as well as additional fee for 50<br />
days p.a. of ACPO staff time and overheads (£122k)<br />
• ACPO CPI has reserves of ~£1m<br />
Sir Hugh Orde, Chair<br />
of Governance<br />
Board<br />
• Strategic management of<br />
the business is undertaken<br />
by part-time Managing<br />
Director Richard Childs.<br />
• Strategic governance is<br />
overseen by the Board of<br />
Directors<br />
• Day-to-day management<br />
undertaken by a full time<br />
General Manager<br />
AUDIT &<br />
PERFORMANCE<br />
MONITORING<br />
LOCATION<br />
ANNUAL REVENUES<br />
FULL TIME EMPLOYEES<br />
Financial Audit<br />
Formal external audit<br />
ACPO HQ<br />
£1.5m-2m<br />
13 FTEs*<br />
Performance Monitoring:<br />
Via governance board. Target set<br />
# of new annual subscriptions to<br />
support ‘cascade’ effect as<br />
existing customers renew policies<br />
DDYYCODE_##<br />
Note: * incl. 2 x secondments from ACPO wholly paid for by CPI<br />
Source: CPI Internal Documentation, Parthenon interviews<br />
36
ACPO<br />
ACPO Criminal Prevention Initiatives (CPI) – 2 of 3<br />
ORGANISATION<br />
MANAGING DIRECTOR<br />
(PTE)<br />
Richard Childs<br />
GENERAL MANAGER<br />
Alan McInnes<br />
OPERATIONS MANAGER<br />
REGIONAL<br />
DEVELOPMENT<br />
MARKETING<br />
ADMIN<br />
1 FTE<br />
5 FTEs<br />
1 FTE<br />
2 FTEs<br />
2011/12 BUDGET<br />
Turnover £1,173,986<br />
Operating Income £101,007<br />
Interest £6,777<br />
TOTAL INCOME £1,281,770<br />
Administrative £957,343<br />
Tax £80,579<br />
TOTAL EXPENSES £1,037,922<br />
• Turnover generated from licensing<br />
‘SbD’ logo and charge for<br />
processing URN applications<br />
• Major costs include staff,<br />
overheads & royalties<br />
SURPLUS £243,848<br />
DDYYCODE_##<br />
Source: Internal ACPO documentation and Parthenon Interviews<br />
37
ACPO<br />
ACPO Criminal Prevention Initiatives (CPI) – 3 of 3<br />
BACKGROUND<br />
& ACTIVITIES<br />
• Established in 1989, Crime Prevention Initiatives (CPI) is the corporate title for a group of national projects aimed at reducing crime by<br />
good design. 3 key areas of activity:<br />
• Places: SbD is the umbrella title for a number of ‘place based initiatives which have been assessed by police professionals and<br />
academic research as reducing the likelihood of a ‘place’ being subject to crime. These might include anything from domestic houses,<br />
commercial premises to schools. No revenue generated by this scheme; a free endorsement designed to provide public reassurance<br />
• Products & Services: ACPO CPI identifies national or international standards which suggest that the design and/or manufacture of a<br />
product or service makes it more resistant to crime. Once identified, a company which manufactures a product, or delivers a service,<br />
that meets these standards, can apply to become a licensee of SbD logo, subject to vetting by independent test house. Once<br />
approved SbD logo can be used for 3 years and company can claim product/service to be ‘Police Preferred Specification’.<br />
• National Crime Prevention: interest and involvement in other aspects of general crime prevention has occurred in absence of any<br />
clear ACPO crime prevention lead, the proximity of ACPO and CPI staff, and the link between SbD and many aspects of crime<br />
prevention, e.g. provide informal crime support/advice to forces , standardisation of crime prevention activity among forces, focal point<br />
for external enquiry, advising ACPO, lobbying body/voice for service, academic research (c.£160k 2007-13), and management of<br />
national initiatives e.g. BankNote Watch, Airport Freight Security. Recognised as beneficial for company profile, but otherwise<br />
regarded as cost and distraction that is ‘not particularly encouraged’<br />
• CPI does not set the standards against which products/services are tested: if no such standard exists, an independently chaired<br />
panel established by ACPO CPI examines product/service and determines suitability for SbD. Such cases are rare ~5/400. In some<br />
cases HO/Security Services might also examine.<br />
• Any surplus generated is ringfenced to promote SbD and initiatives/projects that promote general crime prevention by the forces on<br />
both a local and national level; to date £650k< has been distributed, e.g. funds locum ALOs across the country on behalf of forces<br />
DEPENDENCY<br />
ON PCC<br />
FUNDING<br />
• The CPI is fully independent in terms of funding<br />
• However, CPI relies on its connection to ACPO<br />
to provide legitimacy for its products and<br />
services<br />
DDYYCODE_##<br />
Note: *incl. special project working to prohibit UK sex offenders from working with children abroad<br />
Source: Internal ACPO documentation and Parthenon Interviews<br />
38
ACPO<br />
ACPO Vehicle Crime Intelligence Service (AVCIS) – 1 of 3<br />
MISSION<br />
CORE<br />
FUNCTIONS<br />
FUNDING<br />
PROVISION<br />
“Primary mission is to help reduce vehicle and vehicle-enabled crime by<br />
building knowledge in prevention, detection and monitoring techniques”<br />
AVCIS is the national organisation entrusted to handle vehicle crime in the UK and supports local police<br />
forces to reduce vehicle crime on a national level:<br />
1. Knowledge base: builds a national picture/map of criminal vehicle-related activity (e.g. car theft, car<br />
enabled crime) by collection of data from local forces<br />
2. Intelligence: analyses centralised data pool and shares intelligence and insight throughout force<br />
network<br />
3. Fraud desk: work stream devoted to the investigation of all vehicle-related frauds reported in<br />
England, Wales & NI<br />
FLA (74%), NFU (8%), TRACKER (8%) & OTHER (10%)<br />
• Funding provided by private organisations who benefit from vehicle crime reduction directly effected<br />
by organisation’s activity. Performance based SLAs dictate exact level of funding<br />
• Finance & Leasing Association (FLA) key commercial partner (£921k): leading trade association for<br />
motor finance industry with members funding c.50% of all new UK car sales; NFU Mutual (£103k)<br />
fund intelligence work related to agricultural vehicles, Tracker vehicle recovery (£100k), and array of<br />
other interested parties, e.g. Caravan Groups<br />
GOVERNANCE &<br />
ACCOUNTABILITY<br />
Max Sahota, Chair of<br />
Governance Board<br />
• Police, Home Office &<br />
private funders are all<br />
represented on board<br />
• The governance board is<br />
ultimately accountable to<br />
funders who reserve right to<br />
withdraw future funding for<br />
the organisation, e.g. for<br />
poor performance<br />
AUDIT &<br />
PERFORMANCE<br />
MONITORING<br />
LOCATION<br />
COLLEGE OF<br />
POLICING<br />
ANNUAL BUDGET<br />
£1,247,446<br />
FULL TIME EMPLOYEES<br />
17 FTEs<br />
Financial Audit:<br />
Formal External Audit<br />
Performance Monitoring:<br />
Via governance board: Select<br />
targets monitored, e.g. crime<br />
referrals within 48 hours,<br />
investigation initiated within 7 days<br />
of report etc.<br />
DDYYCODE_##<br />
Source: ACVIS Internal documents, Parthenon interviews<br />
39
ACPO<br />
ACPO Vehicle Crime Intelligence Service (AVCIS) – 2 of 3<br />
ORGANISATION<br />
HEAD OF UNIT<br />
INTEL<br />
DCI Gordon Roberts<br />
ACRO Office<br />
4 FTEs<br />
DEPUTY HEAD OF UNIT<br />
Finance Officer<br />
Chris Hearn<br />
OP. SEMITA<br />
VEHICLE FRAUD UNIT<br />
CSSG<br />
NFU MUTUAL<br />
1 FTE<br />
11 FTEs<br />
2 FTEs<br />
1 FTE<br />
2013/14 BUDGET<br />
Finance & Leasing Association £921,694<br />
NFU Mutual Insurance Society £103,378<br />
Tracker £100,000<br />
Other £122,375<br />
TOTAL INCOME (BUDGET 2013/14) £1,247,446<br />
Total Salaries & Wages £918,445<br />
Total Premises Costs £59,186<br />
Total Transport Costs £117,659<br />
Other £149,447<br />
TOTAL EXPENDITURE (BUDGET 2013/14) £1,244,738<br />
• FLA key commercial partner<br />
(74% funding)<br />
• Staff salaries account for 74%<br />
annual expenditure<br />
DEFICIT (BUDGET 2013/14) -£2,708<br />
DDYYCODE_##<br />
Source: Internal ACPO documentation and Parthenon Interviews<br />
40
ACPO<br />
ACPO Vehicle Crime Intelligence Service (AVCIS) – 3 of 3<br />
BACKGROUND<br />
& ACTIVITIES<br />
• Vehicle crime increasingly less of a local police force interest as security improvements have driven down levels of theft; lapse of<br />
interest at local level led to several special interest groups funding creation of a national organisation AVCIS<br />
• Financial Leasing Association (FLA) members are responsible for over 50% of car financing in the UK; in their interests to reduce<br />
numbers of cars stolen in the UK. Provided AVCIS funding to act as single organisation at national level to manage all<br />
information about stolen cars, thereby building a national picture of car theft to enable better analysis and spread of intelligence<br />
back to individual police forces around the UK<br />
• AVCIS now manage a landscape of intelligence which also includes theft from cars and cars involved in car-enabled crime<br />
• Respective interest groups also provide funding to fund specialist projects related to their particular area of interest<br />
• E.g. NFU insures 90% of all agricultural vehicles. Funds projects specifically related to recovering agricultural vehicles<br />
• Caravan Groups fund work specifically related to recovering caravans<br />
• Fraud desk: now employ single employee to investigate all vehicle-related frauds reported in England, Wales & NI<br />
• Forces ultimately benefit from work done by this private organisation as deeper resources for law enforcement developed by<br />
organisation’s activity<br />
DEPENDENCY<br />
ON PCC<br />
FUNDING<br />
• No funding from ACPO so no financial concern<br />
• ACPO link is a legacy of a requirement to have<br />
link with police<br />
DDYYCODE_##<br />
Note: *incl. special project working to prohibit UK sex offenders from working with children abroad<br />
Source: Internal ACPO documentation and Parthenon Interviews<br />
<strong>41</strong>
Chief Police Officers Staff Association (CPOSA) – 1 of 2<br />
MISSION<br />
BACKGROUND<br />
& ACTIVITIES<br />
“To safeguard the individual and collective interests of chief police officers<br />
and of Senior Police Staff of equivalent grades”<br />
• Staff association representing the interest of all chief police officers and officers held to be of<br />
equivalent rank throughout the force, including consideration of matters relating to conditions of<br />
service and the promotion of their welfare<br />
1. Represent interests of chief police officers at a national level at Police Negotiating Board, e.g. pay,<br />
general terms & conditions<br />
2. Articulate a collective Chief Police Officer voice and perspective on range of related internal policy<br />
issues, e.g. provide CPO perspective for the Winsor review of police officer remuneration and<br />
conditions<br />
3. Purchase & operate a professional indemnity insurance policy on behalf of members to provide<br />
protection in range of operational capacities in which they undertake and for range of misconduct<br />
situations<br />
MEMBERSHIP SUBSCRIPTIONS (100%)<br />
GOVERNANCE &<br />
ACCOUNTABILITY<br />
Chairman CPOSA<br />
• Governance structure<br />
headed by Chief Constable<br />
Mark Polin<br />
• Leadership ultimately<br />
accountable to membership<br />
via AGM<br />
• Association’s activities and<br />
performance open for<br />
scrutiny by membership<br />
FUNDING<br />
PROVISION<br />
LOCATION<br />
• 300 members charged annual fee of £275 for benefits of membership, includes participation in<br />
insurance scheme (no additional fees for entry to scheme)<br />
• No external funding received<br />
• Surplus accumulates in fund reserved to pay additional fees/expenses, e.g. purchase of legal advice<br />
for matters affecting collective membership base such as PCC’s removal of Police Chiefs<br />
ANNUAL BUDGET<br />
FULL TIME EMPLOYEES<br />
AUDIT &<br />
PERFORMANCE<br />
MONITORING<br />
NO PREMISES*<br />
£906,218<br />
0<br />
Financial Audit<br />
Formal External Audit<br />
DDYYCODE_##<br />
Note: * use ACPO admin staff located at 10 Victoria St for several days a year<br />
Source: Internal ACPO documentation and Parthenon Interviews<br />
42
Chief Police Officers Staff Association (CPOSA) – 2 of 2<br />
ORGANISATION 2013/14<br />
CHAIRMAN<br />
Chief Constable<br />
Mark Polin<br />
• All CPOSA staff perform duties on volunteer<br />
basis; located in home offices<br />
• CPOSA also has use of ACPO admin staff<br />
COMMITTEE<br />
10 VOLUNTEERS<br />
ACTUAL FUNDING 2012/13<br />
Subscriptions (Final Income for 2012/13) £903,685<br />
Interest £2,533<br />
TOTAL INCOME £906,218<br />
Insurance £759,771<br />
Professional Fees £39,212<br />
Bank Charges £122<br />
Auditors' Remuneration £1,800<br />
Catering/Hospitality £518<br />
ACPO Secretariat Expenses £49,917<br />
Tax £507<br />
TOTAL COSTS £851,847<br />
• Income fully generated by membership<br />
subscriptions<br />
• Insurance policy premiums ~90% of costs<br />
• £50k payment to ACPO for use of secretariat<br />
staff time<br />
• Quarterly statements are reviewed by the<br />
committee<br />
DDYYCODE_##<br />
Source: Internal ACPO documentation and Parthenon Interviews<br />
43
General Sir Nick Parker KCB CBE<br />
General Sir Nick Parker KCB CBE was commissioned into the British Army in 1973. After early service<br />
in the Infantry, he commanded the 2nd Battalion, the Royal Green Jackets from 1994‐1995.<br />
General Parker' attended the Army Staff Course in 1986, the Higher Command and Staff Course in<br />
1996 and The Royal College of Defence Studies in 2002, and has held two staff appointments in the<br />
Ministry of Defence. He commanded 20th Armoured Brigade from 1997 to 1999, which included<br />
time in Bosnia. He was also GOC 2nd Division and Governor of Edinburgh Castle from 2002‐2004 and<br />
he has been both the Deputy Commandant (1999‐2001) and the Commandant of the Joint Staff<br />
College (2004‐2005).<br />
Senior operational tour posts include the commander of UK Joint Task Force and advisor to the<br />
President of Sierra Leone in 2001, as well as Deputy Commanding General (UK) Multi‐National Corps<br />
Iraq from August 2005 to February 2006. He was the last GOC Northern Ireland during Operation<br />
BANNER from 2006 to 2007 and was then Commanded the UK Home Base for 2 years from August<br />
2007. He then held the position of Deputy Commander for the International Security Assistance<br />
Force (DCOM ISAF) in Afghanistan between November 2009 and September 2010.<br />
General Parker was appointed as Commander in Chief Land Forces in October 2010, became<br />
Commander Land Forces in November 2011 and retired in May 2013. His last appointment included<br />
responsibility for Defence's response to requirements on the UK homeland in support of the civil<br />
authorities; he led the reaction to the Tanker Drivers' industrial dispute in early 2012; and led the<br />
London Olympics security support that required over 18,500 personnel.<br />
On the personal front, he is married to Beccy and has two sons; his interests include gardening,<br />
fishing and Coronation Street.
Buckley, Claire (PA)<br />
From:<br />
APCCS Tania Eagle <br />
Sent: 15 November 2013 10:12<br />
Subject:<br />
GR-A 115/2013 (restricted): Invitation to City Forum Event on Organised Crime<br />
Attachments:<br />
INVITATION AGENDA - Cutting Serious & Organised Crime - 13.11.13.pdf; CF to All<br />
PCCs 13-11-13.pdf<br />
To:<br />
Cc:<br />
Police and Crime Commissioners<br />
Chief Executives<br />
APCC Team<br />
Dear Police and Crime Commissioners<br />
Please find attached a letter from Charles Farr, Director General of the Office of Security and Counter Terrorism inviting<br />
you to an event on Cutting Serious and Organised Crime on 3 rd December 2013.<br />
Regards<br />
Tania<br />
Tania Eagle|Business Director|The Association of Police and Crime Commissioners, APCC|07714399755 | 2 nd Floor, 10<br />
Victoria Street, London, SW1H 0NN|www.apccs.police.uk<br />
Follow Us: Twitter @assocpccs<br />
Visit our website for quick links to the news you need to see today<br />
This communication may contain privileged and confidential information. Any views of opinions expressed are those of the originator and not necessarily those of<br />
the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners'.<br />
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,<br />
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<br />
immediately and delete it from your system.<br />
This communication may contain privileged and confidential information. Any views of opinions expressed are those of the originator and not necessarily those of<br />
the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners'.<br />
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,<br />
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<br />
immediately and delete it from your system.<br />
1
PRIVATE & CONFIDENTIAL<br />
Invitation only agenda<br />
A Cityforum Round Table held in association with OSCT, Home Office<br />
Cutting Serious & Organised Crime - meeting evolving challenges with new capabilities and powers<br />
Tuesday 3 December<br />
Clifford Chance, London E14<br />
Invitation ONLY agenda – PRIVATE & CONFIDENTIAL<br />
Principal Sponsor<br />
Co Sponsor<br />
Hosted by<br />
This agenda is work in progress and the running order may alter. We would be pleased to discuss any comments<br />
or suggestions you may have. A timed, confirmed speaker list will be available in due course.<br />
Chairmen: Mr Charles Farr (morning and lunch address) and industry contributors * (afternoon) Confirmed<br />
Session one: Organised crime: strategic perspectives<br />
Opening keynote address<br />
Cutting serious and organised crime – the Priorities for Government<br />
Mr James Brokenshire MP Security Minister Home Office<br />
The evolving threat: the most serious challenges we need to address<br />
Professor Federico Varese Professor of Criminology University of Oxford<br />
The operational imperatives<br />
Mr Keith Bristow Director General National Crime Agency<br />
Confirmed<br />
Confirmed<br />
Confirmed<br />
Followed by a round table discussion including a private sector expert<br />
Coffee<br />
Session two: Organised crime: local delivery, national coordination and international collaboration<br />
Discussants:<br />
Using local capabilities to maximum effect<br />
Mr Tony Lloyd PCC Greater Manchester (Op Challenger)<br />
Mr Jon Murphy Chief Constable Merseyside Police (Policing violent crime and trafficking)<br />
Improving international collaboration [including a perspective on what more the UK should do]<br />
Mr Troels Oerting Head of EC3 Europol<br />
&<br />
Mr Mick O’Connell Director Operational Police Support Interpol General Secretariat<br />
Confirmed<br />
Confirmed<br />
Confirmed<br />
Confirmed<br />
How Europe can deliver effective action<br />
Ms Frances Kennah National Member for the United Kingdom Eurojust [including a perspective on how UK police<br />
might better engage]<br />
Confirmed<br />
Innovative technologies and effective collaboration<br />
Senior figure from BAE Systems Detica<br />
Confirmed<br />
Followed by a round table discussion including ACC Steve Heywood Greater Manchester Police & Detective Chief<br />
Superintendent Tom Manson MPS<br />
Confirmed<br />
INVITATION AGENDA - as at 13.11.13<br />
THIS IS NOT A TIMED PROGRAMME AND THE ORDER MAY BE CHANGED
PRIVATE & CONFIDENTIAL<br />
Invitation only agenda<br />
Lunch<br />
Lunch Guest Addresses each followed by a Q & A<br />
The role of the professions in promoting proper business conduct?<br />
Mr Martyn Jones President ICAEW Chaired by Mr Charles Farr<br />
&<br />
Title to be confirmed<br />
Mr Stephen Greenhalgh Deputy Mayor Greater London Authority (The new London Strategy)<br />
Confirmed<br />
Confirmed<br />
Session three: How can we investigate, prosecute and disrupt more effectively?<br />
Discussants:<br />
Resourcing and empowering the SFO<br />
Mr David Green QC Director Serious Fraud Office<br />
The effect of effective regulation<br />
Ms Tracey McDermott Director of Enforcement and Financial Crime Financial Conduct Authority<br />
What is required for more effective policing?<br />
Mr Adrian Leppard Commissioner City of London Police<br />
Integrating the effort to hit serious crime at its heart<br />
Ms Stephanie Jeavons Deputy Director NCA<br />
Business facing the authorities – a legal perspective (speech title to be finalised)<br />
Mr Luke Tolaini Partner Clifford Chance<br />
&<br />
Keeping business within the law<br />
A senior representative from a major financial institution<br />
Confirmed<br />
Confirmed<br />
Confirmed<br />
Confirmed<br />
Confirmed<br />
Confirmed<br />
Followed by a round table discussion<br />
Session four: Law enforcement: delivering an effective response to the evolving cyberisation of serious<br />
and organised crime<br />
Opening overview:<br />
Professor Klaus von Lampe Associate Professor John Jay College of Criminal Justice New York; Editor in Chief<br />
of Trends in Organized Crime<br />
Confirmed<br />
Discussants:<br />
NCCU – role and vision<br />
Mr Andy Archibald Head of NCCU National Crime Agency<br />
Confirmed<br />
What additional capabilities do the police now require?<br />
Mr Peter Goodman Deputy CC East Midlands Collaboration Programme and ACPO lead on Cybercrime Confirmed<br />
What is the most effective approach to law enforcement?<br />
Mr Mike Driscoll Supervisory Special Agent Criminal and Criminal Cyber programs FBI<br />
Confirmed<br />
What does industry require from the authorities?<br />
An expert from business<br />
Followed by a round table discussion<br />
INVITATION AGENDA - as at 13.11.13<br />
THIS IS NOT A TIMED PROGRAMME AND THE ORDER MAY BE CHANGED
PRIVATE & CONFIDENTIAL<br />
Invitation only agenda<br />
Conclusions<br />
The lessons to date<br />
Mr Charles Farr and Mr Keith Bristow<br />
Confirmed<br />
* Clifford Chance and BAE Systems Detica will chair the afternoon session<br />
The day will be preceded by a private, invitation only, dinner discussion on evening before the round table.<br />
Attendance will include contributors to the round table, sponsor and other VIP guests. The suggested theme is:<br />
A joint approach to identifying and tackling emerging threats from soc. Who can do what to deliver effect?<br />
INVITATION AGENDA - as at 13.11.13<br />
THIS IS NOT A TIMED PROGRAMME AND THE ORDER MAY BE CHANGED
PROTECT<br />
Charles Farr<br />
DIRECTOR GENERAL<br />
Office for Security and Counter Terrorism<br />
2 Marsham Street, London SW1P 4DF<br />
DG.OSCT@homeoffice.x.gsi.gov.uk<br />
Tel +44 (0) 20 7035 8882<br />
c/o The Association of Police and Crime<br />
Commissioners<br />
2nd Floor<br />
10 Victoria Street<br />
London<br />
SW1H 0NN<br />
13 November 2013<br />
Dear PCC<br />
SERIOUS AND ORGANISED CRIME ROUND TABLE EVENT – 3 DECEMBER<br />
As you know the Government has been making major changes to the way we<br />
work against organised crime, with the inception of the NCA and a new Serious<br />
and Organised Crime Strategy.<br />
2. On the 3 December we are supporting an event hosted in London by Cityforum<br />
entitled “Cutting Serious and Organised Crime”. You should already have an<br />
invitation.<br />
3. The Security Minister, James Brokenshire MP, will deliver the key note address<br />
on the priorities for government in this area. The round table discussions will<br />
cover: strategic perspectives; local delivery, national coordination and<br />
international collaboration; financial crime; and delivering an effective response to<br />
the evolving ‘cyberisation’ of serious and organised crime. I attach the draft<br />
agenda for the day which includes details on how to register.<br />
PROTECT
PROTECT<br />
4. I realise that you are exceptionally busy during this period but I very much hope<br />
you or one of your team may be able to attend. We do plan to organise other<br />
events to brainstorm the strategy and its implementation but this event will have a<br />
wide attendance and is therefore a real opportunity to advance the agenda.<br />
Yours sincerely,<br />
Charles Farr<br />
PROTECT
Buckley, Claire (PA)<br />
From:<br />
APCCS Dawn Osborne <br />
Sent: 29 November 2013 15:42<br />
Subject:<br />
Updated: GR-A 116/2013 (restricted): Extraordinary General Meeting - ACPO Review<br />
Importance:<br />
High<br />
To:<br />
Cc:<br />
Police and Crime Commissioners<br />
Chief Executives<br />
APCC Team<br />
Dear Police and Crime Commissioners<br />
Following on from the email below from Tania Eagle dated 15 November 2013 which proposed that an Extraordinary<br />
General Meeting be held on 12 December 2013 in London. The ACPO Review Working Group, having consulted<br />
informally with members since 14 November, sense that there is sufficient consensus to negate the requirement to<br />
convene an extraordinary meeting in London and instead propose to agree a direction of travel by written resolution.<br />
This means that members will no longer need to travel to London for the meeting and that papers (including a ballot<br />
paper) will be sent electronically. Papers will be sent to you on 2 December and should be returned to the secretariat<br />
by 12 December 2013.<br />
Kind regards<br />
Dawn<br />
Dawn Osborne|Executive Officer|Association of Police and Crime Commissioners |020 7084 8957 |07714 399758 | 2 nd<br />
Floor, 10 Victoria Street, London, SW1H 0NN|www.apccs.police.uk<br />
Follow Us: Twitter @assocpccs<br />
Visit our website for quick links to the news you need to see today<br />
From: APCCS Tania Eagle<br />
Sent: 15 November 2013 13:43<br />
Subject: GR‐A 116/2013 (restricted): Extraordinary General Meeting ‐ ACPO Review<br />
To:<br />
Cc:<br />
Police and Crime Commissioners<br />
Chief Executives<br />
APCC Team<br />
Dear Police and Crime Commissioners<br />
Following the publication of the ACPO Review yesterday, the Review Working Group would like to invite you to provide<br />
your initial views and comments to me, ideally by 20 th November (ahead of a session at the ACPO Conference on 21 st<br />
November). As discussed during the closed session yesterday, it would be helpful if you could also discuss the report<br />
and recommendations with your Chief Constable.<br />
1
During the closed session yesterday it was also proposed that an extraordinary meeting of Police and Crime<br />
Commissioner and Other Policing Governance Bodies should be convened before Christmas to agree proposals in<br />
relation to the review of ACPO.<br />
It is proposed that this meeting should take place on 12 th December, 11am to 1pm in London (venue to be<br />
confirmed). Please confirm your attendance with Dawn Osborne (dawn.osborne@apccs.pnn.police.uk). If you are not<br />
able to attend but would like a representative to attend in your place, please confirm the name of the person who will<br />
be able to vote on your behalf (should a vote be required). Papers will be provided one week before the meeting.<br />
Finally, the Working Group public statement on the ACPO Review is below. PCCs are respectfully asked to use this as a<br />
basis for a ‘line to take’ if a public comment is requested:<br />
"Our cross party group welcomes the recommendations of this thorough, perceptive and fair report which recognises the<br />
past record and role played by the Association of Chief Police Officers but reflects the need for change in the new policing<br />
landscape. Before making our proposals we will consult with Police and Crime Commissioners, Chief Constables, Home<br />
Secretary, the National Crime Agency, College of Policing and other stakeholders about managing the implementation of<br />
these changes."<br />
Please let me know if you have any queries.<br />
Regards<br />
Tania<br />
Tania Eagle|Business Director|The Association of Police and Crime Commissioners, APCC|07714399755 | 2 nd Floor, 10<br />
Victoria Street, London, SW1H 0NN|www.apccs.police.uk<br />
Follow Us: Twitter @assocpccs<br />
Visit our website for quick links to the news you need to see today<br />
This communication may contain privileged and confidential information. Any views of opinions expressed are those of the originator and not necessarily those of<br />
the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners'.<br />
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,<br />
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<br />
immediately and delete it from your system.<br />
This communication may contain privileged and confidential information. Any views of opinions expressed are those of the originator and not necessarily those of<br />
the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners'.<br />
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,<br />
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<br />
immediately and delete it from your system.<br />
This communication may contain privileged and confidential information. Any views of opinions expressed are those of the originator and not necessarily those of<br />
the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners'.<br />
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,<br />
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<br />
immediately and delete it from your system.<br />
This communication may contain privileged and confidential information. Any views of opinions expressed are those of the originator and not necessarily those of<br />
the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners'.<br />
2
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,<br />
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<br />
immediately and delete it from your system.<br />
3
Buckley, Claire (PA)<br />
From:<br />
APCCS Oliver Shaw <br />
Sent: 15 November 2013 17:20<br />
Subject:<br />
GR-A 117/2013 (restricted): Letter from Ian Johnston - Terms and Conditions and<br />
CPOSA Update<br />
Attachments:<br />
Letter Ian Johnston - Terms and Conditions and CPOSA update - 15.11.13.pdf<br />
To:<br />
Cc:<br />
Police and Crime Commissioners<br />
Chief Executives<br />
APCC Team<br />
RE: GR‐A 117/2013 (restricted): Letter from Ian Johnston ‐ Terms and Conditions and CPOSA Update<br />
Dear Police and Crime Commissioners,<br />
Please find attached a letter from Ian Johnston, Police and Crime Commissioner for Gwent. It provides an update on<br />
work being undertaken by Commissioners on the PNB to look at Chief Officer terms and conditions and CPOSA<br />
Insurance.<br />
Kind regards,<br />
Oliver<br />
Oliver Shaw|Senior Policy Advisor|The Association of Police and Crime Commissioners, APCC|07714399756| 2 nd Floor,<br />
10 Victoria Street, London, SW1H 0NN|www.apccs.police.uk<br />
Follow Us: Twitter @assocpccs<br />
Visit our website for quick links to the news you need to see today<br />
This communication may contain privileged and confidential information. Any views of opinions expressed are those of the originator and not necessarily those of<br />
the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners'.<br />
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,<br />
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<br />
immediately and delete it from your system.<br />
This communication may contain privileged and confidential information. Any views of opinions expressed are those of the originator and not necessarily those of<br />
the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners'.<br />
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,<br />
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<br />
immediately and delete it from your system.<br />
This communication may contain privileged and confidential information. Any views of opinions expressed are those of the originator and not necessarily those of<br />
the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners'.<br />
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,<br />
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<br />
immediately and delete it from your system.<br />
1
This communication may contain privileged and confidential information. Any views of opinions expressed are those of the originator and not necessarily those of<br />
the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners'.<br />
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,<br />
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<br />
immediately and delete it from your system.<br />
2
From the Gwent Police and Crime Commissioner, Ian Johnston<br />
15 th November 2013<br />
Dear Colleagues,<br />
You will recall that Commissioners on the Official Side were asked to look at a range of issues in<br />
relation to Chief Officer packages at the October APCC General Meeting. I would like to update you<br />
on progress and touch on a couple of other issues that have arisen in the meantime.<br />
Commissioners on the Official Side are carefully drafting a paper that will examine the range of<br />
allowances that are currently permitted under the current regulation and determinations<br />
framework. These include relocation, pay, annual leave and vehicles as well as matters relating to<br />
payments that may fall out of the framework. While we are still working through a number of the<br />
complex issues, we hope to have a discussion paper with the wider membership well ahead of<br />
Christmas. I have asked for time to be set aside at the January APCC General Meeting where<br />
Commissioners can collectively discuss this important issue. Ahead of January, we would like to hear<br />
your views on the above, and I sincerely thank those who have already been in touch.<br />
In terms of process, I would remind you all that any changes to terms and conditions that require<br />
amendments to regulations and determinations will need to be taken through the police pay<br />
negotiation machinery. In the interests of constructive dialogue with staff associations, I will be<br />
keeping the Chief Officers’ Staff Association (CPOSA) abreast of developments at appropriate points<br />
along the process.<br />
On a related issue, I know a number of you are concerned about payments authorised by police<br />
authorities. The Independent Chair, Police Negotiating Board has written to the Home Office seeking<br />
clarity on this issue and I would suggest you may like to await their advice before proceeding further<br />
on this issue. I will of course update all members as soon as I have any further information.<br />
The final matter relates to CPOSA insurance cover. To date, work on this matter has been led by<br />
Commissioners on the ACPO Review and you will recall from their report (September 19) that the<br />
vast majority of Commissioners have already paid the CPOSA insurance premium for their chief<br />
officers for 2013/14, however they also recognised that the decision to pay is (of course) a local one.<br />
Work has been done to clearly distinguish which parts of the policy are met by Commissioners and<br />
those parts met by private CPOSA funds and finally a recommendation to commission a ‘light touch’<br />
piece of analysis to inform CPOSA insurance premium discussions ahead of 2014/15. This analysis<br />
would look at a range of insurance afforded to comparable roles in other sectors to understand what<br />
is appropriate to be funded from the public purse. For the small number of Commissioners who are<br />
yet to pay, I would suggest you may like to pay for this year and await the outcome of the ‘light<br />
touch’ analysis before taking a final decision on this matter. In terms of the ‘light touch’ analysis, the<br />
APCC is currently talking to potential providers and are looking for this work to be completed as soon<br />
as possible. For information, attached is a copy of the Terms of Reference.<br />
If you have any questions concerning the above, please feel free to get in contact with me or you can<br />
contact Oliver Shaw at APCC. Oliver’s details are<br />
(oliver.shaw@apccs.pnn.police.uk, 07714399756).<br />
Regards,<br />
Ian Johnston<br />
Police and Crime Commissioner for Gwent and Chair, Official Side, PNB<br />
APCC<br />
2 nd Floor, 10 Victoria Street,<br />
London, SW1H 0NN<br />
T 020 7084 8957<br />
E enquiries@apccs.pnn.police.uk<br />
@AssocPCCs<br />
www.apccs.police.uk<br />
The APCC provides support to all<br />
Police and Crime Commissioners<br />
and policing governance bodies in<br />
England, Wales and Northern<br />
Ireland
Terms of Reference<br />
Police and Crime Commissioners are seeking independent advice on the payment of insurance<br />
premiums for Chief Police Officers. The following should be provided:<br />
i. Whether there is a need for forces to fund separate insurance cover for Chief Officers in<br />
addition to any local force insurance?<br />
ii. What are the standards of insurance cover required for Chief Officers?<br />
iii. Are there any aspects of the current CPOSA reactive Insurance premium 2013/14, that would<br />
normally be funded by individuals rather than the organisation, when comparing to other<br />
public sector senior appointments?<br />
Advice should take into account:<br />
Benchmark data on the insurance provided for other public sector senior appointments.<br />
Existing insurance provided from local force insurance policies.<br />
Impact of change.<br />
2013/14 CPOSA reactive insurance premiums.<br />
Stakeholders:<br />
Police and Crime Commissioners.<br />
CPOSA.<br />
Chief Executives / Chief Finance Officers.<br />
Relevant stakeholders from other comparable sectors.
Buckley, Claire (PA)<br />
From:<br />
APCCS Joel Charles <br />
Sent: 24 November 2013 20:08<br />
To:<br />
APCCS Joel Charles<br />
Subject:<br />
GR-A 119/2013 (Restricted): Under embargo - Lord Stevens Independent Police<br />
Commission report<br />
Attachments:<br />
Lord Stevens report.pdf<br />
To:<br />
PCCs<br />
PCC Chief Executives<br />
PCC Chief Finance Officers<br />
PCC Communications Lead<br />
APCC Board<br />
CC: APCC Secretariat<br />
Dear Police and Crime Commissioners,<br />
GR‐A 119/2013 (Restricted): Under embargo – Lord Stevens Independent Police Commission report<br />
Please find attached Lord Stevens policing report which is under embargo until 12 noon tomorrow. Lord Stevens office<br />
has given me permission to send out his report to you before the report launch.<br />
Key points:<br />
Democratic Governance in policing<br />
The Commission concludes that the PCC model is systemically flawed as a method of democratic governance and should<br />
be discontinued in its present form at the end of the term of office of the <strong>41</strong> serving PCCs.<br />
The Commission sees no benefit in reinstating local police authorities in place of PCCs, nor does it consider it desirable<br />
to return to the days of trying to steer local policing from Whitehall. The Commission proposes to further democratise<br />
decision‐making over policing by devolving greater powers to lower tier local authorities. The Commission recommends<br />
four key measures to achieve this:<br />
(a) The introduction of a legal requirement on the police to organise internal force boundaries in ways that are<br />
coterminous with the lowest relevant tier of local government;<br />
(b) Legislating to give local government a say in the appointment of local police commanders;<br />
(c) Enabling lower tier local authorities to retain at least some of the police precept of the council tax which<br />
they will then use to commission local policing from their force. This funding would be ring fenced to fund the police<br />
service and could not be diverted into other local authority services; and<br />
(d) Giving those same lower tier local authorities the power to set priorities for neighbourhood policing, the local<br />
policing of volume crime and anti‐social behaviour, by formulating and agreeing with local police commanders policing<br />
plans for their town, city or borough<br />
Neighbourhood Policing<br />
Introduce a local policing commitment. The substance of this commitment will be subject to further discussion.<br />
However, it should include the following:<br />
1
(a) a guaranteed minimum level of neighbourhood policing;<br />
(b) emergency response or an explanation of why this demand will not be met or can be met by other means;<br />
(c) requests to the police for assistance, or reporting a crime will be met by a commitment to appropriate response<br />
times;<br />
(d) reported crime will be investigated or an explanation given of why this is not possible;<br />
(e) victims will be regularly updated as to the progress of the investigation; and<br />
(f) those coming into contact with the police whether they be victims, witnesses, offenders or complainants will be<br />
treated with fairness and dignity.<br />
Police officers and staff<br />
The Commission endorses the Winsor aspiration of enhancing the status of policing to a profession and the<br />
corresponding proposals to raise the qualification standards of those entering the profession.<br />
Lord Stevens rejects the new starting salary for police constables and urge that a level be set commensurate<br />
with the qualifications and experiences of new recruits.<br />
The Commission recommends the setting up of an independent review of the effects of the Winsor recommendations<br />
within two years of their implementation.<br />
Police profession<br />
The Commission recommends creating a ‘chartered police officer’ as the basis of the police profession. A ‘chartered’<br />
police officer accountable to a strong professional body will improve public confidence and give greater competence<br />
and status to police officers and staff.<br />
The College of Policing would hold and make publicly available the register of all chartered practitioners.<br />
The presumption should be for total transparency–with open, public hearings for decisions on serious misconduct<br />
rather than the muddled regime of partially open hearings and judgements which currently prevails.<br />
Police officers found to have committed serious misconduct by the College of Policing board should be struck off from<br />
the register.<br />
The professional body’s primary lines of accountability should be both to the Home Secretary and Parliament.<br />
Raising standards and remedying misconduct<br />
Lord Stevens recommends the abolition of HMIC and of the IPCC, and the creation of a new single IPSC. From the outset<br />
the IPSC should create a database with the necessary storage facilities to retain oversight of serious investigations<br />
(historic and current) which are or likely to be of significant public interest. This new agency would hold police forces to<br />
account for the delivery of standards, deal with misconduct effectively and efficiently, and ensure all failings are<br />
addressed without delay.<br />
To ensure that the practice standards set out by the College of Policing are being appropriately applied by individual<br />
forces Lord Stevens considers that a power to impose an improvement framework akin to the consent decree on the<br />
forces where key standards fall well below an acceptable standard would provide a more active and effective regulation<br />
than the current regime of largely toothless recommendations.<br />
The College of Policing would have responsibility for managing new ‘professional competence and conduct panels;, but<br />
the IPSC should have a duty to ensure that they are meeting the public interest.<br />
2
Lord Stevens envisages that the new body would be ‘prosecution authority’ for serious complaints and the appeal body<br />
for complaints who were not satisfied with lower level complaints.<br />
Making savings and efficiencies<br />
The Commission recommends the development of a national procurement strategy co‐ordinated jointly by the Ministry<br />
of Justice and the Home Office for IT, Non IT consumables and forensic services; the aim being to secure integration,<br />
common standards and value for money of these services.<br />
We hope this is helpful; if you have any questions or comments don’t hesitate to get in touch.<br />
Regards,<br />
Joel<br />
APCC Secretariat<br />
Joel Charles|Communications Manager|The Association of Police and Crime Commissioners, APCC|0770312<strong>41</strong>74 | 2 nd<br />
Floor, 10 Victoria Street, London, SW1H 0NN|www.apccs.police.uk<br />
Follow Us: Twitter @assocpccs<br />
Visit our website for quick links to the news you need to see today<br />
This communication may contain privileged and confidential information. Any views of opinions expressed are those of the originator and not necessarily those of<br />
the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners'.<br />
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,<br />
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<br />
immediately and delete it from your system.<br />
This communication may contain privileged and confidential information. Any views of opinions expressed are those of the originator and not necessarily those of<br />
the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners'.<br />
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,<br />
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<br />
immediately and delete it from your system.<br />
3
Buckley, Claire (PA)<br />
From:<br />
APCCS Joel Charles <br />
Sent: 30 November 2013 18:16<br />
To:<br />
APCCS Joel Charles<br />
Subject:<br />
GR-A 120/2013 (Restricted): NPAS statement - police helicopter accident Glasgow<br />
To:<br />
Cc:<br />
Police and Crime Commissioners<br />
Chief Executives<br />
APCC Team<br />
Dear Police and Crime Commissioners,<br />
GR‐A 120/2013 (Restricted): NPAS statement ‐ police helicopter accident Glasgow<br />
I have been asked by Mark Burns‐Williamson and Chief Constable Mark Gilmore to update you this evening on the<br />
police helicopter crash in Glasgow ‐ please find below a statement from the National Police Air Service (NPAS).<br />
CONFIDENTIAL FOR INTERNAL POLICE AND APCC USE ONLY ‐ NOT FOR MEDIA<br />
NPAS update for APCC and ACPO from Mark Burns‐Williamson West Yorkshire Police and Crime Commissioner and Mark<br />
Gilmore, Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police, following the police helicopter accident in Glasgow.<br />
"The National Police Air Service has been following the tragic events in Glasgow, our thoughts and concerns are with<br />
those colleagues and members of the public who may have been killed or injured in this accident, as well as with their<br />
friends and families. On behalf of NPAS Mark Gilmore passed on our most sincere condolences to Sir Steve House. He<br />
also reassured him in respect of any operational support or contingency cover that can be offered by NPAS to assist<br />
Police Scotland colleagues and the communities affected.<br />
The Northumbria air base has been contacted and has agreed to provide any immediate emergency support required.<br />
The NPAS control room at West Yorkshire has agreed to receive calls on behalf of Police Scotland in respect of its<br />
helicopter requirement. A request has been received by NPAS from Police Scotland to consider operational support<br />
covering the next week. The Chief Constable and Police and Crime Commissioner will be in contact with all members of<br />
the NPAS Strategic Board and, indeed, colleagues in the wider service.<br />
The Eurocopter involved in the incident is the only police helicopter operating in Scotland, and was believed to be<br />
returning to its base in Glasgow when the accident happened. The Scottish aircraft is operated by Bond Aviation. It is<br />
too early to speculate on what has caused the accident although early press reporting has focused upon possible<br />
mechanical failure. The true cause will only emerge from the air accident investigation.<br />
The Scottish aircraft is a Eurocopter 135. NPAS operates 14 Eurocopter 135s on its fleet. NPAS has already been in<br />
contact with the airframe manufacturer EurocopterUK and the engine manufacturer Turbomecca and there is no<br />
operator advice at this time, pending the outcome of the accident investigation. Presently, NPAS service remains<br />
unaffected, however we may at some future time receive safety directives from the CAA regarding our aircraft and<br />
operation.<br />
NPAS's regional managers are making contact with staff at all our bases to support them and any concerns they may<br />
have regarding flight safety.<br />
1
We will provide further updates as and when new information arrives. Once again, on behalf of NPAS, the Police and<br />
Crime Commissioner Mark Burns‐Williamson and Mark Gilmore, West Yorkshire Police Chief Constable, would like to<br />
express their sincere condolences.”<br />
Mike Green<br />
Corporate Commmunications Officer<br />
West Yorkshire Police<br />
01924 292045<br />
ext 22045<br />
07595006125<br />
We hope this is helpful; if you have any questions or comments don’t hesitate to get in touch.<br />
Regards,<br />
Joel<br />
APCC Secretariat<br />
Joel Charles|Communications Manager|The Association of Police and Crime Commissioners’<br />
Board, APCC|0770312<strong>41</strong>74 | 2 nd Floor, 10 Victoria Street, London, SW1H 0NN|www.apccs.police.uk<br />
Follow Us: Twitter @assocpccs<br />
Visit our website for quick links to the news you need to see today<br />
This communication may contain privileged and confidential information. Any views of opinions expressed are those of the originator and not necessarily those of<br />
the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners'.<br />
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,<br />
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<br />
immediately and delete it from your system.<br />
This communication may contain privileged and confidential information. Any views of opinions expressed are those of the originator and not necessarily those of<br />
the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners'.<br />
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,<br />
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<br />
immediately and delete it from your system.<br />
2
Buckley, Claire (PA)<br />
From:<br />
Apccs Support <br />
Sent: 02 December 2013 17:04<br />
Subject:<br />
GR-A 122/2013 (restricted): ACPO Review - Written Resolution<br />
Attachments: Written resolution guidance note.doc; ACPO Review Ordinary Resolution dated 2<br />
December 2013.doc; Annex A Voting Card written resolution.doc<br />
To:<br />
Cc:<br />
Police and Crime Commissioners<br />
Chief Executives<br />
APCC Team<br />
Dear Police and Crime Commissioners<br />
Last week we confirmed that the meeting on 12 th December will not take place but a written resolution regarding the<br />
ACPO review will be provided instead. Please find attached the following on behalf of the ACPO Review Working Group:<br />
1. Written Resolution guidance note<br />
2. Proposal<br />
3. Voting form<br />
Please return the form by replying to this email by noon on 12 th December 2013. If you have any queries, please<br />
contact Tania Eagle (Tania.eagle@apccs.pnn.police.uk, 07714399755).<br />
Regards<br />
Tania<br />
Tania Eagle|Buisness Director|The Association of Police and Crime Commissioners, APCC| 2 nd Floor, 10 Victoria Street,<br />
London, SW1H 0NN|www.apccs.police.uk|Follow Us: Twitter @assocpccs<br />
This communication may contain privileged and confidential information. Any views of opinions expressed are those of the originator and not necessarily those of<br />
the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners'.<br />
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,<br />
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<br />
immediately and delete it from your system.<br />
This communication may contain privileged and confidential information. Any views of opinions expressed are those of the originator and not necessarily those of<br />
the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners'.<br />
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,<br />
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<br />
immediately and delete it from your system.<br />
1
2 December 2013<br />
Written Resolution on ACPO Review<br />
1. Summary<br />
The ACPO Review Working Group seeks the agreement of members to their<br />
recommendations on the Parker Review.<br />
2. Articles<br />
3. Voting<br />
APCC articles allow the use of written resolutions. Article 38 refers but in essence as this<br />
resolution does not relate to the constitution or articles of the company it can be passed<br />
as an ordinary resolution. This means that it will pass if 51% of eligible members are in<br />
agreement. As a written resolution it shall lapse if it is not passed before the end of 28<br />
days beginning with the date on which the resolution is circulated.<br />
A member signifies his/her agreement to a written resolution when the APCC receives<br />
from him/her an authenticated document identifying the resolution to which it relates<br />
indicating agreement to the resolution. The document may be sent to the APCC in hard<br />
copy or electronic form. The voting card at Annex A should be completed indicating<br />
agreement or otherwise. Once received by the APCC it may not be revoked. The<br />
written resolution will be passed once the majority of eligible members have signified<br />
agreement.<br />
4. Issues of Note<br />
Members may wish to note the following:<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Once passed a resolution of this nature is binding upon members.<br />
That Resolution 1 refers to all the recommendations in the attached paper titled<br />
“ACPO Review”.<br />
That the recommendation that The Chair of the Implementation Board should<br />
present proposals to APCC members for endorsement and ratification at<br />
General Meetings throughout 2014/15 ensures that members can retain<br />
ownership of outcomes.<br />
That the review of the financial commitment being reviewed at three monthly<br />
intervals by the Implementation Board should ensure that activity can take<br />
place and is used to resource the programme and ensure continuity of those<br />
functions currently provided by ACPO that are deemed to be essential.<br />
Contacts<br />
Mark Castle mark.castle@apccs.pnn.police.co.uk/07714399752
2 December 2013<br />
Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) Review<br />
1. Summary<br />
The Independent review of ACPO commissioned by the Association of Police and Crime<br />
Commissioners (APCC) and led by General Sir Nick Parker was presented for members'<br />
consideration on 14 November 2013. The ACPO Working Group members welcomed what<br />
they described as a "thorough, perceptive and fair report" and proposed that a consultation<br />
period to 28 November would enable stakeholder and member feedback to inform their<br />
final recommendations. This short paper contains those recommendations and an outline<br />
direction of travel.<br />
2. Recommendations<br />
Members are invited to:<br />
Agree to cease funding ACPO Limited from 1 April 2014.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Form an Implementation Board comprised of an independent Chair, the three PCC<br />
members of the ACPO Review Working Group, MOPAC, three Chief Officer rank<br />
police officers representative of the scale (small to large) 1 of forces in England and<br />
Wales, to be nominated by the current ACPO President, a senior representative<br />
from the College of Policing and Home Office representative to oversee the<br />
development and implementation of the recommendations in the Parker report.<br />
Agree to the ACPO Working Group apppointing an Independent Chair to lead the<br />
development and implementation of the recommendations in the Parker report.<br />
Agree that the draft implementation programme and Terms of Reference for the<br />
Implementation Board should be submitted to APCC members at the General<br />
Meeting on 21 January which should include an implementation plan and<br />
resourcing proposals.<br />
Agree that the Chair of the Implementation Board, supported by the three PCC<br />
members of the ACPO Review Working Group, should present proposals to APCC<br />
members for endorsement and ratification at General Meetings in 2014/15.<br />
Agree to make an interim grant of £600K to be used at the Implementation Board’s<br />
discretion to resource the transition, post 1 April 2014. On the basis that spending<br />
and implementation activity will be reported to members every three months until<br />
the conclusion of the Implementation Board’s work.<br />
1 Using the Force Weighting Mechanism as shown on page 38 table 3.2 of “Report on the pay of Police and Crime<br />
Commissioners” by Review Body on Senior Salaries dated October 2011; one representative from Force Weighting<br />
scale 1.5 to 2.0, one from 2.5 to 4.5 and one from 5.0 to 10.
2 December 2013<br />
3. Governance and Accountability<br />
The complexity of the transition from the present arrangements to those recommended in the<br />
Parker Report demand both a high degree of scrutiny and planning. It will be important that the<br />
consequences of change are identified early, that stakeholders maintain confidence in the<br />
programme, that value for money is delivered and that the outcome achieves credibility with<br />
the public. In order to maintain momentum and credibility the programme should be led by an<br />
Independent Chair with significant experience of implementing transformational change. He/she<br />
should be supported by a Board working to Terms of Reference agreed by PCCs. The Board<br />
should oversee and direct working groups charged to develop implementation plans that realise<br />
the Parker Report’s recommendations.<br />
4 Timings<br />
The scale of the proposed changes and the operational implications demand that a sense of<br />
urgency is maintained. An implementation plan with clear objectives and timings should be<br />
presented to APCC members for endorsement on 21 January 2014 to be completed by 1 April<br />
2015.<br />
5 Resources and ACPO Ltd<br />
It is for the Directors of ACPO to determine its future but continuity of those functions deemed<br />
essential in the Parker report will be integral to the success of this change programme. At the<br />
earliest opportunity the Implementation Board should present a costed migration plan that<br />
takes into account any agreement reached with ACPO Directors regarding the transfer of<br />
resources. The Parker report identified the requirement to resource the change programme<br />
during its first year while funding streams are being developed. Rather than commit the £1.2 M<br />
suggested in the Parker Report. PCCs are requested to underwrite the change programme by<br />
agreeing to an initial grant of £600K to the Implementation Board. It is intended that the<br />
financial commitment is reviewed at three monthly intervals by the Board and is used to<br />
resource the programme and ensure continuity of those functions currently provided by ACPO<br />
that are deemed to be essential. Early consideration should be given to strategic<br />
communications, as transparency and maintaining public confidence will be critical to success.<br />
6. Conclusion<br />
The successful development and implementation of the recommendations and proposals<br />
contained within the Parker Report are critical to the success of the wider Police reform<br />
programme. The interests of many stakeholders must be taken into account and activity must<br />
be synchronised to ensure operational output is maintained and value for money delivered. It is<br />
equally important that the outcome meets the requirements of the PCCs who must remain close<br />
to decisions throughout and gives confidence to both serving police officers and staff and the<br />
public.<br />
Contact Officer: Mark Castle (mark.castle@apccs.pnn.police.uk) 07714 399752
Annex A To<br />
Written Resolution on ACPO Review<br />
Dated 2 December 2013<br />
ASSOCIATION OF POLICE AND CRIME COMMISSIONERS<br />
Written Resolution<br />
2 December 2013<br />
VOTING CARD<br />
ACPO Review<br />
Please record your vote by placing an X under the appropriate<br />
column next to the relevant resolution:<br />
For Against<br />
<br />
Resolution 1 <br />
Name …………………………………………………………………………………………<br />
Signature ……………………………………………………………………………………<br />
Area …………………………………………………………………………………………..<br />
Please return this form no later than 12 December 2013 to<br />
apccs.support@apccs.pnn.police.uk
Buckley, Claire (PA)<br />
From:<br />
APCCS Cat Mclntyre <br />
Sent: 04 December 2013 14:21<br />
Cc:<br />
APCCS Mark Castle; APCCS Tania Eagle; APCCS Cat Mclntyre; APCCS Clare O' Sullivan;<br />
APCCS Dawn Osborne; APCCS Simon Efford; APCCS Joel Charles; Apccs Support;<br />
Andrew Tremayne<br />
Subject:<br />
GR-A 123/2013: **Restricted** APCC Briefing on <strong>FOI</strong> Request Concerning Convictions<br />
Attachments:<br />
APCC Briefing - <strong>FOI</strong> request on PCC and staff convictions.docx<br />
To:<br />
CC:<br />
Police and Crime Commissioners<br />
Chief Executives<br />
APCC Team<br />
Dear Police and Crime Commissioners,<br />
GR‐A 123/2013: **Restricted** APCC Briefing on <strong>FOI</strong> Request Concerning Convictions<br />
Further to my email GR‐B 351/2013, I am now able to enclose the advice referred to in that email about a recent <strong>FOI</strong><br />
request which we believe has been sent to all PCCs. This comes from Rob Weekes of Open World News and concerns<br />
convictions and criminal records relating to PCCs and persons employed by PCCs. Given that this raises some complex<br />
Data Protection Issues, the APCC has on this occasion agreed to put together the briefing attached, which we hope will<br />
assist PCCs’ Offices in preparing their responses.<br />
Please note the attached document is restricted and care should therefore be taken in circulating it further, although we<br />
understand that PCCs may wish to share it with individuals who will be preparing the <strong>FOI</strong> response on their behalf.<br />
Please get in touch with me if you have any queries.<br />
Regards<br />
Cat McIntyre<br />
Please note my email address has changed to: cat.mcintyre@apccs.pnn.police.uk<br />
Cat McIntyre | Policy Lead | The Association of Police and Crime Commissioners (APCC) | 07714 399 754 | 2 nd Floor, 10<br />
Victoria Street, London, SW1H 0NN|www.apccs.police.uk<br />
Follow Us: Twitter @assocpccs<br />
Visit our website for quick links to the news you need to see today<br />
1
This communication may contain privileged and confidential information. Any views of opinions expressed are those of the originator and not necessarily those of<br />
the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners'.<br />
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,<br />
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<br />
immediately and delete it from your system.<br />
This communication may contain privileged and confidential information. Any views of opinions expressed are those of the originator and not necessarily those of<br />
the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners'.<br />
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,<br />
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<br />
immediately and delete it from your system.<br />
2
APCC briefing<br />
** Restricted **<br />
Briefing on <strong>FOI</strong> Request Concerning PCC and Staff Convictions<br />
‐ December 2013<br />
1. Introduction<br />
We understand most, if not all PCC Offices have received an <strong>FOI</strong> request from Rob Weekes of Open<br />
World News, concerning criminal records and convictions of the PCC and staff employed by the PCC.<br />
As this request raises a number of complex issues, particularly around the interplay between <strong>FOI</strong> and<br />
Data Protection, it has been decided that the APCC will prepare a briefing for PCC Offices to help<br />
guide them in their individual responses locally. We are grateful to the staff of the Police <strong>FOI</strong><br />
Referral Unit for their assistance with this task.<br />
2. The Request:<br />
The <strong>FOI</strong> request circulated to PCC offices asks for the information which follows:<br />
1. Details of any previous convictions of the Police and Crime Comissioner [sic] including:<br />
1. a) The number of people employed by the Police and Crime Commissioner, including the PCC<br />
him or herself, (including those suspended, subject to caution, etc.) who have criminal records<br />
(for example, but not limited to, convictions, out‐of‐court disposals, etc.)<br />
1. b) Of these, the number known to be on the Sex Offenders Register or have convictions or outof‐court<br />
disposals for sex offences (of any type, including child sex).<br />
2. For each case, please provide:<br />
a) A description of the offence committed<br />
b) The punishment received<br />
c) The date of the conviction and the date when the crime was committed<br />
3. Lack of Clarity<br />
Several of the questions lack clarity in a number of respects, and the initial response to the questions<br />
might be to ask for clarification of the request (S8(1)(c) of the Act) in relation to:<br />
‣ Question 1 – it is not clear if the information sought here is specifically in relation to the PCC or is<br />
merely a preamble to the more statistical information sought in 1a, and 1b. In any event, for<br />
Data Protection reasons, if this is a request for information about the criminal record of a PCC as<br />
an individual, it can only be met with a Neither Confirm Nor Deny response (by virtue of S40(5) of<br />
the <strong>FOI</strong> Act) – see paragraph 4.1 for further discussion on this point.<br />
APCC, 10 Victoria Street, London SW1H 0NN<br />
T 020 7084 8957 E enquiries@apccs.pnn.police.uk @AssocPCCs www.apccs.police.uk<br />
The APCC provides support to all Police and Crime Commissioners and policing governance bodies in England, Wales and Northern Ireland
** Restricted **<br />
‣ Questions 1 and 2 – it is not clear which staff the inquiry relates to – since the PCC technically still<br />
employs all force staff, as well as the staff in his or her own office, and it might first be helpful to<br />
clarify this. In any event, there are a number of problems relating to what access a PCC might<br />
have to information about criminal convictions, other than through personnel files in his or her<br />
possession. This is dealt with in more detail in paragraph 4.5 below.<br />
‣ Questions 2 a‐c – it is not clear whether ‘each case’ refers to 1a and 1 b, or just to the latter<br />
question – and clarification could also be sought on this point.<br />
4. Issues to Consider<br />
1. To some extent there may be conflicts between a PCC’s desire to be open in the interests of<br />
transparency, the constraints required by the Data Protection Act, and precedents set now which<br />
might have unintended impacts if asked again in future years. As mentioned, requests for<br />
information about criminal convictions in relation to specific individuals should be met with the<br />
Neither Confirm Nor Deny response (NCND), because to do otherwise risks revealing personal<br />
information. Even a response of ‘none’ or ‘information not held’ is problematic, since the first is<br />
revealing personal information and the second could set a precedent which might imply a<br />
conviction if a different answer to “NCND” is given in a future request, or if that information is<br />
subsequently held.<br />
2. Statistical data which does not identify individuals can be disclosed, such as the information<br />
requested at question 1a – but particularly in a small office (if clarification of the request does<br />
reveal that it relates only to staff within the PCC’s Office) providing statistical data could in<br />
practice enable individuals to be identified, particularly if the detailed information requested at<br />
question 2 is also provided. The very sensitive nature of question 1b needs particular caution<br />
(the police do not generally disclose statistical information at levels lower that per 10,000<br />
persons for this type of question, and staff within a PCC’s office will be much lower that this).<br />
PCCs might consider the public interest in relation to sex offenders outweighs some of the<br />
statistical risks. However, an answer of ‘none’ or ‘information not held’ could cause future<br />
problems in the same way as discussed at paragraph 1 above, and an NCND response should<br />
therefore also be considered in relation to questions 1a, 1b and 2a‐c.<br />
3. If the request applies to all police staff as well as staff in the PCC’s office, this introduces a<br />
measure of scale which might bring into play issues of the excessive cost of answering the<br />
request.<br />
4. Whether the request applies to all force staff, or only to staff in the PCC’s Office, the issue of<br />
what information is actually held within the PCC’s office needs to be considered. Information on<br />
force staff is unlikely to be held by the PCC and, since many PCCs also rely on their force to<br />
undertake vetting and criminal record checks of their own staff, information of this nature may<br />
not be held in relation to PCC’s staff either. If it is, it is likely to be the sort of information held in<br />
personnel files, since PCCs are not able to trawl force systems, such as the PND or ViSOR<br />
database (which holds information on sex offenders). However, for the reasons outlined above<br />
NCND principles should still be considered, as this may be preferable to an ‘information not held’<br />
answer.<br />
5. Summary Advice<br />
The suggested action in response to this request is therefore as follows:<br />
Page 2 of 4<br />
APCC, 10 Victoria Street, London SW1H 0NN<br />
T 020 7084 8957 E enquiries@apccs.pnn.police.uk @AssocPCCs www.apccs.police.uk<br />
The APCC provides support to all Police and Crime Commissioners and policing governance bodies in England, Wales and Northern Ireland
** Restricted **<br />
‣ PCCs Offices might first wish to clarify the request as suggested in paragraph 3 above<br />
‣ Does data recovery exceed the fees limit (particularly if the request in relation to police staff as<br />
well as the staff in the PCC’s Office)?<br />
‣ PCC Offices can only use information held in their systems to answer the question, not that held<br />
on force systems<br />
‣ Any direct question about the criminal history of an individual requires the consistent application<br />
of S40(5) – NCND response<br />
‣ Statistical information can be provided (such as that asked in question 1a and 1b of the request),<br />
provided it does not identify an individual, BUT the risks of doing so need to be considered and<br />
balanced with the public interests in disclosure, and particular caution may need to be exercised<br />
around the sensitivity and high risks in relation to questions 1b.<br />
‣ There is a higher risk in a small office (if the request relates only to the staff in the PCC’s office)<br />
that providing statistical information may result in individuals being identified inadvertently,<br />
particularly if supplemented by additional detail, such as that requested at question 2.<br />
‣ Because of these risks, NCND principles should be considered in relation to the provision of<br />
statistical information, and a partial NCND (S40(5)) applied to other information that may or may<br />
not be held in relation to the whole request. This might be preferable to an ‘information not<br />
held’ answer for the reasons set out in paragraph 4 above.<br />
Any Questions?<br />
If you have any questions on this briefing, please get in touch with cat.mcintyre@apccs.pnn.police.uk<br />
(07714 399 754).<br />
APCC Secretariat – December 2013<br />
Contact: cat.mcintyre@apcc.pnn.police.uk (07714 399 754)<br />
Page 3 of 4<br />
APCC, 10 Victoria Street, London SW1H 0NN<br />
T 020 7084 8957 E enquiries@apccs.pnn.police.uk @AssocPCCs www.apccs.police.uk<br />
The APCC provides support to all Police and Crime Commissioners and policing governance bodies in England, Wales and Northern Ireland
** Restricted **<br />
Page 4 of 4<br />
APCC, 10 Victoria Street, London SW1H 0NN<br />
T 020 7084 8957 E enquiries@apccs.pnn.police.uk @AssocPCCs www.apccs.police.uk<br />
The APCC provides support to all Police and Crime Commissioners and policing governance bodies in England, Wales and Northern Ireland
Buckley, Claire (PA)<br />
From:<br />
APCCS Tania Eagle <br />
Sent: 04 December 2013 16:24<br />
Subject:<br />
GR-A 124/2013 (restricted): Supplementary Information to Written Resolution on<br />
ACPO Review<br />
Attachments:<br />
ACPO Review QA <strong>41</strong>213.doc<br />
To:<br />
Cc:<br />
Police and Crime Commissioners<br />
Chief Executives<br />
APCC Team<br />
Dear Police and Crime Commissioners<br />
The ACPO Review Working Group asked that the attached supplementary information is provided to you to assist your<br />
consideration in relation to the written resolution.<br />
We understand that Chief Constables will receive the proposal within the written resolution directly from ACPO, you<br />
may therefore wish to discuss the written resolution and supplementary information with your Chief Constables.<br />
Please let myself of Mark Castle know if you have any queries,<br />
Regards<br />
Tania<br />
Tania Eagle|Business Director|The Association of Police and Crime Commissioners, APCC|07714399755 | 2 nd Floor, 10<br />
Victoria Street, London, SW1H 0NN|www.apccs.police.uk<br />
Follow Us: Twitter @assocpccs<br />
Visit our website for quick links to the news you need to see today<br />
This communication may contain privileged and confidential information. Any views of opinions expressed are those of the originator and not necessarily those of<br />
the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners'.<br />
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,<br />
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<br />
immediately and delete it from your system.<br />
This communication may contain privileged and confidential information. Any views of opinions expressed are those of the originator and not necessarily those of<br />
the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners'.<br />
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,<br />
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<br />
immediately and delete it from your system.<br />
1
Q&A on Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) Review by<br />
Police and Crime Commissioners<br />
1. Summary<br />
The Independent review of ACPO commissioned by the Association of Police and Crime<br />
Commissioners (APCC) and led by General Sir Nick Parker was presented for members'<br />
consideration on 14 November 2013. The ACPO Working Group members welcomed what<br />
they described as a "thorough, perceptive and fair report" and proposed that a consultation<br />
period to 28 November would enable stakeholder and member feedback to inform their<br />
final recommendations. The ACPO Working Group have now sent their recommendations<br />
to APCC members for their consideration. This paper contains some answers to questions<br />
which members may be asked.<br />
2. Questions and Answers<br />
Why was the ACPO Review commissioned? Home office Ministers withdrew their financial<br />
support for parts of ACPO in 2012. PCCs were asked to continue their financial<br />
commitment but in the new policing landscape we felt that it was important to examine<br />
the continued relevance of ACPO as presently constituted.<br />
You have recommended that PCCs agree to cease funding ACPO Limited from 1 April<br />
2014, why? General Sir Nick Parker recommended in his independent review that it was<br />
inappropriate for PCCs to fund ACPO as a limited company. As PCCs are examining every<br />
penny of police budgets to assure best value, we want Chief Officers and their<br />
colleagues in the other ACPO ranks to focus on this problem and work with us to identify<br />
a workable alternative. We agree with the analysis that General Sir Nick Parker offered.<br />
We wish to work with the leaders of the policing profession to establish a workable<br />
alternative based on Chief Constables’ Council as was recommended in the Parker<br />
Report. We believe that this can be in place by 1 April if Chief Constables take ownership<br />
of the solution.<br />
You have recommended that an Implementation Board is formed, why? The<br />
Implementation Board demonstrates our commitment to objectivity and inclusivness.<br />
We believe that it is our responsibility to establish a group of committed experts whose<br />
job is to make this work and who feel as passionate as we do about getting the best<br />
outcome possible for the public.<br />
You have suggested that it has an independent Chair and a range of other representatives<br />
on the Board, why? We have carefully considered the composition of this Board. We<br />
have demonstrated our commitment to objectivity by commissioning Nick Parker’s work<br />
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<br />
important that the members of the Board have a vested interest in achieving success.<br />
Having the three PCC members of the ACPO Review Working Group, MOPAC, three<br />
Chief Officer rank police officers representing forces in England and Wales, a senior<br />
representative from the College of Policing and a Home Office representative ensures<br />
that the broad spectrum of those involved in policing in England and Wales will<br />
contribute to the development and implementation of the recommendations in the<br />
Parker report.<br />
But what difference will an independent Chair make? With the best will in the world<br />
committed stakeholders will bring both knowledge and baggage, an independent Chair<br />
with credibility but no vested interests can help reconcile differences and ensure<br />
constructive and workable solutions are put in place.<br />
What right have PCCs to dictate the implementation programme and Terms of Reference<br />
for the Implementation Board? PCCs have been elected by the public to hold Chief<br />
Constables to account and to ensure the efficiency and effectiveness of the service<br />
delivered to the public. PCCs respect the professional independence of the leaders of<br />
policing and want to work with them to realise the proposals in the Parker report. It is<br />
important that at all times PCCs act as the voice of the public and ensure an affordable<br />
outcome. As part of the accountability and scrutiny process PCCs will review proposals<br />
in January, March and July and thereafter as required.<br />
What is the hurry? There is an ongoing need to keep the public safe from harm. We must<br />
ensure that the momentum and sense of urgency is maintained.<br />
Why do PCCs need to be consulted regularly through the implementation? PCCs will have<br />
to underwrite and fund these proposals, it is important that they scrutinise them on<br />
behalf of the public that they represent.<br />
If you are not funding ACPO why do you need to make an interim grant of £600K? ACPO as<br />
a vehicle has delivered a critically important service to the public over the years, as the<br />
Parker Report recognised. ACPO’s pragmatic response to policing challenges has led to<br />
an accumulation of functions which need to be reorganised and rationalised. The Parker<br />
report recommended that an alternative funding model to ACPO Limited be used and<br />
so, while we work with Chief Constables to establish a sustainable alternative we must<br />
ensure continuity of essential operational activity. There should be no sense that we are<br />
creating a cliff edge; we are confident that Chief Constables will have proposed a<br />
sustainable and cheaper alternative means of meeting the requirements of Chief<br />
Constables Council at an early opportunity. This investment will prime the pump and<br />
sustain it while a business plan is developed and will ensure that critical activity<br />
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<br />
the ACPO presidential team and sought views from chief officer at the ACPO conference.<br />
They also considered a written response from ACPO in their deliberations.<br />
Who will pay and how? PCCs and other Policing Governance Bodies will pay using the<br />
same formula as last year. The APCC will invoice on behalf of the Implementation<br />
Board. But why can’t ACPO continue and resource this from its reserves? ACPO<br />
directors have statutory responsibilities, only they can determine what is in the best<br />
interests of the public going forward and what is in their personal interests as Directors.<br />
We can only encourage them to join with us to deliver the best possible outcome for the<br />
public.<br />
When is all this change going to be finished? We have got to get this right but are<br />
confident that working alongside Chief Constables and other partners that if we aim for<br />
completion in a year we should be about right.<br />
Contact Officer: Mark Castle (mark.castle@apccs.pnn.police.uk) 07714 399752