DOCSLIB.ORG

Graffiti Removal

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Graffiti Removal Graffiti Removal Code of Practice for exercising the powers set out in section 12 and 13 of the London Local Authorities Act 1995 (as amended) Association of London Government The Association of London Government (ALG) is committed to fighting for more resources for London and getting the best possible deal for London’s 33 councils. Part think tank and part lobbying organisation, we also run a range of services designed to make life better for Londoners. The Association of London Government (ALG) was formed in April 2000 from a merger of the five borough-funded London wide bodies that remained outside the new Greater London Authority. These were the previous ALG, the Greater London Employers’ Association, London Boroughs Grants, the London Housing Unit and the Transport Committee for London. The ALG represents all 32 London boroughs, the Corporation of London, the Metropolitan Police Authority and the London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority, which all pay an annual subscription. It is a statutory joint committee. It is in an ideal position to advise on a range of issues relating to London government and other matters of concern to Londoners. It also works closely with the Local Government Association and with many private, voluntary and public sector bodies. The main functions of the ALG are to: provide a single voice for its member authorities where possible, lobby for adequate resources for the capital, lead on policy formulation and debate on key issues for London, act as the employers’ organisation for the boroughs, provide specialist housing advice, allocate grants to voluntary organisations serving more than one borough and provide and manage certain London- wide transport and traffic services. This Code of Practice is published by the Association of London Government, Transport and Environment Committee (TEC). TEC aims to ensure that London boroughs’ concerns and best practice are taken fully into account in the development and implementation of the whole range of transport and environment policies generated by Government departments, the European Union, and the Mayor of London. 2 foreword Graffiti is not art… No matter where you live or work in London, graffiti is an all too frequent fact of everyday life. Where it occurs it is highly visible and has a great impact on the public and their perception of the area. Graffiti is not just an isolated nuisance but linked to other forms of enviro-crime that demean and spoil our streets, town centres and open spaces. Graffiti is a costly and annoying expression of anti-social behaviour that can undermine our sense of well-being, making us feel uncomfortable in our own neighbourhoods. The cost of graffiti is two fold, the financial cost of removing and enforcing against it, and the cost to our communities. London has led the way nationally, in pushing for legislative changes to allow local authorities to tackle graffiti and provide the services that people want. This echoes the direction of National Government to improve the quality of the local environment by giving Local Authorities greater and additional powers to deal with enviro-crimes. This Code of Practice sets out the powers contained in the London Local Authority Act 1995 (as amended) relating to Graffiti Removal. However more is needed than just removal if we are going to eradicate graffiti from London’s streets, town centres and open spaces. This poses a number of challenges for local authorities and other stakeholders to work together to prevent graffiti, to actively tackle the nuisance and take enforcement action against the perpetrators. The ALG and London local authorities acknowledge that property owners and occupiers are also the victims of graffiti, and suggests that real progress towards eradicating this nuisance can only be made if local authorities and stakeholders work in partnership; developing new and innovative local and regional solutions to remove and prevent graffiti and enforcement against the perpetrators, sharing information and best practice at a regional level in a coordinated London approach. Ultimately each of us has a role to play. The ALG believes that this approach is achievable across the capital and hope that through publicising the recommended process of partnership working London can make real progress in eradicating graffiti. Cllr. Mike Cartwright, Chair, Transport and Environment Committee 3 contents Introduction 5 General Principles 6 Graffiti 6 Graffiti Removal Notice 6 Owner and Occupiers 7 Land covered 7 Operational Land 7 Definitions of ‘offensive’ and ‘detrimental’ 7 Flyposting 8 Protected Parties 9 Protection of universal postal service providers 9 Procedure 10 Initial process 10 When to use the 1995 Act powers 10 Process for issuing a Notice 11 Service of Notice 11 Appeals 12 Counter Notice and Protected Parties 12 Enforcement 13 Procedures for dealing with repeat graffiti 13 Cleaning 14 Generally 14 Telecommunications Cabinets and Payphones 14 Access and Safety 15 Access to track/rail property 15 Access to Ports and Airports 15 Dealing with electrical equipment 16 Recovery of Expenditure 18 Monitoring, Rollout and Regulatory Impact Assessment 19 Appendices 20 Appendix A: Flow chart of procedure for graffiti removal 20 Appendix B: Standard Notice Template 23 Appendix C: Key regional and national stakeholders 26 4 introduction 1 Sections 12-14 of the London Local Authorities Act 2004 (‘the 2004 Act’) amend Sections 12 and 13 of the London Local Authorities Act 1995 (‘the 1995 Act’), enabling a local authority to serve a ‘graffiti removal notice’ on the occupiers of premises, apparatus or plant which would enable the local authority to recover the expenses of graffiti removal. 1 1 Section 12(6D) of the 2 The 1995 Act1 requires the Association of London Government, Transport and Environment joint 1995 Act. Committee2 (‘ALG TEC’) to agree and publish a Code of Practice (CoP) with respect to recovery of expenses before a borough can exercise this power. 2 ‘Joint committee’ means any joint committee established under section 3 The ALG TEC, although only required to develop a Code of Practice relating to recovery of costs for 101(5) the Local Government Act 1972 and graffiti removal, has, with the agreement of the London boroughs and in consultation with comprising at least one member from each affected owners and occupiers, extended this CoP to include operational and process issues, to borough council. In this provide guidance and help foster better working relationships and a partnership approach to case the Association of London Government, tackling the problem of graffiti. The ALG TEC will aim to ensure that, where feasible, there will be Transport and as much consistency with the national guidelines for use of similar powers provided in the Anti Environment Committee (‘ALG TEC’) performs this Social Behaviour Act 2003 (‘the ASB 2003 Act’) as possible. As this CoP has been prepared in function. consultation with the London boroughs and endorsed by the ALG TEC, London boroughs should have regard to it in employing the powers set out in sections 12 and 13 of the 1995 Act to aid in the prevention and removal of graffiti. 4 The CoP is also to publicise the recommended process of partnership working to explain how local authorities and owners and occupiers can work together to tackle graffiti. 5 The London boroughs, national and regional government, and owners and occupiers in the community affected by graffiti (‘stakeholders’) have been consulted in the preparation of this CoP, and the CoP has been published following a decision of the ALG TEC on 21 July 2005. 6 The ALG TEC will be responsible for liaising with stakeholders in the review of this CoP and the on- going development of uniform policy initiatives for combating graffiti. 5 general principles 7 Graffiti is a very important issue that is regularly highlighted as one of the key concerns of Londoners in the annual survey conducted by the ALG. It is a blight on the local environment for 3 London Assembly Environment Committee, people that live, work and visit London and citizens often associate it with anti-social behaviour scrutiny report on graffiti and crime and disorder. It is estimated to cost London £100m a year, with London boroughs in London, 2001. spending an estimated £7m a year on cleaning it up3. 8 This CoP is agreed on the premise and gives guidance that the London boroughs will use all reasonable steps to develop co-operative and constructive partnership arrangements with owners and occupiers in each of their local authority areas, which will support the prevention, management and removal of graffiti and aim to minimise the need for removal notices. It is also intended to foster a more standardised pan-London approach to graffiti removal. 9 London boroughs and owners and occupiers are encouraged to work cooperatively in tackling graffiti and all parties should work on the principle that graffiti should be removed as quickly as possible once identified, this is of particular importance regarding offensive graffiti. 10 It is acknowledged that property owners and occupiers are the victims of graffiti and the cost of its removal, extrapolated across London, can run to millions of pounds. London boroughs should encourage owners and occupiers to both take measures, as far as possible, to prevent graffiti (for example by using anti-graffiti coatings), and also to work in constructive partnership with the London boroughs to develop joint working initiatives to ensure effective and efficient removal of graffiti, as quickly as possible, with the aim being that notices are only issued as a last resort. 11 All parties should work on the principle that local authority employed staff and their contractors working to remove and prevent graffiti are knowledgeable in their field and deal with the issues on a daily basis and in undertaking their duties act with due diligence.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 2005 No. 1522 OPEN SPACES, ENGLAND and WALES the Royal
    STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS 2005 No. 1522 OPEN SPACES, ENGLAND AND WALES The Royal Parks (Regulation of Specified Parks) Order 2005 Made - - - - 6th June 2005 Laid before Parliament 8th June 2005 Coming into force - - 1st July 2005 The Secretary of State, in exercise of the powers conferred upon her by section 162(4) of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005(a), hereby makes the following Order: Citation and commencement 1. This Order may be cited as the Royal Parks (Regulation of Specified Parks) Order 2005 and shall come into force on 1st July 2005. Specified parks 2. The following parks, gardens, recreation grounds, open spaces or other land in the metropolitan police district are hereby specified for the purposes of section 162 of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 (Regulation of specified parks): Abingdon Street Garden, being the garden constructed on the sites of properties formerly known as 17-28 (both inclusive) Abingdon Street, London, SW1, the garden surrounding the adjoining Jewel Tower, and the lawn surrounding the King George V Memorial; Brompton Cemetery; Bushy Park; The Longford River and those parts of its banks which are for the time being under the control or management of the Secretary of State; Those parts of Greenwich Park which are for the time being under the control or management of the Secretary of State; Grosvenor Square Garden; Hampton Court Gardens; Hampton Court Green; Hampton Court Park; The Barge Walk (Hampton Court), being the whole of the riverside land under the control or management of the Secretary of State between Kingston and Hampton Court Bridges between the River Thames and the outer walls, gates, railings or fences of Hampton Court Park and Hampton Court Gardens; (a) 2005 c.
    [Show full text]
  • St 9617 2004 Dcl 1
    Council of the European Union Brussels, 30 November 2020 (OR. en) 9617/04 DCL 1 LIMITE SCH-EVAL 33 COMIX 344 DECLASSIFICATION of document: 9617/04 RESTREINT UE dated: 17 May 2004 new status: LIMITE Subject: Questionnaire – Questions to UK on data protection arrangements relating to the UK’s national implementation of the Schengen Information System. - Answers from the UK Delegations will find attached the declassified version of the above document. The text of this document is identical to the previous version. 9617/04 DCL 1 KAL SMART 2.C.S1 LIMITE EN RESTREINT UE COUNCIL OF Brussels, 17 May 2004 THE EUROPEAN UNION 9617/04 RESTREINT UE SCH-EVAL 33 COMIX 344 NOTE from : UK delegation to : Schengen Evaluation Working Party No. prev. doc. : 9227/04 SCH-EVAL 25 COMIX 308 + ADD 1 Subject : Questionnaire – Questions to UK on data protection arrangements relating to the UK’s national implementation of the Schengen Information System. - Answers from the UK The United Kingdom has asked the Schengen Evaluation Group to undertake an evaluation of the data protection arrangements which it has in place to support the introduction of the Schengen Information System to the UK. As the UK’s technical solution to the SIS has not yet been finalised, the questions relate only to data protection arrangements. Questions relating to the management and handling of the data will be answered in the context of the full SIS evaluation which will take place once the UK’s national solution has been fully implemented. 1. Provide the list of services with access to SIS data See Annex A and Annex B 9617/04 WvdR/kve 1 DG H RESTREINT UE EN RESTREINT UE 2.
    [Show full text]
  • Assessing the Value of Mounted Police Units in the UK
    Making and Breaking Barriers Assessing the value of mounted police units in the UK Chris Giacomantonio, Ben Bradford, Matthew Davies and Richard Martin For more information on this publication, visit www.rand.org/t/rr830 While the use of mounted police (i.e. police horses and riders) can be traced back to before the advent of the modern police service in 1829, very little is known about the actual work of mounted police from either academic or practitioner standpoints. Police horses are thought to have unique operational and symbolic value, particularly in public order policing (making barriers) and community engagement (breaking barriers) Published by the RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, Calif., and Cambridge, UK deployments. They may represent a calming presence or, and potentially at the same time, an imposing threat of force. Yet, the relationship between the use of police horses and broader notions of policing by consent in the UK is presently unknown, and all R® is a registered trademark. evidence for these claims is anecdotal at best. In recent years, mounted units have come under resource scrutiny in the UK due to austerity measures. Some forces have eliminated their mounted capacities altogether, while others have developed collaborative or mutual assistance arrangements with © Copyright 2015 RAND Corporation and University of Oxford neighbouring forces. The relative costs and benefits of the available options – maintaining units, merging and centralising mounted resources or eliminating them in whole or part – cannot at present be assessed confidently by individual forces or by national coordinating agencies such as the Home Office, the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) and the National Police Coordination Centre (NPoCC).
    [Show full text]
  • Parks in London Report Number: 7
    Subject: Parks in London Report Number: 7 Report to: Culture, Sport and Tourism Committee Date: 10 March 2004 Report of: Director of Secretariat 1. Recommendations 1.1 The Committee agrees the terms of reference for the parks in London scrutiny. 2. Background 2.1 At it’s meeting on 11 February 2004, the Culture Sport and Tourism Committee formally agreed to co-host a reception on 16 March 2004 with the Heritage Lottery Fund. The Committee also agreed to consider examining the management and funding of Royal Parks in London at its meeting on 21 April 2004. 2.2 Members requested more information and terms of reference for the scrutiny. 3. Issues for Consideration 3.1 The Royal Parks Agency (RPA) is an executive agency of the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. It manages 8 parks in London – St James Park, Green Park, Hyde Park, Kensington Gardens, Richmond Park, Greenwich Park, Regent’s Park, Bushy Park. Royal Parks also manages Brompton Cemetery, Downing Street residences and Grosvenor Square Gardens. 3.2 The Department of Culture Media and Sport allocates approximately £24m per annum to the RPA.1 In its most recent annual report, RPA noted that ‘our grant from DCMS is declining in real terms, year on year.’2 RPA is required by Government to increase self-generated income by £1.1m to £7 million from all sources by 2005/6. 3.3 The 5,000 hectares of Royal Parks are used by millions of Londoners for informal recreation – horse riding, golf, football, fishing and running. They play host to many large cultural events in London – outdoor classical and rock concerts, art exhibitions, theatre - and are home to significant London landmarks (for example, the London Zoo, the National Maritime Museum, Serpentine Galley).
    [Show full text]
  • The Phoenix Park, Dublin & the Royal Parks, London
    The Phoenix Park, Dublin & The Royal Parks, London An Irish Guard and a British woman exchange glances, 1948 John Maurer (act.1720-1742) (engraved by Laurie and Whittle), St James’s Park, taken near the stable yard, 1794 The Phoenix Park, Dublin & The Royal Parks, London Published in 2017 by the Government Project Co-ordinator Text © 2017 Publications Office Margaret Gormley Rheme Fordham, Daniel Hearsum, The Office of Public Works Dr John A McCullen and the Office of Jonathan Swift Street Exhibition Curators Public Works Trim Dr John A McCullen County Meath Rheme Fordham All rights reserved. No part of this Ireland publication may be reproduced, stored Exhibition Designers in a system or transmitted, in any form, to coincide with the exhibition Steven McNamara or by any means, electronic, mechanical, Jurga Rakauskaite photocopying, recording or otherwise, Parks: Our Shared Heritage. without the necessary prior permission The Phoenix Park, Dublin and Catalogue Project Team of the publisher. The Royal Parks, London Margaret Gormley Bridgeen Kelly While every effort has been made to 7 April 2017 – 28 May 2017 Raychel Coyle contact and obtain permission from in Farmleigh, Dublin, and Niamh Guihen holders of copyright, if any involuntary Pat Blair infringement of copyright has occurred, 27 July 2017 – 15 August 2017 Dr John A McCullen sincere apologies are offered and the in The Mall Galleries, London Rheme Fordham owner of the copyright is requested to Daniel Hearsum contact the Office of Public Works. Catalogue Co-ordinators ISBN: XXXXXXXXXXXXX ISBN etc Margaret Gormley as of 26/1/17 Marie Harpur Catalogue Text Editor Elizabeth Mayes Catalogue Designer Paul Martin Printed and bound in Ireland ? by: XXXXXXXXX EXHIBITION VENUES Parks: Our Shared Heritage.
    [Show full text]
  • Assessing the Value of Mounted Police Units in the UK: Summary Report
    Making and Breaking Barriers Assessing the value of mounted police units in the UK: Summary report Chris Giacomantonio, Ben Bradford, Matthew Davies and Richard Martin For more information on this publication, visit www.rand.org/t/rr830z1 While the use of mounted police (i.e. police horses and riders) can be traced back to before the advent of the modern police service in 1829, very little is known about the actual work of mounted police from either academic or practitioner standpoints. Police horses are thought to have unique operational and symbolic value, particularly in public order policing (making barriers) and community engagement (breaking barriers) Published by the RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, Calif., and Cambridge, UK deployments. They may represent a calming presence or, and potentially at the same time, an imposing threat of force. Yet, the relationship between the use of police horses and broader notions of policing by consent in the UK is presently unknown, and all R® is a registered trademark. evidence for these claims is anecdotal at best. In recent years, mounted units have come under resource scrutiny in the UK due to austerity measures. Some forces have eliminated their mounted capacities altogether, while others have developed collaborative or mutual assistance arrangements with © Copyright 2014 RAND Corporation and University of Oxford neighbouring forces. The relative costs and benefits of the available options – maintaining units, merging and centralising mounted resources or eliminating them in whole or part – cannot at present be assessed confidently by individual forces or by national coordinating agencies such as the Home Office, the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) and the National Police Coordination Centre (NPoCC).
    [Show full text]
  • IN the NEWS of History, It Had Survived Its Republican Successor by Some Six Years
    The Grand Order was virtually identical to the Imperial December 3, 2012) Grand Order founded the previous year by the last 16. Hong Shuxu would live comfortably for years until May 1919 Emperor Puyi. In both design and institution, the Grand when he was spotted in Shanghai by Song Jiaoren’s son. He was arrested, charged with murder and executed: Jerome Chen (1972). Order was indelibly linked to the ambitions of one man, 17. Jerome Chen (1972) the former imperial strongman turned President who 18. Article 1, 1912 Decree betrayed two Emperors and finally the Republic. 19. Article 2, 1912 Regulations 20. Article 13, 1912 Decree 21. Articles 2 and 5, 1912 Decree Despite its overt symbolism, the Republican Grand Order 22. Article 4, 1912 Decree survived the widespread revolt against Yuan’s imperial 23. Articles 10, 11 and 12, 1912 Regulations ambitions. After Yuan’s death, it continued to be conferred 24. “The Grand Order”, http://www.huizhang2000.com/china/ by his Beiyang successors. It was abolished by the new beiyang/xunzhang/daxunzhang/daxunzhang.htm (accessed June Guomindang government in 1929 although awards 10, 2013) 25. Paul Kua (1998) effectively ceased the previous year with the defeat of the Beiyang warlords. The 1934 photograph shows Puyi wearing the Imperial Grand Order. In one of those ironies IN THE NEWS of history, it had survived its Republican successor by some six years. Death of Marine Medal of Honor Recipient Acknowledgements Paul Kua and his pioneering study on the Grand Order and the Order of the White Eagle published by this Journal in 1998; Donna Chan for assistance in translating the original statutes; and fellow contributors of the Gentleman’s Military Interest Club forum (www.gmic.
    [Show full text]
  • Middlesex University Research Repository an Open Access Repository Of
    Middlesex University Research Repository An open access repository of Middlesex University research http://eprints.mdx.ac.uk Hussein, Ian Emir (2000) The case for a london-wide authority and agency responsible for burial and cremation. DProf thesis, Middlesex University. [Thesis] Final accepted version (with author’s formatting) This version is available at: https://eprints.mdx.ac.uk/13406/ Copyright: Middlesex University Research Repository makes the University’s research available electronically. Copyright and moral rights to this work are retained by the author and/or other copyright owners unless otherwise stated. The work is supplied on the understanding that any use for commercial gain is strictly forbidden. A copy may be downloaded for personal, non-commercial, research or study without prior permission and without charge. Works, including theses and research projects, may not be reproduced in any format or medium, or extensive quotations taken from them, or their content changed in any way, without first obtaining permission in writing from the copyright holder(s). They may not be sold or exploited commercially in any format or medium without the prior written permission of the copyright holder(s). Full bibliographic details must be given when referring to, or quoting from full items including the author’s name, the title of the work, publication details where relevant (place, publisher, date), pag- ination, and for theses or dissertations the awarding institution, the degree type awarded, and the date of the award. If you believe that any material held in the repository infringes copyright law, please contact the Repository Team at Middlesex University via the following email address: [email protected] The item will be removed from the repository while any claim is being investigated.
    [Show full text]
  • Hyde Park Management Plan 2006
    HYDE PARK MANAGEMENT PLAN The Royal Parks 2006 - 2016 Updated project register 2014 HYDE PARK MANAGEMENT PLAN Prepared for The Royal Parks By Land Use Consultants DRAFT JANUARY 2006 43 Chalton Street London NW1 1JD Tel: 020 7383 5784 Original draft March 2003 Fax: 020 7383 4798 Revision B December 2005 [email protected] CONTENTS PART 1. CONTEXT AND RESPONSIBILITIES 1 1. INTRODUCTION 3 Structure of the Management Plan 5 2.GENERAL AND MANAGEMENT CONTEXT 7 Location 7 Park Management Structure 7 Main Leases, Licences and Warrants 8 Public Access 9 3. STRATEGIC FRAMEWORK 11 National Policies and Designations 11 Strategic Planning Advice 13 4. HISTORICAL CONTEXT 15 Significance of Park Evolution 17 PART 2. DESCRIPTION, USE AND CHARACTER 31 5. PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION 33 6. NATURAL FABRIC 35 Trees 35 Grassland 37 Horticultural Display Areas 38 Ecology and Wildlife 39 7. BUILDINGS AND HARD LANDSCAPE FABRIC 43 Buildings and Structures 43 Boundary Treatments and Entrances 44 Road and Path Network 45 Park Furniture and Signage 46 Other Artefacts, Sculpture and Monuments 47 8. PUBLIC USE 51 Public Access 51 Visitor Profile 51 Events 52 Visitor Amenities 52 Organised Sport and Facilities 55 Informal and Semi-Formal Activities 56 Visitor Satisfaction 56 9. LANDSCAPE CHARACTER 59 Views 59 Hyde Park Management Plan v Description of Character Areas and their Management 63 Policy PUB6: Roads and Traffic 109 External Areas 78 Policy PUB7: Car Parking 110 Policy PUB8: Facilities 110 Policy PUB9: Sport 111 PART 3. LANDSCAPE STRATEGY 81 Policy PUB10: Events and Entertainment 111 Policy PUB11: Orientation AND SIGNAGE 112 10.
    [Show full text]
  • A-Z Glossary of Police Terms
    A-Z Glossary of Police Terms A A Acting/Prefix before Rank e.g. A/SGT = Acting Sergeant AA Activity Analysis ABC Activity Based Costing ABC Acceptable Behaviour Contract ABH Actual Bodily Harm ABI Association of British Insurers AC Assistant Commissioner ACC Assistant Chief Constable ACCP Assistant Chief Crown Prosecutor ACPO Association of Chief Police Officers ACPOS Association of Chief Police Officers Scotland ACPORP Association of Chief Police Officers Road Policing Committee ADI Approved Driving Instructor ADO Accident Damage Only ADP Automatic Data Processing ADS Accredited Document Set A&E Accident and Emergency AEA Approved Enforcement Agency AEAC Atomic Energy Authority Constabulary AED Automatic Eternal Defibrillator AFI Area for Improvement AFO Authorised Firearms Officer AFR Automatic Fingerprint Recognition AGP Assurance Gathering Process AGR Advances Gas Cooled Reactor AIDS Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome AIU Accident Investigation Unit A/L Annual Leave ALO Architectural Liaison Officer ANPR Automatic Number Plate Recognition APA Association of Police Authorities APACS Assessments of Policing and Community Safety API Accident Personal Injury APS Acting Police Sergeant API Accident Personal Injury APS Acting Police Sergeant ARA Asset Recovery Agency ARB Accident Report Booklet ARGUS The Operational name for COLP Anti Terrorism Patrol ARV Armed Response Vehicle ASAP As Soon As Possible ASBC Anti Social Behaviour Contract ASBO Anti Social Behaviour Order ASDO Argus Senior Duty Officer ASNT Area Search No Trace ASU Admin
    [Show full text]
  • Serious Organised Crime and Police Bill
    Serious Organised Crime and Police Bill [AS AMENDED IN STANDING COMMITTEE D] CONTENTS PART 1 THE SERIOUS ORGANISED CRIME AGENCY CHAPTER 1 SOCA: ESTABLISHMENT AND ACTIVITIES Establishment of SOCA 1 Establishment of Serious Organised Crime Agency Functions 2 Functions of SOCA as to serious organised crime 3 Functions of SOCA as to information relating to crime 4 Exercise of functions: general considerations General powers 5 SOCA’s general powers Annual plans and reports 6Annual plans 7 Annual reports Central supervision and direction 8 General duty of Secretary of State and Scottish Ministers 9 Strategic priorities 10 Performance targets 11 Codes of practice 12 Reports to Secretary of State 13 Power to direct submission of action plan 14 Revision of inadequate action plan 15 Procedure for giving directions under section 13 16 Reports relating to directions under section 13 17 Inspections Bill 44 53/4 ii Serious Organised Crime and Police Bill Financial provisions 18 Grants by Secretary of State 19 Determinations relating to grants under section 18 20 Charges by SOCA and other receipts 21 Accounts Operational matters 22 Operational responsibility of Director General 23 Activities in Scotland in relation to crime 24 Mutual assistance between SOCA and law enforcement agencies: voluntary arrangements 25 Mutual assistance between SOCA and law enforcement agencies: directed arrangements 26 Directed arrangements: Scotland 27 Use by SOCA of police premises etc. 28 Regulations as to equipment Liability for unlawful conduct 29 Liability of SOCA for acts of seconded staff etc. 30 Payment by SOCA of amounts in connection with unlawful conduct of employees etc. 31 Application of sections 29 and 30 to members of joint investigation teams 32 Liability of special police forces and law enforcement agencies for unlawful conduct of SOCA staff Use and disclosure of information 33 Use of information by SOCA 34 Disclosure of information by SOCA 35 Disclosure of information to SOCA 36 Restrictions on further disclosure General duties of police etc.
    [Show full text]
  • Serious Organised Crime and Police Bill
    Serious Organised Crime and Police Bill EXPLANATORY NOTES Explanatory notes to the Bill, prepared by the Home Office, are published separately as Bill 5—EN. EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS Mr Secretary Blunkett has made the following statement under section 19(1)(a) of the Human Rights Act 1998: In my view the provisions of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Bill are compatible with the Convention rights. Bill 5 53/4 Serious Organised Crime and Police Bill CONTENTS PART 1 THE SERIOUS ORGANISED CRIME AGENCY CHAPTER 1 SOCA: ESTABLISHMENT AND ACTIVITIES Establishment of SOCA 1 Establishment of Serious Organised Crime Agency Functions 2 Functions of SOCA as to serious organised crime 3 Functions of SOCA as to information relating to crime 4 Exercise of functions: general considerations General powers 5 SOCA’s general powers Annual plans and reports 6Annual plans 7 Annual reports Central supervision and direction 8 General duty of Secretary of State and Scottish Ministers 9 Strategic priorities 10 Performance targets 11 Codes of practice 12 Reports to Secretary of State 13 Power to direct submission of action plan 14 Revision of inadequate action plan 15 Procedure for giving directions under section 13 16 Reports relating to directions under section 13 17 Inspections Bill 5 53/4 iv Serious Organised Crime and Police Bill Financial provisions 18 Grants by Secretary of State 19 Determinations relating to grants under section 18 20 Charges by SOCA and other receipts 21 Accounts Operational matters 22 Operational responsibility of Director General 23 Activities in Scotland in relation to crime 24 Mutual assistance between SOCA and law enforcement agencies: voluntary arrangements 25 Mutual assistance between SOCA and law enforcement agencies: directed arrangements 26 Use by SOCA of police premises etc.
    [Show full text]