OFFICIAL SENSITIVE
CHIEF CONSTABLES’ COUNCIL
AGENDA
12 – 13 July 2017 De Vere Latimer Estate, Latimer, Chesham, Bucks HP5 1UG
12 July 2017 at 09:00 in the Crecy Minden Suite
1. ATTENDANCE AND APOLOGIES The names of those attending and apologising will be noted in the Minutes
2. MINUTES To consider the Minutes of the previous meeting held on 5-6 April 2017
3. MATTERS ARISING To review and update the Council Action Log
4. POLICE REFORM AND LEGITIMACY ISSUES IN THE UNITED STATES Presentation from Chief Richard Smith, Vice President, International Association of Chiefs of Police
STANDING ITEMS 5. 5.1 Chair’s Update
5.2 Regional papers on: Pre-charge Bail - Policing and Crime Bill 2016 Update, National Vulnerability Action Plan, Stop and Search, s163 Traffic Stops Update, National Volunteer Police Cadets programme Update, Force Management Statements, Landscape Mapping Update, Police and Fire Service Collaboration Briefing, Police and Ambulance Demand, Complaints emanating from the use of powers under Schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act 2000, National Law Enforcement Data Programme: Update on Requirements Approach and related Issues, Independent Review of Deaths and Serious Incidents in Police Custody, Well-Being Support for Policing, Modern Slavery Policing Update, The National Enabling Programmes, UC Online (UCOL) for Vulnerability PTF Uplift.
5.3 Delivery plan Update 5.4 College of Policing Update
Lunch 13:00-13:45 1 RETURN TO CONTENTS/AGENDA
OFFICIAL SENSITIVE
6. COUNTER TERRORISM BRIEFING Presentation from Mark Rowley Armed Policing Debate (CC Alec Wood) Npocc Resourcing (ACC Chris Shead) Impact of Non-Recent Investigations (ACC Chris Shead) Probationer’s use of Tasers (CC Alex Marshall)
7. CURRENT AND PROJECTED SUMMER DEMAND Discussion
8. NPCC FINANCE COORDINATION COMMITTEE UPDATE Submission from David Thompson
9. DATA PROTECTION REFORM - GENERAL DATA PROTECTION REGULATION & THE DIRECTIVE Submission from Ian Dyson
CLOSE
DINNER 19:30
Day 2 - 13 July 2017 at 09:00 in the Crecy Minden suite
10. SENIOR PNAC AND THE REVIEW OF THE STRATEGIC COMMAND COURSE Presentation from Helen Ball, College of Policing
11. WORKFORCE – INVESTING IN PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT Submission from Alex Marshall
12. DIRECT ENTRY TO CHIEF CONSTABLE Discussion
13. PERSONAL RESILIENCE SURVEY Presentation from the Superintendent’s Association Presentation from the Police Federation
14. LEADERSHIP AND LEARNING Submission from Sara Thornton
15. UNITED KINGDOM PROTECTED PERSONS SERVICE Submission from Andy Cooke
16. ESMCP – GATEWAY REVIEW REPORT
2 RETURN TO CONTENTS/AGENDA
OFFICIAL SENSITIVE
Submission from Francis Habgood
17. POLICE REFORM Submission from Sara Thornton
18. ANY OTHER BUSINESS To consider any items of business not included in the substantive agenda
DATE OF NEXT MEETING S31(1)(a)(b) & S24(1)
FUTURE MEETING DATES S31(1)(a)(b) & S24(1)
3 RETURN TO CONTENTS/AGENDA
OFFICIAL SENSITIVE
This page has been left intentionally black
4 RETURN TO CONTENTS/AGENDA
OFFICIAL SENSITIVE
Chief Constables’ Council Minutes
Wednesday 5th – Thursday 6th April 2017 Radisson Blu, Durham
Security classification: Official Disclosable under FOIA 2000: Author: Susan Paterson Force/organisation: National Police Chiefs’ Council (NPCC) Date created 20th April 2017
Attendees
CC Sara Thornton NPCC Chair CC Andy Marsh Avon and Somerset CC Jon Boutcher Bedfordshire CC Alec Wood Cambridgeshire DCC Janette McCormick Cheshire Commissioner Ian Dyson City of London CC Iain Spittal Cleveland CC Mick Creedon Derbyshire CC Debbie Simpson Dorset CC Stephen Kavanagh Essex CC Suzette Davenport Gloucestershire CC Ian Hopkins Greater Manchester CC Julian Williams Gwent CC Olivia Pinkney Hampshire CC Charlie Hall Hertfordshire CC Alan Pughsley Kent CC Steve Finnigan Lancashire CC Simon Cole Leicestershire DCC Gary Night Lincolnshire CC Andy Cooke Merseyside AC Mark Rowley Metropolitan Police Service AC Steve Rodhouse Metropolitan Police Service CC Simon Bailey Norfolk CC Simon Edens Northamptonshire CC Craig Guildford Nottinghamshire CC Winton Keenen Northumbria T/CC Gareth Pritchard North Wales CC Dave Jones North Yorkshire DCC Matt Dukes South Wales CC Stephen Watson South Yorkshire DCC Nicholas Baker Staffordshire CC Gareth Wilson Suffolk CC Nick Ephgrave Surrey 5 RETURN TO CONTENTS/AGENDA
OFFICIAL SENSITIVE
CC Giles York Sussex CC Francis Habgood Thames Valley CC Martin Jelley Warwickshire CC Anthony Bangham West Mercia CC David Thompson West Midlands CC Dee Collins West Yorkshire ACC Paul Mills Wiltshire CC Paul Crowther BTP CC Alex Marshall College of Policing CC Alf Hitchcock MoD CC George Hamilton PSNI Brigadier David Neal Royal Military Police ACC Chris Shead NPOCC
In attendance for specific items Jackie Courtney PRTB Assurance Director Dame Vera Baird Chair Association of Police & Crime Commissioners Paul Lincoln Home Office Robert Beckley Operation Resolve
In attendance
Supt. Tim Metcalfe NPCC Chief of Staff Insp. Ben Gasson NPCC Staff Officer Nicola Growcott NPCC Communications Manager Lucy Hall NPCC Communications Officer Luke Mackenzie NPCC Business Support Officer Sherry Traquair NPCC FOI and Decision Maker Mathew Peck College of Policing
6 RETURN TO CONTENTS/AGENDA
OFFICIAL SENSITIVE
09:00-17:00, 5 April 2017, Radisson Blu, Durham OPEN SESSION
1. ATTENDANCE AND APOLOGIES
The Chair welcomed those present to the meeting of Chief Constables’ Council. The Chair asked those attending to introduce themselves to assist guests.
The following tendered their apologies for the 5 and/or 6 April 2017 session of Council:
Mark Polin - North Wales Lynne Owens - NCA Mark Rowley – MPS (Day 1) Simon Byrne – Cheshire Mark Collins – Dyfed Powys Jeff Farrar – Gwent Bill Skelly – Lincolnshire Peter Vaughan – South Wales Jane Sawyers – Staffordshire Mike Veale – Wiltshire Lynne Owens – National Crime Agency Phil Gormley – Police Scotland
The Chair explained that she would move the scheduled agenda items 2 and 3 under the chairs brief.
2. DAME VERA BAIRD, CHAIR OF THE ASSOCIATION OF POLICE AND CRIME COMMISSIONERS
The chair welcomed Dame Vera as the chair of the APCC.
Dame Vera thanked the chair for the invitation to speak and reflected on future challenges for policing and the role of PCCs.
She explained the next PCC elections will be in 2020. Devolution will have an impact but won’t alter the PCCs’ role significantly. The purpose of PCCs is to ensure there is oversight in every part of policing including the criminal justice system therefore, they are also engaging with the MOJ.
PCCs have developed a portfolio structure and this will assist alignment with the NPCC structures. There are 20 portfolio areas, each with a PCC lead. Dame Vera is the lead for the victims’s portfolio.
Dame Vera supports the joint work with the NPCC on the police reform including the ‘building blocks’ to assist transformation.
The Police Reform and Transformation Board (PRTB)is considering a large volume of transformation bids that are placing pressure on the available budget for reform, raising questions about how we scale bids and transfer good practice across England and Wales.
7 RETURN TO CONTENTS/AGENDA
OFFICIAL SENSITIVE
Additionally, the changing infrastructure required for enhanced collaboration between emergency services must be costed and the proposed revision to the funding formula will clearly impact policing in the medium term. These issues will be discussed at the joint APCC and NPCC event in July.
Dame Vera raised the proposed direct entry process and questioned whether PNAC is capable meeting demand. She thought it unlikely the APCC members would come to an agreed position. Additionally, PCCs will be considering how the current development and recruitment process for chief officers encourages diversity and nurtures talent.
The chair thanked Dame Vera for speaking to the Council and asked the floor for questions. There were discussions on the following points: The need for chiefs, the PCCs and the College of Policing to work together to ensure HMIC are inspecting against appropriate standards; The APCC perspective on the complaints process and the need to embed a learning process working with the IPCC;; Selection processes for deputy PCCs and the need for a representative workforce; Approaches between the NPCC and APCC.
3. POLICING REFORM IN THE NETHERLANDS - COMMISSIONER AKERBOOM, NETHERLANDS POLICE
The chair welcomed guests from the Netherlands Police Force.
Commissioner Akerboom reflected on the experience of police reform in the Netherlands. He outlined the challenges of reducing budgets while maintaining policing as a local service and the need to sustain morale. He explained there is one national force but with community links through local chiefs, prosecutors and local mayors. The Netherlands have adopted some UK policing processes and enjoy a good working relationship with the UK police.
Commissioner Akerboom played a short video reflecting the core values underpinning policing in the Netherlands.
Commissioner Akerboom talked about history of policing in the Netherlands.. He explained the enduring debates between local verses national and civil versus paramilitary policing styles. However, he emphasised the criticality of public consent.
Commissioner Akerboom said the move to a national police force was driven by a recognition that the existing local policing model was not able to make decisions effectively and delivered inconsistent practices. Becoming a single organisation ensured greater financial efficiency and operational effectiveness but has has taken time and effort in partnership with the local Mayors. The benefits of merging forces are better positioning to undertake large operations and mobilise resources to where they are most needed. He emphasised community policing remains the core of the policing model.
Commissioner Akerboom outlined what he thinks is important for the future in policing:
8 RETURN TO CONTENTS/AGENDA
OFFICIAL SENSITIVE
The need for stability, to be more agile and to focus on the ‘people’ dimension; The need for the police to attract a diverse background of recruits; The need to take advantage of cyber technology and make technology work for policing.
There was a discussion on the following points: Public and political opinion on policing reform has a reputational impact; Accountability of operational delivery – the public need to feel there is local accountability so local chiefs are encouraged to make decisions based on their local needs; Senior appraisal is spread between government , operational senior managers, the local mayor and local prosecutors; The benefits of technology for citizens were around crime reduction, police visibility and efficiencies through savings; Police reform has allowed national responses that wouldn’t have been possible under the previous structure.
4. MINUTES
The Minutes of the previous meeting held on 25-26 January 2017 were agreed. It was noted under the regional section the action to provide an update on Stop and Search and s163 Traffic Stop would be carry forward the next Council meeting.
Action: Adrian Hanstock to provide an update up-date on stop and search and Anthony Bangham an update on s163 traffic stops.
5. MATTERS ARISING
Action item number 5.1: Alex Marshall to provide a briefing paper on the restrictions that can be put in place to limit and or prevent a police officer from participating in political activities. Chiefs sought guidance to ensure a consistent approach. Remains outstanding - Alex Marshall did not cover this action in the College update. Action item number 5.2: The College of Policing is developing role profiles (formally the Police Professional Framework) and consultation will commence next week. The College will circulate the consultation to all forces for feedback. This has been circulated and consulted on. Action item number 5.3: There will be a round-table event to discuss the national implications from the Henrique's Report into the MPS handling of specific child sexual abuse investigations. Following this event, the College of Policing will confirm the national position.
6. STANDING ITEMS
6.1. Chair’s Update
The chair congratulated Simon Edens on his appointment to the Chair of the Performance Management Portfolio.
9 RETURN TO CONTENTS/AGENDA
OFFICIAL SENSITIVE
The chair offered her appreciation and farewells to the following colleagues: Suzette Davenport, Steve Finnigan, Mick Creedon, Jayne Sawyers and Jeff Farrar.
The chair updated chiefs on the infrastructure review and confirmed that the relevant papers were uploaded on ChiefsNet. Alec Wood took an action to have a discussion with Paul Lincoln and to take the lead on the interoperability/infrastructure through the Operationss committee and to include airports.
Action: Alec Wood to lead on the interoperability infrastructure through the Operationss committee and to include airports.
6.2 Regional papers
The chair guided colleagues through the feedback from the regional papers.
6.2.1 National Standards for Incident Recordings This paper was supported
6.2.2 Spit Guards The chair explained the legal position has been confirmed and the decision to use spit guards was the responsibility of chief constables. Additionally, chiefs were concerned about under- reporting by police officers where offenders purposefully spit at them. The College of Policing confirmed that guidance will be published. Forces should adhere to College guidance if they decide to deploy spit guards.
Secretary note: Shaun Sawyer requested on the 8th of May 2017 that a reference be added to these minutes to note his declaration of interest regarding spit guards.
6.2.3 Victims of Fraud This paper was supported
6.2.4 CSE Pursue Board Update This paper was supported
6.2.5 Draft CJ Strategy This paper was supported
6.2.6 Citizens in Policing Regions welcomed clarification on the method of funding that was been proposed. Chiefs were comfortable to take the decision at Council on the coordinators post and there was a unanimous decision that each force would contribute £2,000 from their budgets.
6.2.7 Digital Public Contact Supported if questions and feedback were addressed. All forces should ensure they have a digital SPOC involved in the project.
10 RETURN TO CONTENTS/AGENDA
OFFICIAL SENSITIVE
6.2.8 Finance Coordination Committee This paper was supported and a summary of the paper was given.
6.2.9 National Volunteer Police Cadets Programme Action: This paper was noted and a regional paper to be brought back in July.
6.2.9.1 NPR/SPR This paper was supported
6.2.9.2 Blue Light Air service programme This paper was withdrawn as Simon Byrne could not attend council. A regional paper including an amended plan will be brought back to July’s Council.
6.3 Delivery plan 16/17 update
The chair updated chiefs on progress against the delivery plan. This paper was noted by chiefs and the chair thanked all the co-ordination committees for their work. This was approved by Council.
6.4. College of Policing update
Alex Marshall provided an update on Professional Committee meeting and activities that have been progressed since the last council. He explained there was positive feedback from the recent Senior Command Course (SCC) and an update would be given later in the session. An update on Professional Committee was given to the meeting and chiefs were asked to review the agenda. The offer of a College of Policing representative coming to regional meetings on professional issues was also made.
Professional Committee discussed the two HMIC recommendations relating to neighbourhood policing and detective numbers. These discussions mirrored views of chiefs and he thanked them for their support.
In relation to workforce transformation, a recent College of Policing event presented an amended illustration of the workforce transformation approach.
The apprentice scheme has been approved and the amount of cost to forces agreed. Forces can reclaim costs using an approved national scheme that is now in place. Alex Marshall will confirm through the College of Policing Board the timing of the implementation process.
Alex Marshall explained the College of Policing has submitted a PTF bid to assist in professional development for those working in policing.
Action: CC Alex Marshall will come back to Council with a timeline and costs to complete the PEQF work.
Alex Marshall thanked chiefs for their feedback on licence to practice guidance. He explained
11 RETURN TO CONTENTS/AGENDA
OFFICIAL SENSITIVE
that most questions raised were around how this could operate in high-risk, high-harm police workand the College of Policing are currently testing this. Other questions related to a general register for licence to practice. Undercover licencing is now live. The MPS have asked the College to review their practices in undercover policing to ensure lessons had been learned.
Sanction guidance for misconduct cases has been approved by Professional Committee. Alex Marshall has met with the IPCC about its understanding of this guidance, particularly around cases of gross misconduct. The Federation did not support guidance. The College will ensure they take the Federation’s views into account moving forward.
Alex Marshall said that we now have guidance on misconduct and gross misconduct and how to distinguish between the two, however, there is a need to look again at how we differentiate between and deal with poor performance and misconduct.
6.5 Police Memorial Video Clip
A video clip was played. The chair explained the public appeal would be launched on 19 April. The chair explained the memorial has a physical, education and digital dimension to it. There will also be a fund for families who have lost a relative.
Action: Nicola Growcot to send a further communication to chiefs on the Police Memorial.
7. MODERN SLAVERY – UPLIFT IN LAW ENFORCEMENT CAPABILITY
S23(1)
8. BREXIT
S23(1)
9. SPECIALIST CAPABILITIES - CLOSED
Chris Sims referenced the circulated papers. He explained since the October Council the Specialist Capabilities Programme has been reviewing the approach to cybercrime and intelligence (phase 2) and further developing the recommendations generated by the five capability reviews that comprised phase 1 of the work. He stated the development of the thirteen proposals into business cases has been challenging without consistent data and part-time leadership with ‘day job’ commitments. However, there are emerging requirements across the five areas
(i) Delivery is through ‘lose’ a regional model (ii) A stronger national strategic, as opposed to operational, leadership approach to support issues like interoperability and research and development activity.
Chris Sims asked chiefs to note in the papers anticipated savings relating to efficiency of about 12 RETURN TO CONTENTS/AGENDA
OFFICIAL SENSITIVE £50m had been calculated depending on decisions made.
Chris Sims signposted chief constables to the five reports on ChiefsNet asked chiefs to indicate if they will support the proposed work by 31May.
9.1 Surveillance - closed
Bill McWilliam explained that since October, the Surveillance portfolio has undertaken extensive consultation across all stakeholder groups.. There are five keys areas that will be progressed:
Understanding surveillance assets and national capability. S31(1)(a)(b) & S24(1) S31(1)(a)(b) & S24(1) Understanding what types of surveillance is more productive than other types. Control rooms and common platform – how we communicate and how it is developed and common standards
13 RETURN TO CONTENTS/AGENDA
OFFICIAL SENSITIVE
9.2 TSU - closed
S31(1)(a)(b) & S24(1)
9.3 Armed policing - closed
Simon Chesterman (Firearms portfolio lead) stated:
This area is working well and there is a comprehensive code of practice, APP and national firearms training. Armed response vehicles are the first response for business as usual incidents up to serious incidents such as MTFA and these are a very capable response. S31(1)(a)(b) & S24(1)
9.4 Major investigation - closed
S31(1)(a)(b) & S24(1)
9.5 Roads and Policing
CC Davenport (Roads Policing Portfolio lead) highlighted the following opportunities identified by the specialist capabilities work:
The programme has reviewed roads policing across England and Wales. There are development opportunities and a need to understand how to use this resource to maximise the benefits.
S31(1)(a)(b) & S24(1)
14 RETURN TO CONTENTS/AGENDA
OFFICIAL SENSITIVE
Greater partnership with other organisations, such as the Highways Agency, would help to deliver security and safety on the roads. There is a recommendation to increase proactive intelligence led activity within this capability.
Chris Sims thanked the speakers and the following discussion took place:
Governance and advisory structures should be developed to include PCCs There was a discussion about how this work fits into the College of Policing training standards and governance structure. CC Simon Edens said there will be a need to have a performance framework in place and would be happy to support. It was noted that the 1:1 relationship between PCC and chief constable was being stretched owing to cross collaboration activity beyond force boundaries Issues were discussed regarding the diversity profile of surveillance teams Chris Sims stated that there was no proposal that local roads policing units would be reorganised into centralised units There was a discussion regarding the professional leads and links to the College of Policing and the need to avoid parallel structures was emphasised The need for clarity and accountability in respect of the strand leads and the establishment of standards was emphasised as an alternative to more governance
Chris Sims introduced the intelligence and cybercrime section as part of the new capabilities requirements.
Both require staffing and IT capability and the challenge is they are not aligned across the supporting capabilities or functions.
Next steps:
Support the development of networked policing:
• Data pilot • Capability leadership pilot • Mutual mind-set • Support capability leads in the implementation of agreed business cases • Develop the proposals on intelligence and cyber to outline business cases Carry out new capability reviews
Chris Sims asked that Chiefs note the work and encourage chiefs to speak to their PCCs regarding moving this work forward. The paper was supported and will be discussed at the APCC General Meeting in May. The Chair asked that leads pass on thanks to the team who have been working on this for the programme.
15 RETURN TO CONTENTS/AGENDA
OFFICIAL SENSITIVE
10. TRANSFORMING FORENSICS
This item was chaired by Giles York.
Debbie Simpson introduced this section joined by programme director Jo Ashworth who has working alongside the Home Office and Specialist Capability team. Debbie Simpson outlined business case and options. Thepreferred option is affordable and self-sustaining for the future although the PTF will initiate the programme.
Debbie Simpson sought approval from chiefs on the preferred option and further appraisals will still be required as a final stage of the bidding process.
Jo Ashworth set out the case for change, including:
Changing in demand for policing and therefore sorensics; Forensic esource pressures related to capability and capacity; New forensic tools are not used in a standardised way across forces; Changing nature of digital evidence and need for accreditation; Need to invest and reinvest to make the service effective over time; Aligning in the wider reform agenda needs to align with the transformation principles. Sustainability and consistency; Futureproofing forensics to respond to the changing needs and demands; Ensuring public confidence through quality forensics Efficient use of resources – opportunity to industrialise this process.
The feedback from forces show CSI is approximately about 44% of the total spend (estimated approximately £370 million and digital forensics is under-estimated within this figure.
There are five options presented by the Transforming Forensics Programme:
1. Maintaining the current state – do nothing but there will be a growing cost as there is an increasing baseline to maintain the current state. 2. Utilise enablers – to have central team and build a head of profession 3. Nationally enabled infrastructure – would not change the local structure and has high costs owing to the retention of the fragmented business model. 4. Aggregate services delivery - working collaboratively to maximise benefits but doesn’t reach into the frontline as it’s not regionally structured. 5. Full integration – the preferred option
This full integration model (option 5) is summarised as:
Fully end-to-end central service delivery meeting local, national and international requirements. This would save money through aggregated efficiencies and ensure good quality and standards of service. Prioritisation would remain a force decision based on local requirements. Forces will still need to subscribe to a commercial market service as outlined by the Home
16 RETURN TO CONTENTS/AGENDA
OFFICIAL SENSITIVE
Office. Anticipated benefits include better outcomes, additional capacity, opportunities reinvest efficiency savings and enable wider reform.
Chiefs were asked to: Note the current work/direction; Offer feedback to develop the business case; Indicate opting into the programme following PCC engagement 28 April.
The following points were discussed:
There was support for the preferred option and a need to think about what should happen if full funding is not available; The SSMs have fed back thoughts on options 4 and 5 and this should be referenced; Building on different types of functionality such as facial recognition; There was a request for assistance from the team to help engagement with force experts; The importance of sharing this with other agencies such as S23(1) , BTP and Border Agency; The desire for staged approach to adoption.
11. UNDER COVER POLICING INQUIRY - CLOSED
Mick Creedon presented a summary of this paper and asked chiefs to note the issues raised in it.
12. PORT POLICE CHIEF OFFICERS ASSOCIATION
The Chair summarised this paper and suggested that this would something that should be supported and highlighted the PPCOA would make a financial contribution to the NPCC.
There was a question around inclusion on the basis that this may set a precedent. It was pointed out for some forces there is close working relationship and therefore this would be positive collaboration. The chiefs were broadly in favour of the proposal to invite the PPCOA to join the NPCC.
The chair thanked colleagues for the time today and reminded colleagues of the following meetings:
Chief Officer Briefing Day - 24 May APCC/NPCC joint seminar- 18 July Main CCC conference - 1/2 November
Day 1 End
17 RETURN TO CONTENTS/AGENDA
OFFICIAL SENSITIVE
Day 2 09:00-13:00 6th April 2017 - Durham
13. MTFA PREPAREDNESS UPDATE - CLOSED
S31(1)(a)(b) & S24(1)
14. NATIONAL STRATEGY ABUSE OF POWERS FOR SEXUAL PURPOSES - CLOSED
Steve Watson set out the background and progress to date. He thanked those who responded to the consultation.
The strategy is designed to: Send out a clear message about serious corruption; Ensure policing is joined up with HMIC and ministers in dealing with this issue; Bring best practice together.
Three products have been generated;
Draft strategy; Summary document around prevention; Implementation plan
The following issues were discussed:
The strategy is mandatory but has been supported by HMIC. There has been a decision that this work focusses members of public who become victims and there are further plans to look at internal incidents of abuse of power; There was an observation this work could be linked or aligned to the suicide strategy; There was a request for a best practice product to assist officers managing these cases.
Steve Watson requested approval for the strategy and chiefs endorsed this.
Action: Steve Watson to write to the minister to discuss timescales and next steps
Action: Nicola Growcott to support with Steve Watson with the communications plan.
15. ANALYSIS OF POLICE CONDUCT HEARINGS (JAN 2015 – DEC 2016) - CLOSED
Craig Guildford summarised the main findings from the paper on the analysis carried out on police conduct hearings. The following points were made:
It was noted the number of fast track hearings have increased over time and this is
18 RETURN TO CONTENTS/AGENDA
OFFICIAL SENSITIVE
statistically significant. There were variations observed in outcomes by region In cases where gross misconduct was found and the panel included an ACC, dismissal was statistically more likely. The next steps are to provide training and the College of Policing has written guidance on this and it will be rolled out nationally from July.
There subsequent discussion covered the following issues:
There is an opportunity to hold the learning centrally as a resource to assist Chiefs. The adoption of private hearings would encourage colleagues to give evidence. The report was noted and the chair requested a re-run of the data in a years’ time.
Action: To repeat the analysis of police conduct hearings in a years’ time.
16. LEADERSHIP AND LEARNING
The Chair presented the findings of the paper and proposed that, if supported, an action plan would be presented at Chief Constables’ Council in July. There was support for this approach and a need to better understand the balance between performance and misconduct. The following recommendations were agreed:
Establishment of a group comprising of chief constables, the College of Policing, Police and Crime Commissioners, the IPCC and HMIC to consider a more structured approach to organisational learning and development that is explicitly linked to workforce CPD. The development of a common model for organisational learning across the police service that adopts a differentiated approach, to support the capture, analysis and dissemination of lessons across force boundaries. Establish an ‘action plan’ to assist delivery for presentation to Chief Constables Council in July 2017. Work to embed the concept of forward-looking accountability. That chief constables consider adaptability, resilience and diversity to be critical organisational design principles when operating in conditions characterised by complexity and continual change. That Peer Review model is further developed to support, and provide timely feedback, to forces.
There was an observation that there should be a process in place to facilitate organisational learning. There was a view that this could be done through CPD and there is a need to capture the learning and access this resource.
17. HMIC PEEL EFFECTIVENESS UPDATE – NPCC RECOMMENDATIONS (CLOSED SESSION)
The Chair summarised the current position and she would like to write back to HMIC to state the council’s plan. There was support from chiefs with this approach. The Chair explained that there
19 RETURN TO CONTENTS/AGENDA
OFFICIAL SENSITIVE
were 5 recommendations from the HMIC inspection on effectiveness and the following areas were agreed:
Neighbourhood Policing Updating of the Police National Computer Detective capacity – proposal to start by getting a shared understanding of the issues (joint approach with College of Policing) and possibly producing a national action plan. Use of an outcome type for evidential difficulties for crime recording Organised crime group mapping the chair asked if the chiefs agree with this and there was support.
There was an observation that the recommendations are looking for additional staffing levels and questioned if this had been budgeted for.
Action: The chair to write to inform HMIC of the discussion at Chief Constables’ Council
18. HMIC ENGAGEMENT (CLOSED SESSION)
The Chair summarised the reasons behind this action point. There have been discussions between chiefs about the premature departure of the chief constable of Humberside.
There followed a broader conversation about whether female chief constables were disproportionately affected. The chair explained there was research showing women would be more likely to apply for positions in less well performing areas (the ‘glass cliff’). The College of Policing can provide further details. Additionally, there is a piece of work undertaking exit interviews to provide a better understanding on this issue. The College of Policing and NPCC will work jointly on this.
Steve Finnigan reported his findings on the last Peel process Request for fewer recommendations but the hot debrief process was valued. For HMIC to understand the context of forces activities and to prioritise recommendations. Force liaison officers have a good relationship with HMIC. Joint inspections are carried out between the police and other agencies but there is a lack of recognition of accountability between agencies. Hosting an inspection is work intensive and there is a delay between inspection and publication of the report.
There was a broader issue raised about HMIC engagement with chiefs and it has been suggested by HMIC that the Chiefs and HMIs meet twice a year. The chair suggested Simon Edens as the new Performance Management chair should attend with other chiefs.
Action: Simon Eden to recruit a small group of chiefs and produce a terms of reference for the engagement with HMIC.
20 RETURN TO CONTENTS/AGENDA
OFFICIAL SENSITIVE
19. POLICE REFORM AND TRANSFORMATION BOARD
Since the extraordinary meeting there has been one meeting fo the PRTB and the Chair explained the paper offers an overview of the meeting, the work to produce the strategic framework and the ‘building blocks’ that have been identified to achieve the 2025 vision.
The meeting examined the first tranche of the bids submitted to the Home Office. The following points were made: Digital, Productivity Services and Cyber Security bids are developing outline business cases. The ERP and data storage network bids were not supported and will be reviewed for the next round. Sussex, Kent and the MPS have been progressing the Virtual Court work but the work must align to the national court plan. There has been further work carried out to reconcile the national with the local. The UC online bid was supported. The 98 further proposals will be assessed against the building blocks and strategy. There was an observation that a bottom up approach will result in fragmented outcomes. The Chair confirmed that the strategy would ensure there was a more strategic approach.
Colleagues were asked to note the recommendations and this was supported by chiefs.
20. DELIVERY PLAN 2017/18
The delivery plan was presented to Chief Constables’ Council. The Chair asked if chiefs agreed to the objectives outlined and it was supported.
21. TECHNOLOGY STANDARDS
The chair explained the importance of technology standards but that this works falls between different strands of work. The challenge is to identify the most appropriate solution. Ian Dyson asked chiefs to note the presentation. He emphasised two points:
The proposal for the network codes option may not be the most efficient solution and the portfolio is in conversation with the Home Office about finding the right solution;. There are not 43 different police crime-recording systems and it is important to have a narrative to explain the good work that is going on to build a common platform.
Ian Dyson stated the information management & operational requirements coordination committee is working to develop standards and governance in this area and if chiefs require clarity on this work they should contact him.
Giles York took over Chair from Sara Thornton
21 RETURN TO CONTENTS/AGENDA
OFFICIAL SENSITIVE
22. STRATEGIC COMMAND COURSE
Debbie Simpson thanked Alex Marshall for his support in respect of this work. She also thanked Jo Noakes and Helen Ball who are the deputy directors on the course. An additional paper was tabled which provided an update from the March 27 SCC professional reference group meeting reviewing the PNAC and the SCC process. This paper also discussed the pipeline, capability and the diversity requirements for forces.
Debbie Simpson and Helen Ball explained the Review of Senior PNAC and the Strategic Command Course was ongoing. They stated the SCC adopted an approach emphasising the prevention of crime and harm. Additionally, the course included business management, personal and organisational development skills, leadership and procedural justice elements. The course adopted a non-hierarchical approach and built in transparency including running a social media communications campaign. The feedback from students was very positive about the course and their confidence to move into chief officer roles.
Helen Ball explained there were insufficient numbers attending Senior PNAC and the SCC and this needs urgent consideration. The immediate actions are focused on the ‘pipeline’ issues.
The discussion covered the following points:
It was recognised as important that PCCs are engaged and understands these issues. It was recognised that several superintendents and chief superintendents, although eligible, were not keen to perform chief officer roles. Others might be dissuaded by PNAC and other alternative selection approaches could be considered, such as a lighter gateway with a more formal assessment at the end following development. The value of greater use of the modular approach and the development of a ‘hub’ function to offer advice, support applicants and match talent to vacancies. The pipeline issues linked to the College of Policing paper on why staff are not progressing. Consideration of positive action be taken to mentor and encourage BME colleagues to apply for PNAC. It was recognised other public sector professions, such as teachers, are also struggling to find individuals to occupy senior positions. The paper and recommendations were supported by chiefs.
23. ESMCP - CLOSED
S43(2)
24. ANY OTHER BUSINESS
There was a discussion about the Home Office consultation regarding direct entry to the post of 22 RETURN TO CONTENTS/AGENDA
OFFICIAL SENSITIVE Chief Constable. The proposal would be to remove the requirement for a Chief Constable to have served as an officer. Chiefs felt the consultation time was insufficient and felt strongly about the inadequacy of the debate. It was agreed there was an opportunity to discuss this at greater length on 24 May with Deputy Chief Constables and the Assistant Chief Constables.
23 RETURN TO CONTENTS/AGENDA
OFFICIAL SENSITIVE
Action Log Date of Paper Title Item Number Action Description Action by Date Action Owner Allocated To Status Progress Date Supporting Council Closed Evidence 25-Jan-17 Action Log 3.1 CC Alex Marshall to provide a briefing paper on the restrictions that can be put in 16-Mar-17 CC Alex Marshall & CC Alex Marshall & Open An update was not Sent additional place to limit and or prevent a police officer from participating in political activities. CC Ian Spittal CC Ian Spittal provided within the chaser on behalf of Chiefs sought guidance to ensure a consistent approach. The Chair supported the College update at the April CC Thornton to CC need for clarification and CC Iain Spittal suggested colleague’s feedback requests Council meeting. A verbal Marshall on 9/5/17 received from staff to carry out politically restricted roles so he can identify gaps and update on the current agree a way forward. position will be presented at the July meeting.
25-Jan-17 College 4.2 The College of Policing is developing role profiles (formally the Police Professional 16-Mar-17 CC Alex Marshall CC Alex Marshall Closed The consultation was 15/06/2017 Previous update from Update Framework) and consultation will commence next week. The College will circulate the circulated to all forces and the April Council consultation to all forces for feedback. consulted on. A further meeting and letters workshop targeting ACCs on ChiefsNet. is taking place in July.
25-Jan-17 College 4.2 There will be a round-table event to discuss the national implications from the 16-Mar-17 CC Alex Marshall CC Alex Marshall Open The roundtable event has Update Henrique's Report into the Met Police handling of specific child sexual abuse been set up and a further investigations. Following this event, the College of Policing will confirm the national update will be given in the position. July Council meeting.
25-Jan-17 Workforce 17 The chair confirmed that CC Wilson will lead on the broader diversity strategy to be 16-Mar-17 CC Gareth Wilson CC Hopkins Open Sent chaser on 13 June completed in July and CC Hopkins is developing a workforce plan for 29 March. and 15 June
25-Jan-17 Regional 4.3 (Stop and Search Updates) - Papers were not supported and the North West Region 16-Mar-17 DCC Adiran DCC Adiran Open It has been agreed that a Papers and Eastern Region sought wider discussion. DCC Adrian Hanstock to produce papers Hanstock Hanstock paper will now be and attend the next Council meeting in April. submitted to the July Council meeting 25-Jan-17 Regional 4.3 (s163 Traffic Stop Updates) - Papers were not supported and the North West Region 16-Mar-17 DCC Anthony DCC Anthony Open It has been agreed that a Papers and Eastern Region sought wider discussion. CC Anthony Bangham to produce papers Bangham Bangham paper will now be and attend the next Council meeting in April. submitted to the July Council meeting 05-Apr-17 Chair's Update 6.1 Chair's Update - CC Alec Wood to lead on the interoperability infrastructure through 01-Jun-17 CC Alec Wood CC Alec Wood Closed CC Wood has liaised with 16/06/2017 This action will be the Operations Coordination Committee and to include airports. the Home Office regarding closed and managed the Infrastructure policing through the NPCC project to understand the Operations national Government Coordination position. This was placed Committee. on hold with the calling of the election as the outcome could have an impact on the direction of travel. This action will continue now the election is finalised and an update will be brought back to a future Council meeting.
05-Apr-17 Regional 6.2.9 National Volunteer Police Cadets Programme was noted and a regional paper to be 23-Jun-17 CC Shaun Sawyer CC Shaun Sawyer Open It has been agreed that a Papers brought back on July paper will now be submitted to the July Council meeting
25 RETURN TO CONTENTS/AGENDA
OFFICIAL SENSITIVE
05-Apr-17 Regional 6.2.9.2 Blue Light Air service programme - the paper was withdrawn and would be brought 23-Jun-17 CC Simon Byrne CC Simon Byrne Open Due to conflicting demand Papers back to the July Council meeting. and consultation this paper will not be submitted to the October Council meeting. 05-Apr-17 College 6.4 CC Alex Marshall will come back to Council with a timeline and costs to complete the 12-Jul-17 CC Alex Marshall CC Alex Marshall Closed This update will be 16/06/2017 CCC main agenda Update PEQF work. covered within the paper. investing in professional development paper being presented at the July Council meeting.
05-Apr-17 Police 6.5 Police Memorial - Nicola Growcott to send a further communication to chiefs on the 01-May-17 Nicola Growcott Nicola Growcott Closed A further update was 15/06/2017 ChiefsNet Memorial Police Memorial published on ChiefsNet to publication. Video Clip all chiefs on the 18 May 2017. 05-Apr-17 Brexit Update 8 01-May-17 Closed 16/06/2017 S23(1)23 S23(1) S23(1) S23(1) S23(1)
05-Apr-17 MTFA 13 MTFA update - CC Francis Habgood will circulate the questions from the inspection 01-May-17 CC Francis CC Francis Open Preparedness on Plato readiness and the good practice findings to forces. Additionally, for Habgood Habgood Update September he will arrange for assurance review to be carried out on force plans.
05-Apr-17 National 14 NATIONAL STRATEGY ABUSE OF POWERS FOR SEXUAL PURPOSES - CC Steve Watson 01-May-17 CC Steve Watson CC Steve Watson Closed A letter was sent to the 15/06/2017 ChiefsNet Strategy Abuse to write to the minister to discuss timescales and next steps Minister on the 13 April publication. of Powers for and an update sent to all Sexual chiefs. Purposes 05-Apr-17 National 14 NATIONAL STRATEGY ABUSE OF POWERS FOR SEXUAL PURPOSES - Nicola Growcott 01-May-17 Nicola Growcott Nicola Growcott Closed The NPCC communications 15/06/2017 ChiefsNet Strategy Abuse to support with CC Steve Watson with the communications plan. office provided support publication. of Powers for and an update was Sexual circulated to all chiefs on Purposes the 20 April 2017.
05-Apr-17 Analysis of 15 Analysis of police conduct hearings - To repeat the analysis of police conduct hearings 01-Apr-18 CC Craig Guidlford CC Craig Guidlford Open Police Conduct in a years’ time. Hearings 05-Apr-17 HMIC Peel 17 HMIC Peel Effectiveness Update - The NPCC Chair to write to inform the HMIC of the 01-May-17 CC Sara Thornton CC Sara Thornton Open Effectiveness discussion at Chief Constables' Council. Update 05-Apr-17 HMIC 18 HMIC engagement - CC Simon Eden to recruit a small group of chiefs and produce a 01-May-17 CC Simon Edens CC Simon Edens Closed A terms of reference was 16/06/2017 ChiefsNet publication Engagement terms of reference for the engagement with HMIC. written and circulated by and e-mail CC Edens and accepted. A confirmation from CC group of Chief Constables Edens on 16/06/2017 have been identified and a meeting agreed with Sir Tom Winsor with dates in the process of being identified.
26 RETURN TO CONTENTS/AGENDA
OFFICIAL SENSITIVE
Chief Constables’ Council
Police reform and legitimacy issues in the United States Presentation from Chief Richard Smith, Vice President, International Association of Chiefs of Police
12 July 2017/Agenda Item: Chair’s Update: 4
Further background reading can be found here
27 RETURN TO CONTENTS/AGENDA
OFFICIAL SENSITIVE
This page has been left intentionally black
28 RETURN TO CONTENTS/AGENDA
OFFICIAL SENSITIVE
Chief Constables’ Council
Personal Development Review for the Chair of the NPCC
12 July 2017/Agenda Item: Chair’s Update
Security classification: Official Disclosable under FOIA 2000: Yes Author: CC Olivia Pinkney QPM MA Force/organisation: Hampshire Constabulary Date created: 4th July 2017 Coordination Committee: N/A Portfolio: N/A Attachments @ paragraph: N/A
1. PURPOSE
1.1 The purpose of this paper is to brief Chief Officers on the process undertaken to complete the Chair of the NPCC’s PDR for the period 2016/2017.
2. BACKGROUND
2.1 When the National Police Chiefs’ Council (NPCC) was established in 2015 the legal basis for this body was set out in the Section 22A NPCC Collaboration Agreement.
2.2 Schedule 2 of this agreement describes the governance structure for the NPCC as well as the accountability mechanism in relation to the chair.
2.3 The specific intention is that the strategic governance of the activities and outcomes of the NPCC are kept separate from the management and accountability of the chair. The latter being remitted to the Performance Sub-Committee.
2.4 The Performance Sub-Committee consists of 4 members of the NPCC (Chief Constables Olivia Pinkney, Simon Cole, Dee Collins and Peter Vaughan). The fifth, independent member position is vacant and is being actively recruited to.
3. Update
3.1 At the start of the financial year 2016/2017, the chair of the NPCC with the agreement of the Performance Sub-Committee set out her personal objectives.
3.2 The Sub-Committee has received the chair’s personal assessment of her performance against those objectives and has also assessed the chair’s performance.
3.3 The Sub-Committee met on 10 May 2017, confirmed that the Chair had met all of her objectives and agreed a performance rating of Exceptional.
29 RETURN TO CONTENTS/AGENDA
OFFICIAL SENSITIVE
3.4 The Chair has no business interests. All of her expenses, hospitality and media contacts were confirmed to be in order and all are available for public scrutiny on the NPCC website.
3.5 Personal objectives have been agreed for the period 2017/2018.
3.6 The Chair was reselected for a further 2 years as Chair of the NPCC. The position was proactively advertised to all other eligible candidates but none were forthcoming.
4. DECISIONS REQUIRED
4.1 No decision is required.
4.2 Chief Constables are invited to note the above update.
Name Olivia Pinkney QPM MA
Rank, Constabulary Chief Constable, Hampshire Constabulary
Title Chair of the NPCC Performance Sub Committee
30 RETURN TO CONTENTS/AGENDA
OFFICIAL SENSITIVE
Chief Constables’ Council Pre-Charge Bail – Policing and Crime Bill 2016
12/13 July 2017 /Agenda item: Regional Paper
Security classification: Disclosable under FOIA 2000: Author: Darren Martland Force/organisation: NPCC Date created: June 2017 Coordination Committee: Criminal Justice Business Area Portfolio: CC Simon Byrne (Cheshire)
1.0 PURPOSE
1.1 The purpose of this paper is to provide the NPCC with an update on the initial impact of the Policing & Crime Bill 2016 (part 4) that relates to pre-charge police bail.
2.0 INTRODUCTION
2.1 The pre-charge bail provisions, contained in the Policing and Crime Bill 2016, received Royal Assent in January 2017, and include the following amendments:
Presumption of release, pre-charge, without bail. When pre-charge police bail is imposed, it must be necessary and proportionate. An authorisation process whereby; Inspectors must authorise bail up to 28 days, Superintendents must authorise extensions up to 3 months and thereafter applications of extensions up to 6 months, 9 months, 12 months and beyond will be considered at a Magistrates’ Courts.
2.2 In addition to existing disposals from custody i.e. charge, no-further action & bail, when the conditions outlined above are not met but investigation is incomplete, the legislation introduced the option to release the suspect from police detention, whilst remaining under investigation, known as ‘release under investigation’ (RUI).
31 RETURN TO CONTENTS/AGENDA
OFFICIAL SENSITIVE
3.0 BACKGROUND
3.1 The Home Secretary announced the intention to legislate to reform pre-charge bail, with the intention of increasing accountability and transparency, and the Home Office undertook a consultation process in December 2014.
3.2 The College of Policing conducted a pilot with a number of police forces, examining data between June and November 2015, which highlighted that:
The mean period of pre-charge bail for all forces in the sample was 53 days.
60% of cases were granted pre-charge for over 28 days.
14% of cases examined were bailed for over 90 days.
Forensic analysis and “phone downloads” were identified as the main factors contributing to extended periods of pre-charge bail i.e. exceeding 90 days.
The types of cases most likely to be affected by the proposed legislation are sexual offences.
3.3 A joint letter was been sent from the NPCC, Superintendents Association and Police Federation to the Home Secretary, which requested two specific amendments;
I. That there is a reduction in authority levels whilst maintaining the additional proportionality and necessity tests already proposed in the reforms.
II. The initial bail period is extended ‘up to’ 56 days which is more commensurate with the College findings.
3.4 In January 2017 the Bill received Royal Assent and the Home Office directed that the legislative change will be implemented on Monday 3rd April 2017. The suggested amendments were not included in the legislation.
4.0 PREPARATIONS FOR IMPLEMENTATION
4.1 The NPCC worked closely with the Home Office, College of Policing and HMCTS and, in preparation for the introduction of the legislation, the following steps were taken;
A National Conference took place in November 2016, which was attended by representatives from each police force in the country and presentations were delivered by the Home Office and police forces that had been involved in piloting the changes.
32 RETURN TO CONTENTS/AGENDA
OFFICIAL SENSITIVE
The College of Policing produced bespoke learning material in January 2017 that is accessible by the Managed Learning Environment (MLE) at NCALT. An implementation plan was written, on behalf of the police service, and the NPCC lead for pre-charge bail, attended a monthly Implementation Board, chaired by the Home Office. As the legislation allows for the retention of biometrics and data in relation to suspects who are ‘Released Under Investigation’, a new status was created within the PNC. Technical changes were made to a number of custody IT systems that are predominantly provided by four technical providers (NSPIS, Athena, Police Works and Niche). HMCTS has implemented a central administration unit in Cardiff that will receive applications to extend pre-charge bail beyond three months, which will be heard at six regional Courts. It is anticipated that most applications will be ‘heard’ on paper, as opposed to in an open court.
4.2 The absence of a requirement to submit an Annual Data Return (ADR) and inconsistent means by which police forces record and report custody performance has proven to be extremely problematic in establishing the potential impact of the legislation.
5.0 IMPLEMENTATION
5.1 The legislation was implemented on Monday 3rd April 2017, and requests for superintendents to authorise an extension of pre-charge bail, beyond 28 days, from the latter part of April.
5.2 In view of the short time between the legislation receiving Royal Assent and implementation, it was not possible for a number of police forces to complete technical changes to I.T. systems that provided case management. As a consequence, it was necessary for a number of police forces to develop temporary ‘fixes’ or manual applications.
5.3 A request was made in early May for police forces to provide a data set in order to establish the impact of the legislation. The aggregated findings, from data that was provided, are;
March 2017 April 2017 Change Arrests 64658 66713 +3% Positive Outcomes 24260 (37.5%) 23407 (35%) -2.5% Bail 16645 (26%) 2295 (3%) -87% Release Under 192 16,264 - Investigation
33 RETURN TO CONTENTS/AGENDA
OFFICIAL SENSITIVE
6.0 ISSUES IDENTIFIED
6.1 Data provided by 22 police forces indicates that, whilst the number of arrest and positive disposals i.e. charge, caution etc., remained broadly consistent between March & April, the number of suspects that were granted pre-charge bail, as a percentage of the number of arrests, fell from 26% in March to less than 3% in April with the majority ‘released under investigation’ and not subject to any conditions.
6.2 Each police force has reported a broadly similar reduction in the use of pre-charge bail, and different approaches have been introduced to ensure that bail is necessary and proportionate, and continues to be applied when appropriate, particularly in relation to the protection of witnesses, victims and vulnerable people.
6.3 The two most significant issues that have been repeatedly highlighted by police forces are;
I. The challenges posed by ‘tracking’ suspects who are released from custody, subject to an ongoing investigation, but not required to comply with conditions or timescales, formally provided by pre-charge bail.
II. The anticipated increase in the use of postal charging / requisitions, and the potential impact on the police and criminal justice agencies.
7.0 RECOMMENDATIONS
7.1 It is only 3 months since the legislation was introduced and not possible to establish the full impact on the police service and criminal justice agencies. However, it is clear that there has been a dramatic reduction, across the police service, in the use of pre- charge bail.
7.2 It is strongly recommended that police forces ensure that robust mechanisms are introduced in order to:
Closely monitor the use of pre-charge bail ensuring appropriate risk assessments are carried out prior to decision making. Track suspects that are released under investigation (RUI) in order to ensure that effective and efficient case management and, where appropriate statutory time limitations are met. Maintain close working relationships with CJ partners.
34 RETURN TO CONTENTS/AGENDA
OFFICIAL SENSITIVE
8.0 CONCLUSION
8.1 The police service, working with our partners, has responded extremely well to the complex changes to legislation required by the Policing & Crime Bill.
8.2 Although substantial, it is not possible to establish the full, and ongoing, costs associated with the change in legislative. However, it is clear that the true impact on the criminal justice system and, in particular, victims and witnesses, is unlikely to be fully understood for some time.
8.3 Further work will continue, on behalf of the NPCC, to work with partners in order to monitor the impact of the legislation, share ‘best practice’ and, when appropriate, highlight any significant issues or concerns.
Darren Martland Assistant Chief Constable NPCC Lead Pre-Charge Bail.
E-Mail: [email protected] Tel: 01606 362090
35 RETURN TO CONTENTS/AGENDA
OFFICIAL SENSITIVE
This page has been left intentionally black
36 RETURN TO CONTENTS/AGENDA
OFFICIAL SENSITIVE
Chief Constables’ Council
National Vulnerability Action Plan
12 July 2017/Agenda item: Regional Paper
Security classification: Official Disclosable under FOIA 2000: Yes Author: DCC Karen Manners Force/organisation: Warwickshire Police Date created: 13/06/2017 Coordination Committee: Crime Operations Coordination Committee Portfolio: Violence and Public Protection Attachments @ paragraphs: National Vulnerability Action Plan (Appendix A)
1. Purpose
1.1 This paper seeks the support of Chief Constables in adopting the National Vulnerability Action Plan (NVAP) and agreement to work towards the actions both within their role as Chief Constables, as well as NPCC National Leads.
2. Background
2.1 As a service we have, for some time, been moving down the path of creating specialist silos for each area of public protection. As this area of business has grown we have seen an increase in the number of action plans created to tackle a vast array of public protection issues. The Violence and Public Protection Board (VPP), under the leadership of CC Simon Bailey, realised that to continue to deal with all areas within silos missed vital opportunities to join up the ongoing work and find the commonality or ‘golden threads’ where they exist.
2.2 Mandated by the VPP, DCC Manners brought together all relevant public protection portfolio staff officers into a number of workshop events to find these ‘golden threads’ and to decide on prioritisation of actions in the plan. These workshops comprised members not only of the NPCC portfolios but also the College of Policing (CoP), Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary (HMIC), Home Office and academics.
2.3 A key issue in the development of this action plan was the structure it should take. There was an acceptance in the group that the current 4Ps structure, generally accepted for national action plans, was not suitable and a new structure was devised. It grouped actions into 7 categories: Early Intervention and Prevention; Protecting, Supporting, Safeguarding and Managing Risk; Information, Intelligence, Data Collection and Management Information; Effective Investigation and Outcomes; Leadership; Learning and Development; Communications. These categories were placed under 3 areas of responsibility; CoP, National Leads and Individual Forces.
2.4 The NVAP has now undergone a number of validation processes through the VPP and the National Crime Operations Coordination Committee (NCOCC), prior to Chief Constables’ Council. 37 RETURN TO CONTENTS/AGENDA
OFFICIAL SENSITIVE
2.5 Following significant work and consultation, the NVAP has been benchmarked against the 2015 and 2016 PEEL vulnerability inspection criteria. HMIC feel that the plan, as presented, would have covered all of the general areas of vulnerability in those inspections. The HMIC view was that when taken in conjunction with other specific national action plans, such as the Domestic Abuse action plan and the CSE national action plan, all areas of vulnerability would have been covered.
2.6 The NVAP has a significant amount of academic research which underpins it. Many of the actions were raised from existing action plans, which had research supporting them. Additionally, the College of Policing has started its own research into the area of vulnerability. At this time they have created a research map describing the current academic evidence that exists which highlights the paucity of knowledge in this area, most of which is stranded into the areas of public protection. Further development work by the College of Policing is planned.
2.7 It is clear that the NVAP is only the beginning of the process and a lot of work needs to be completed to ensure effective and efficient use of action plans at the national level. If this plan is adopted, the VPP will look to start removing specific actions from other vulnerability related plans. The VPP believes that it may be possible to significantly reduce the number of actions held nationally within action plans by the introduction of the NVAP and rationalisation of associated plans.
2.8 It is recognised that elements of this work overlap with the Prevent strand of the Contest strategy.
3. Implementation
3.1 If the NVAP is approved, the plan will be owned by the VPP, with the plan owner sitting at the NCOCC which will aid delivery of the actions. The VPP chair will hold National Leads to account for their actions through the new NCOCC/VPP structures.
4. Next Steps
4.1 If approved by Chief Constables’ Council, communication will commence with the National Leads and College of Policing. Individual forces will then commence streamlining of plans generally and the delivery of the prioritised actions. Work will be completed to embed the good practice contained within the document.
5. Decisions required
5.1 Chief Constables’ Council are asked to formally confirm:
i) Their approval for the implementation of the NVAP ii) Their commitment to work towards achieving the actions contained within the plan
Violence and Public Protection Portfolio – DCC Karen Manners
38 RETURN TO CONTENTS/AGENDA
OFFICIAL SENSITIVE
National Vulnerability Action Plan 2017-2019
June 2017
39 RETURN TO CONTENTS/AGENDA
OFFICIAL SENSITIVE
National Vulnerability Action Plan
It is our intention to co-ordinate and drive the delivery of the National Vulnerability Action Plan across England, Wales and N. Ireland. The National Vulnerability Action Plan is aimed at supporting police forces to deliver 7 identified key themes that have specific actions:
1. Early Intervention and Prevention By adopting the principle of ‘professional curiosity’, potential indicators of vulnerability can be identified at an early stage, presenting an opportunity for early intervention with partners so that the risk of harm is reduced. This does not always mean referral to other statutory agencies but does mean taking a caring approach to reduce the risk of further harm, e.g. this could be as little as knowing what local and national support services are available and signposting accordingly.
2. Protecting, Supporting, Safeguarding and Managing Risk By investigating fully, officers and staff develop a comprehensive understanding of the causes of risk of harm and together with partners, take effective measures to manage them. 3. Information, Intelligence, Data Collection and Management Information Forces have effective processes in place to gather information and intelligence. Officers and staff use the tools to effectively assess risk to consider an appropriate and proportionate response. Each force develops appropriate data and related evidence to ensure that it’s response to vulnerability is as effective as possible. 4. Effective Investigation and Outcomes Officers and staff use ‘professional curiosity’ to recognise and respond to vulnerability in order that effective steps can be taken to make vulnerable people safer. In doing so, officers and staff to consider the most appropriate support available and what action is required, proportionate to the circumstances. 5. Leadership Leadership is not rank specific! All officers and staff should recognise they are leaders and be empowered to exercise their professional judgement in determining the most appropriate response and support to vulnerable people. Leadership includes ensuring that the correct governance is in place to effectively manage risk relating to vulnerability. 6. Learning and Development Officers and staff are supported to attain and maintain the skills and knowledge that they need to effectively recognise and respond to all forms of vulnerability. The outcome will be that staff will be able to work in partnership to take a problem solving approach in addressing vulnerability. 7. Communications Use sophisticated communication techniques to understand the needs of all internal and external audiences. Utilise information to ensure that people understand how to reduce potential risks, and our officers and staff understand what is expected of them. Vulnerability should be recognised as relating to witnesses, victims, suspects and our staff. 40 RETURN TO CONTENTS/AGENDA
OFFICIAL SENSITIVE
National Vulnerability Action Plan Overarching Principles:
1. Recognising and responding to vulnerability requires partners to work together effectively
2. The concept of vulnerability encompasses the person and their circumstances
3. Responding to vulnerability includes empowering people to seek their own support networks
4. Prioritising prevention reduces harm and demand
5. To be better at recognising and responding to vulnerability requires a change in culture within and across service providers
41 RETURN TO CONTENTS/AGENDA
OFFICIAL SENSITIVE
Proposed Timescales Current Action Objective Action (To be determined Reference Key Theme Position Owner by action owner)
College of Policing Actions
1.1 To clearly define the meaning of For officers and staff to fully understand the COP COP considering 4. Effective ‘vulnerability’ term vulnerability and what is expected of national definition investigation & them and why and consulting with outcomes PRIORITY the Home Office 1. Early Intervention and Prevention 1.2 Define the meaning of ‘professional For officers and staff to fully understand the COP 4. Effective curiosity’ term ‘professional curiosity’ and what is investigation & expected of them and why outcomes PRIORITY 1. Early Intervention and Prevention 1.3 All existing training modules to be To ensure that vulnerability is embedded as COP and All 6. Learning & reviewed to ensure the golden a core element of policing and not a specific Forces L&D Development thread of vulnerability runs topic teams throughout
PRIORITY 1.4 Develop a vulnerability training To provide a consistent standard of training COP This should attract 6. Learning & product that includes initial and across the police service nationally and CPD Development follow up continuous learning other agencies modules / refreshers Consideration should be given to this PRIORITY product being available to partners as joint agency vulnerability training 1.5 Develop a vulnerability tool kit / To assist staff in their understanding of all COP 4. Effective investigators guide forms of vulnerability, related procedure and investigation & what is expected of them. outcomes
Please note; at this time, Existing tool kits that are used effectively in forces relating to such things as CSE, DA should continue
This is a medium to longer term proposal that could evolve the existing tool kits to incorporate wider aspects of vulnerability and thereby benefit officers, staff and volunteers in the early identification of
42 RETURN TO CONTENTS/AGENDA
OFFICIAL SENSITIVE
vulnerability and subsequent intervention
1.6 Creation of a single guidance Review guidance to ensure best use of COP/CPS/NPL 2. Protecting, document for professionals from intermediaries/advocacy and advisory supporting, existing products services to enable the most vulnerable to safeguarding engage with the criminal justice agencies and managing risk
1.7 Develop a guide to civil orders Collate what exists in one place and attach COP in 1. Early associated guidance, to do this once to consultation intervention & prevent duplication of effort with nominated Prevention NPL 1.8 Create and disseminate advice and To ensure that legal reference materials COP 6. Learning & guidance in relation to revised used by forces are current, shared and Development legislation and key academic accessible learning 1.9 Develop a ‘minimum standard’ This minimum standard may incorporate COP 6. Learning & training requirement and CPD various N-Calt packages, Courses, written Development specific to vulnerability, and link materials etc. this to positive outcomes.
43 RETURN TO CONTENTS/AGENDA
OFFICIAL SENSITIVE
All Force Actions
2.1 Develop an investigative principle To increase / develop an ethos of All Forces 4. Effective that understanding, recognising professional curiosity to better understand, investigation & and responding to vulnerability is recognise and respond to vulnerability outcomes everyone’s business, not just specialist units
PRIORITY 2.2 Ensure staff are equipped to Working in partnership with other statutory All Forces 4. Effective identify and manage risk, as well as and third sector agencies to reduce threat investigation & support and safeguard those and risk to protect the vulnerable outcomes requiring it. In doing so, recognising that opportunities to To ensure that vulnerability and identify and respond to early opportunities to intervene are widely indicators of vulnerability apply recognised and that we do not become too equally for victims and perpetrators victim focused in this regard. [ e.g. Early and that related training materials recognition of perpetrator vulnerabilities and should reflect this appropriate intervention can prevent escalation and subsequent further harm] PRIORITY 2.3 Ensure that vulnerability forms part 1. To identify vulnerable people and related All Forces 2. Protecting, of the tasking and review process threat, risk and harm at an early stage supporting, at a local, force and regional level safeguarding using problem profiles, tactical & 2. To ensure that key threats are identified and managing strategic assessments in order to and (where possible) activity planned for risk effectively manage threat, risk and and delivered to reduce such threats harm 3. To have cognisance of and raise PRIORITY awareness of the identified regional and national threats and cross cutting themes
2.4 Ensure that MASH staff (where To ensure that the principles relating to All Forces 2. Protecting, implemented) fully understand the vulnerability and ‘professional curiosity’ are supporting, principles relating to vulnerability well embedded within MASH safeguarding and ‘professional curiosity’ and that and managing it is embedded within MASH risk processes
PRIORITY
2.5 Ensure sufficient Whether from personal interactions with the All Forces 2. Protecting,
44 RETURN TO CONTENTS/AGENDA
OFFICIAL SENSITIVE
training/procedures in place to public/staff or through the control centre, supporting, recognise vulnerability at the forces must ensure that they recognise safeguarding earliest opportunity at first point of vulnerabilities at the earliest opportunity and and managing contact take action on what they find. risk PRIORITY 2.6 Develop clear processes to ensure To ensure that ‘the voices of vulnerable All Forces 2. Protecting, that ‘the voices of vulnerable victims and witnesses’ are heard relating to supporting, victims and witnesses’ are heard service provision and victim / witness safeguarding feedback [Making Justice Work] and managing PRIORITY risk 2.7 Acknowledging that mental health To ensure early consideration of existence All Forces 2. Protecting, can impact across all forms of of indicators of MH in order that early supporting, vulnerability. Forces to consider in intervention can be put in place safeguarding their assessment of vulnerability as and managing to whether indicators of MH are This should incorporate all persons that risk apparent and signpost / refer police come into contact with (i.e. victims / accordingly offenders / general public)
PRIORITY 2.8 Have in place welfare policies and To ensure that forces recognise the All Forces 5. Leadership provision to support staff, vulnerabilities of their own workforce and put recognising that they themselves in place robust measures to recognise and can become vulnerable respond to these
PRIORITY 2.9 Work with PCCs with regard the To raise individual PCC awareness of the All Forces 5. Leadership wider vulnerability agenda in order wider vulnerability agenda in order that they that they can consider this in can consider supportive / preventative setting their priorities priorities / investment
PRIORITY 2.10 Ensure that forces have strong To ensure that a strategic and operational All Forces 5. Leadership governance procedures relating to governance structure exists to set objectives vulnerability and monitor effectiveness
PRIORITY 2.11 Work with communities to make Ease of access, third sector reporting / All Forces 7. Comms reporting easier gateways, access to services
PRIORITY Recognition of the impact that reporting may have on a vulnerable person and what support mechanisms are in place
45 RETURN TO CONTENTS/AGENDA
OFFICIAL SENSITIVE
2.12 Prioritise early evidence gathering Forces to work with CPS to optimise, where All Forces 4. Effective in order to consider maximising the appropriate to do so, victimless prosecution Nominated investigation & use of victimless prosecutions opportunities in relation to all vulnerable NPL in outcomes where appropriate to do so. This victims. i.e.; gang related violence, consultation should go beyond the scope of recognising that victims may also be with relevant child offences and victims of involved in criminality, which increases their partners domestic abuse reluctance to support police action
2.13 Gather better intelligence and To deploy intelligence analysts in line with All Forces 4. Effective utilise this in targeting of vulnerable threat, harm and risk with a consideration of investigation & persons. Consider utilising a broad the most vulnerable. To consider the outcomes range of covert options to utilisation of covert options across a broad investigate both crime and non- range of investigations relating to crime incidents vulnerability 2.14 Develop analytical capability and 1. Early intervention before criminality All Forces 3. Intelligence, capacity to identify high risk areas occurs Information, of vulnerability to target intervention Data collection / prevention activity including 2. Recognition that vulnerability to becoming & Management identification of emerging threats involved in crime or a victim of crime can Information such as Cyber. increase due to association, geography, school, family etc Work with partners to improve: 3. To enable agencies working in partnership to effectively target local - Problem profiles contexts and problems and monitor shifting patterns - Mapping of local service provision 4. To predict future risk and therefore enable a multi agency approach to early - Vulnerable locations / Hotspots intervention and prevention and where relating to victim and offenders appropriate diversion and exit strategies for offenders 2.15 Work proactively with partners and 1. To establish a strategic and focussed All Forces 3. Intelligence, local services to better assess and data collection strategy Information, improve recording of data relating Data collection to risk and devise transparent data 2. To ensure that there is an agency & Management collection plans. response to all forms of vulnerability Information (including when it does not meet a criminal threshold), thus improving earlier [It is especially important to identify identification and record concerns about vulnerability as early as possible 3. To ensure that data is routinely available: even when a criminal or social care i.e. context, age and perpetrator for threshold is not necessarily met] intervention, monitoring and analysis
46 RETURN TO CONTENTS/AGENDA
OFFICIAL SENSITIVE
purposes and tasked effectively 4. To improve the data quality for shared multi-agency intelligence
2.16 Wherever possible and appropriate This would ensure a commitment to All Forces 3. Intelligence, to do so, consider compatible partnership accessible products Information, systems that operate across forces Data collection / partners & Management Information 2.17 Work closely with local authorities To increase early cross agency awareness All Forces 3. Intelligence, and partners to improve information of vulnerable people, in order that the Information, and intelligence sharing relating to relevant lead agency can put in place an Data collection vulnerability as early as possible early intervention action plan, thus reducing & Management risk of harm Information
2.18 Forces to map in conjunction with To improve awareness amongst police All Forces/NPL 1. Early the NPL what therapeutic service officers, staff and volunteers as to what intervention & provision exists for victims, therapeutic service provision exists and Prevention witnesses, suspects, vulnerable what it does in order that they can advise / persons or families. Having done signpost accordingly so, communicate this and relevant referral processes to all staff. This should be subject to regular updates to ensure that it remains current
NPL to map what national level therapeutic service provision exists for victims, witnesses, suspects vulnerable person or families and circulate this to all forces to compliment the local part of this action as follows; 2.19 Develop clear pathways of support To improve awareness amongst police All Forces 1. Early so that officers, staff and volunteers officers, staff and volunteers as to what intervention & know what support is available and support provision exists and what it does in Prevention how to get it order that they can advise / signpost accordingly 2.20 Undertake work with agencies such To encourage reporting amongst All Forces 1. Early as the equalities commission, marginalised groups and thus provide early intervention & community leaders and IAGs to intervention and support Prevention increase reporting of vulnerability 2.21 Re-examine local management At a local level, to encourage a culture of All Forces 5. Leadership
47 RETURN TO CONTENTS/AGENDA
OFFICIAL SENSITIVE
processes with a view to instil a officers / staff exercising ‘professional Nominated supervisory approach at all levels curiosity’ and early identification of threat, NPL that encourages debriefing / review risk and harm within an environment that Regional to a mindset of ‘What did we do allows staff to challenge their norms and do Leads well’ and ‘How can we do better’ the right thing as opposed to blame At a national and regional level create an National and Regional Vulnerability environment which is reflective and groups should work together with promotes openness and organisational the IPCC to promote the ‘Just learning rather than blame Culture’ response to vulnerability 2.22 Senior leaders should develop This will reinforce the principle that All Forces/ 5. Leadership recognition and reward for officers vulnerability is a priority for the service and Nominated displaying positive performance desire to recognise and respond positively NPL relating to vulnerability and in a more caring fashion
NPL to consider options for national recognition of good work 2.23 Contribute to and support regional pport regional governance and dissemination All Forces 5. Leadership vulnerability meetings of good practice. To encourage regional collaboration where appropriate 2.24 Develop a clear policy which Redefine thresholds to better equip officers All Forces 5. Leadership recognises that officer norms will to recognise and respond to vulnerability. change from exposure to aspects This could be through leadership or training / of criminality/vulnerability and that communication these need to be re-set so that thresholds of acceptability are maintained 2.25 All officers / staff to recognise that To ensure that officers / staff recognise their All Forces 6. Learning & as ‘first responders’ to many responsibilities with regard to identification Development incidents, the police have an and opportunities for early intervention upon important role to play in the early all public contact / engagement identification of vulnerability, regardless of whether a crime has been committed or not 2.26 All officers / staff / volunteers within To ensure that other critical posts relevant to All Forces 6. Learning & posts that are virtual front line such operational policing are subject to training to L&D teams Development as L&D, CCR & analytical roles / ensure that relevant staff understand the Intelligence to undertake specific significance of the cultural change that the vulnerability training organisation is seeking to undertake and thus ensure that it is then reflected within their roles 2.27 Recruitment process to show / test To have a workforce that values vulnerability All Forces 6. Learning &
48 RETURN TO CONTENTS/AGENDA
OFFICIAL SENSITIVE
understanding of vulnerability for from inception into the service Development potential new employees entering the service 2.28 Review current strategies and All Forces 7. Comms materials to ensure that they reflect a focus upon early recognition and response to vulnerability
49 RETURN TO CONTENTS/AGENDA
OFFICIAL SENSITIVE
National Police Lead Actions
3.1 Academic evaluation of current To carefully consider existing intervention / Nominated early intervention / prevention prevention models to protect vulnerable people NPL with 1. Early models that exist and consider academic intervention & Prevention how they could influence support improved practice [e.g. ACEs]
PRIORITY 3.2 Work with relevant partners to 1. To ensure that outcomes do not rely on Nominated 4. Effective find a common agreement and traditional criminal justice outcomes NPL in investigation & solution to defining and consultation outcomes recording incidents which clearly 2. Recognition that early intervention for with relevant set out what constitutes an vulnerability will more often require personal partners ‘Effective Outcome’ engagement to understand related vulnerabilities and subsequent signposting to PRIORITY relevant support agencies or working with partners to provide intervention 3.3 National Policing Lead for VPP To support / reinforce organisational VPP Lead 7. Comms to work with all vulnerability awareness with regard to the identification of and related NPLs to implement a vulnerability and risk across all related Nominated comprehensive communication portfolios NPL strategy for all Forces
PRIORITY 3.4 Stakeholder engagement to be To work with partners to seek out better ways Nominated 7. Comms undertaken at a National, of working relating to our individual and multi NPL Regional and Local level agency response to recognising and Regional responding to vulnerability Leads PRIORITY All Forces 3.5 Academic research to be To enable forces to examine gaps in service VPP lead 6. Learning & completed to identify & review delivery across statutory agencies and Development existing research on effective Nominated practice relating to policing all To enable police and other agency actions to NPL forms of vulnerability. Where focus and target upon specific areas appropriate conduct new research to fill gaps in evidence aligned to outcomes To ensure training and learning include all up- to-date and relevant knowledge of vulnerability
Readiness for the future. i.e. digital / social
50 RETURN TO CONTENTS/AGENDA
OFFICIAL SENSITIVE
media
3.6 Develop improved processes to To develop a national process relating to VPP lead identify and ensure the SCRs/DHRs/R28s/IPCC reports etc. to and 6. Learning & dissemination of organisational facilitate the sharing of relevant learning across Nominated Development learning in whatever form it organisations NPL takes VPP Lead/Nominated NPL to scope creating a post for someone to complete this on a National level once and thus prevent duplication within forces, dependent on external funding being sourced 3.7 VPP Lead and relevant NPLs to To provide a consistent cross agency message VPP Lead work together to influence better specific to vulnerability Nominated 5. Leadership co-ordination across NPL Government departments relating to vulnerability 3.8 Evaluation of what industry To carefully consider what industry solutions Nominated options exist, or could be exist to assist police and partners in the early NPL with 1. Early developed, relating to early identification and prevention of vulnerability academic intervention & identification and prevention of support Prevention vulnerability 3.9 Facilitate a review of existing To bring about one civil order relevant to Nominated civil orders across portfolios to vulnerability that incorporates all existing NPL working 1. Early consider if there is potential to vulnerability related orders and thereby simplify with CoP intervention & work with the MOJ to merge into the process and reduce bureaucracy Prevention one simple process relevant to all existing orders 3.10 NPL to work with partners to To streamline all information sharing protocols Nominated 3. Intelligence, consider the development of a relating to the differing strands of vulnerability NPL Information, national information sharing Data collection protocol to address all forms of & Management vulnerability Information 3.11 Work in partnership with To bring about a more joined up approach Nominated 2. Protecting, relevant agencies to consider across agencies, not necessarily for police to NPL in supporting, formulating a National Multi lead but to be part of consultation safeguarding Agency Vulnerability Strategy with relevant and managing partners risk 3.12 Work together with academia To ensure that threat, risk and harm relating to Nominated 2. Protecting, and local authority leads to any form of vulnerability are understood, thus NPL/ supporting, conduct research and enabling a considered response to reduce risks Academia safeguarding subsequent consideration as to and managing the development of a National risk
51 RETURN TO CONTENTS/AGENDA
OFFICIAL SENSITIVE
Vulnerability risk assessment and prevent harm wherever possible to do so tool This will require external funding and will be Any such product should also reliant on provision of such to move forward include an abridged version that can be used by communications / control room staff at first point of contact 3.13 To work with academia to To determine if legislative change is required to Nominated 2. Protecting, undertake a review of current specifically address vulnerability NPL supporting, legislation relevant to differing Academia safeguarding strands of vulnerability to and managing determine if legislative change is risk required to recognise all forms of vulnerability 3.14 Work together with CPS, To ensure that CJ processes are streamlined All NPLs 4. Effective Courts, MOJ, HO and other key wherever possible thus developing a more investigation & partners to: joined up understanding and approach outcomes regarding vulnerability - identify what key themes across vulnerability portfolios are slowing CJ process down - once identified work with key partners to address them
52 RETURN TO CONTENTS/AGENDA
OFFICIAL SENSITIVE
National Police Chiefs’ Council Stop and Search
12-13 July 2017 / Agenda item: Regional
S36(ii)(C)
53 RETURN TO CONTENTS/AGENDA
OFFICIAL SENSITIVE
Chief Constables’ Council S163 Traffic Stops – Update Paper
12 July 2017 /Agenda item: Regional Paper
Security classification: Not Protectively Marked/Restricted Disclosable under FOIA 2000: Yes Author: ACC STEVE BARRY Force/organisation: Sussex Police Date created: June 2017 Coordination Committee: July 2017 Portfolio: Roads Policing Attachments @ paragraphs: Appendix 1
1. INTRODUCTION/PURPOSE
1.1 This paper serves to update Chiefs on the ongoing work by NPCC Roads Policing portfolio to;
1. Pilot S163 traffic stop data collection 2. Explore the value of collecting such data and 3. Engage the Home Office on their determination to develop an enhanced scheme at this time
2. BACKGROUND
2.1 In April 2014 the Home Secretary asked HMIC to “review other powers that the police can use to stop people, such as section 163 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, in order to establish that they are being used effectively and fairly.” The Home Office are keen to incorporate S163 monitoring into Best Use Stop Search Scheme (BuSS).
2.2 Section 163 RTA 1988 is the sole legislative power available to the police to stop a vehicle. This power is used for multiple reasons including the protection of those at collision scenes, incidents and hazards - thousands of vehicles are stopped daily.
2.3 CC Davenport (previous RP lead) was asked to lead for NPCC to establish a position in response to the Home Office drive to incorporate S163 into BuSS. A group was established to consider the issues and support a data collection pilot whilst engaging with stakeholders including the Home Office. The group also includes HMIC, and the College of Policing.
The terms of reference for the group are;
1. Explore the rationale for collating Section 163 stops data to answer the requirement to be transparent and open, regarding proportionality, justification and legitimacy of such stops. 2. To explore the data collection requirements. 3. To explore technological solutions to data collection.
54 RETURN TO CONTENTS/AGENDA
OFFICIAL SENSITIVE
4. To cross reference Section 163 requirements with the “Best use of stop and search scheme” (BUSS). 5. To provide and update to the Chief Constables Council via the Road Policing lead – Chief Constable Davenport
2.4 The group agreed a template for data collection (see Appendix 1) and a proposed methodology for analysis. A fundamental analytical issue that has been identified is that Forces will need to establish the baseline for their population ethnicity if the proportionality question is to be properly assessed.
3. UPDATE
3.1 ACC Steve Barry is leading the group under the ToR. He also now sits alongside DCC Hanstock on the Home Office led group reviewing BuSS. Despite significant representation being made on behalf of NPCC there is every indication that the Home Office still intend to bring S163 under enhanced BuSS during 2017.
3.2 Pilot Force Update;
Five forces have been engaged in the pilots with good contribution to the national working group. These forces are all at different stages of pilot and have differing approaches to data collection. Whilst data is being collected only a high level evaluation has been achieved thus far. The key enabler for forces is mobile technology which reduces officer time committed to the stop.
Northumbria Pilot commenced September 2016, a strong set of data has been collected force-wide. Inputting of data is achieved via the control room at the same time as PNC checks. Mobile App solution is expected in 2017. Early indications show a spike in stops of a minority group that could be attributable to a specific operation. This could be exactly the type of information that Forces would find useful in managing public confidence. The sharing of S163 information via IAGs has begun. A fuller analysis of the complete data set will commence imminently.
Cambridgeshire Pilot commenced 17th October 2016, figures are in the process of being compiled but it is initially limited to response officers only in 3 out of their 6 policing districts.
West Yorkshire Have taken a different approach intending to enable both their ticketing system and stop and search mobile solutions to record the data. The back office will then produce the required figures together. This went live on 23rd January 2017 and training was rolled out as uptake increased.
Sussex & Surrey The Surrey mobile platform is almost complete and input and training in the development of the end user App is now required. Sussex will follow this platform route which should enable Surrey to complete testing (followed by Sussex) during 2017.
3.3 There has been an additional request from the Home Office to include, where possible, a pilot with regard to potential new powers under immigration legislation regarding the seizure of driving licences. So far S163 pilot Forces have declined to take part in this, concerned that such input/training to officers simultaneous to the S163 pilot would be too much additional information and may skew figures with regard to the stops under S163.
55 RETURN TO CONTENTS/AGENDA
OFFICIAL SENSITIVE
4. Home Office
4.1 The national working group have endeavoured to manage HO expectations. The HO have recently confirmed in writing that they intend to progress with the introduction of an enhanced BUSSS which they see as an ‘add-on’ that…
“Will include section 163 (BUSSS – enhanced/BUSSS+ - whatever you want to call it). It will be entirely up to forces as to whether they choose to adopt this part – it’ll be for forces in a position to deliver this in the least burdensome way using appropriate technology. Its adoption is not a condition for remaining on BUSSS.”
Whilst on one hand it is unhelpful that they are pursuing S163 in an enhanced BUSSS, this statement does at least reinforce their position and is helpful for NPCC as it makes clear that not joining the enhanced scheme will in no way compromises forces’ status on the existing scheme.
5. CONCLUSIONS
High level indications are that the data collected should have the potential for identifying any potential disproportionality in the use of the power. Critical, however, is the need for forces to have a sound understanding of their baseline for comparison.
The indications from pilot forces are that the time taken to record this data is minimal when using mobile data solutions. Without this however, the view is that the effort outweighs the benefits.
Whilst it is clear that this subject is a positive issue to examine and that there are clear benefits in terms of transparency and legitimacy we should not lose sight of the fact that legislatively S163 is a proactive power that requires no reason or explicit justification for the stop. For now the police service should continue to use the power as it was intended in the interests of crime prevention and public safety.
Wider public consultation is required before S163 data collection requirements/preferences are set. The Home Office have suggested they will undertake this.
6. RECOMMENDATION
Until such time that full evaluation of the pilot forces is complete and the mechanisms for collecting the data are more enabling and consistent the NPCC lead for Roads Policing recommends;
1. That forces do not join the enhanced BUSSS (assumption that only the addition of S163 is included) and 2. Chiefs Council are asked to support the continuation of the national S163 working group, which will look to further evaluate pilot forces and manage Home Office expectations.
Anthony Bangham Chief Constable West Mercia Police National Police Chiefs’ Council lead for Roads Policing
56 RETURN TO CONTENTS/AGENDA
OFFICIAL SENSITIVE
This page has been left intentionally black
57 RETURN TO CONTENTS/AGENDA
OFFICIAL SENSITIVE
Chief Constables’ Council National Volunteer Police Cadets Programme Update
12 July 2017/Agenda Item: Regional Paper
Security classification: Unclassified Disclosable under FOIA 2000: Yes Author: Martin Bush, Programme Director, NVPC Force/organisation: Devon & Cornwall Police Date created: 26 June 2017 Coordination Committee: Portfolio:
1. PURPOSE
1.1. This document provides an update to the National Police Chiefs Council on progress on the Volunteer Police Cadets (VPC) programme. It provides a brief update on the options available for the future ‘ownership’ of the VPC based on previous indications from the NPCC of its intention to explore the viability of a charitable trust. The paper sets out a summary of the key recommendations and requests formal approval for the transition to new ownership and the proposed funding arrangements. Adoption of the recommendations will create a sustainable basis for the future operation of the VPC
2. BACKGROUND
2.1. The PIF NVPC programme is 15 months in to its two-year duration and on track in terms of key programme benefits. Programme deliverables, expenditure, and pump-priming grant disbursements are on track. The VPC has continued to expand and there are now circa 500 cadet units in operation with a membership of over 12,000 cadets. As a consequence the VPC is now the fastest growing uniformed youth group in the country. The total annual contribution in terms of social action (volunteering) hours is currently running at 400,000 hours. The national core team consists of 10 former police officers and staff.
2.2. Key outputs that have been delivered under the programme include a framework for the management of cadet units, new training courses for cadet leaders and cadets, training and guidance on safeguarding, direct practical and financial and financial support for start-up units, and a digital platform that has been entitled ‘Marshall Volunteer Portal’. The portal is now ready for implementation by any force wishing to avail itself of the efficiencies it can deliver.
2.3. The VPC is poised for continued expansion. It is aligned with key government and local initiatives on youth intervention with their focus on prevention and vulnerability, and consistent with Policing Vision 2025 themes including the need to strengthen links between communities and police forces. It has proved effective in reaching out to vulnerable young people and the BME community and continues to deliver high levels of social action in local communities. It is a key part of the Citizens in Policing strategy and contributes fully in sharing best practice. Although it is not the primary aim of the VPC to encourage recruitment into the police increasing numbers of the diverse group of young people that join the cadets are now progressing into adult roles within policing. Initial evidence suggest that former cadets entering the Special Constabulary are contributing significantly more hours during their service compared to national averages.
2.4. Some progress has been made in establishing a future, sustainable operating model for the VPC. The NVP Cadets Charity is now operational and recruiting additional trustees to expand the breadth of representation
58 RETURN TO CONTENTS/AGENDA
OFFICIAL SENSITIVE
from the Police family and other interested parties. Governance is now in place and the board is preparing for the transition of ownership.
2.5. A transition board has been established to oversee the transfer of ‘ownership’ and governance from D&CP to the charity. Membership of the transition board is to include representatives from Citizens in Policing, the College of Policing and the Home Office. It will include expertise in charity operations and the legal and financial aspects. The transition board is to be chaired by Chief Constable David Jones.
3. KEY CHALLENGES
3.1. Over the past 5 years the national VPC framework that was agreed by the NPCC in 2014 and developed under the management of the Devon and Cornwall Police Chief Constable has proved to be effective. The national VPC team has been successful in securing over £4m in funding by promoting the VPC at strategic government levels. There is significant appetite amongst forces to adopt the core VPC standards, undergo training and use the digital platform. The VPC organisation has reached the point where it needs to step up and assume its national role as a secure, sustainable, national organisation underpinned by proper funding arrangements.
3.2. In liaison with Step up to Serve, this key step will ensure it attains a status comparable with other national uniformed youth groups including the Scouts, Guides and Sea Cadets. In general these organisations are run through charities or the direct beneficiaries of government funding. It is imperative that there is a standardised approach aligned through the College of Policing for the development of training and safeguarding standards.
3.3. In this context, the first challenge is to ensure that the VPC is established under an independent owner with governance in place that reflects the interests and values of the wider police community. Key to this will be the need to provide advocacy at a national level and the flexibility to allow standards and infrastructure developed centrally that will provide confidence for forces that their specific programmes are based on best practice.
3.4. The second challenge is to implement a funding model that will enable the core team to continue to extend support to local forces, cover its staffing and regional development costs, and the operating costs of the digital platform.
3.5. As it is currently organised under the existing operating model the annual cost base is in the region of £400,000. Whilst it is believed that this model is similar to contemporary organisations, the model is under continual review to ensure it is able to support the range of services it offers and in line with the cost base and organisation structure in comparable youth organisations.
4. OPTIONS FOR CONSIDERATION
4.1. The main options for ownership of the VPC are as follows:
Transfer ownership to the NVP Cadets Charity Leave it under the guidance of the NPCC with ownership assigned to one of the UK police forces under a NPCC portfolio Close the national operation at the end of the PIF programme
None of the above options remove the operational independence of Chief Constables to deploy cadet units as they require to suit local conditions.
4.2. Other options exist for ownership including embedding the service within the College of Policing. This option has been discounted for the time being as it would not provide the direction from the police forces to the same degree that the Charity route would and as such would not support key strategic objectives for the VPC.
4.3. The principal options for Funding include the following:
59 RETURN TO CONTENTS/AGENDA
OFFICIAL SENSITIVE
A structured approach based on a top slice contribution from forces or their PCCs to cover core team costs. This would be a phased approach leading to the charity becoming self-funding over an agreed period of 3 to 5 years Home Office grants to cover costs in the form of an annual contribution Rely on charitable donations and fundraising to cover core costs
4.4. Guidance from the Home Office has been to seek a blend of public and private sector funding. Whilst this model would be implemented to some degree under all the preceding funding scenarios, the key challenge in implementing a workable funding model is to provide a degree of predictability to avoid the risk of loss of continuity of service in the event funds fluctuate or cease to be available.
5. RECOMMENDATIONS
5.1. This paper sets out the proposal that the NPCC should support the option under which ownership is transferred to the NVP Cadets Charity. The implications and benefits are as follows:
Governance can be designed to provide direct input from police forces. Membership of the charity would include representation from every police force and every PCC, as well as representation from the College of Policing and the Home Office Voting rights for members allow for the control of the strategic direction Allows private sector funding to be sought as well as public sector contributions Provides due diligence and oversight of the transition by the senior transition board Builds on successes over recent years and provides immediate continuity of service
5.2. Additionally, paper sets out the proposal that each force should make a small contribution to the central costs of running the programme. This is the model recently adopted by the Fire Service each of which contributes £7,500 towards the cost of running their cadet service. The implications and advantages are as follows:
An annual contribution averaging £10,000 from each force would cover the majority of the core VPC costs No additional cost would be required from forces electing to make use of the Marshal Volunteer Portal or avail themselves of training. Savings in paid police time gained through the use of the system for administration of cadet units are likely to exceed the annual contribution This simplified funding model provides the basis for the ongoing development of the VPC with all the benefits the programme delivers to local forces and their communities Allows continuation of the successful fund raising initiatives that have been achieved and which are only possible as a national organisation
5.3. The detail of the level of contribution is to be the subject of subsequent discussion. Some options exist for the level of contribution. This paper seeks approval in principal to proceed with the development of an approach to the appropriate level of funding contribution.
6. DECISIONS REQUIRED
6.1. The NPCC is asked to note the contents of this paper and support progress as set out in the recommendations set out in section 5.
Name Shaun Sawyer Title Chief Constable, Devon and Cornwall Constabulary Lead Area NPCC Volunteer Cadets Lead
Name David Jones Title Chief Constable, North Yorkshire Police Lead Area NPCC Citizens in Policing Lead 60 RETURN TO CONTENTS/AGENDA
OFFICIAL SENSITIVE
This page has been left intentionally black
61 RETURN TO CONTENTS/AGENDA
OFFICIAL SENSITIVE
Chief Constables’ Council
HMIC Monitoring Process and Force Management Statements
12/13 July 2017/Agenda Item: Regional Paper
Security classification: Disclosable under FOIA 2000: Author: CI Sarah Johnson Force/organisation: Northamptonshire Police Date created: 21st June 2017 Coordination Committee: Performance Management Coordination Committee Portfolio: Performance Management Attachments @ paragraph: N/A
1. Introduction
1.1 In its State of Policing report (2015) HMIC proposed the introduction of annual Force Management Statements (FMSs). These are modeled on network management statements used in other safety- critical monopoly essential public services.
1.2 The primary purpose of Force Management Statements (FMS) is intended to help forces make sound decisions about how to respond to changing demands over the next three to four years. They also aim to improve public accountability as the Chief Constable will be required to annually publish a suitably redacted Force Management Statement for public consumption. It is anticipated that this will be required around the time that budgets are agreed, February to March.
1.3 The final intention of the FMS is to streamline data requirements and demand generated to support HMIC inspections.
2. Background
2.1 Fourteen forces took part in a HMIC pilot for Force Management Statements in 2016 which concluded in early 2017 with a series of workshops organised by HMIC. The participants at the workshops agreed a format for FMSs and replaced the original two categories of demand referred to in the State of Policing, namely latent and patent demands, to seven as shown at the top of the diagram below.
2.2 Broadly, forces are expected to inspect themselves across each category of demand using a four step approach:
Step 1 is to establish, from an analysis of the environment, the gap between current demand and the forecast of future demand – looking 3 to 4 years ahead. Step 2 is to establish the status of the force’s assets: their performance, capacity, capability, wellbeing and serviceability.
62 RETURN TO CONTENTS/AGENDA
OFFICIAL SENSITIVE
Step 3 is concerned with identifying the gaps within each category and what reciprocal changes should be made in the workforce and other assets to close them. Step 4 requires an identification of gaps across the categories which are of greatest importance to the Chief Constable, followed by a review of how these will be addressed with a comprehensive understanding of competing priorities and available resources.
2.3 HMIC have developed a national template in conjunction with KPMG which applies the four step approach across each of the demand categories. For example, there is a forensics template which asks about demand now and in the future, the state of current forensics performance, capacity and capability, the gap between the current assets and the changes required to close it.
2.4 Steps 1 to 3 would be completed for each aspect of demand to provide an overview assessment against which Chief Officers can review, potentially by application of MoRiLE (Management of Risk in Law Enforcement), to identify priorities to tackle over the planning period of 3 to 4 years.
2.5 In many respects FMSs follow a similar approach used to complete a medium term financial plan. The difference is the emphasis on changing demand and rigorous process of decision making over the year aimed at integrating financial and operational decisions. The value to forces is proposed as being in the application of the process to support decision making, rather than the publication of a public facing document.
2.6 Feedback from the pilot forces elicited varied responses of their experience in preparing a draft FMS. Dependent upon how each force operates this ranged from wholesale change requiring dedicated analytical support or indeed an inability to complete, through to very limited impact with data requirements being almost entirely in line with current practices. Most forces identified that the greater internal demand was for analysis and assessment over data collection. The majority anticipated that, when adopted, the demand may be ongoing but would be mitigated if the FMS was the focus of strategic planning processes.
2.7 There is a clear intent to ensure that the FMS will align with, and support, other business planning processes in forces. However, due to the business planning cycle and timescales for delivery on the 63 RETURN TO CONTENTS/AGENDA
OFFICIAL SENSITIVE
FMS for October 2017 there are concerns that this work will not easily be incorporated into business planning processes simply due to lead in time.
2.8 The pilot project permitted forces to include PCCs at their own discretion which has been undertaken with significant variability. A number have expressed that it has been an abstract concept to explain without associated guidance and that links with the Police and Crime Plan have yet to be defined.
2.9 The framework is yet to be released to forces but the pilots predict that, even with the framework, there will still be considerable scope for forces to compile significantly different FMSs which may mean that they lack similar enough format and form to be considered sufficiently comparable to support inspection. The pilot process has not clarified how the FMS will fit alongside the PEEL inspection process but there is hope that, with the anticipated release of the framework, this will replace data requirements and, in itself, form the basis of an inspection process, reducing duplication and streamlining data requirements.
2.10 HMIC acknowledge that there is a need for clear guidance and that, in the first year, it’s unlikely that forces will have the capability or capacity to complete a comprehensive FMS and the task may be largely administrative. Where forces are able to provide an adequate report HMIC also acknowledge that this may identify new and possibly serious problems which should not be unfairly penalised by PEEL gradings. The need to grade forces does not sit easily with the more cooperative approach suggested by FMSs.
2.11 To this extent there is some merit in HMIC’s proposals, provided it is implemented in a way which is supportive rather than HMIC requiring forces to slavishly self-inspect every aspect using their template. The aim should be for a force with a good decision making process to attract less inspection.
3. Proposal
3.1 HMIC will use statutory powers to request that FMS are completed by each force. If a force decides not to comply then HMIC advise that they risk legal action by Sir Tom Winsor. To avoid such action HMIC recommend that the NPCC supports the proposal of FMSs in principle and co-operates fully with their introduction this year, reviewing progress after the first year.
3.2 The implementation of FMS does provide opportunity for the HMIC to:
Implement a more proportionate and risk based approach, hopefully reducing inspection days by HMIC, and using the information provided to agree which areas do or do not require inspection in conjunction with forces.
Integrate the inspection cycle with forces planning cycles in order to allow inspection findings to be produced in time to influence force decision making and that data gathering for inspections is not duplicated.
3.3 It is proposed that, in order to address the feedback from the pilot process, the PMCC take forward:
In conjunction with the HMIC, the development of principles for interaction between PEEL assessment and FMS. Allowing forces to be confident that they will not be unduly downgraded for providing an honest assessment of issues.
Formulation of a steering group chaired by HMIC, and including key NPCC leads, to provide ongoing review to support forces in maximising benefits and to review that costs are proportionate.
64 RETURN TO CONTENTS/AGENDA
OFFICIAL SENSITIVE
To identify with HMIC the terms for the ongoing review process, and opportunity to develop FMS based upon the experience of forces.
To coordinate a joint review of the FMS proposal with APCC Performance Leads.
3.4 This paper is brought to Council for information and agreement of the above proposals to be undertaken through the PMCC.
Chief Constable Simon Edens Head of Performance Management Coordination Committee
65 RETURN TO CONTENTS/AGENDA
OFFICIAL SENSITIVE
Chief Constables’ Council
Landscape Mapping Update
12 July 2017/Agenda item: Regional Paper
Security classification: Not protectively marked Disclosable under FOIA 2000: Yes Author: Richard Thwaite Force/organisation: Landscape Mapping Date created: 26/06/17
1. OVERVIEW
1.1 The purpose of this update is to provide an overview of the objectives and status of the activities being undertaken by the Landscape Mapping team.
2. BACKGROUND
2.1 Following the establishment of the Police Reform and Transformation Board, a number of National Policing technology programmes have been initiated, alongside which several major Law Enforcement technology programmes in the Home Office are running. Given the complexity of these large-scale technology programmes, the Landscape Mapping team was established to hold up a mirror to the programmes and afford structured visibility of the 15 major programmes that constitute the National Policing Technology Portfolio.
2.2 The Landscape Mapping team is a tripartite arrangement supported by the Home Office, NPCC and APCC. The initial Phase 1 ran between April 2016 to December 2016 and covered six programmes. The work was subsequently extended to cover 15 programmes. Phase 2 has been running since January 2017 and will run until December 2018.
2.3 The Landscape Mapping reports monthly to the Operational Leadership Group (OLG) that comprises key business leaders from NPCC and Home Office. It also reports quarterly to a Steering Committee which, in addition to OLG membership, also includes membership from APCC and other agencies.
2.4 The activities of the Landscape Mapping team are segmented into three areas: Reporting, Communicating and Convening.
3. REPORTING
3.1 The Landscape Mapping team has established a Portfolio Dashboard that, for the first time, affords visibility of the status of programmes in the National Policing Technology Portfolio on a like-for-like basis.
3.2 Defined reporting criteria for the Portfolio Dashboard have been established.
3.3 The Portfolio Dashboard assesses 7 criteria monthly with any items being flagged as amber or red being reported to the OLG for discussion. Trend analysis of the Portfolio Dashboard enables identification of key emerging insights.
66 RETURN TO CONTENTS/AGENDA
OFFICIAL SENSITIVE
3.4 The Portfolio Dashboard is augmented by the Community View. This is a comparable dashboard view that is created from telephone interviews with CIOs in each Force. It provides an external perspective of how Forces view programme development. It also provides insight into potential challenges being faced.
4. COMMUNICATING
4.1 A key insight resulting from Phase 1 of the activities undertaken by the Landscape Mapping team was the opportunity to improve awareness and understanding between programmes in the National Policing Technology Portfolio and Forces.
4.2 The Landscape Mapping developed a Roadshow to Forces whereby key programmes visited each Force in England and Wales to hold specific Q&A sessions with stakeholders from that region.
4.3 Nine Roadshows to Forces were undertaken engaging with over 500 representatives from Forces. Outputs from the Q&A sessions have derived over 600 Frequently Asked Questions that will be shared with Roadshow attendees
4.4 A second cycle of Roadshows will commence in September 2017 with the focus being on programmes providing demonstrations to Forces of the capabilities they have and are developing.
4.5 The Roadshows to Forces will be a relentless cycle of engagements. Each cycle will develop pin depth in support of providing visibility and understanding of programmes in advance of local deployment.
4.6 Programmes have the opportunity to conduct bespoke sessions with Forces alongside the Roadshows to provide additional detail and maximise having Force attendees already on site.
5. CONVENING 5.1 To promote awareness, understanding and collaboration between programmes a quarterly Working Group has been established that involved participants from all programmes within the National Policing Technology Portfolio.
5.2 The Working Group focuses on key themes that have emerged from insights obtained through Reporting and Communicating activities.
5.3 The Working Group takes the format of hands-on workshops where key themes impacting programmes are explored, lessons learned shared and opportunities for collaboration identified.
6. CONCLUSION 6.1 The activities being undertaken by the Landscape Mapping team are developing a unique and deep set of insights. These are shared regularly with programmes, Forces and leadership.
6.2 The Landscape Mapping team is developing an insights database that is increasingly supported by automated tools and technologies to increase the speed of insight capture to engagement with relevant stakeholders.
The Landscape Mapping team is also working with the Police ICT Company to scope the potential for developing a central repository of key programme information that can be exchanged between programmes and Forces and potentially enable online collaboration.
67 RETURN TO CONTENTS/AGENDA
OFFICIAL SENSITIVE
73 RETURN TO CONTENTS/AGENDA
OFFICIAL SENSITIVE
74 RETURN TO CONTENTS/AGENDA
OFFICIAL SENSITIVE
75 RETURN TO CONTENTS/AGENDA
OFFICIAL SENSITIVE
76 RETURN TO CONTENTS/AGENDA
OFFICIAL SENSITIVE
77 RETURN TO CONTENTS/AGENDA
OFFICIAL SENSITIVE
78 RETURN TO CONTENTS/AGENDA
OFFICIAL SENSITIVE
79 RETURN TO CONTENTS/AGENDA
OFFICIAL SENSITIVE
80 RETURN TO CONTENTS/AGENDA
OFFICIAL SENSITIVE
81 RETURN TO CONTENTS/AGENDA
OFFICIAL SENSITIVE
82 RETURN TO CONTENTS/AGENDA
OFFICIAL SENSITIVE
Chief Constables’ Council
Police and Fire Service Collaboration Briefing
12 July 2017/Agenda item: Regional
Security classification: Not protectively marked Disclosable under FOIA 2000: Yes Author: Michael Tunks Force/organisation: Northamptonshire Police Date created: 20th June 2017
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 The purpose of this paper is to update Chief Constables and Chief Fire Officers on the progress being made to further collaboration between policing and fire and rescue services.
2. BACKGROUND
2.1 The Police and Crime Act (2017) places a new duty to collaborate on all three emergency services (Police, Fire and Rescue and Ambulance) and enables PCCs to take on the governance of Fire and Rescue Services in their localities subject to approval from the Home Secretary. Legislation also enables PCCs to establish a new single employer model.
2.2 A work programme has been established with five work streams which purposefully avoided matters that were controversial or matters for PCCs and local decision makers. The programme has attempted to identify areas that were scalable or where a shared approach across the two services would be more efficient and effective and would assist in local delivery.
2.4 In April 2017 Simon Edens took on the portfolio for NPCC and Phil Loach took on the portfolio for the National Fire Chiefs Council (NFCC).
3. WORKSTREAM UPDATES
3.1 HEADQUARTERS SUPPORT:
3.1.1 The Chairs of the National Police Chiefs Council (NPCC) and the National Fire Chiefs Council (NFCC) are now co-located at 10 Victoria Street. NFCC President Roy Wilsher has formally taken up his post as Chair from 1st April 2017 and is expected to be spending more time in London and at the Home Office as a result.
3.2 PROCUREMENT:
3.2.1 A shared procurement committee has been established in the first twelve months of the Police/Fire programme. Good progress has been made and the joint is board headed by Lee Tribe, the Commercial Director for Police/Fire at the Home Office. It has representation from both services.
3.2.2 There have been seven areas based on Bravo spend analysis (Appendix One) identified by the joint procurement committee between Police and Fire as areas to explore further:
83 RETURN TO CONTENTS/AGENDA
OFFICIAL SENSITIVE
Construction and Facilities Management Fleet Clothing ICT Professional Services (HR) Back Office Estates
3.2.13 Both the NPCC and NFCC are asked to endorse the approach to procurement being taken and are asked to establish a lead from each council for each of the seven areas of category spend detailed above.
3.3 MASS MOBILISATION:
3.3.1 NPoCC and the Fire Service National Resilience Centre were commissioned by their respective services to lead a review of collaboration opportunities. This was led by ACC Chris Shead and CFO Dan Stephens. Three key areas where identified and updates are provided below:
3.3.2 Information Technology- NPoCC operates the Mercury System for mutual aid and national level mobilisation data. The Fire and Rescue Service operates the Emergency Support System (ESS) for a real-time overview of capability. At this time both systems perform different functions and, whilst there may be merit in further collaboration to harmonise the two, it is anticipated that this could prove to be prohibitively expensive and may outweigh any potential benefits.
3.3.3 Processes- Except for CT related matters, NPoCC regularly provide representation on behalf of the police service at COBR and official meetings. This is done on behalf of the relevant NPCC lead and a briefing provided where appropriate. It has been jointly agreed that NPoCC will also provide this function and represent the interests of the NFCC where appropriate. NPoCC personnel will need to have an awareness of FRS capability and access to subject matter experts in order to facilitate this moving forward.
3.3.4 Policies- NPoCC are currently assisting the Fire and Rescue Service in implementing similar arrangements to NPCC for Mutual Aid recharging protocol. This is currently awaiting sign off with the National Fire Chiefs Council. An opportunity has been identified to explore the potential to share major national incident centres with Fire through NPoCC in accordance with the JESIP principles. NPCC, NFCC and AACE are developing an MoU to support information sharing between the three co-ordination centres to enhance the services’ understanding of threat and risk in order to provide a proportionate response to incidents.
3.4. LEADERSHIP:
3.4.1 Work has been ongoing to define the Chief Constable role profile. This is due for further consultation before being signed off at the end of July. Work will then begin on the Chief Fire Officer role profile. Once this is complete, a gap analysis will be conducted between the two profiles which will identify where the focus will need to be for further development if a PCC chooses to implement a single employer model.
3.4.3 The College of Policing has had some interest for a Deputy Chief Fire Officer to attend the SCC in 2018. They would not need to take the Senior PNAC as the assessment is only for Police Officers and Staff, however, the SCC often hosts students from other partner organisations.
3.4.4 The College of Policing is in conversations with the Fire Service Executive Leadership Programme (ELP) with a view to establishing a shared CPD event for ELP and SCC alumni later this year.
3.5 COMMITTEE STRUCTURES:
3.5.1 An initial mapping exercise was conducted which identified areas for potential collaboration between the committee structures in both CFOA and NPCC, but this review had to be abandoned due to CFOA transitioning to a new structure and it becoming the new National Fire Chiefs Council. A number of key
84 RETURN TO CONTENTS/AGENDA
OFFICIAL SENSITIVE
documents relating to governance and lessons learned in the transition were shared between NPCC and NFCC through a working group.
3.5.2 The National Fire Chiefs’ Council Structure went live on 1st April. The NFCC President has been appointed on a three year term which mirrors the arrangements of the NPCC Chair. Once NFCCs committee structures have been finalised, the working group will be able to look again at potential areas for collaboration between the two councils.
3.6 THE EMERGENCY SERVICES COLLABORATION WORKING GROUP
3.6.1 Chief Constable Simon Edens now sits on the ESCWG as the representative for NPCC along with Roy Wilsher from NFCC. The group has recently refreshed its terms of reference, tightened up the proposed work plan and undertaken interviews and appointed a new programme manager to take on the role of co-ordinating the group’s activities. This appointment is for a 12 month basis, with a view to extending that arrangement for another year subject to funding negotiations with the Home Office, Department for Health, NFCC, NPCC and AACE.
4. RECOMMENDATIONS AND KEY DECISIONS
4.1 Chief Constables and Chief Fire Officers are asked to appoint category leads for the seven identified areas in the procurement section of this paper and endorse the joint collaborative approach to procurement.
4.2 Chief Constables and Chief Fire Officers are asked to consider if there is merit in continuing to develop a shared single IT platform to manage the real time deployment of assets, capacity data of specialisms and mutual aid deployment of both services. If Chiefs decide to pursue this option then further scoping work will need to be undertaken and further consideration will need to be given as to how this work is supported further.
4.3 Chief Constables and Chief Fire Officers are asked to approve the approach of NPoCC providing representation on behalf of the Fire and Rescue Service at COBR and associated official meetings.
4.4 Chief Constables and Chief Fire Officers are asked to note the update provided within this paper.
5. CONCLUSION
5.1 The complexities of this work stream should not be underestimated. With over 80 stakeholders across the two services, this programme needs the support of Chief Constables and Chief Fire Officers in order to succeed.
5.2 Progress has been slow whilst transition arrangements from CFOA to the National Fire Chiefs’ Council have taken place and in the transfer of Fire and Rescue policy from the Department of Communities and Local Government to the Home Office have taken effect.
5.3 Now these changes are in their implementation phase more progress can be made to further collaboration between the two organisations.
Person Submitting: CC Simon Edens Rank: Chief Constable Portfolio: NPCC Police/Fire Collaboration lead
85 RETURN TO CONTENTS/AGENDA
OFFICIAL SENSITIVE
This page has been left intentionally black
86 RETURN TO CONTENTS/AGENDA
OFFICIAL SENSITIVE
Annex A. Action each area requires a service and commercial lead for police and fire. Category Fire Police Potential Options for Collaboration From transparency Bravo 14/15 spend exercise 12-13 await Bravo analysis Construction and FM c£124m £476.9m Sharing of lessons re different approaches to construction as well as supplier performance Establish standard operating model for project management of new builds Explore options for combined pipeline of future new builds Map contract end dates to identify potential for aligning geographical clustering of FM provision and then utilising CCS or equivalent frameworks to compete joined up requirement. Map current procurement of utilities and benchmark with CCS energy buyers to ensure optimum values are being achieved Fleet c£95m £246.5m Use of one fuel card for both sectors Combined purchase of bunkered fuel Joint use of police national deals for tyres and glass Joint purchase of cars via regular eAuction (includes all cars) Shared use of in-house workshops Clothing c£15m £29.5m NUMS or the new Fire deal led by Kent could provide this contract vehicle. ICT c£61m £626m Combined purchase of commoditised ICT via CCS eAuctions. Historical eAuctions have delivered either cash savings or minimised the effect of significant market increases. Professional Services c£62m £34.9m Relates to training (including specialist fire fighting), use of consultants, specialist contractors etc. Analysis of spend data required to identify common areas. Back Office Use of CIPFA options model to review cost differences in in-house, shared service and outsourced models to determine most appropriate route for provision of efficient back office capability. Local decision making. Estates Workstream requested by Gold group to assess opportunities for rationalise across emergency services at a county level. Note – Spend data for Fire is based upon the current Bravo spend review.. For both Fire and Police this reflects the total spend captured for each category and will include items such as Airwave, PFIs etc where little influence can be brought. The amount of spend that will be capable of influence will in some cases be significantly less that the total spend figure.
87 RETURN TO CONTENTS/AGENDA
OFFICIAL SENSITIVE
88 RETURN TO CONTENTS/AGENDA
OFFICIAL SENSITIVE
Chief Constables’ Council
Police and Ambulance Demand
12/13 July 2017 /Agenda item: Regional Paper
Security classification: Official-Sensitive Disclosable under FOIA 2000: No Author: CC Simon Cole Force/organisation: NPCC Date created: 19th June 2017 Attachments @ paragraphs:
1. PURPOSE
1.1 This paper offers a summary for Chief Constables in respect of the work and discussion that has taken place during the Home Office chaired Police and Ambulance Demand working group, sitting under the Emergency Services Collaboration Portfolio.
1.2 Additionally, this paper seeks to achieve support for Forces to include additional closure codes on certain incidents where ambulances are requested by the Police, to support the working group in achieving its objectives. A request will also be presented for consideration of the requested data being provided via an annual data return (ADR).
2. OVERVIEW
2.1 The Police and Ambulance Demand working group established in 2015 with the remit of assessing the respective demands that each service places on the other, within a broader goal that the public should receive the right service from the right agency at the right time.
2.2 The working group consists of representatives from the following organisations: Home Office NPCC APCC AACE IPCC Department of Health NHS England NHS Improvement
2.3 Data provided by the ambulance service shows that there are good response times from ambulances from calls generated by the Police within the nationally set targets. It should be noted that data is only collected by the ambulance service where an ambulance is deployed and attends the scene. For occurrences where either the ambulance is later cancelled by the Police or no ambulance is deployed due to unavailability, this information will not appear in the data.
2.4 Data is not routinely collected by police forces to evidence issues that are often anecdotally provided.
89 RETURN TO CONTENTS/AGENDA
OFFICIAL SENSITIVE
2.5 In April 2017, a national ‘data slice’ to evidence concerns from the Police was carried out; eight Police Forces took part. The Police data showed examples of officers transporting people after being told an ambulance was not available and significant delays in ambulance response times. Police and other data include examples of this happening when either the ambulance has been redirected to a higher priority incident, or the ambulance service considered that a response was not necessary.
2.6 In some cases officers do not call for an ambulance before conveying the person in a Police vehicle. There is no comprehensive data on the frequency or cause of this. The national data slice recorded some examples of this, including S.136 Mental Health Act patients. The national data slice also identified examples of incidents where police officers cancelled their requests for ambulance responses, before they opted to transport the person. However, this practice is not routinely recorded and compiled by either the Police or ambulance trusts.
2.7 Some requests for ambulances may add to the pressure on ambulance services; Police officers are not qualified to make clinical assessments on patients and therefore are more likely to call ambulances for minor injuries that would automatically be a lower priority call for the ambulance service with a slower response time allocated.
2.8 Police Officers can be risk averse in their behaviours and therefore are likely to wait with a patient, no matter how minor the injury, ‘just in case’ something happens to the patient should they leave the scene. The IPCC 2011 guidance on operational risk covers this issue and should be applied with the National Decision Model and Code of Ethics.
ipcc-risk-document.p df
2.9 Ambulances delayed at Accident and Emergency departments may lead to response to calls from the Police being delayed or unavailable, although there is no data linking cause and effect.
2.10 Within some Force areas, there are already local partnership arrangements with ambulance trusts to try and resolve some of the issues outlined above. Previously circulated NPCC / AACE guidance provided is a useful action list for Forces. This guidance is in the process of being updated.
Managing Police and Ambulance Demand -
3. SUMMARY
3.1 It is clear that there is a significant amount of time being utilised by officers and staff waiting for ambulances to attend incidents, the consequence of which is likely to impact on the ability to respond to other incidents and perform policing roles.
3.2 The policing cost of waiting for ambulances is unknown and therefore cannot be quantified.
3.3 The Police and Ambulance demand national working group is keen to address and move forward some of the concerns on a national basis, including the possibility of an APP, practical advice for officers at the scene, and the confidence for officers to leave patients awaiting an ambulance to allow deployment to other jobs.
3.4 Accurate data is crucial to be able to establish the true extent of the issues raised and to effectively implement processes that will assist in reducing the demand that both the Police and Ambulance service currently create. 90 RETURN TO CONTENTS/AGENDA
OFFICIAL SENSITIVE
4. RECOMMENDATIONS
4.1 All Forces to include additional NSIR closure codes on their control and command system to assist in evidencing the scope of the issues. Proposed closure codes will include:
Ambulance called, did not attend Ambulance called, cancelled by Police with sub categories of: Transported by Police No longer required No ambulance called, transported by Police
4.2 The collation of this data to be provided in the form of an ADR to the Home Office.
Person Submitting: Simon Cole
Rank: Chief Constable
Portfolio: Police and Ambulance demand working group situated within the Emergency Services Collaboration Working Group
91 RETURN TO CONTENTS/AGENDA
OFFICIAL SENSITIVE
92 RETURN TO CONTENTS/AGENDA
OFFICIAL SENSITIVE
IPCC position statement Risk in police decision-making and accountability in operational policing
93 RETURN TO CONTENTS/AGENDA
OFFICIAL SENSITIVE
Foreword
How the IPCC judges the actions of individual officers when we carry out an investigation has been the subject of comment since our inception. The view of many in the police service is that we hold them against impossibly high standards while not understanding how tough the job is. On the other hand, some public commentators call for harsher punishment for the police when things go wrong. Headlines that focus on negative findings mean that police may feel they are working in an environment where scrutiny and public criticism awaits everything they do.
This, alongside a debate about the bureaucratic burden placed on policing, has led to concerns that the police has become a risk averse and inefficient service where officers are afraid of using their discretion. This cannot be in the public interest – the police will not do their job effectively to protect the public and make communities safer if they are afraid to make decisions for fear of being blamed if things go wrong.
Soasanorganisationwehavebeenaskingourselveswhetherwecontribute to risk averse policing, and how we can challenge misconceptions about our approach to investigations. As a result we have developed a simple, understandable position that sets out our expectations of police officers when they make decisions and therefore the way in which we reach our conclusions. It is illustrated with a number of case studies from our own investigations that show both where officers have been held to account for poor decision-making, and where we have concluded that decisions and actions were reasonable.
The central tenet of our position remains one of accountability. Police officers are accountable for their decisions and actions – and are, therefore, expected to provide a rationale for those decisions when questioned. There will be times when this will make individuals or forces feel uncomfortable, but accountability has always been at the heart of the relationship between the police and the public. However, this should not stop police officers making tough decisions or taking reasonable risks. I hope this document gives them the confidence to do so, and the public, a greater understanding about how officers are held to account.
Deborah Glass, IPCC Deputy Chair, June 2011
94 RETURN TO CONTENTS/AGENDA
OFFICIAL SENSITIVE
The IPCC position
• Police officers and staff are accountable for the decisions and actions they take and are expected to provide a rationale for those decisions when questioned.
• We recognise that police operational decisions involve taking risks and in assessing decision-making we will focus on whether the decision was reasonable and proportionate in all the circumstances (including the information and intelligence available and the operational policing context) as they existed at the time.
• In considering the decisions and actions of individual officers we recognise that police operational decisions often need to take into account competing objectives, timescales and limited resources.
• Policies and/or Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) are a vital tool for police officers, but only where they are appropriately evidence-based and embedded in frontline policing. Compliance with policies and SOPs is not a substitute for reasonable discretion and professional judgment.
• We will apply these principles as part of the process of determining whether there are any conduct matters requiring investigation and the severity assessment to follow, including whether identified failings raise performance rather than conduct issues.
• We will seek to ensure not only that learning from adverse incidents is disseminated for the benefit of future policing, but that the recommendations we make are reasonable and proportionate.
Case studies
The following case studies show how the 95 RETURN TO CONTENTS/AGENDA
OFFICIAL SENSITIVE
principles outlined in the IPCC’s position statement are acted on during our investigations.
Head injury led to death which officers could not have predicted At 2138 hours Ms A phoned the control room at AA Police to report that there was an intoxicated 50 -year-old male who she knew as B lying in the middle of the road. She was concerned for his safety as he was so drunk. She also noted a gash on the right-hand side of his head, but there was no blood coming from the wound.
At 2147 hours, three police officers arrived at the location and took B to his home address. Another resident, Mr C, let the officers in and he noted that B was extremely drunk. Some days later Mr C went to check on the welfare of B and when he went inside he found B dead. A post mortem revealed that B died as a result of an injury to the head.
The death was investigated by the IPCC. The final report concluded:
Officers are required to exercise their judgment on a daily basis and common sense suggests there must be numerous examples of similar circumstances which have resulted in the intoxicated person “sleeping it off” and waking up the next day. The only difference in this case was an undetected, but serious head injury.
Key point Although officers should not make assumptions about drunkenness, which can mask serious medical conditions, the officers made a reasonable decision, taking a vulnerable person home. They could not have foreseen the consequences.
Victims’ welfare was paramount despite unfortunate outcome Police were informed of a car with a dead man inside. It is believed that the man commited suicide, and that this was connected to an ongoing police investigation concerning his suspected involvement in a sexual assault on a child some years ago.
Two weeks earlier he had been detained under S.136 of the Mental Health Act after being found with a suicide note. He was medically assessed and transferred to hospital. After assessment by the Mental Health Team he was released.
The previous evening the man’s daughter reported him missing, believed suicidal. Police treated him as a high-risk missing person due to history and family concerns. His vehicle registration number was placed on the ANPR hot list, and units were sent to search the area.
The officer investigating the historic child abuse had spoken to the man earlier that day and arranged for him to attend the police station to be arrested and interviewed. This approach was taken to avoid the embarrassment of police arriving at his home address. The reasons and rationale were clearly noted on the investigation log and reviewed by the line manager.
The force had no specific policies dealing with the investigation of historic investigations of child abuse or on inviting suspects in for arrest and interview by appointment; each case is dealt with on an individual basis using dynamic risk assessments.
96 RETURN TO CONTENTS/AGENDA
OFFICIAL SENSITIVE
The man’s death was investigated by the IPCC. The final report concluded:
Police have dealt with this incident on three separate occasions. The earlier two incidents on … and …, although outside the terms of reference are worthy of note. Both of these incidents were dealt with in an extremely professional manner.
The formation of a policy was not a realistic option. It is wholly reasonable to accept that the approach to the investigations, victims and suspects by ... police is appropriate… The welfare of the alleged victims and the man were at the forefront of their considerations. There is no evidence that officers dealings with this case led to the unfortunate outcome.
Key point Officers made appropriate risk assessments and took reasonable decisions based on the circumstances they were presented with at the time, reviewing and changing those decisions as appropriate as circumstances changed. The rationale for decisions was well recorded.
97 RETURN TO CONTENTS/AGENDA
OFFICIAL SENSITIVE
Self-harm was not avoided despite proper assessment and care Mr L was arrested, having been reported as a missing person from X Mental Health Unit. He attended the centre several days before, when he had stated he felt suicidal, but chose to leave prior to the completion of his assessment. The Unit notified the police, and a search was initiated. Mr L was found, arrested and taken into custody.
Sgt K documents on the risk assessment that he is aware of Mr L’s previous self harm issues and that he has expressed recent intent to kill himself. The record also logs Mr L’s disclosure that he had recently visited X Mental Health Unit and documents recent injuries caused by self harm.
PS K requested that Mr L be seen by the FME, and placed him on a constant watch, awaiting the attendance of the doctor. The CRISIS team attended custody and assessed him as fit to detain.
Mr L was placed in a cell at 1827 and given a meal. Soon after this, he harmed himself with a blade which had been taped to his skin under his boxer shorts. Once it was realised what Mr L had done to himself staff moved quickly, giving effective first aid.
The IPCC investigation found:
• In relation to the missing persons response, the risk assessment was appropriate, the degree of supervision complied with policy and the extent of the search and enquiries were proportionate to the situation. • When considering the care and supervision of Mr L in custody, the actions of custody officers were appropriate in view of the risk assessment. • The only way Mr L could have been prevented from harming himself is if he had been strip searched and the blade discovered. The initial search of Mr L was very thorough.
Key point While Sgt K had every reason to believe that Mr L felt inclined to self harm, there was no information that would lead him to reasonably consider that Mr L might have something hidden on him, and it was reasonable for him not to carry out a strip search.
Challenging siege situation leads to unpreventable tragedy Mr P was found dead at the end of a two-day siege. Police had attended his home to arrest him over an alleged breach of a non-molestation order. Mr P became aggressive, barricaded himself inside the property with his two teenage children, and threatened to start a fire. Later, officers armed with Tasers entered the property, but a firearm was discharged and the officers withdrew. Negotiations continued.
The following day, after a 16-hour period in which there was no contact with Mr P, firearms officers entered the house. Mr P was found dead. His family expressed concerns about the way the siege was conducted and the length of time that passed before officers went into the house.
The IPCC’s investigation concluded that there was a clear command structure, logical and progressive decision making, appropriate deployment of Authorised Firearms Officers, and diligent and professional work by negotiators.
Key point In response to the family’s concerns, taking all the circumstances into consideration, the timescale between the final contact with Mr P and entry into the property by firearms officers was not unduly lengthy. Difficult decisions had to be made with the aim of trying to protect the public, officers, Mr P’s children and Mr P himself.
98 RETURN TO CONTENTS/AGENDA
OFFICIAL SENSITIVE
Officers were justified in taking action against man with gun Mr X was shot dead by firearms officers in a car park behind a restaurant. He had been the target of two shootings the month before and police had intelligence to suggest that he was going to get a gun from an associate that evening for self protection or revenge.
Mr X was placed under surveillance and seen going to the restaurant. He was joined by his family, including young children. He met a man outside the restaurant and directed him round the back, meeting him there for a few minutes before returning to his family in the restaurant.
At about 2220, he left the restaurant alone by the back door. Firearms officers, in two unmarked cars, were tasked with intercepting and arresting him. As they drove towards him, Mr X took out a gun and fired it at one of the cars. Three officers fired shots, hitting him numerous times, and he was pronounced dead at 2311 hours. Mr X’s family and friends believed that he was only trying to protect himself from criminal elements and would not have fired had he known that the people approaching him were police officers.
Key point Officers were justified in the action they took. Although the risk to Mr X should have been better documented, it would have made no difference in the circumstances. This was a well -planned and professionally conducted operation, with a tragic outcome.
Examples where decisions/actions were found not to be reasonable
The following case studies are examples of where our investigations have concluded that officers’ decisions or actions were not reasonable.
No proper risk assessment for man released from custody D, who had been in custody the previous day for domestic abuse, was released from custody without a proper risk assessment. The man had four previous cases of harassment against the victim, Ms C. The day after he was released, he abducted and stabbed the victim.
The IPCC investigation found that each incident involving Ms C was dealt wi th in relative isolation. Officers failed to carry out proper risk assessments and failed to complete the required paperwork in accordance with force policy and procedure. Other officers simply failed to recognise the nature of the incident they were dealing with. This was despite several officers accessing information and intelligence held on the Force intelligence systems.
Police failed to respond to calls alerting them to rape of woman At 0415 hours police received a call reporting a distressed female in a neighbouring property. Two officers attended the address and spoke to a male occupant before leaving the premises. The more experienced officer stood in the doorway of the bedroom for a very brief period, saw a woman quiet and motionless and left. They updated the control room that two people were having noisy sexual intercourse and words of advice had been given. The police received two further calls from neighbours reporting further disturbances, but no further units attended. At 0810 hours a woman contacted the police stating that she had been raped at the address.
The judge at the rape trial commented: I think the jury and I both felt that the cursory visit on the morning in question was wholly inadequate and a failure of the police officer’s duty to investigate a report of a possible crime taking place. Officers were found to have a case to answer. The final report records the Investigating Officer’s disappointment that, even with the benefit of hindsight, neither officer understood why their behaviour fell below the standard that could reasonably be expected of an officer in that situation.
99 RETURN TO CONTENTS/AGENDA
OFFICIAL SENSITIVE
Officers refused to attend stabbing incident despite being closest Police received an emergency call at 0011 hours from the home of Ms C where screaming and shouting could be heard. Minutes later it was confirmed that someone had been stabbed. The control room requested two officers attend the incident as they were closest. However, they refused to do so, saying that they were on an anti- prostitution operation and their Inspector would not want them to leave their assigned duties.
As a consequence of their refusal, an officer patrolling on his own responded, going into the house to disarm a potentially dangerous man on his own. The victim died at the scene. The investigation established that:
• The officers failed in their duty by declining to attend an emergency incident, which they were told involved a possible stabbing. They should have attended on the basis that a member of the public was in urgent need of police assistance, in a potentially life-threatening incident. • The officers were not prohibited by the Inspector from responding to emergency calls, which they would have been aware of from operational briefings they attended. • The officer who did attend the incident had been put in further danger by the lack of action of his colleagues and was commended for his bravery.
Call handlers did not make arrest warrant a high enough priority At 0950 hours Mrs Y attended the police station to report that her ex-partner, Z, had assaulted her the previous evening. Ms Y had a black eye and swelling to her face. Z had bail conditions not to contact Ms Y or her children: he was awaiting a court hearing resulting from a previous assault on Ms Y. PC A initially dealt with Ms Y. She was aware of the previous history and assessed her as high risk, asking the control room to deploy officers for the urgent arrest of Z before completing a handover package, which she passed to her Sergeant. Ms Y left the police station at 1130 hours, deciding to go early to the nursery to collect her children. She was still receiving threats while at the nursery.
Both she and the nursery manager made further calls to the police.
B created the arrest request for Z, updating the log to show the arrest was urgent and that Z had markers for violence. The incident log then passed through the hands of seven operators, while Ms Y made repeated calls to the police reporting concerns about her safety and that of her children. During the afternoon further updates were placed on the log stating that Ms Y was scared, had received threats and was certain that Z would turn up and harm her. Separately, a social worker called DS J at the Public Protection Unit, expressing serious concerns. At around 1800 hours Ms Y was stabbed by Z at her home.
The investigation found that:
• There were a number of failings by the operators. The arrest request was marked urgent, yet it was not considered urgent enough to notify a supervisor when units were not available. It was not identified when the arrest log had been deferred incorrectly, which resulted in no attempt being made to apprehend Z. • Six of the operators were found to have a case to answer, including the first, who said there were no available units. In fact, resources would have been available if the call had been treated as a higher priority. The investigation concluded that this was not a reasonable decision; the operator had not sought full information before making it and had not sought advice from a supervisor. Other operators for whom there was a case to answer had been aware of the calls, but had failed either to deploy units or notify a supervisor. • One operator who took a call from Ms Y, and was aware of several previous calls, broadcast the log as a routine transfer. This operator had followed the recognised procedures. The investigation found no case to answer, but identified poor performance.
100 RETURN TO CONTENTS/AGENDA
OFFICIAL SENSITIVE
• DS J had been contacted by the social worker at about 1600, but despite evidence to the contrary recalled the conversation as routine. He made no attempt to obtain an update on the arrest or contact Ms Y.
Man should have gone straight to hospital after being sectioned Mr A, who had mental health problems and was behaving irrationally, had contact with several police officers during which he was emotional and crying. He was eventually detained under Section 136 of the Mental Health Act and taken to the police station. Upon arrival he was assessed by the custody officer and examined by the on-duty custody nurse. He had been drinking and on the nurse’s advice, the custody sergeant decided not to call a doctor and social worker until the morning when he was sober. Mr A told police and the nurse that he had been taking drugs.
He was detained overnight and placed into a video-monitored cell. At 1045 the following morning he was found to be unconscious. He was taken to hospital where he later died. Mr A’s family believe that he should have been taken straight to hospital after he had been sectioned.
The investigation found that:
• Although a hospital would have been a better option than the police station as a place of safety, it was reasonable of the officers to take him to the police station bearing in mind his history. Once at the police station, his welfare became the responsibility of the custody sergeant. Mr A’s history of self harm and drug abuse meant he was clearly “at risk”. • Although the custody unit was extremely busy that night and it is clear that the staff on duty were under extreme pressure, Code C of PACE and the Safer Detention and Handling Manual gives advice on dealing with such situations and clearly places the onus on the custody sergeant to manage such risks. • Although the custody record showed that he was not informed of his rights because he was under the influence of alcohol, the witness evidence did not suggest he was drunk and he was not subject to 30-minute rousing checks. The fact that he was in a monitored cell was not a substitute for appropriate checks. • While it was reasonable of the custody sergeant to follow the nurse’s advice not to call a doctor until the morning, he did not ensure that Mr A received the appropriate level of police supervision while in custody; visits were infrequent and the quality was poor. • The new custody sergeant who came on duty while Mr A was in custody accepted the decisions made by the previous custody sergeant at face value. The outcome of the investigation was that the custody sergeants were found to have a case to answer. The detention officers received further training.
101 RETURN TO CONTENTS/AGENDA
OFFICIAL SENSITIVE
102 RETURN TO CONTENTS/AGENDA
OFFICIAL SENSITIVE
MANAGING INTER-SERVICE DEMAND BETWEEN POLICE FORCES AND AMBULANCE TRUSTS 22nd July 2015
1. Introduction 1.1. Police forces and ambulance trusts have a long history of working collaboratively to serve the needs of the general public. Joint working arrangements in respect of emergency preparedness, resilience and major incident response are among the best in the world. This is made possible by close joint working at a local level supported by a well- developed strategic partnership at the national level through the National Police Chiefs’ Council (NPCC) and the Association of Ambulance Chief Executives (AACE).
1.2. Joint working between police officers and ambulance staff is a matter of daily routine. Data from ambulance trusts indicate that police officers are also on scene for approximately 10% of the incidents that ambulance staff respond to. Requests from police forces for an ambulance attendance account for between 2% - 8% of all ambulance demand amounting to approximately 500,000 calls per year resulting in 350,000 on scene responses.
1.3. Data indicates that speed of ambulance response to life-threatening incidents generated by the police is in most cases as good as or better than when the request originates from the general public. However the majority of police requests for an ambulance response relate to minor, non- life-threatening conditions which do not require a fast response. These lower priority calls have no national response time target (targets are set locally by Clinical Commissioning Groups) and hence the ambulance response is much slower than for life-threatening conditions. Although for these incidents the speed of response is clinically appropriate there are concerns from police forces about the time spent on scene by police officers waiting for an ambulance.
1.4. Data also indicates that the majority of incidents generated by the police can be dealt with through telephone advice or through discharge on the scene. In fact ambulance staff are far less likely to need to convey anybody to hospital when the call originates from the police. There is clear potential to jointly manage these lower priority incidents in a different way. If alternative methods can be found to deal with this demand (including taking steps to reduce demand through education) then there are clear efficiency gains to be made for police forces and ambulance trusts in terms of time spent on scene. In addition there will be clear benefits to the general public who will receive a more appropriate, more joined-up resolution to their problem.
1.5. There are numerous other examples where a critical review of existing practices could
103 RETURN TO CONTENTS/AGENDA
OFFICIAL SENSITIVE
result in a reduction of inappropriate inter-service demand, a consequent reduction in time spent on scene by either or both partners whilst still maintaining (or even improving) high levels of service to the general public. These examples include, but are not limited to the management of:
road traffic collisions firearms incidents requests to attend high risk addresses people experiencing mental health crisis the night time economy
1.6. This document has been jointly produced by the AACE and the NPCC in order to: establish a shared understanding of the problem outline shared governance arrangements to monitor inter-service demand provide police forces and ambulance trusts with examples of tried and tested initiatives already being used in some areas.
The aim is to encourage the broader adoption of successful schemes in order to: improve efficiency improve inter-service communications, liaison and issue resolution improve the service provided to the public at incidents requiring a joint response reduce wasted time spent on scene for both police forces and ambulance trusts release operational resources to deal with more serious incidents
2. National Governance
2.1. The NPCC and the AACE agree to maintain national oversight of this guidance and the issues related to it through quarterly meetings of an Inter-Service Demand Management Group. This best practice document will be refreshed and reissued as working practices develop. The NPCC and the AACE will review internal developments as a standing item on their respective management meetings on a quarterly basis.
2.2. The Home Office Managing Demand Group has been reconvened in order to improve government oversight. The group will meet on a quarterly basis and includes representation from the AACE, the NPCC, the College of Policing (COP) and the Department of Health (DH).
2.3. The Mental Health Crisis Care Concordat Steering Group meets on a six monthly basis to monitor progress against the national action plan. This group comprises over 20 organisations including the AACE, the ACPO, the DH, NHS England and other interested parties.
3. Local Governance - Service Level Agreements (SLAs) and Memorandums of Understanding (MOUs):
104 RETURN TO CONTENTS/AGENDA
OFFICIAL SENSITIVE
3.1. It is recommended that ambulance trusts and police forces establish local Inter-Service Demand Management Forums based on ambulance trust boundaries to meet on a quarterly basis. Ambulance trusts already collate information relating to demand generated by the police and the ambulance response to those incidents. These data, together with any data available to the police, should be used to develop appropriate local action plans and to consider adoption of best practice.
3.2. SLAs and MOUs already feature in a number of areas. They set out clear expectations in respect of police forces and ambulance trusts responding in support of one another. Agreements often focus on reduction of inappropriate demand, improving operational communications and monitoring compliance with and the effectiveness of arrangements. They are reported to have improved partnership working and mutual understanding and an example from the South West is embedded here:
Ambulance MOU 4 (signed copy).pdf
4. Policy
4.1. Some police services and ambulance trusts have conducted policy reviews in order to assess the scope for reducing unnecessary inter-service demand and to desist from practices that result in a response being routinely requested from partner agencies “just in case”.
4.2. For incidents involving patients with non-life threatening conditions if an ambulance has not arrived by the time the police officer is ready to leave the scene then there is no requirement from ambulance trusts for police officers to remain with the patient.
5. Shared performance data:
5.1. The effectiveness of SLAs/MOUs is improved through the availability of supporting data. In the East Midlands police forces asked the East Midlands Ambulance Service to produce local and regional performance data on police calls for an ambulance, including data on the key types of demand, to better inform local initiatives to reduce or realign demand (for example, volume and location, mapped down to post code level, of all calls relating to suicide threats, mental health or the location of reported assaults and RTCs).
5.2. This data has improved inter-service understanding of the drivers of unnecessary demand and has enabled police and ambulance managers to bring focus to bear on areas for improvement. For example a policy review which revealed that one police force automatically requested an ambulance to attend all road traffic collisions. This policy has since been amended reducing both ambulance demand and police time on scene.
5.3. The East Midlands experience has resulted in ambulance trusts in England agreeing a
105 RETURN TO CONTENTS/AGENDA
OFFICIAL SENSITIVE
consistent national dataset. This data is held locally by ambulance trusts and could be used as the basis for targeting local demand reduction initiatives. The data is collated on a quarterly basis by AACE and could form the basis of an agreed national dataset for the purpose of NPCC/AACE monitoring at a national level.
6. Information to support front line decision making:
6.1. Unnecessary demand is often driven by front line staff adhering to historic custom and practices or due to uncertainty about when it is appropriate to request a response from partner agencies.
6.2. North East Ambulance Service (NEAS) have developed Police Support Cards for issue to front line police officers. This system offers simple guidance for officers on the scene of an incident, clarifies the information required to obtain an ambulance response, sets out target response times for each category of patient and offers alternative options for minor conditions. An example of the NEAS Police Support Card is embedded here:
NP_1082_Police Requesting Ambulanc
6.3. The cards set out:
What the Police Officer should do when requesting an ambulance.
What information they’ll be asked for.
A simple explanation of the priority system and what response time applies.
The location and opening hours of Minor Injuries Units and Walk-In Centres.
6.4. North West Ambulance Service (NWAS) has worked closely with the Advanced Life Support Group (a charity dedicated to saving life through providing training) to develop a variant of the Manchester Triage System (which is widely used by ambulance trusts) for use by front line police officers. A card will be issued to police officers to help them determine the appropriate priority of ambulance response to request – an emergency response or a referral to the Urgent Care Desk in the ambulance control room for further telephone assessment.
7. Improved control room liaison:
7.1. Awareness and familiarisation initiatives are part of the approach in Derbyshire, Norfolk and Leicestershire, allowing control room staff to better understand each other’s priorities and challenges. Other areas have used an initiative in which an ambulance officer is placed in the police control room, providing the police with access to ambulance colleagues and medical advice. This scheme is said to have had excellent feedback.
106 RETURN TO CONTENTS/AGENDA
OFFICIAL SENSITIVE
7.2. In the North West placing clinicians in the police control rooms at times of peak demand has been very successful in reducing unnecessary ambulance responses and saving police time on scene. The senior clinicians are there to provide clinical support for the police officers on the ground to establish if, in the first instance, an ambulance is required and if it is to ensure it is prioritised appropriately. The clinician also becomes the point of contact and liaison between the two services when ambulance crews are at a RVP or delayed on scene waiting for Police to arrive.
8. Direct communications with the scene:
8.1. Putting arrangements in place to establish direct communications between the police officer on the scene and the ambulance control room has proven to be universally successful. Benefits include dramatic reductions in unnecessary ambulance dispatches and time spent on scene by police officers.
8.2. The London Ambulance Service has trialled an enhanced triage scheme for calls from the Metropolitan Police for minor conditions. This involves a paramedic in the ambulance control room contacting the police officer and/or patient on the scene to conduct a more accurate clinical assessment. This enables the paramedic to decide whether to send an ambulance, to deal with the call through telephone advice or to refer to an alternative pathway. Over the course of the trial nearly 40% of calls originating from the MPS were dealt with through this process. Of those calls, nearly 50% were discharged without the need to send an ambulance.
8.3. South Central Ambulance Service (SCAS) and Isle Of Wight Ambulance Service (IOW) have introduced arrangements by which police officers at the scene of an incident call Ambulance Control Rooms directly for advice and assistance relating to incidents with minor conditions. This replaced the standard practice of police officers requesting ambulance support through their own control room and enables the ambulance control room to more effectively triage the condition of the patient. The system has resulted in a 50% reduction in ambulance deployments and a linked reduction in the time spent on scene by police officers. The Welsh Ambulance Service (WAST) and NEAS have established similar arrangements and are experiencing the same benefits.
8.4. West Midlands Ambulance Service (WMAS) are trialling a similar scheme known as the Police Ambulance Triage Pilot. This new initiative has put in place an agreed process with West Midlands Police enabling their officers to access ambulance clinicians for advice instead of requesting a 999 ambulance response. The trial is taking part in a small sector of West Midlands Police with plans to roll this out more widely in a controlled manner.
9. Joint responses:
9.1. A number of areas employ innovative schemes involving a shared operational response. Leicestershire Police is one of the forces to use a dedicated vehicle crewed by a police
107 RETURN TO CONTENTS/AGENDA
OFFICIAL SENSITIVE
officer and a medical practitioner on Friday and Saturday nights, which is able to provide on-scene assessments and in turn can divert attendance from hospital and release police officers back to the front line.
9.2. The LAS have are trialling a scheme known as the Joint Response Unit (JRU) in 10 London Boroughs. The JRUs operated during periods of high MPS related demand Thursday – Saturday between 1900 and 0700. JRUs are cars crewed by one Paramedic which respond to calls generated by the MPS tasked either by the LAS or MPS Control Room via Airwave.
9.3. JRUs are able to treat, discharge or refer patients at the scene. Over the course of 3 months JRUs responded to over 6500 Police generated incidents. Of those they were able to cancel the double crewed ambulance on over 4700 occasions (72.5% of incidents). Over that period JRUs achieved Category A performance of 81.2% (DH target – 75%) and provided an average response time of 5 minutes. This has improved the speed of clinical assessment and has greatly reduced the time spent on scene by Police Officers. For example in Westminster the average Police waiting time fell from 57 minutes to 4 minutes. More recently, the model has had the addition of St John Ambulance transport provision to support conveyance requirements.
9.4. West Midlands Ambulance Service (WMAS) led the development of the Birmingham City Centre Temporary Minor Injuries Unit (TMIU) and operate it in partnership with the police. The TMIU operates in Birmingham City Centre on Friday and Saturday nights and other key dates where high footfall into the city is expected. It is a small team that provides medical cover and triage to the city centre. Its aim is to treat lower priority patients, often presenting with drink related injuries, and avoid having to convey them to A&E.
9.5. Police officers use the unit rather than calling 999 and asking for an ambulance. This reduces police demand for double crewed ambulances and directs the patient to a more appropriate place of care. It also reduces time spent on scene for police officers.
10. Mental Health
10.1. The NPCC and the AACE are both signatories of the Mental Health Crisis Care Concordat designed to improve the experience of people suffering mental health crisis. Within this process AACE undertook to review arrangements for the response to incidents where the police have effected a detention under Section 136 of the Mental Health Act.
10.2. Historically patients detained under Section 136 received an ambulance response in a time appropriate to their clinical needs. In the vast majority of cases these incidents have a very low clinical priority resulting in a low priority ambulance response. In April 2014 AACE issued a national template to ambulance trusts setting out proposals to put special arrangements in place for Section 136 incidents in order to provide a faster response.
108 RETURN TO CONTENTS/AGENDA
OFFICIAL SENSITIVE
10.3. The national template set out arrangements to respond to Section 136 incidents within 30 minutes (subject to operational demand) in order to conduct a clinical evaluation and arrange appropriate transportation. These arrangements were endorsed by ambulance CEOs in England and local protocols have been implemented by all trusts.
10.4. The AACE include Section 136 response times in quarterly data returns. The latest data indicates that on average ambulance trusts responded to 74% of the Section 136 incidents they attended within 30 minutes. This represents a positive improvement in a short period of time. However there remain some outlying areas with much slower response times and a comparison of incident numbers against those held by the police suggests that ambulances are often not being requested to attend – anecdotally due to an assumption on the part of the police that an ambulance will not be available.
10.5. Recent data compiled by the HO confirms that of Section 136 incidents where the police conveyed the patient, 43% were due to behaviour/risk assessment and 32% were due to the police not requesting an ambulance.
10.6. Some areas report that achieving improvement in this area has been relatively easy to achieve with focussed joint working. Close partnership working at the CEO/CC level has led has led to a dramatic increase in the rate of Section 136 conveyance by South Central Ambulance Service (SCAS). This was achieved through Thames Valley Police (TVP) ensuring that officers always request an ambulance and through close supervision of the implementation of new Section 136 arrangements by SCAS. The latest available data from TVP indicates that SCAS conveyed over 75% of Section 136 patients with the remainder being conveyed by the police for reasons of behaviour/risk or, in a small number of cases, because officers hadn’t requested an ambulance.
109 RETURN TO CONTENTS/AGENDA
OFFICIAL SENSITIVE
10.7. In the West Midlands the ambulance service supported the Street Triage Pilots with the addition of a paramedic to police and mental health response car. The scheme dealt with 500 calls over November 2014 - January 2015 (752 live hours), of which 292 were referrals from police or WMAS, resulting in just 108 conveyances to places of safety. Benefits included:
60 x S136 avoided 138 x requests for DCA avoided Frequent users began to be identified within 6 weeks of start of project Reductions in unnecessary detentions under the MH Act Reductions in Police conveyance or police custody attendance thus decriminalising MH Patients receive both physical and mental health screening at the point of contact The most appropriate care pathway, in some cases preventing patients re-entering the system
11. Conclusions and recommendations.
11.1. That AACE and NPCC maintain formal quarterly meetings to monitor inter-service demand arrangements. 11.2. That AACE and NPCC continue to work with the DH and HO to improve and develop the shared dataset in order to help focus collaborative effort on areas with the greatest potential benefits. 11.3. That police forces and ambulance trusts establish local inter-service demand management forums based on ambulance trust boundaries. 11.4. That local demand management forums consider the examples of good practice identified in this document with a view to replicating schemes that are proven to work. 11.5. That local demand management forums initiate new schemes and highlight further examples of good practice at a national level.
Dr Anthony C. Marsh Simon Cole QAM SBStJ DSci (Hon) MBA MSc MA FASI QPM BA (Hon) (Dunelm) MA (Worcester) DipCrim (Cantab) Chief Executive Officer Chief Constable
110 RETURN TO CONTENTS/AGENDA
OFFICIAL SENSITIVE
Chief Constables’ Council
Complaints emanating from the use of powers under Schedule 7 to the Terrorism Act 2000
July 2017/Agenda Item: Regional
Security classification: Not Protectively Marked Disclosable under FOIA 2000: Yes Author: Chief Constable Craig Guildford Force/organisation: Nottinghamshire Police Date created: Monday 19th June 2017 Coordination Committee: Professional Standards and Ethics Committee Portfolio: Complaints and Misconduct Working Group
1. PURPOSE
1.1. The purpose of this paper is to update the Chief Officers on the proposed policy and procedures for enabling a common approach for all PSDs to use when investigating complaints arising from the use of Schedule 7 TACT following the IPCC ending the requirement in 2015 that all such complaints be referred to them and any investigations be supervised by them.
2. BACKGROUND
2.1 Between 2011 and June 2015 the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) required that all complaints and conduct matters arising from the use of powers under Schedule 7 to the Terrorism Act 2000 (TACT 2000) should be referred to them. All investigations/enquiries, where complaints arose or where concerns were expressed about the use of the powers by Police Officers under Schedule 7 were subsequently supervised by the IPCC. In June 2015 the IPCC decided to end the requirement. The only Schedule 7 complaints that should now be referred to the IPCC are those that fit the mandatory referral criteria. This decision (and the detail around mandatory referrals) was communicated by the IPCC to all Chief Officers and heads of force Professional Standards Departments (PSD’s).
2.2 Whilst the mandatory referral scheme was in place, National Counter Terrorism Police Headquarters (NCTPHQ) was able to maintain an overview of Schedule 7 complaints nationally through regular contact with the IPCC. This allowed the identification of common themes and potential areas for development of the police response. Since the cessation of mandatory referral, this oversight ability was lost.
2.3 Nationally (UK), there are very few complaints which are related to the use of Schedule 7 powers. The number of complaints, where Schedule7 was a factor between January and June 2016 was 22 and a majority of these were conduct/misconduct related. There remained a requirement for a policy/guidance document to be used as a common template by PSD’s across the country, who may be required to investigate a complaint/misconduct where schedule 7 is a factor.
111 RETURN TO CONTENTS/AGENDA
OFFICIAL SENSITIVE
3. PROPOSAL
3.1. A guidance document has been produced that articulates a common approach for all PSDs to use when investigating these complaints. The document sets out the relevant points in respect of the complaint process where Schedule 7 is a factor.
3.2. There is not expected to be any requirement for PSDs (IPCC where a mandatory referral has been made) to view any intelligence product that initiated the Schedule 7 activity. The few occasions where access is required need to be fully identified within individual cases. MI5 as the primary owners and typical originators must be included in any decisions to release certain intelligence material including to the IPCC and the courts.
3.3. PSD staff involved in Schedule 7 investigations must be vetted to a level high enough to be able to view Secret Intelligence.
3.4. A key feature of the guidance is with regard to the care which needs to be taken as to what is disclosed to a complainant or relevant legal advisors. Any disclosure of material should be carefully considered and in all instances approval by a relevant supervisor will be required.
3.5. Individual Police Force PSDs retain responsibility for investigating complaints against their own staff where the use of Schedule 7 powers is a factor. In certain circumstances this may include a complaint against staff members from another organisation. Warrant numbers rather than officers’ names will be used where appropriate.
3.6. Performance data and audit for complaints where Schedule 7 is a factor are managed through the NCTPHQ Strategy , Planning and Performance (SPP) department . Data collection also remains a requirement for Home Office Performance statistics. To assist national oversight of Schedule 7 complaints, a tracker database has also been set up by NCTPHQ to record details .
3.7. NCTPHQ will be notified of any significant updates during the course of the investigation i.e. matters that may have a national impact, training implication etc.
3.8. CT Ports Officers are already appraised of PSD requirements in respect of complaints against the use of Schedule 7 powers via the Ports Procedures Course run by The College of Policing. All CT Ports Officers using Schedule 7 powers are accredited on a bi-annual basis by the Home Office and College of Policing .
3.9. PSDs will need to create a standard outcome letter and local resolution to complaints should aim to be achieved where possible.
3.10. Significantly, it remains the case that all appeals against a resolution to an individual case must be referred to the IPCC.
3.11. The guidance should be reviewed nationally on an annual basis, to ensure that it remains compliant with primary legislation.
3.12. The guidance is relevant only to forces in England and Wales but will be shared with Police Scotland and the Police Service of Northern Ireland (PSNI).
4. DECISIONS REQUIRED
4.1. Members of the Council are asked to approve the proposal and sign it off as policy. Once approved, the guidance will be circulated to all Chief Officers for the attention of their Heads of Professional Standards in England and Wales as well as to all Ports.
Craig Guildford Chief Constable NPCC Lead for Complaints and Misconduct Working Group.
112 RETURN TO CONTENTS/AGENDA
OFFICIAL SENSITIVE
Policy and guidance in respect of complaints emanating from the use of powers under Schedule 7 to the Terrorism Act 2000
Contents Page
Introduction/background 2
Requirement 3
Areas of complaint 4
Disclosure of Intelligence 4 Data Audit 5
Training 6
Resolution of complaints 6 Appeals 6 Review 6 Appendix A- Recommendations 7
Appendix B – Form of words for complaint 8 closure letter/report
113 RETURN TO CONTENTS/AGENDA
OFFICIAL SENSITIVE
Introduction Background
Between 2011 and June 2015 the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) required that all complaints and conduct matters arising from the use of powers under Schedule 7 to the Terrorism Act 2000 (TACT 2000) should be referred to them. All investigations/enquiries, where complaints arose or where concerns were expressed about the use of the powers by Police Officers under Schedule 7 were subsequently supervised by the IPCC. In June 2015 the IPCC decided to end the requirement. The only Schedule 7 complaints that should now be referred to the IPCC are those that fit the mandatory referral criteria. This decision (and the detail around mandatory referrals) was communicated by the IPCC to all Chief Officers and heads of force Professional Standards Departments (PSD’s).
Whilst the mandatory referral scheme was in place, National Counter Terrorism Police Headquarters (NCTPHQ) was able to maintain an overview of Schedule 7 complaints nationally through regular contact with the IPCC. This allowed the identification of common themes and potential areas for development of the police response. Since the cessation of mandatory referral, this oversight ability was lost.
Nationally (UK), there are very few complaints which are related to the use of Schedule 7 powers. The number of complaints, where Schedule7 was a factor between January and June 2016 was 221 and a majority of these were conduct/misconduct related There remained a requirement for a policy/guidance document to be used as a common template by PSD’s across the country, who may be required to investigate a complaint/misconduct where schedule 7 is a factor
1 NB – This guidance is relevant only to forces in England and Wales but will be shared with Police Scotland and the Police Service of Northern Ireland (PSNI)
114 RETURN TO CONTENTS/AGENDA
OFFICIAL SENSITIVE
Requirement
With the IPCC withdrawing from the supervision of complaints arising from the use of Schedule 7 TACT and notwithstanding the oversight function completed by NCTPHQ, it is left for the Police to investigate such complaints/misconduct through individual force Professional Standards Departments (PSD). It was identified that a guidance document needed to be produced that articulates a common approach for all PSDs to use when investigating these complaints.
The following points in respect of this process are relevant to any PSD involvement in respect of a complaint where Schedule 7 is a factor;
It is and will remain the responsibility of individual Police Force PSDs to investigate complaints against their own staff where the use of Schedule 7 powers is a factor. In certain circumstances, (this may include a complaint against staff members from another organisation); The investigation into a complaint about the specific misconduct of an officer whilst using Schedule 7 powers will be carried put in accordance with the Police Reform Act 2002 and the Statutory Guidance issued by the IPCC; There will be several distinct areas for a person to base a complaint where Schedule 7 is a factor but these areas can be encompassed under a failure to comply with a requirement within the Schedule 7 & 8 Codes of Practice; Based on the above, it is anticipated there will be very few occasions where PSD would need access to sensitive intelligence/information (i.e. a Ports Circulation Sheet (PCS) that generates a Ports Intelligence Report (PIR), but these occasions need to be fully identified within individual cases; MI5 must be included in any decisions to release certain intelligence material, on the basis that they are the primary owner and in most cases, the originators of any intelligence/information that supports a Port Circulation Sheet (PCS) or other watchlisting alerts; In relation to the above, the relevant statutory gateways through which such disclosure can be released need to be fully articulated within individual cases; Disclosure considerations in respect of any further investigation by IPCC (Appeals against a PSD decision) should be referred to the intelligence/information owner; Disclosure considerations in respect of any ensuing court proceedings are also a consideration and should be referred to the intelligence/information owner; Consideration needs to be given to ensuring that relevant PSD staff, involved in Schedule 7 related investigations, must be vetted to a level high enough to be able to view Secret intelligence (minimum of SC (E); Only in exceptional circumstances will agreement be reached to release sensitive intelligence as hard copy and this must be discussed with the owner of the intelligence/information.
115 RETURN TO CONTENTS/AGENDA
OFFICIAL SENSITIVE
Areas of complaint
Conduct/misconduct – to be managed through local policy as there is expected to be no requirement for PSD’s (IPCC) to view intelligence product that initiated the Schedule 7 activity Failure to comply with Codes of Practice in terms of; 1. Compliance to the specific details as articulated in the Codes of Practice; 2. Appropriate use of data (Data Protection Authorities); 3. Unauthorised disclosure.
Disclosure of Intelligence
Care should be taken as to what is disclosed to a complainant or relevant legal advisors. Any disclosure of material should be carefully considered and in all instances approval by a relevant supervisor will be required.
Intelligence Ownership Owners of specific intelligence should be consulted in all instances; Statutory Gateways – All existing remain relevant; A Single Point of Contact (SPOC) for dealing with Schedule 7 complaints should be appointed in each PSD. The point of contact within the CT Network will be the relevant Regional CT(I)U Intelligence Manager; Vetting requirements need to be met at the earliest opportunity to ensure and facilitate intelligence/information exchange; MI5 has already reached agreement with the IPCC in respect of viewing and using MI5 material and how that material can be shared; The power to decline to provide names of officers who are the subject of complaints exists under the legislation. Warrant number should be used where appropriate.
116 RETURN TO CONTENTS/AGENDA
OFFICIAL SENSITIVE
Data Audit
In addition to any local audit control: Performance data and audit for complaints where Schedule 7 is a factor are managed through the NCTPHQ Strategy, Planning and Performance (SPP) department. Data collection also remains a requirement for Home Office Performance statistics.
To assist national oversight of Schedule 7 complaints, a tracker database has also been set up by NCTPHQ to record details of all Schedule 7 complaints. From 1 January 2016 all Forces were requested to submit details of all such complaints to the NCTPHQ as soon as possible after receipt, with any significant developments and the final result.
The information required by the NCTPHQ is: 1. Date 2. Force 3. Port 4. Name of complainant 5. Nature of complaint 6. Brief circumstances 7. Investigating officer’s name and contact details 8. Actions taken/intended
The NCTPHQ should be notified of any significant updates during the course of the investigation, i.e. matters that may have a national impact, training implication etc.
Once finalised, the NCP&P should be provided with: 1. Name of complainant 2. Date of resolution 3. Result
117 RETURN TO CONTENTS/AGENDA
OFFICIAL SENSITIVE
Training
The details of PSD requirements in respect of complaints against the use of Schedule 7 powers needs to be articulated at the earliest point to CT Ports Officers and this should be done through the Ports Procedures Course, with complaints as a standalone subject and in case as part of a dedicated lesson plan. It is significant that all CT Ports Officers, who are required to use Schedule 7 powers, must go through a Home Office and College of Policing approved accreditation process. Accreditation is renewed on bi-annual basis.
Resolution of complaints
A standard outcome letter should be adopted as part of the resolution process Local resolution to all complaints should be achieved where possible.
Appeals
It remains the case that all appeals against a resolution to an individual case must be referred to the IPCC. All previous reference to the disclosure of sensitive intelligence applies.
Review
The guidance should be reviewed nationally on an annual basis, to ensure that it remains compliant with primary legislation and PSD requirements.
118 RETURN TO CONTENTS/AGENDA
OFFICIAL SENSITIVE
Appendix A Recommendations
1. That each Force PSD appoints a subject matter expert to manage all complaints where the use of Schedule 7 powers under the Terrorism Act 2000 are a contributing factor. 2. That subject matter expert will need to be vetted to an appropriate level in order to be able to view sensitive intelligence. (Minimum of SC (E) with a STRAP accreditation). 3. That subject matter expert will have the responsibility of liaison with other relevant agencies where staff from those agencies feature in complaint investigation/enquiry. 4. Ownership of any intelligence product must be established and contacted in order to view relevant material. 5. In order to view appropriate material, that subject matter expert will need to have direct links to the relevant CT (I) U Intelligence Manager and Regional MI5 Station. 6. A standard form of words should be adopted in each PSD to be inserted into the complaint closure letter or report where applicable. A suggested form of words is attached at Appendix B for reference. 7. Each PSD will need to have appropriate security arrangements in place in order to cater for the rare circumstance where sensitive intelligence becomes part of an investigation and any subsequent Judicial/Discipline proceedings. 8. Details of the PSD Guidance should be factored into the lesson plan for the Ports Procedures Course. 9. Any guidance document should be owned by the Police Chiefs Council (PCC) through DCC Guildford, who can arrange any specified review in conjunction with relevant stakeholders.
119 RETURN TO CONTENTS/AGENDA
OFFICIAL SENSITIVE
Appendix B
I have considered your complaint in relation to the legality of, and/ or reasons for, the stop you were subjected to under Schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act 2000.
At the time of the stop you were provided with a “Notice of Detention under Schedule 7 to the Terrorism Act 2000”. This notice explained your rights.
Whilst I am not at liberty to discuss with you the details of anything that may have led up to the stop being carried out, I have considered all of the information available to the officer who conducted the stop at the time it was carried out in order to ascertain if I am satisfied that it was done in accordance with the legislation and the associated code of practice.
In order that you can fully understand the power exercised in your case, Schedule 7 to the Terrorism Act 2000 can be viewed at: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/11/schedule/7
The code of practice referred to is available to view at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/code-of-practice-for-examining- officers-and-review-officers-under-schedule-7-to-the-terrorism-act-2000
As a result of my enquiries I am satisfied that the stop was carried out in accordance with the power provided within the Schedule 7 legislation and with the associated code of practice and was not carried out arbitrarily.
120 RETURN TO CONTENTS/AGENDA
OFFICIAL SENSITIVE
Chief Constables’ Council
National Law Enforcement Data Programme: Update on Requirements Approach and related Issues
12th/13th July 2017/Agenda Item: Regional Paper
S31(1)(a)(b) & S24(1)
IAN DYSON COMMISSIONER, CITY OF LONDON POLICE
CHAIR, INFORMATION MANAGEMENT AND OPERATIONAL REQUIREMENTS COORDINATION COMMITTEE
121 RETURN TO CONTENTS/AGENDA
OFFICIAL SENSITIVE
This page has been left intentionally black
122 RETURN TO CONTENTS/AGENDA
OFFICIAL SENSITIVE
Chief Constables’ Council
Independent Review of Deaths and Serious Incidents in Police Custody
12 July 2017/Agenda item: Regional Paper
Security classification: Official Disclosable under FOIA 2000: Yes Author: CC Nick Ephgrave Force/organisation: Surrey Police Date created: 22nd June, 2017 Coordination Committee: Portfolio: Attachments @ paragraph:
1. INTRODUCTION/PURPOSE
1.1 The purpose of this paper is to inform Chief Constables of the impending publication of the Report of the Independent Review of Deaths and Serious Incidents in Police Custody and to advise on the proposed response being prepared jointly by the Home Office, the College of Policing and NPCC portfolio leads for Custody, Mental Health and Restraint.
2. BACKGROUND INFORMATION
2.1 In July 2015 the then Home Secretary Theresa May announced that a review of deaths and serious incidents in police custody was to be commissioned. In October of the same year, it was announced that Dame Elish Angiolini DBE QC would chair the review.
2.2 The review has been completed and the report was submitted to the Home Secretary, with an embargoed draft version to me in January 2017. Dame Angiolini made 107 recommendations, 39 of which were directed to policing. The majority of the policing recommendations relate to training, something that the College will clearly lead on, but there were a smaller number of recommendations that will fall to forces to consider.
2.3 I initially undertook a comparison of these recommendations against work that was already taking place nationally and subsequently provided a confidential situation report to the Home Office, detailing current and proposed activity against the majority of the policing recommendations. Work then began between stakeholders on preparing a response to the publication of the report as well as considering how to address the recommendations in both the short and the longer term. This work was halted due to the announcement of the snap general election in April, effectively suspending the publication of the report and also putting civil servants into ‘purdah’.
123 RETURN TO CONTENTS/AGENDA
OFFICIAL SENSITIVE
2.4 Now that the general election is complete, with the previous Home Secretary Rt. Hon. Amber Rudd remaining in role, the publication of the Angiolini report is imminent. Consequently, a cross departmental board has been convened to co-ordinate the Government’s response to the report and three sub-level working groups have been established to consider the recommendations for policing, healthcare and inquests respectively. The Policing sub group met for the first time yesterday (21st June) and was attended by myself, Commander Matt Twist (NPCC Restraint lead), Insp. Michael Brown (representing CC Mark Collins NPCC Mental Health lead), David Tucker from the College of Policing as well as Home Office representatives from the Policing Powers Unit. The purpose of this meeting was to identify some immediate activity that could be announced in response to the review as well as to start to formulate some longer term activity that would address the more complex and far reaching of the recommendations.
3. PROPOSED ACTIONS
3.1 In the short term, immediately following publication, the working proposal is to adopt a campaign broadly similar to the best use of stop and search scheme from 2014. The intention is to focus on the two most significant periods during the course of an interaction between the police and a detainee which, based upon the report and subsequent discussion, tend to dictate the nature of the outcome, those being the initial arrest/restraint activity and initial arrival at custody. By identifying and highlighting a small number of key issues for officers to consider at each of these points, it is hoped that the number of negative outcomes can be reduced and we can demonstrate our commitment to undertake some immediate operational activity to address at least some the review’s recommendations without delay.
3.2 Medium to longer term work will still be undertaken by the three sub groups as the review has made wide ranging recommendations across a number of stakeholders and as such, multi- agency agreement and working will be essential in achieving any meaningful change, leading to a reduction in negative outcomes for those who are arrested.
3.3 At this time, I am seeking your support in proceeding in the manner outlined above. I appreciate that this document provides only a very general outline of our proposals, but time is of the essence and I do feel that this is a golden opportunity to improve our practice and reduce vulnerability in arguably the riskiest area of our business.
4. DECISIONS REQUIRED
4.1 No decisions are required at this time and further information will be circulated once the review report has been formally published.
Nick Ephgrave – Chief Constable
124 RETURN TO CONTENTS/AGENDA
OFFICIAL SENSITIVE
Chief Constables’ Council Well-Being Support for Policing
12 July 2017/Agenda Item: Regional Paper
Security classification: Official Sensitive Disclosable under FOIA 2000: Author: CC Andy Rhodes Force/organisation: Lancashire Date created: 16.6.17 Coordination Committee: Workforce Portfolio: Well-being & staff engagement
1. Well Being Support For Policing And Blue Light Community
1.1. In May 2017 the NPCC Well Being & Engagement working group launched Oscar Kilo, a web resource funded by Public Health England (PHE) that contains the College of Policing Blue Light Wellbeing Framework. This is the first evidence-based self-assessment tool tailored to the needs of policing and over time we will see all forces working to continuously improve how we support our people.
1.2. Oscar Kilo will be the ‘go-to’ resource for practitioners to access the latest good practice, suggest new areas for improvement and share innovation. The limited funding from PHE will enable us to provide one member of staff to build content and develop the community of practice across all forces and many non-Home Office organisations until Dec 2017. This report sets out a proposal to sustain the development into the future.
1.3. In 2016 CC Pinkney alerted our group to the Armed Forces (AF) model in relation to engaging with and informing the NHS system about the public service experience of their workforce. Detailed discussions have taken place resulting in an agreement from PHE and the Armed Forces NHS lead to support the development of a similar approach for policing. My objective is to replicate some aspects of the AF work to embed a trauma-informed model. This report seeks support to progress NHS system change.
1.4. For example, a member of the police service who has been exposed to trauma attends a GP appointment in service or post-retirement presenting with mental health, alcohol or drug dependency issues. Currently the GP has no knowledge that the patient has placed themselves in harm’s way as part of their public service and has little context or understanding of the type of exposure our workforce face every day. By working with the NHS system and Health Education England we can improve the quality of patient care and assessment resulting in better support.
2. Background
2.1. Policing is experiencing significant increases in staff reporting stress, anxiety and depression at the same time as recognising we know too little about the short and longer term impact of PTSD. Our whole approach to well-being is based upon the understanding of the invaluable contribution discretionary effort makes to policing and to protect this lifeblood we are determined to set ourselves ambitious goals. Oscar Kilo helps us turn our ambition into reality efficiently and effectively without spending time, money and effort on interventions that add no value.
125 RETURN TO CONTENTS/AGENDA
OFFICIAL SENSITIVE
2.2. Peer support is built into Oscar Kilo’s functionality and we require some limited funding to co- ordinate the building of a peer network to enable us to continuously improve. Many force s may be spending money on consultancy in this area and my advice would be to consider where savings could be made given the level of expertise we have access to , particularly within the Blue Light framework.
2.3. I have spent time exploring the armed services model and spoken to key people who have, over many years, managed to embed the life experiences of this workforce into the wider health system. Some of the funding from Oscar Kilo will be dedicated to resourcing a whole system shift in how police officers and staff are recognised within the NHS, in particular how their immense contribution to public service and their exposure to trauma can be factored into the system way beyond their actual service.
2.4. Recent tragic events have required forces to establish welfare co-ordination on unprecedented levels and they have come together to share insights and good practice willingly. Oscar Kilo will enable us to formalise this strength and allow us to run table top exercises to test readiness and resilience of the welfare response to CT and other major incidents.
3. PROPOSAL
3.1. The attached breakdown has been provided to fund £40,000 of the anticipated £80,000 annual costs of maintaining, developing and embedding the blue light well-being framework across all 43 forces. In year 1 additional monies will be required to carry out the necessary work on ‘trauma-informed NHS systems’ and this will be sourced as match funding from other organisations such as the Fire Service, non-Home Office forces as well as charitable donations.
3.2. Many forces will be spending money on consultancy, attendance at conferences and the workplace well-being charter. Oscar Kilo will enable us to access the latest research, peer support and good practice as an alternative thus providing opportunities to save money.”
3.3. Given the level of need we are identifying there is far more we can and should be providing and so my proposal is to generate sustainable 4-5 year funding package of £120k per annum sourced from a combination of all force contributions, a PTF bid supplemented by applications to charities such as the PDT. This will enable us to fund extensive peer support workshops, an annual conference and 2 priority projects relation to 1st line manager capability and safe peer group good practice.
3.4. I anticipate the NHS AF model work to require specialist consultancy over a 12 month period and have already had ‘in principle’ support from the Police Dependants Trust to help match fund this. Depending on the TF bid I may need a one off contribution to this which, spread across all force s, would be minimal.
4. CONCLUSION
4.1. Recent events have highlighted to the public, media and Government the willingness of our people to place themselves in harm’s way and yet we all know this is a daily occurrence not something confined to major incidents. We have a real opportunity to build a world class evidence-based resource to help us take well-being to a new level whilst also transforming the way in which the NHS system relates and provides support to our people over their whole lifetime.
5. DECISIONS REQUIRED
5.1. To support ‘in principle’ the funding set out in this paper which will be subject to a more detailed breakdown of costs and pro rata calculations.
Name Andy Rhodes Title Chief Constable Lead Area NPCC lead for well-being & staff engagemen 126 RETURN TO CONTENTS/AGENDA
OFFICIAL SENSITIVE £ % Avon & Somerset 173962993 2.3 910 Bedfordshire 67409237 0.9 353 Cambridgeshire 78411325 1.0 410 Cheshire 113018879 1.5 591 City of London 55909819 0.7 292 Cleveland 91167964 1.2 477 Cumbria 63559812 0.8 332 Derbyshire 107136740 1.4 560 Devon & Cornwall 178990259 2.3 936 Dorset 65667704 0.9 343 Durham 84668128 1.1 443 Dyfed-Powys 49312655 0.6 258 Essex 169620474 2.2 887 Gloucestershire 59250165 0.8 310 Greater Manchester 428019324 5.6 2239 Gwent 71486789 0.9 374 Hampshire 193534463 2.5 1012 Hertfordshire 116484914 1.5 609 Humberside 122263843 1.6 639 Kent 183761866 2.4 961 Lancashire 190023747 2.5 994 Leicestershire 112456697 1.5 588 Lincolnshire 64740191 0.8 339 Merseyside 247660542 3.2 1295 MOPAC 1882068900 24.6 9844 Norfolk 87192814 1.1 456 North Wales 71727522 0.9 375 North Yorkshire 75659742 1.0 396 Northamptonshire 73052881 1.0 382 Northumbria 222624294 2.9 1164 Nottinghamshire 134017538 1.8 701 South Wales 157406561 2.1 823 South Yorkshire 186431848 2.4 975 Staffordshire 116900109 1.5 611 Suffolk 69487114 0.9 363 Surrey 99324403 1.3 519 Sussex 162799941 2.1 851 Thames Valley 227381679 3.0 1189 Warwickshire 52937000 0.7 277 West Mercia 120176792 1.6 629 West Midlands 444096368 5.8 2323 West Yorkshire 313323203 4.1 1639 Wiltshire 62589021 0.8 327
TOTAL 7647716260 100 40000
check 7647716194 40000 Funding required for ??? years 3 years Contribution to the cost of a member of staff £35k, plus annual conference and administrative costs Individual Force contributions indicated above Lancashire will look to achieve match funding.
127 RETURN TO CONTENTS/AGENDA
OFFICIAL SENSITIVE
This page has been left intentionally black
128 RETURN TO CONTENTS/AGENDA
OFFICIAL SENSITIVE
Chief Constables’ Council
Modern Slavery Briefing
Regional Paper
S23(1)
Name Chief Constable Shaun Sawyer Title Portfolio lead Lead Area Modern Slavery, Human Trafficking and Organised Immigration Crime
129 RETURN TO CONTENTS/AGENDA
OFFICIAL SENSITIVE
Chief Constables’ Council The National Enabling Programmes
12th/13th July 2017 / Agenda Item: Regional
Security classification: OFFICIAL Disclosable under FOIA 2000: Yes Author: Commissioner Ian Dyson Force/organisation: City of London Police Date created: 13/06/2017 Coordination Committee: Information Management & Operational Requirements (IMORCC) Portfolio: n/a Attachments @ paragraph:
1. Background
1.1. This paper provides an update on progress of the National Enabling Programmes (NEP); some key achievements to date; current thinking and next steps; the question of whether compliance with Standards will require enforcement; and to encourage Chief Officers, to assess their commitment to transition to the new platform from March 2018.
1.2. The Transformation funded NEP were born from the National Police Technology Council’s (NPTC) vision that “all UK police forces will have a secure platform and national standards that enable new ways of working and collaborating; whilst maintaining the autonomy for local decision-making and the control of their digital assets”.
1.3. There are 3 key components of the NEP: Security Operations Centre (SOC) for policing; Identity and Access Management (IAM) for policing; and, Productivity Services (also known as a collaborative Common Platform for policing). These technologies pave the way for the introduction of new ways of working, effective and common processes that facilitate greater sharing of information, and simultaneously provide a platform to better protect our digital assets. The recent cyber attacks aptly demonstrate the benefits of a singular platform with effective service management, protective monitoring and patching regime.
2. The Journey So Far
2.1. In May 2017 the NEP released their prospectus paper ‘Tomorrow’s technology for today’s policing’. This product provides a more detailed look at the component parts, drivers for change, and links to the Policing Vision 2025. This was sent to all Chiefs and PCCs.
2.2. The initial Transformation Fund commitment to the NEP was spent according to plan. At the latest PRTB meeting in June Outline Business Cases were submitted to seek the further, and more significant investment required to develop the Programmes. These were received positively and the future funding of the NEP secured.
2.3. Road shows have continued across the country and detailed discovery work with 13 Forces since January. Heads of Information and Technology across Forces and Regions are increasingly engaging with the Programme. The Solution Design Authority has been approved and High-Level Designs have been agreed. Standards will soon begin to be published specific 130 RETURN TO CONTENTS/AGENDA
OFFICIAL SENSITIVE to the NEP, and so the question follows of how best to ensure they are adopted.
131 RETURN TO CONTENTS/AGENDA
OFFICIAL SENSITIVE
3. Standards: Encourage Compliance or Set a Code
3.1. Much discussion has taken place with regard to whether or not policing can design and deliver these new assets without a framework mandating uptake. A key difference with the current landscape is that change is now being delivered for policing by policing, and not being imposed upon us.
3.2. Sir Thomas Winsor, HMCIC has commissioned work on a Network Code for policing that would provide a national voting framework. Forces and PCCs would sign into the Code and accept that they follow the common Standards on ICT infrastructure. The draft for our consideration is expected within the next few weeks.
3.3. Beyond the ICT infrastructure Standards there are additional distinctions of other critical common Standards required in order to join up information assets and technologies. For example, the need for Business Design of a Common Data Standard in the first instance is a pre-requisite for informing both Technical and Security Designs.
3.4. Notwithstanding the significant challenge and complexity of the change on offer, the appetite in policing including PCCs does appear to be one of support for such collaborations to achieve greater resilience and reduce costs, but will require a clear road map to delivery. The question therefore remains as to what extent the uptake will be, and in turn whether or not compliance will need to be enforced.
3.5. The NEP through IMORCC are creating an Outline Business Case to return to the next PRTB where we expect to supported for funding to take a detailed look at Standards falling out of the NEP. Taking the NEP as our first example will make it clear what this work entails, what we mean by ‘Standards’ and the difference between this and such topics as technical architecture or commercial and contractual standards.
4. Your Commitment to Transition to The New Platform
4.1. At the APCC and NPCC Reform Summit on Tuesday the 18th of July I will be presenting alongside PCC Paddy Tipping, lead for the Business Enablers reform strand. This allows us the opportunity to further set out our shared vision on the joining up of policing Standards in this context, and in particular the work of the NEP.
4.2. Following this, we will soon be writing out jointly to Chief Officers and PCCs seeking your commitment in principle to allow funding and transition to the new platform offered by the NEP from March 2018. The NEP team are working on the financial impact for each Force and this will be included with the letter. This will be a significant test of appetite and allow us to gauge better whether policing is ready to take this next significant step together.
Ian Dyson Commissioner, City of London Police SRO for the National Enabling Programmes Lead for the Information Management & Operational Requirements Coordination Committee (IMORCC)
132 RETURN TO CONTENTS/AGENDA
OFFICIAL SENSITIVE
Chief Constables’ Council UC Online (UCOL) for vulnerability PTF Uplift
12 July 2017 – Agenda Item: Regional Paper
S23(1)
Trevor Rodenhurst Detective Chief Superintendent ERSOU CT & ROCU
133 RETURN TO CONTENTS/AGENDA
OFFICIAL SENSITIVE
APPENDIX A
S31(1)(a)(b) & S24(1)
134 RETURN TO CONTENTS/AGENDA
OFFICIAL SENSITIVE
This page has been left intentionally black
135 RETURN TO CONTENTS/AGENDA
OFFICIAL SENSITIVE
APPENDIX B
S31(1)(a)(b) & S24(1)
This page has been left intentionally black
136 RETURN TO CONTENTS/AGENDA
OFFICIAL SENSITIVE
Chief Constables’ Council NPCC 2017/18 Delivery Plan update
12 July 2017 / Agenda Item 5.3
Security classification: Official - Sensitive Disclosable under FOIA 2000: No Author: Nicole Higgins – Strategic Planning and Risk Manager Force/organisation: NPCC Date created: 28 June 2017 Attachments @ Paragraph: 1.3, 2.4, 3.3
1. PURPOSE
1.1. The purpose of this paper is to present chief constables with an update on the development of the NPCC 2017/18 Delivery Plan (the Plan).
1.2. It will provide a further level of detail on the objectives agree at the April 2017 meeting of Chief Constables’ Council and an indication of the initial programme delivery risks.
1.3. Chief constables are asked to note the further detail associated with the 2017/18 Delivery Plan and the initial risk assessment. A document containing this detail is available through on ChiefsNet via: http://intranet.npcc.pnn.police.uk:8080/central_office/council/Shared%20Documents /Forms/AllItems.aspx?RootFolder=%2Fcentral%5Foffice%2Fcouncil%2FShared%20Doc uments%2F2017%2F12%20and%2013%20July%202017&FolderCTID=0x0120008E34E6 5DFD6F9440B0B2EFF6485885C3&View=%7B97F9FE17%2D287B%2D4F4D%2DA8F1%2 D3A098106D90C%7D
2. BACKGROUND
2.1. The Plan was agreed at Chief Constables’ Council in April 2017 and accepted in principle by the Audit and Assurance Board (AAB) in May 2017. It is designed to support the Policing Vision 2025, reflects decisions made by Chief Constables’ Council and the discharge the six functions of the NPCC. In doing so it sets out NPCC priorities and how it plans to exercise its functions.
2.2. The Plan is intended to complement national work undertaken by the College of Policing (the College), Association of Police and Crime Commissioners, Home Office and other law enforcement agencies to ensure a coordinated national response to the challenges faced by policing and wider law enforcement.
147 RETURN TO CONTENTS/AGENDA
OFFICIAL SENSITIVE
2.3. The NPCC annual delivery plan is structured around five ‘reform strands’: Local Policing, Specialist Capabilities, Digital Policing, Workforce and Business Enablers.
2.4. It has been developed to reflect the eight outcomes of the Vision. By doing this, the plan ensures a cross cutting approach that mitigates against a potentially “siloed” approach within the five strands. Appendix 1 shows the distribution of objectives between strands and across outcomes. The outcome reflect what policing will look and feel like by 2025:
Communities and Crime. Increase in proactive and preventative policing and partner interventions to protect citizens, support the vulnerable, and help build more cohesive communities. Countering Threats – The intelligent deployment of local resources and our networked specialist capabilities counters both current and evolving crimes to keep the public safe. Citizen Experience – Citizens receive a consistently high quality service across a seamless, modern channel set that integrates both digital and traditional methods. Data and Analytics – We capture, analyse and share data at speed within polices as well as between forces and partners which improves our decisions and service delivery. Technology and Digital – Core infrastructure, digital platforms and tooling enhance colleague experience and improve frontline services across the breadth of policing and justice activity. Enabling Services – We have consolidated, professional back office services that maximise opportunities to share workload and achieve economies of scale across forces and partners. Integrated Delivery – We deliver integrated services across police forces, external partners and international organisations to improve our response to threat, risk and vulnerability. Workforce and Culture – A diverse, motivated and capable workforce that evolves with service demands and builds the skills, behaviours and culture needed to succeed.
2.5. The AAB has requested further detail on outcomes, measures and milestones to be appended to the plan to provide clearer reporting and assurance. This update therefore provides this detail for Chief Constables’ Council ahead of final ratification by the AAB in September 2017.
3. SUMMARY
3.1. The majority of objectives (27/30) have now been expanded to demonstrate clearly defined outcomes with indicators/measure of successful delivery. Each has defined milestones identified for the period. This will form the basis of reporting from Q2 onwards and will give Chief Constables a more comprehensive view of how the NPCC is prioritising and delivering its work through the Coordination Committees and National Programmes.
3.2. The objectives have been developed with the programme/project leads and been agreed by the relevant Coordination Committees or National Programme Leads. A high proportion of objectives are new or contingent on funding decisions. The reports on progress are therefore restricted by the short time the plan has been in operation. A fuller update will be given at the end of Q2.
3.3. The initial programme risk RAG ratings have been established where possible (see appendix 2). It should be noted that funding for a number of programmes has been delayed or put at risk due to the early General Election and work has been delayed or reprioritised as a result.
148 RETURN TO CONTENTS/AGENDA
OFFICIAL SENSITIVE
Local Policing
3.4. The Local Policing Strand has three objectives carried forward from 2016/17, which support the Integrated Delivery outcome. They are on track to deliver a coordinated approach to fire/police collaboration; a concordat to reduce crimilisation of children in care and a structured and coordinated response to modern slavery by the target dates. Three new objectives include the HMIC recommendation to develop practice guidelines for neighbourhood policing (due to be published in March 2018); a coordinated approach to vulnerability (the Vulnerability Plan has been circulated as a regional discussion paper prior to this Council and is dependant on funding decisions) and a strategy to scale up volunteering.
3.5. The programmes within this strand vary in their scale and complexity. The primary risk is the uncertainty of funding which could impact the work relating to vulnerability and Modern Slavery.
Specialist Capabilities
3.6. S31(1)(a)(b) & S24(1)
3.7. S31(1)(a)(b) & S24(1)
Workforce
3.8. Within the Workforce Strand there is continued activity with the College to professionalise policing and to transform the workforce to meet future challenges (with work on the reward framework, workforce futures and further embedding the Wellbeing Framework) – all of which are progressing to plan. A new objective around building an evidence base and strategy to address workforce diversity from the newly established portfolio is being initiated and work on abuse of powers (following HMIC Legitimacy inspection) is underway. Work is ongoing with the Home Office to review misconduct regulations as a result the Police and Crime Act, however this was delayed by election restrictions.
149 RETURN TO CONTENTS/AGENDA
OFFICIAL SENSITIVE
Digital Policing
3.9. The general election had a direct impact on the Digital Policing Portfolio’s (DPP) funding. The portfolio is currently working to prioritised deliverables agreed by the Home Office, throughout the period up to the end of July 2017 (the funding for which has been underwritten by Home Office Forces), whilst concentrating on preparing the Outline Business Cases for ministerial consideration.
3.10. The Outline Business Cases will be submitted at the end of July to the Home Office and Minsters for review, post recess, and seeks sign off for multiple year funding. The portfolio will then reassess its deliverables and delivery plans. The NPCC Delivery Plan 2017/18 objectives have not changed, however the outcomes and milestones for 2017/18 will require re-assessment.
Business Enablers
3.11. Two objectives are carried forward - the National Commercial Board is looking to achieve target savings through collaboration and efficiency (including the CLEP programme and shared services) and the Landscape review continues to develop consistent reporting mechanisms for all programmes in the National Policing Technology Portfolio. The IMORCC is now fully operational and are leading on behalf of policing on the implementation of Home Office programmes (including ESMCP, Biometrics and NLEDS), and they are coordinating PTF programmes including Data Security and related Business Standards, service wide Identity and Access Management and Security Operations Centre to counter cyber threat – all of which are contingent on funding. Funding and resourcing continue to be risks.
4. ACTION REQUIRED
4.1. Chief constables are asked to note the further detail associated with the 2017/18 Delivery Plan and the initial risk assessment.
Sara Thornton Chief Constable NPCC Chair
150 RETURN TO CONTENTS/AGENDA
OFFICIAL SENSITIVE
Reform Delivery Strand Vision Local Policing Specialist Capabilities Workforce Digital Policing Business Enablers Outcome 1.1 N’hood Policing Communities Practice Guidelines and Crime 1.2 Vulnerability 1.6 Police Volunteering 1.4 Police/Fire Integrated collaboration Delivery 1.5 Modern Slavery 1.3 Children in Care S31(1)(a)(b) & S24(1) 3.7 Detective Capability
Countering Threats
Citizen 4.1 Digital Public Experience Contact S31(1)(a)(b) & S24(1) 4.2 Digital Intelligence 5.4 National Enabling Data and and Investigation Programmes Analytics S31(1)(a)(b) & S24(1) 4.3 Digital first – digital 5.1 HO ICT programmes Technology evidence transfer 5.2 Technology and data and Digital standards 5.5 PNC 5.3 CLEP/Shared Services/ Enablement and Commercial Enabling Models Services 5.6 National Technology Portfolio standard reporting 3.1 Rewar d Framework Workforce 3.2 Abuse of Authority and Culture 3.3 Workforce Diversity 3.4 Misconduct Regs 3.5 Workforce Skills 3.6 Wellbeing
151 RETURN TO CONTENTS/AGENDA
OFFICIAL SENSITIVE
Appendix 2. Programme RAG
Co-ord. No. Objective Committee Local Policing Review existing evidence on effective neighbourhood policing, and develop national practice guidance on the essential elements of Local 1.1 neighbourhood policing. Policing Crime 1.2 Develop a coordinated approach to vulnerability across the public protection strands. Operations Local 1.3 Develop a national concordat to reduce the criminalisation and offending of children in care. Policing 1.4 Develop a consistent national framework and approach to enable closer collaboration between police and fire services. Operations Crime 1.5 Develop a structured and coordinated response to Modern Slavery across policing. Operations Local 1.6 Develop a strategy to scale up and transform police volunteering. Policing Specialist Capabilites S31(1)(a)(b) & S24(1) 2.1 S31(1)(a)(b) & S24(1) 2.2
2.3 S31(1)(a)(b) & S24(1)
S31(1)(a)(b) & S24(1) 2.4 S31(1)(a)(b) & S24(1)
2.5 S31(1)(a)(b) & S24(1) S31(1)(a)(b) & S24(1) 2.6
2.7 S31(1)(a)(b) & S24(1)
2.8 S31(1)(a)(b) & S24(1)
2.9 S31(1)(a)(b) & S24(1)
2.10 S31(1)(a)(b) & S24(1)
152 RETURN TO CONTENTS/AGENDA
OFFICIAL SENSITIVE
Workforce
3.1 Design and develop an evidence base for a new reward framework for policing by April 2018. Workforce Develop and implement a prevention strategy and research around inappropriate relationships with victims and abuse of authority for 3.2 Workforce sexual purpose. Develop an evidence base and evaluation methods to create a clear strategy on Workforce Diversity that informs the NPCC Workforce 3.3 EDHR plan. 3.4 Work with the College of Policing and Home Office to develop new misconduct regulations for the police service by April 2018. Workforce Facilitate the forces increased understanding of workforce skills, knowledge and capability and identify gaps now and to meet future 3.5 Workforce challenges. 3.6 Following the launch of ‘Oscar Kilo’ Website (March 2017), all Forces to complete their Wellbeing self-assessment by end March 2018. Workforce By September 2017 undertake a national and force level review of work to tackle the shortage of qualified detectives and other Crime 3.7 investigators. Put into effect a national action plan to remedy these shortages. Operations Digital Policing Establish one central space available to the public to find out more about policing and to interact with the police, report crime, and find Digital 4.1 reliable information. Policing By April 2018 develop a local digital investigation and intelligence operating model which specifies the skills, capabilities and processes Digital 4.2 that forces will need to have in place locally to deal with the challenge of growing cyber and digital crime. Policing Digital 4.3 Provide the capability for policing to share digital evidence across networks with the criminal justice system. Policing Business Enablers Lead on behalf of the police service on the implementation of Home Office ICT Programmes (including the Emergency Services Mobile 5.1 IMORCC Communications Programme, Home Office Biometrics and the National Law Enforcement Data Programme). By April 2018, develop a prioritised plan and process for the definition and dissemination of technical/data security and related business 5.2 IMORCC standards and principles for policing. During 2017/18 oversee and ensure the delivery of the four Commercial Work-streams; CLEP, Shared Services, Enablement Portfolio, 5.3 Finance Commercial Models. Oversee the initial tranches of a suite of multi-year programmes that (contingent on resourcing from the Police Transformation Fund) will 5.4 ultimately deliver service-wide Identity and Access Management and a nationally available ‘Collaboration Workspace’ for Productivity IMORCC Services. Security Operations Centre to counter cyber threats to, and on behalf of, all UK police forces. 5.5 By Sept. 2017, develop guidance for forces on the requirements and process for entering details of suspects on Police National Computer. IMORCC Develop a consistent reporting mechanism for all programmes within the National Policing Technology Portfolio to provide appropriate 5.6 IMORCC strategic oversight, integration and awareness.
Programme Rag Descriptors
153 RETURN TO CONTENTS/AGENDA
OFFICIAL SENSITIVE
RAG Overall (confidence) Successful delivery of the project/programme to time, budget and quality with adequate resource appears highly Green likely (>80% probability of success) with no major outstanding issue that, at this stage, appear to threaten deliver significantly. Successful delivery of the project/programme to time, budget and quality with adequate resource appears Amber/Green probable (60 - 80% probability of success); however, constant attention will be needed to ensure risks do not materialise into major issues threatening delivery. Successful delivery of the project/programme to time, budget and quality with adequate resource appears feasible Amber (40 – 60% probability of success) but significant issues already exist, requiring management attention. These appear resolvable at this stage and if addressed promptly should not present a cost/plan overrun. Successful delivery of the project/programme to time, budget and quality with adequate resource appears in doubt Amber/Red (20-40% probability of success), with major risks/issues apparent in a number of key areas. Urgent action is needed to ensure these are addressed, and whether resolution is feasible. Successful delivery of the project/programme to time, budget and quality with adequate resource appears Red unachievable (<20% probability of success). There are major issues, which at this stage do not appear to be manageable or resolvable. The programme may need rescoping and/or it’s viability reassessed.
Programmes are either yet to be initiated or in the very early stages, and a RAG rating at this stage would not be White relevant or accurate.
154 RETURN TO CONTENTS/AGENDA
OFFICIAL SENSITIVE
NPCC 2017/18 Delivery Plan 1.1
Objective: Develop practice guidelines on Neighbourhood Policing Plan 1.1 As defined in the delivery plan Number: Description: With the College of Policing and the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners use the existing evidence base to work with academics and practitioners to develop practice guidelines for neighbourhood policing with a target date for consultation by the end of December 2017 Coordination Committee: Objective Owner: Which Coordination Committee is responsible for Local Policing This is likely to be a portfolio or working group lead (or Gavin Stephens coordinating the work of this objective and will be programme manager) who will be preparing the providing the report to NPCC quarterly returns Programme RAG Status: Amber /Green See RAG Definition below
Outcomes: please list the outcomes that the programme/objective are set to deliver, what measures are in place and the date these are planned to be delivered. This should include the overall outcome for the objective and any objectives of individual work streams.
Number Outcome Measures Plan delivery date Guidelines available for police and partner agencies 1 Production of Practice Guidelines for Neighbourhood Policing March 2018 through College of Policing website
Milestones 2017/18: Please list any key milestones and the dates for 2017/18
Number Milestone Milestone date 1 Project scope agreed 30/06/17 2 Rapid Evidence Assessment completed November 2017 3 Draft NP guidelines developed and available for public consultation December 2017 4 NP Guidelines agreed and published March 2018
155 RETURN TO CONTENTS/AGENDA
OFFICIAL SENSITIVE
NPCC 2017/18 Delivery Plan Objective 1.2
Objective: Develop a coordinated approach to vulnerability across the public Plan Number: 1.2 As defined in the delivery plan protection strands.
Description: Ensure Vulnerability is reflected within the work of the NPCC
Coordination Committee: Objective Owner: Which Coordination Committee is responsible for Crime This is likely to be a portfolio or working group lead CC Simon Bailey coordinating the work of this objective and will be (or programme manager) who will be preparing the providing the report to NPCC quarterly returns Programme RAG Status: TBC – awaiting funding decision See RAG Definition below
Outcomes: please list the outcomes that the programme/objective are set to deliver, what measures are in place and the date these are planned to be delivered. This should include the overall outcome for the objective and any objectives of individual work streams.
Number Outcome Measures Plan delivery date 1 Vulnerability Action Plan (VAP) Adopted by NPCC July 2017 2 Portfolio reflective of Vulnerability within Working Groups and work streams Adopted by NCOCC October 2017 3 Align portfolio and WG objectives to achieve VAP desired outcomes Achieve VAP March 2018
Milestones 2017/18: Please list any key milestones and the dates for 2017/18
Number Milestone Milestone date 1 Vulnerability Action Plan presented to Chief’s Council and adopted July 2017 2 Portfolio representative of vulnerability agenda October 2017
156 RETURN TO CONTENTS/AGENDA
OFFICIAL SENSITIVE
NPCC 2017/18 Delivery Plan Objective 1.3
Objective: Develop a national concordat to reduce the criminalisation and offending Plan Number: 1.3 As defined in the delivery plan of children in care
Description:
Coordination Committee: Local Policing Objective Owner: Chief Constable Olivia Which Coordination Committee is responsible for Coordination This is likely to be a portfolio or working group lead coordinating the work of this objective and will be (or programme manager) who will be preparing the Pinkney Committee providing the report to NPCC quarterly returns Programme RAG Status: Amber See RAG Definition below
Outcomes: please list the outcomes that the programme/objective are set to deliver, what measures are in place and the date these are planned to be delivered. This should include the overall outcome for the objective and any objectives of individual work streams.
Number Outcome Measures Plan delivery date Document 1 Produce a national concordat to reduce the criminalisation of children in care Jan 18 produced
Milestones 2017/18: Please list any key milestones and the dates for 2017/18
Number Milestone Milestone date 1 Set up an initial stakeholder group to provide expert input for the national concordat April 17 2 Produce the first draft of the National Concordat Sept 17 3 Sign off concordat by ministers Dec 17 4 Develop an implementation plan to disseminate the concordat Jan 18
157 RETURN TO CONTENTS/AGENDA
OFFICIAL SENSITIVE
NPCC 2017/18 Delivery Plan Objective 1.4
Objective: Police and Fire Integration Plan 1.4 As defined in the delivery plan Number: Description: In line with the duty to collaborate detailed within the Policing and Crime Bill develop, with the fire service and police and crime commissioners, a consistent national framework and approach to enable closer collaboration between police and fire.
Coordination Committee: Objective Owner: Chief Constable, Simon Edens Operations Which Coordination Committee is responsible for This is likely to be a portfolio or working group lead Senior Policy Officer, Michael coordinating the work of this objective and will be Committee (or programme manager) who will be preparing the Tunks providing the report to NPCC quarterly returns Programme RAG Status: Amber Green See RAG Definition below
Outcomes: please list the outcomes that the programme/objective are set to deliver, what measures are in place and the date these are planned to be delivered. This should include the overall outcome for the objective and any objectives of individual work streams.
Number Outcome Measures Plan delivery date 1 To integrate the Headquarters support between NPCC and NFCC May 2017 To create shared Committee Structures where possible between NPCC and NFCC and 2 improve relationships between committee chairs where shared structures are not Quarterly Updates to December 2017 possible NPCC Operations To identify joint procurement opportunities between Police and Fire and look at aligning Committee, Chief From May 2017- 3 procurement where possible Constables Council and ongoing To consider integrating mobilisation and crisis management functions between Police and Fire Chiefs Council Review position in May 4 Fire 2017- ongoing 5 Review position in May 2017- Work ongoing May 2018
Milestones 2017/18: Please list any key milestones and the dates for 2017/18
Number Milestone Milestone date
158 RETURN TO CONTENTS/AGENDA
OFFICIAL SENSITIVE
NPCC 2017/18 Delivery Plan Objective 1.5
Objective: S23(1) TO ALL OBJECTIVE 1.5 Plan Number: 1.5
Description:
Coordination Committee: Objective Owner:
NCOCC
Programme RAG Status:
See RAG Definition below
159 RETURN TO CONTENTS/AGENDA
OFFICIAL SENSITIVE
NPCC 2017/18 Delivery Plan Objective 2.1
S31(1)(a)(b) & S24(1) TO ALL OBEJCTIVE 2.1 Plan Objective: Number: 2.1
Description:
Coordination Committee: Specialist Objective Owner: Capabilities Programme Programme RAG Status:
160 RETURN TO CONTENTS/AGENDA
OFFICIAL SENSITIVE
NPCC 2017/18 Delivery Plan Objective 2.2
S31(1)(a)(b) & S24(1) TO ALL OBEJCTIVE 2.2 Plan Objective: 2.2 Number:
Description:
Coordination Committee: Counter Terrorism Objective Owner: Co-ordination Committe Programme RAG Status:
161 RETURN TO CONTENTS/AGENDA
OFFICIAL SENSITIVE
NPCC 2017/18 Delivery Plan Objective 2.3
Objective: S31(1)(a)(b) & S24(1) TO ALL OBEJCTIVE 2.3 Plan 2.3 Number:
Description:
Objective Owner: Coordination Committee: This is likely to be a portfolio or working Which Coordination Committee is responsible for coordinating the Crime group lead (or programme manager) CC Bailey/Pughsley work of this objective and will be providing the report to NPCC who will be preparing the quarterly returns Programme RAG Status: TBC – awaiting funding decisions See RAG Definition below
162 RETURN TO CONTENTS/AGENDA
OFFICIAL SENSITIVE
NPCC 2017/18 Delivery Plan Objective 2.4b
Objective: Implement the agreed performance reporting model for Serious and Organised Plan 2.4b As defined in the delivery plan Crime and management of organised crime groups. Number: Description: Coordination Committee: Objective Owner: CC Cooke (Portfolio) DCC Martyn Bates Which Coordination Committee is responsible for Crime Operations This is likely to be a portfolio or working group coordinating the work of this objective and will be lead (or programme manager) who will be (Working Group) providing the report to NPCC preparing the quarterly returns Colin Stott (Co-ordinator) Programme RAG Status: Green See RAG Definition below
Outcomes: please list the outcomes that the programme/objective are set to deliver, what measures are in place and the date these are planned to be delivered. This should include the overall outcome for the objective and any objectives of individual work streams.
Number Outcome Measures Plan delivery date Framework 1 Performance Framework to be developed for Serious Organised Crime Complete complete Implemented by 2 Performance Framework to be implemented across ROCUs and Forces Complete target date
Milestones 2017/18: Please list any key milestones and the dates for 2017/18
Number Milestone Milestone date Returns for the framework have been implemented. The first quarterly return from Forces was 1 Complete achieved Jan-Mar, and business as usual work will continue to improve consistency S23(1) 2 No date due to Purdah
163 RETURN TO CONTENTS/AGENDA
OFFICIAL SENSITIVE
NPCC 2017/18 Delivery Plan Objective 2.5
Objective: S31(1)(a)(b) & S24(1) TO ALL OBEJCTIVE 2.5 Plan 2.5 Number: Description:
Coordination Committee: Objective Owner: Counter Terrorism
Programme RAG Status:
164 RETURN TO CONTENTS/AGENDA
OFFICIAL SENSITIVE
165 RETURN TO CONTENTS/AGENDA
OFFICIAL SENSITIVE
NPCC 2017/18 Delivery Plan Objective 2.6
Continue to explore and deliver the Transforming Forensic programme. By April 2018 Plan Objective: establish a programme management office and two proof of concept sites and provide a Number: 2.6 As defined in the delivery plan full business case based on a fully integrated model.
Description: Develop and deliver a case for transformation within the forensic disciplines
Coordination Committee: Objective Owner: Forensic Portfolio – Which Coordination Committee is responsible for NCOCC This is likely to be a portfolio or working group lead (or coordinating the work of this objective and will be providing programme manager) who will be preparing the CC Simpson the report to NPCC quarterly returns Programme RAG Status: Green See RAG Definition below
Outcomes: please list the outcomes that the programme/objective are set to deliver, what measures are in place and the date these are planned to be delivered. This should include the overall outcome for the objective and any objectives of individual work streams.
Number Outcome Measures Plan delivery date Develop an Outline Business Case with options and a case for transformation to NPCC and 1 OBC April 2017 APCC Develop 2 proof of concept sites around kiosk technology and Rapid DNA to support the Implementation and 2 April 2017 OBC development of sites 3 Develop a Programme Management Office Implementation By 2018 4 Develop a Full Business Case if Outline Business Case is supported DBC April 2018
Milestones 2017/18: Please list any key milestones and the dates for 2017/18
Number Milestone Milestone date 1 Principles and Benefits case has been delivered Before 2017 2 OBC has been created and delivered to NPCC with wide support April 2017 3 Proof of concept sites established and developing well January 2018
166 RETURN TO CONTENTS/AGENDA
OFFICIAL SENSITIVE
NPCC 2017/18 Delivery Plan 2.7
Objective: Improve to effectiveness of response to Foreign National Offenders by Plan 2.7 As defined in the delivery plan developing standard practice across all forces. Number:
Description: International Criminality – Foreign National Offenders
1. CC Steve Ashman Coordination Committee: Objective Owner: Which Coordination Committee is responsible Crime Operations This is likely to be a portfolio or working group 2. T/DAC Richard for coordinating the work of this objective and lead (or programme manager) who will be will be providing the report to NPCC preparing the quarterly returns Martin
Programme RAG Status: Amber See RAG Definition below
Outcomes: please list the outcomes that the programme/objective are set to deliver, what measures are in place and the date these are planned to be delivered. This should include the overall outcome for the objective and any objectives of individual work streams.
Number Outcome Measures Plan delivery date 1 Develop a suite of proven operational tactics which are effective at tackling FNOs November 2017 2 Develop guidance relating to the management of FNOs April 2018 In conjunction with the College of Policing, identify the best way of assisting frontline officers in 3 December 2018 dealing with FNOs while standardising the national response. This may be through on-line tools.
Milestones 2017/18: Please list any key milestones and the dates for 2017/18
Number Milestone Milestone date Delivery of regional proof of concept FNO multi-agency operation with lessons learned being 1 October 2017 used to inform future operational tactics.
167 RETURN TO CONTENTS/AGENDA
OFFICIAL SENSITIVE
NPCC 2017/18 Delivery Plan Objective 2.8
Objective: By September 2017, transfer the responsibility for mapping organised crime groups Plan 2.8 As defined in the delivery plan from forces to ROCUs. Number:
Description: Coordination Committee: Objective Owner: CC Cooke (Portfolio) DCC Martyn Bates Which Coordination Committee is responsible for Crime Operations This is likely to be a portfolio or working group coordinating the work of this objective and will be lead (or programme manager) who will be (Working Group) providing the report to NPCC preparing the quarterly returns Colin Stott (Co-ordinator) Programme RAG Status: TBC – awaiting funding decisions See RAG Definition below
Outcomes: please list the outcomes that the programme/objective are set to deliver, what measures are in place and the date these are planned to be delivered. This should include the overall outcome for the objective and any objectives of individual work streams.
Number Outcome Measures Plan delivery date Awaiting outcome of TFB 1 Regionalisation of Management of Organised Crime Groups and end of Purdah
Milestones 2017/18: Please list any key milestones and the dates for 2017/18
Number Milestone Milestone date 1 Organised Crime Group Management Decision from TFB
168 RETURN TO CONTENTS/AGENDA
OFFICIAL SENSITIVE
NPCC 2017/18 Delivery Plan Objective 2.9
Objective: S31(1)(a)(b) & S24(1) TO ALL OBEJCTIVE 2.9 Plan 2.9 Number: Description:
Coordination Committee: Objective Owner: Counter Terrorism
Programme RAG Status:
169 RETURN TO CONTENTS/AGENDA
OFFICIAL SENSITIVE
NPCC 2017/18 Delivery Plan Objective 2.10
Objective: S31(1)(a)(b) & S24(1) TO ALL OBEJCTIVE 2.10 Plan 2.10 Number: Description:
1.
Coordination Committee: Objective Owner: Counter Terrorism
Programme RAG Status:
170 RETURN TO CONTENTS/AGENDA
OFFICIAL SENSITIVE
NPCC 2017/18 Delivery Plan Objective 3.1
Objective: Design and develop an evidence base for a new reward framework for Plan Number: 3.1 As defined in the delivery plan policing by April 2018 Description: Coordination Committee: Objective Owner: Workforce Which Coordination Committee is responsible for coordinating This is likely to be a portfolio or working group lead (or CC Habgood the work of this objective and will be providing the report to Committee programme manager) who will be preparing the quarterly NPCC returns Programme RAG Status: Green See RAG Definition below
Outcomes: please list the outcomes that the programme/objective are set to deliver, what measures are in place and the date these are planned to be delivered. This should include the overall outcome for the objective and any objectives of individual work streams.
Number Outcome Measures Plan delivery date A new reward framework will be developed by reviewing the current pay and conditions, collaborating with forces and other stakeholders (including Home Office, CoP, Police Remuneration Review Body, PolFed, Following are in place and/or will be established include: APCC and PSAEW) to identify current and future issues and creating a additional reward specialists process to reward officers fairly now and in the future. This will include: personnel working under NPCC 1 reward aligned to contribution and competence Lead April 2018
variable pay and progression creation of survey capability to provide evidence base review of allowances
managing reward as part of the overall force budget
171 RETURN TO CONTENTS/AGENDA
OFFICIAL SENSITIVE
172 RETURN TO CONTENTS/AGENDA
OFFICIAL SENSITIVE
Milestones 2017/18: Please list any key milestones and the dates for 2017/18
Number Milestone Milestone date Submission of NPCC Police Remuneration Review Body report. This will include: setting the scene in relation to Workforce Futures – position the high level business for change
describing the reward changes we are looking to deliver and the new model
explaining the supporting programme of work. Signposting the major pay reform items i.e.
- levels work (de layering) Overall December 2017 - Educational Qualifications Framework (including entry level pay for Apprentices), Recommendations on apprenticeship pay for 1 - Advanced Practitioner constables will be delivered earlier by September 2017, to - continuing to build on the ARC approach (moving away from time served to competence allow for recruitment planning assessments linked to progression).
- provide a detailed project plan and timelines for delivery
Create a blue print for forces to explain how the workforce and reward policy changes will affect their 2 force depending upon their current level of force infrastructure and the positive changes that can be March 2018 achieved
173 RETURN TO CONTENTS/AGENDA
OFFICIAL SENSITIVE
NPCC 2017/18 Delivery Plan Objective 3.2
Objective: Develop and implement a prevention strategy and research around inappropriate Plan Number: 3.2 As defined in the delivery plan relationships with victims and abuse of authority for sexual purpose.
Description:
Coordination Committee: National Policing Objective Owner: Which Coordination Committee is responsible for Counter Corruption This is likely to be a portfolio or working group lead CC Stephen Watson coordinating the work of this objective and will be (or programme manager) who will be preparing the Advisory Group providing the report to NPCC quarterly returns Programme RAG Status: Amber See RAG Definition below
Outcomes: please list the outcomes that the programme/objective are set to deliver, what measures are in place and the date these are planned to be delivered. This should include the overall outcome for the objective and any objectives of individual work streams.
Number Outcome Measures Plan delivery date National consistent and proportionate prevention response (including research) to the Achieved by adoption of 1 emerging problem of officers and police staff who abuse their position for sexual the national strategy and Dec 2017 purpose (including vulnerable victims) associated guidance
Milestones 2017/18: Please list any key milestones and the dates for 2017/18
Number Milestone Milestone date 1 Development of national prevention strategy and guidance April 2017 2 Launch of national prevention strategy and guidance with implementation plan June 2017 3 Self-Assessment of each Force to assess implementation plan progress Sept 2017 4 Fully embedded national prevention strategy within main stream policing of all Forces Dec 2017
174 RETURN TO CONTENTS/AGENDA
OFFICIAL SENSITIVE
NPCC 2017/18 Delivery Plan Objective 3.3
Objective: Develop an evidence base and evaluation methods to create a clear Plan Number: 3.3 As defined in the delivery plan strategy on Workforce Diversity that informs the NPCC Workforce Plan Description: To develop evidence base that informs a Workforce Diversity Strategy that will identify how we need to adapt our existing policing services to enhance community confidence and provide a foundation within communities that ensures policing remains legitimate. The strategy will inform the Workforce Plan which will identify how we can deliver a more diverse workforce representative of our communities, taking into account the strategy and the findings from the research. Coordination Committee: Objective Owner: TBC – a PTF bid has been Which Coordination Committee is responsible for Equality, Diversity & This is likely to be a portfolio or working group made for programme coordinating the work of this objective and will be Human Rights lead (or programme manager) who will be resource to support this providing the report to NPCC preparing the quarterly returns work Programme RAG Status: Amber Green – subject to decision of the Police Transformation Fund See RAG Definition below
Outcomes: please list the outcomes that the programme/objective are set to deliver, what measures are in place and the date these are planned to be delivered. This should include the overall outcome for the objective and any objectives of individual work streams.
Number Outcome Measures Plan delivery date 1 Development of the Evidence Base: For every Police Force in 1. Identify how diversity leads to better policing outcomes, enhances legitimacy, and England and Wales to assists in delivery within the operational context of policing. have BME representation in its Delivered through: workforce that Undertaking of a Rapid Evidence Assessment or Literature Review that would proportionally reflects seek to assess the existing evidence base and help to determine What Works in its local demographic; recruitment, retention, training and development; and
Consultation with other organisations (i.e. the armed forces, fire, local An increase in the proportion of BME staff government, etc.) to gain an understanding of whether they have experienced within senior ranks similar issues with regarding to workplace diversity and how they have addressed this. This should include both UK and international organisations;
Development of a conceptual model describing how diversity leads to better policing outcomes, enhances legitimacy, and assists in delivery within the
175 RETURN TO CONTENTS/AGENDA
OFFICIAL SENSITIVE
operational context of policing.
2. Identify what do communities feel about the existing culture and operational activity of the police service? How do different sections of the community identify with the police? What factors do people take into account when considering their career choices? What are the positive factors that attract individuals within our communities to policing? What are the factors that dissuade people from applying to join the police service?
Delivered through: A survey with the general public nationally;
Targeted focus group and interviews with community representatives;
Consideration will need to be given to the method by which the public consultation is conducted to ensure it is representative.
3. Conduct internal research within policing to look at the experiences, enablers, and barriers to our existing workforce, and what prevents them or enables them to fulfil their vocation. This should be examined in the context of how people identify themselves within protected characteristics.
Delivered through: Conducting a survey with members of the police service nationally and triangulating this through workshops and interviews with police employees;
Undertaking a longitudinal study of some new recruits coming into Forces with an aspiration of this lasting at least two decades. Reporting should take place on an annual basis to enable the service to learn from their experiences and also to track their progress within the service.
2 Development of a two-year continuous professional development programme to For every Police Force in enhance the knowledge and understanding of diversity within Chief Officer teams England and Wales to (current and future). have BME representation in its
176 RETURN TO CONTENTS/AGENDA
OFFICIAL SENSITIVE
Development of a national conference within the first quarter of the 2018/19 financial workforce that year. proportionally reflects its local demographic; and
An increase in the proportion of BME staff within senior ranks 3 Develop and Deliver the NPCC Diversity Strategy and Workforce Plan. For every Police Force in England and Wales to have BME representation in its workforce that proportionally reflects its local demographic; and
An increase in the proportion of BME staff within senior ranks
It should be noted that we need to pause on this work until we have obtained more funding. We have heard from the PTFB who have given limited access to funding, and fails to address the need to understand the evidence base as it purely asks what we are currently doing as opposed to what currently works. A robust response will be given to the PTFB seeking additional funding required, but if that fails this piece of work will be more limited and will examine what is currently is in place as opposed to what could potentially reform the NPCC and policing.
Milestones 2017/18: Please list any key milestones and the dates for 2017/18 Number Milestone Milestone date 1 Outcome of Police Transformation Fund bid tbc 2 All other potential milestones will be informed by 1. above tbc
177 RETURN TO CONTENTS/AGENDA
OFFICIAL SENSITIVE
NPCC 2017/18 Delivery Plan Objective 3.4
Objective: Work with the College of Policing and Home Office to develop new misconduct Plan 3.4 As defined in the delivery plan regulations for the police service by April 2018. Number:
Description:
Coordination Committee: Objective Owner: CC Martin Jelley , Which Coordination Committee is responsible for Workforce This is likely to be a portfolio or working group lead (or Professional coordinating the work of this objective and will be providing programme manager) who will be preparing the Standards and Ethics the report to NPCC quarterly returns Programme RAG Status: Amber/Green See RAG Definition below
Outcomes: please list the outcomes that the programme/objective are set to deliver, what measures are in place and the date these are planned to be delivered. This should include the overall outcome for the objective and any objectives of individual work streams.
Number Outcome Measures Plan delivery date Draft Police (Conduct, Complaints, There has been no further progress due Misconduct and Police Tribunal Rules ) to ‘purdah’ and the anticipated date of (Amendment ) Regulations 2017 completed by the provisions being implemented of Home Office Police Integrity Unit and July 10th is unlikely to be met. No new Enactment of first phase of relevant provisions circulated for response by key stakeholders on date has been proposed by the Home 1. of the Policing and Crime Act 2017 which April 5th 2017. Response completed on behalf Office to date. The College of Policing originated from the 2014 ‘Chapman Review’ of of the Complaints and Misconduct Working have estimated that statutory – police discipline . Group ahead of requested deadline. Draft approved lists – the Barred and Regulations to be considered by the Police Advisory Lists which have been created Advisory Board sub-committee which includes via The Act will not ‘go live’ until representation by the Complaints and September 2017. Misconduct Working Group PAB meeting July 7th. Nottinghamshire Inspector , Michael Allen In conjunction with the Home Office , develop seconded to the task on behalf of the Revision of recommendations and 2. phase 2 of the reforms of the police discipline Professional Standards and Ethics portfolio further consultation with Home Office system originating from the 2014 ‘Chapman under the direction of the NPCC lead for June /July 2017. Review’ with a view to delivery in 2018. Complaints and Misconduct, CC Craig Guildford. Following consultation with all
178 RETURN TO CONTENTS/AGENDA
OFFICIAL SENSITIVE
heads of Professional Standards and the Home Office, suite of recommendations and proposals drawn up and circulated to some Working Group members for commentary at end of May. Consultation and further development in conjunction with key stakeholders, most notably IOPC(IPCC)
Milestones 2017/18: Please list any key milestones and the dates for 2017/18
Number Milestone Milestone date 1. Next meeting of the Police Integrity Policy Group. To be announced by the Home Office 2. Meeting of the Police Advisory Board sub-committee July 7th 2017 Return recommendations and proposals for phase 2 to Home Office for further discussion , 3. June/Jul 2017 including next stages and timetable.
179 RETURN TO CONTENTS/AGENDA
OFFICIAL SENSITIVE
NPCC 2017/18 Delivery Plan Objective 3.5
Facilitate the Forces understanding of workforce skills, knowledge and capability, Plan Objective: including how to understand current gaps and develop plans and strategies to fill Number: 3.5 As defined in the delivery plan predicted gaps.
Description:
Coordination Committee: Objective Owner: Workforce Co- Which Coordination Committee is responsible for This is likely to be a portfolio or working group ACO Ali Naylor coordinating the work of this objective and will be ordination lead (or programme manager) who will be providing the report to NPCC preparing the quarterly returns Programme RAG Status: Amber See RAG Definition below
Outcomes: please list the outcomes that the programme/objective are set to deliver, what measures are in place and the date these are planned to be delivered. This should include the overall outcome for the objective and any objectives of individual work streams.
Number Outcome Measures Plan delivery date 1 Information from CoP, NPCC shared with CIPD HR Forum Mar 18 2 Interactive session at CIPD Conference Nov 17 3 Best practice and toolkits shared with Police CIPD Group Mar 18
Milestones 2017/18: Please list any key milestones and the dates for 2017/18
Number Milestone Milestone date 1 Quarterly CIPD meetings 1/4ly to Mar 18 2 CIPD Annual Conference Oct 17
180 RETURN TO CONTENTS/AGENDA
OFFICIAL SENSITIVE
NPCC 2017/18 Delivery Plan Objective 3.6
Objective: Embed the evidence-based Blue Light Wellbeing framework into national policing Plan 3.6 As defined in the delivery plan strategy and practice Number: Description: NPCC and CoP have worked in collaboration with Public Health England and academia to develop a self-assessment framework to support all forces by providing an evidence-based framework to improve the health and wellbeing of their people. Our objective is to roll this out to all forces using the Oscar Kilo web portal and create a learning culture supported by peer support to continuously improve. Coordination Committee: Objective Owner: Which Coordination Committee is responsible for Workforce This is likely to be a portfolio or working group lead DCC Andy Rhodes coordinating the work of this objective and will be (or programme manager) who will be preparing the providing the report to NPCC quarterly returns Programme RAG Status: AMBER See RAG Definition below
Outcomes: please list the outcomes that the programme/objective are set to deliver, what measures are in place and the date these are planned to be delivered. This should include the overall outcome for the objective and any objectives of individual work streams.
Number Outcome Measures Plan delivery date 1 Develop new framework and sign off at CoP Sign off Completed Feb 17 2 Design web portal funded by PHE Go Live Completed May 17 3 Embed blue light framework in portal and provide briefings and unique access to all forces No. accessing By Sept 2017 4 Support all forces to complete 1st run of self-assessment and review progress 100% completion By Dec 2017
Milestones 2017/18: Please list any key milestones and the dates for 2017/18
Number Milestone Milestone date 1 Go Live of Oscar Kilo May 17 completed 2 All forces briefed and accessing May 17 completed 3 All forces completing Dec 17
181 RETURN TO CONTENTS/AGENDA
OFFICIAL SENSITIVE
NPCC 2017/18 Delivery Plan Objective 3.7
By September 2017 undertake a national and force level review of work to tackle the Plan Objective: shortage of qualified detectives and other investigators. Put into effect a national action Number: 3.7 As defined in the delivery plan plan to remedy these shortages. Description: Coordination Committee: Objective Owner: Which Coordination Committee is responsible for Crime Operations This is likely to be a portfolio or working group lead (or DCC Matt Jukes coordinating the work of this objective and will be programme manager) who will be preparing the providing the report to NPCC quarterly returns Programme RAG Status: Green See RAG Definition below
Outcomes: please list the outcomes that the programme/objective are set to deliver, what measures are in place and the date these are planned to be delivered. This should include the overall outcome for the objective and any objectives of individual work streams.
Number Outcome Measures Plan delivery date 1 Established baseline of current investigatory capacity (to level PIP II) Data Capture 30th June 2017 Information capture with Forces and 2 Greater understanding of the barriers to an investigatory career pathway Stakeholders via Roundtable and 19th July existing meeting groups Development and sharing of best practice for entry into investigatory 3 As above and final report. 6th September 2017 career pathway in liaison with key stakeholders
Milestones 2017/18: Please list any key milestones and the dates for 2017/18
Number Milestone Milestone date 1 Data collation completion 30th June 2017 2 Roundtable Event 19th July 2017 3 Final Report to NCOCC 6th September 2017
182 RETURN TO CONTENTS/AGENDA
OFFICIAL SENSITIVE
NPCC 2017/18 Delivery Plan Objective 4.2
Objective: Develop a force level Cyber Crime investigation and Intelligence operating model Plan 4.2 As defined in the delivery plan Number: Description: By April 2018 develop a local digital investigation and intelligence operating model which specifies the skills, capabilities and processes that forces will need to have in place locally to deal with the challenge of growing cyber and digital crime.
Coordination Committee: Objective Owner: Chief Constable Which Coordination Committee is responsible for coordinating NCoCC This is likely to be a portfolio or working group lead (or Peter Goodman the work of this objective and will be providing the report to programme manager) who will be preparing the NPCC quarterly returns Programme RAG Status: Amber See RAG Definition below
Outcomes: please list the outcomes that the programme/objective are set to deliver, what measures are in place and the date these are planned to be delivered. This should include the overall outcome for the objective and any objectives of individual work streams.
Number Outcome Measures Plan delivery date A comprehensive force level cyber dependent crime NPCC project oversight group monitoring, reviewing operating model, incorporating training road map, and altering where appropriate stakeholder 4.02 20th January 2018 specialist equipment, governance processes, tasking, participation and value, monthly financial expenditure accountability and performance. against NCSP budget. Delivery of milestones
Milestones 2017/18: Please list any key milestones and the dates for 2017/18
Number Milestone Milestone date th High level operating model proposal options presented to NCOCC for agreement by NPCC cyber crime lead on 6 4.02 6th September 2017 September 2017. 4.02 Detailed and costed operating model presented to NPCC for ratification. December 2018 National Cyber Security Programme business case developed and submitted to Home Office for allocation of a force 4.02 20th January 2018 level seed fund, to assist force level capability build including equipment, training and infrastructure. 4.02 Implementation of localised cyber dependent crime capability builds. (Subject to NCSP and force level funding.) 1st April 2018.
183 RETURN TO CONTENTS/AGENDA
OFFICIAL SENSITIVE
NPCC 2017/18 Delivery Plan Objective 5.1
Lead on behalf of the police service on the implementation of Home Office ICT Plan Objective: Programmes (including the Emergency Services Mobile Communications Number: 5.1 As defined in the delivery plan Programme, Home Office Biometrics and the National Law Enforcement Data Programme).
Description: As per objective title. Coordination Committee: Information Objective Owner: Management and Which Coordination Committee is responsible for This is likely to be a portfolio or working group DCC Richard Morris coordinating the work of this objective and will be Operational lead (or programme manager) who will be providing the report to NPCC Requirements preparing the quarterly returns Programme RAG Status: Amber See RAG Definition below
Outcomes: please list the outcomes that the programme/objective are set to deliver, what measures are in place and the date these are planned to be delivered. This should include the overall outcome for the objective and any objectives of individual work streams.
Number Outcome Measures Plan delivery date Operational Communications in Policing (OCiP) team operating across each of Agreement to additional staff 1. the three core CPFG Programmes, including embedded Programme-specific recruitment into defined roles September 2017 staff. and subsequent implementation. Two rounds of roadshows OCiP organisational and presentational input into at least one ‘roadshow’ scheduled in calendar year 2017, 2. covering the three Home Office programmes (and others) in each region in December 2017 most falling within planning year England and Wales in 2017-18 2017-18. Agreed schedule for transition from Airwave onto the Emergency Service Schedule agreed and socialised 3. Network (ESN), with supporting mobilisation plan and ‘operationalising’ of across all regions and with Fire September 2017 police approach. and Ambulance representatives. Representation of Reference Effective functioning of two Chief Constables’ Reference Groups, one for Group chairs at IMORCC and 4. ESMCP and one for NLEDP and HOB, with continuing linkages to IMORCC (e.g. Continuing. written submissions at each through written updates at every IMORCC meeting). IMORCC meeting.
Milestones 2017/18: Please list any key milestones and the dates for 2017/18
184 RETURN TO CONTENTS/AGENDA
OFFICIAL SENSITIVE
Number Milestone Milestone date 1 a HOB agreement to funding recruitment of two OCiP members of staff. April 2017 – achieved. 1 b Recruitment of these two staff members. September 2017 2 a Completion of first round of roadshows June 2017 – anticipated achieved. 2 b Second round planned September – December 2017 December 2017 3 a Agreement to schedule from all regions August 2017 3 b Agreement to any change in police governance of ESN transition arising September 2017
185 RETURN TO CONTENTS/AGENDA
OFFICIAL SENSITIVE
NPCC 2017/18 Delivery Plan Objective 5.2
Objective: Developing Standards Plan 5.2 As defined in the delivery plan Number: Description: By April 2018, develop a prioritised plan and process for the definition and dissemination of technical/data security and related business standards and principles for policing. Coordination Committee: Objective Owner: Which Coordination Committee is responsible for IMORCC This is likely to be a portfolio or working group lead Ian Dyson coordinating the work of this objective and will be (or programme manager) who will be preparing the providing the report to NPCC quarterly returns Programme RAG Status: Amber See RAG Definition below
Outcomes: please list the outcomes that the programme/objective are set to deliver, what measures are in place and the date these are planned to be delivered. This should include the overall outcome for the objective and any objectives of individual work streams.
Number Outcome Measures Plan delivery date 1 POLE model development and delivery Dec 17 2 Advanced shared evidence base development and delivery Nov/Dev 17 3 Technology & Data Standards that underpin National Enablers Programme Ongoing
Milestones 2017/18: Please list any key milestones and the dates for 2017/18
Number Milestone Milestone date Refinement and engagement of the POLE model, including feedback sessions September 17 Delivery of a fully fit Shared Evidence Base – including a standards site which includes a catalogue, searching, keywords etc. November 17 Delivery of E messaging model (to include Crime, Information Report, Domestic Abuse, Vulnerable Adult / Child, Target, PACT, Problem, TTL, Missing Person, Dissemination, Stop & Search) Leading adoption of the NLEDS programme November 17
186 RETURN TO CONTENTS/AGENDA
OFFICIAL SENSITIVE
NPCC 2017/18 Delivery Plan Objective 5.3
Objective: National Commercial Board; Oversee and ensure the delivery of the four Commercial Work- Plan 5.3 As defined in the delivery plan streams; CLEP, Shared Services, Enablement Portfolio, Commercial Models. Number: Description: The NCB portfolio is made of a number of work streams: 1. CLEP which is focussed on collaborative procurement of common goods and services 2. Shared Services 3. Benchmarking - which aims to ensure optimum value from c£2.9bn of spend on support services as highlighted by the HMIC VFM Profiles 4. Commercial models which aims to improve commercial capability across Forces (led by Simon Wilson Commercial Director – Metropolitan Police) Coordination Committee: Finance Co- Objective Owner: Which Coordination Committee is responsible for ordinating This is likely to be a portfolio or working group lead (or Lynda McMullan coordinating the work of this objective and will be programme manager) who will be preparing the quarterly Committee providing the report to NPCC returns Programme RAG Status: Green See RAG Definition below
Outcomes: please list the outcomes that the programme/objective are set to deliver, what measures are in place and the date these are planned to be delivered. This should include the overall outcome for the objective and any objectives of individual work streams.
Number Outcome Measures Plan delivery date 1. Up to £350m savings Benefits / savings tracker and ADR quarterly reporting to Home Office Ongoing TBD Number of collaborative projects undertaken ( including sharing services 2. Improved collaborative working Ongoing TBD and facilities, collaborative procurements and regionalisation of services)
Milestones 2017/18: Please list any key milestones and the dates for 2017/18
Number Milestone Milestone date 1. CLEP: Development of category procurement strategies End of Q2 Shared Services; agreed short-list of high level models and roadmaps developed for taking forward 2. End of Q3 shared services delivery models. 3. Enabling: Cost data analysis undertaken across agreed priority categories End of Q3 4. Commercial: TBN 5. £36m savings delivered End of Q4
187 RETURN TO CONTENTS/AGENDA
OFFICIAL SENSITIVE
NPCC 2017/18 Delivery Plan Objective 5.4
Objective: Plan Plan, Design and Implement National Enabling Programmes 5.4 As defined in the delivery plan Number: Description: During 2017/18, the IMORCC will oversee the initial tranches of a suite of multi-year programmes that (contingent on resourcing from the Police Transformation Fund) will ultimately deliver service-wide Identity and Access Management, a nationally available ‘Collaboration Workspace’ for Productivity Services, and a Security Operations Centre to counter cyber threats to, and on behalf of all UK police forces. Additionally, the IMORCC will facilitate and co-host (in collaboration with Chaucer Landscape Mapping) a series of ‘roadshows’ in every police region to assist forces and regions in awareness and preparation for the delivery of national programmes. Coordination Committee: Objective Owner: Ian Bell – National Which Coordination Committee is responsible for IMORCC This is likely to be a portfolio or working group lead coordinating the work of this objective and will be (or programme manager) who will be preparing the Enablers providing the report to NPCC quarterly returns Programme RAG Status: Green See RAG Definition below
Outcomes: please list the outcomes that the programme/objective are set to deliver, what measures are in place and the date these are planned to be delivered. This should include the overall outcome for the objective and any objectives of individual work streams.
Plan delivery Number Outcome Measures date 1 Programme funding to be approved Business Case to be approved by PRTB April 2017 2 Organisational Readiness Data Governance an Security Polices alignment to existing force process i.e. HR Dec 2017 3 Enabling technologies preparedness Technology procurement, build, test, make-live 4 Technology Migration Police force migrations on to new platforms for PS, IAM & SOC 5 Adoption and Training New ways of working. Process standardisation. Training, coaching & Support
Milestones 2017/18: Please list any key milestones and the dates for 2017/18
Number Milestone Milestone date
188 RETURN TO CONTENTS/AGENDA
OFFICIAL SENSITIVE
NPCC 2017/18 Delivery Plan Objective 5.5
Objective: By Sept. 2017, develop guidance for forces on the requirements and Plan Number: 5.5 As defined in the delivery plan process for entering details of suspects on Police National Computer. Description: This Objective is derived from Recommendation 4 of the HMIC’s ‘Police Effectiveness 2016’ publication (extract below): “By September 2017, the National Police Chiefs’ Council (NPCC) should develop clear guidance for forces on the requirements and process for entering the details of suspects on the Police National Computer and the reasonable steps forces should take to apprehend those wanted individuals once their details have been circulated ...” Coordination Committee: Objective Owner: Which Coordination Committee is responsible for IMORCC This is likely to be a portfolio or working group lead DCC Richard Morris coordinating the work of this objective and will be (or programme manager) who will be preparing the providing the report to NPCC quarterly returns Programme RAG Status: Amber/Green See RAG Definition below
Outcomes: please list the outcomes that the programme/objective are set to deliver, what measures are in place and the date these are planned to be delivered. This should include the overall outcome for the objective and any objectives of individual work streams.
Number Outcome Measures Plan delivery date Develop and disseminate guidance for forces on the requirements and process 1. Publication of guidance. September 2017 for entering details of suspects on Police National Computer At least 12 forces from a range 2. Dip sample inspection to ensure ongoing compliance. February 2018 of regions to be sampled.
Milestones 2017/18: Please list any key milestones and the dates for 2017/18
Number Milestone Milestone date Effective consultation across the PNC community on the nature and content of the guidance - 1 a July 2017. as measured through P4G Strategy group and supporting working groups. 1 b Publication of guidance in authoritative and easily accessible format. September 2017 2 a Dip-sample to ensure ongoing compliance. February 2018 NPCC 2017/18 Delivery Plan Objective 5.6
Objective: Develop a consistent reporting mechanism for all programmes within the National Policing Plan 5.6 As defined in the delivery plan Technology Portfolio to provide appropriate strategic oversight, integration and awareness. Number:
189 RETURN TO CONTENTS/AGENDA
OFFICIAL SENSITIVE
Description: As per objective title. Coordination Committee: Objective Owner: DCC Richard Which Coordination Committee is responsible for IMORCC This is likely to be a portfolio or working group lead (or coordinating the work of this objective and will be providing programme manager) who will be preparing the quarterly Morris the report to NPCC returns Programme RAG Status: Amber/Green See RAG Definition below
Outcomes: please list the outcomes that the programme/objective are set to deliver, what measures are in place and the date these are planned to be delivered. This should include the overall outcome for the objective and any objectives of individual work streams.
Number Outcome Measures Plan delivery date Service agreement to reporting methodology and categories. (Starting position to be the Consultation through 1. September 2017 work of Chaucer Landscape Mapping.) IMORCC Home Office, APCC and Service agreement to a defined list of programmes within ‘the Consultation through 2. October 2017 National Policing Technology Portfolio’. IMORCC and APCC Wide dissemination and socialisation of the data collected through the reporting tool, on an 3. Forces’ feedback. From November 2017 ongoing (monthly) basis. Agreed resourcing for continuing reporting function, whether by Chaucer Landscape Consultation through 4. October 2017 Mapping or alternative source. IMORCC and APCC Re-validation of strategic governance through NPCC and IMORCC to ensure dedicated senior Consultation through 5. September 2017 oversight. (This to be considered alongside need to ‘operationalise’ ESN delivery.) NPCC and IMORCC.
Milestones 2017/18: Please list any key milestones and the dates for 2017/18
Number Milestone Milestone date 1 & 2 Agreement to methodology and projects and to programmes affected, as above. October 2017. 3 & 4 Agreement to responsibilities for collation and dissemination, and associated resourcing. November 2017
190 RETURN TO CONTENTS/AGENDA
OFFICIAL SENSITIVE
Chief Constables’ Council
Update on the College of Policing’s May 2017 Professional Committee
12/13 July 2017 /Agenda item 5.4
Security classification: Official Disclosable under FOIA 2000: Yes Author: Harbinder Dhaliwal Force/organisation: College of Policing Date created: 15th May 2017 Coordination Committee: N/A Portfolio: N/A Attachments @ paragraph: N/A
1. INTRODUCTION/PURPOSE
1.1 This paper provides a summary of discussions and decisions made at the last Professional Committee meeting held on 9th May 2017 and provides an overview of current College activity.
2. SUMMARY OF COLLEGE OF POLICING MAY 2017 PROFESSIONAL COMMITTEE MEETING
College Approach to Developing Practice Guidelines
2.1 The Committee was updated on the College’s approach to developing evidence based guidelines, currently being piloted on officer safety and investigative interviewing. The approach includes the creation of a Guidelines Committee that is inclusive of frontline practitioners. Members asked how frontline practitioners are selected and recommended having both the views of individual officers and their staff associations represented at the Guidelines Committee to ensure a full contribution. The Chair suggested that as College members increasingly contribute directly to the work of their professional body there may be a need to review the way the College works to ensure these opportunities are provided alongside engagement through police representative bodies.
2.2 The Committee was supportive of the outlined approach but suggested making the process more agile and reactive and that using ‘test’ forces might help to do so. Also, it was suggested that a holding position should be developed to ensure that the process was consistently done properly. There were also questions over the governance arrangements, with regards to sign off, which required further clarity.
Police Education Qualifications Framework
2.3 The Committee was asked to offer its views on the progress of the PEQF, its associated indicative costings and timeline for implementation. The Police Federation requested that the terminology used (apprenticeships, apprentices, students) be clarified as it is currently causing confusion within the workplace. They also queried the meaning of ‘independent’, with regard to the end point assessment and the role of employers. The College clarified that apprentices
193 RETURN TO CONTENTS/AGENDA
OFFICIAL SENSITIVE
would not be able to progress to an end point assessment if they had not already received sign off from the employer. Unison raised concerns about some police staff apprenticeships that were seen as potential gap filling, rather than genuine opportunities for development and career progression. In response, the College offered to share with Unison the College apprenticeship standard so that Unison can explore their concerns fully with employers.
Direct Entry for Chief Constables
2.4 The Committee was updated on the issues raised by the College Board at its April meeting on Home Office proposals to widen eligibility for Chief Constable roles. Members were informed that the College Board had been supportive in principle of widening the talent pool of candidates for chief constable roles, but had expressed some concerns about changes to chief constable appointment processes as currently proposed. This position was supported by Professional Committee. Committee members also approved the Board’s decision to write to the Home Secretary setting out its position and drawing attention to the importance of establishing robust criteria setting out knowledge, skills and experience requirements for chief constable roles, underpinned by appropriate legislation.
2.5 The Committee expressed some concerns about the inadequacy of the consultation process, while recognising that recruitment decisions are ultimately a matter for Police and Crime Commissioners. It was noted that the principle of direct entry had been accepted at superintendent and inspector level. Police and Crime Commissioner members of the Committee welcomed the prospect of greater choice between candidates for chief constable roles but pointed out that chief constable appointees would require clear support from both the public and policing workforce in order to be successful.
Licence to Practise & Professional Registration
2.6 Members were updated on progress to develop a licence to practise and professional registration approach in high risk areas of policing. The College has written to the Home Secretary requesting primary legislation to create powers for the College to hold professional registers. The Committee expressed broad support for the licence to practise proposals.
2.7 The Police Federation noted it has questioned whether the register should be a public document. The Chair acknowledged that Unison has expressed concerns about the role of employers as arbitrators of the register and has reserved its position.
Update from the Independent Police Complaints Commission
2.8 The IPCC CEO updated members on its plans for the next 12 months, covering the transition period to the IPCC becoming the Independent Office for Police Conduct that is likely to take place in early December. Members welcomed the presentation and questioned how the IOPC can fully embrace ‘black box thinking’. The IOPC was encouraged to adopt ways of working that will allow the freedom to make genuine mistakes and clarify the boundaries between gross misconduct, misconduct and performance.
National Appearance Standards
2.9 Members endorsed guidance on National Appearance Standards, developed by the NPCC national uniform lead. The Committee agreed that Chief Constables Alex Marshall and Simon Cole would now write to forces informing them of the College’s endorsement of the guidance and that it would be available on the College website.
Review of the Senior Police National Assessment Centre & the Strategic Command Course
2.10 Members received an update on the Senior Police National Assessment Centre (SPNAC) and the Strategic Command Course (SCC) review, noting the ‘fast track actions’. Chief Constables’
194 RETURN TO CONTENTS/AGENDA
OFFICIAL SENSITIVE
Council had supported the view that applications for SPNAC and SCC should be strongly encouraged from superintendents, BME groups and police staff. The College is increasing capacity to accommodate this work. To encourage applications from officers and staff from BME backgrounds, a career development workshop will take place in June, followed by a development centre in August. The SCC will be delivered in two modules, each of 4/5 weeks, allowing the completion of the SCC over 15 months. A single application form will made available that also removes the requirement for a line manager’s feedback.
2.11 The Committee was asked to comment on whether the review should initially focus on encouraging BME candidates or whether other protected characteristics should be included - there was support for the latter. Members suggested the issue of abstraction also needed consideration as the review progresses.
Support for the HeforShe Campaign
2.12 The Committee endorsed support for the HeforShe campaign and were asked to provide input on how forces can be encouraged to support it. The collaboration with the United Nations and the Senior Women in Policing Conference provides an opportunity for the College to identify and highlight best practice on how inequalities are being addressed. The Chair of the NPCC Workforce Coordination Committee agreed to deliver an annual report on gender equality across policing.
College Business & CDG Update
2.13 Members noted the update.
January Chiefs’ Council Update (Nicole Higgins)
2.14 Members noted the update from April Chief Constables’ Council meeting.
Any Other Business
2.15 The Chair notified the Committee of the College’s intention to move to cost recovery for overnight accommodation at Ryton in future and that this would be communicated in full in due course.
3. COLLEGE BUSINESS UPDATE
Crime & Criminal Justice Update
3.1 The College is leading a project to transform the overall policing approach to vulnerability. The learning outcomes for a pilot training package for at least 500 officers and staff and 100 supervisors are now ready for release. The existing Specialist Child Abuse Investigator Development Programme (SCAIDP) register will be utilised to support a Licence to Practise pilot, and key stakeholders for an associated Code of Practise have been contacted with a consultation event taking place on 17th May. The new and updated Multi Agency Critical incident Exercise (MACIE) training content is in the process of being developed into a HYDRA exercise.
3.2 Roll out of the Domestic Abuse Matter training project is dependent on securing Police Transformation Funding and if supported, the College is ready to deliver to 12 forces initially. We are currently testing the self-assessment process for the accreditation of undercover policing units and, subject to that, can progress with further roll out. The Criminal Justice Review and Digital Age Products Review are currently being scoped out.
Uniformed Policing Faculty
195 RETURN TO CONTENTS/AGENDA
OFFICIAL SENSITIVE
3.3 Following the Home Secretary’s approval of the replacement for Taser® X26 Conductive Energy Device (CED), the College has developed guidance and training modules and began training force Taser Lead Instructors and Taser Technicians in the new CED (Taser® X2). The college Public Order Public Safety unit in consultation with NPCC lead has produced a guidance document to provide clarity to forces in the Public Order Command accreditation process and their management of standards.
3.4 Within Local Policing, the main focus of work is the College response to recommendation 1 of HMICs Effectiveness report which relates to the development of Guidelines for Neighbourhood Policing. DCC Gavin Stephens will chair the work of the Committee tasked with agreeing the Guidelines. The first meeting of the Committee will take place on 30th June, with a target date for circulation of draft guidance for consultation in December 2017.
3.5 The Joint Operations (DVI) team have provided assistance regarding requests for structured debriefing of significant recent incidents (Westminster Bridge and Manchester) including a strategic debrief for Operation Temperer (national military armed support to police) which they are coordinating with NPoCC. The team have recently received a request to coordinate with NPoCC on a similar structured debrief for the London Bridge incident.
3.6 There are important developments within the Mental Health arena, with the announcement of a joint NPCC/College Conference on September 5th and the commencement of the Phase 2 Restraint Guidance work in June.
Professional Development & Integrity Faculty
3.7 The College’s organisational development team has moved across to the PD&I Faculty and work is underway to align these teams. The Community Chairs remain CC Giles York for PD&I and CC Andy Rhodes for OD.
3.8 A 3rd Chief Constables’ continuing professional development event was held on 11th May with 21 Chiefs attending and a number volunteering to be part of a “Leaderships Insights” scheme – connecting Chief Constables with non-policing sector Executives/Senior Leaders.
3.9 An Advanced Practitioners event (recommendation 8 of Leadership Review) takes place on 11 July and will include APs sharing their experiences, learning and progress.
3.10 The Reverse Mentoring Pilot is progressing well with a mentor’s workshop taking place in July to share experience and best practice. The next Valuing Difference and Inclusion College/NPCC, Force and Staff Association event takes place on 3 July and PCC Leader for Equality and Diversity David Munro attending.
3.11 The Home Office have advised that police regulations enacting schedule 8 of the Policing and Crime bill will not come into force until September 2017 at the earliest. The College is working with force vetting and PSD leads to put in place arrangements and guidance to support these new requirements.
3.12 The new site Oscar Kilo to support the Blue-Light Wellbeing Framework has been launched. DCC Rhodes has spoken to all force leads and the OD team are working closely with Public Health England (who funded the site) and other blue light services in the development of this wellbeing resource.
Curriculum, Assessment and Accreditation
3.13 The delivery of recruitment and examination processes to meet national and local force demands continues with support to 10 force-run Police SEARCH assessment centres (1484 candidates), delivery of 3 College-run RECRUIT assessment centres (449 candidates), 2 Specials assessment processes (96 candidate) and 1 PCSO assessment process (112 candidates).
196 RETURN TO CONTENTS/AGENDA
OFFICIAL SENSITIVE
Knowledge, Research & Practice
3.14 Systematic reviews have been completed in the two pilot areas for the new approach to developing evidence-based guidelines: officer safety and investigative interviewing. The guideline committees have considered evidence from these reviews and have drafted initial practice recommendations. Final recommendations will be agreed by the guideline committees in the summer.
3.15 The College has published a tool to support practitioners to estimate the cost-benefit of interventions they are implementing to reduce crime and other demands. The tool was developed by University College London and the University of Australia and includes guidance and an easy to use spreadsheet which users can use to input costs and generate estimates of benefits.
Delivery Services
3.16 Following the review of training carried out last year, the College ceased training delivery on 31st March 2017 in the areas of crime prevention, forensics, intelligence, method of entry (overt) and personal safety. The College will continue to set standards for training in each of these areas. Work is ongoing to prepare intelligence and forensics products for licensing. The crime prevention learning programme will be made available via Crime Prevention Initiatives. The Fire Service College will continue provision of fire investigation training. The College is continuing provision of the CSI Level 2 proactive forensics course and the Strategic Management of Intelligence course. Method of entry and personal safety training are already licensed to all Home Office forces. Kit relating to forensic training and personal safety training has been passed on free of charge to forces following open days at Ryton and Harperley Hall.
Alex Marshall
Chief Constable
197 RETURN TO CONTENTS/AGENDA
OFFICIAL SENSITIVE
This page has been left intentionally black
198 RETURN TO CONTENTS/AGENDA
OFFICIAL SENSITIVE
Chief Constables’ Council
Presentation from Mark Rowley
12 July 2017 /Agenda item: 6
S23(1), S24(1), S31(1)(a)(b) , S40(2)
199 RETURN TO CONTENTS/AGENDA
OFFICIAL SENSITIVE
This page has been left intentionally black
200 RETURN TO CONTENTS/AGENDA
OFFICIAL SENSITIVE
Chief Constables’ Council
The Arming of Police Officers Debate
12 July 2017 /Agenda item: 6
Security classification: Official Disclosable under FOIA 2000: No Author: Simon Chesterman Force/organisation: NPCC Armed Policing Date created: 14th June 2017 Coordination Committee: NPCC Armed Policing Working Group Portfolio: Uniformed Operations Attachments @ paragraphs: 2.15
1. INTRODUCTION/PURPOSE
1.1 Recent terrorist attacks have reignited the debate, both within and outside the police service, on the ability of first responders to protect themselves, effectively deal with the threat and reduce casualties. The purpose of this discussion paper is to establish the current NPCC position on routine arming and to ensure that we provide a consistent message.
3. BACKGROUND
2.1 When articulating their position on routine arming of frontline responders, chief officers generally reflect upon the Peelian principles and refer to policing by consent, use of minimum force, tradition, pride in a largely unarmed police service, public trust and confidence and our preference to invest firearms training in a suitable number of highly trained volunteers.
2.2 The Home Office Code of Practice on Police Use of Firearms and Less Lethal Weapons requires Chief Constables to produce an annual firearms Strategic Threat and Risk Assessment; these STRAs follow a College of Policing template and are used to inform the levels of armed policing and the capabilities that are required. STRAs reflect the postulated threat within the force area and identify those threats that are beyond the capacity and capability of the individual force, necessitating a regional and national response.
2.3 The debate on routine arming resurfaces periodically; however, recent events have generated a great deal of commentary regarding the ability of first responders to mitigate the threat. After Woolwich commentators reflected on the inability of the police to tackle the assailants until the ARV arrived. More recently the Westminster attacker was neutralised within 80 seconds owing to the presence of an armed officer with a handgun. The London Bridge attackers were neutralised within 8 minutes, but during this period unarmed officers and members of the public were seriously injured trying to prevent further casualties. The argument is often – ‘if the first officers on the scene had been armed, they may have been able to bring the attack to a stop and reduce casualties’. S31(1)(a)(b) & S24(1)
What is routine arming?
2.4 The posture of armed policing in England & Wales is generally discrete, but the public are exposed to police officers armed with handguns and carbines. It is now not unusual to see militaristic images of armed police officers wearing protective equipment and balaclavas. The
201 RETURN TO CONTENTS/AGENDA
OFFICIAL SENSITIVE
recent deployment of the national strategic reserve was well covered in the media and on social media and there were many images of armed officers engaging with members of the public who were clearly reassured by their presence. Clearly context is important and the sight of heavily armed police officers may not always reassure people.
2.5 Routine arming would not reflect these images and would comprise officers in traditional uniform, overtly armed with a handgun.
Strategic Direction
2.6 The strategic direction for armed policing is being channelled through the Uplift Programme and the Specialist Capabilities Programme. The bedrock remains the deployment of ARVs across the country, capable of responding to the level of threat presented by a Marauding Terrorist Firearms Attack. ARVs are embedded in local policing and, in most areas, provide a range of policing capabilities and not just a firearms response. S31(1)(a)(b) & S24(1)
2.7 Routine arming of response officers is not an alternative to the ARV/CTSFO model. These assets would remain a crucial element of our response. Routinely armed response officers would be trained to intervene in extremis before the specialist firearms response gets there.
Public and officer perceptions
2.8 Within the context of recent terrorist attacks, the public has been highly supportive of armed officers. A snap poll of 2,675 Facebook users revealed that 75% of respondents believe that UK police officers should be routinely armed.
2.9 It is recognised that many officers would not wish to be armed and some may not meet the required standard of competence to carry a firearm. The MPS surveyed officers and of 11000 respondents;
57% said they would be prepared to carry a gun if the Commissioner and the Home Secretary made a decision that all MPS officers should routinely carry a firearm whilst on duty. A little over one in four respondents (26%) said that they believe all police officers should be routinely armed. 12% of officers surveyed said under no circumstances would they carry a firearm whilst on duty. 8.2% of respondents said they would resign from the MPS rather than accept an order to routinely carry a firearm whilst on duty, 86.5% said they would not.
2.10 A recent Police Federation survey with 16000 respondents indicated that 43% of officers, who do not currently carry Taser, would want to. This survey was focused on PPE in general, only 18% of unarmed officers responded that they should be armed.
2.11 In light of recent events, the Federation are now proposing a further survey of frontline officers on routine arming.
Snapshot of ARV response times
2.12 S31(1)(a)(b) & S24(1)
2.13 S31(1)(a)(b) & S24(1)
202 RETURN TO CONTENTS/AGENDA
OFFICIAL SENSITIVE
2.14 S31(1)(a)(b) & S24(1)
2.15 S31(1)(a)(b) & S24(1)
2.16 To date only the forces with a chosen target location have been asked for their ARV response times. Highly dependent on geography, in some cases, it is possible that a neighbouring force ARV could respond quicker across force boundaries and additional analysis is required.
Taser
2.17 The Police Federation survey, referred to above, indicates that a significant percentage of officers who do not carry Taser would want to. The Federation has publicly called for all frontline police officers, who volunteer and achieve the required standard in training, should be provided with a Taser.
2.18 Accepting that this is an operational matter for individual Chief Constables, any consideration in relation to the introduction of routine arming with conventional firearms is bound to heighten the debate on Taser and Chief’s will need a position on this.
2.19 S31(1)(a)(b) & S24(1)
2.20 S31(1)(a)(b) & S24(1)
2.21 S31(1)(a)(b) & S24(1)
2.22 It is important to point out that any uplift is not without challenge in that training is already under pressure. Current policy would have to be reconsidered as many frontline officers would not be eligible to carry Taser as probationers are excluded.
2.23 Regarding the threat of terror, as already mentioned above, Taser is a welcome tactical option, enabling officers to deal with violence and threats of violence at distance however, firearms (ARVs/SFO) are and will remain the correct tactical option to the terror threat. Taser is not the panacea solution it is a tactical option to be considered alongside all other options.
The cost
2.24 Depending upon the level of training required, an officer would require approximately two weeks initial training to deploy with a handgun. This would include weapons handling and retention together with some basic tactics. It is possible to reduce this; the absolute minimum would be two days initial training. Officers would require approximately 2 days per annum for refresher training and qualification shoots.
2.25 Aside from the costs associated with abstractions for training, there would be significant implications and costs associated with supporting infrastructure such as access to suitable ranges and firearms instructors. Ranges and instructors are already significantly stretched by the Uplift Programme.
203 RETURN TO CONTENTS/AGENDA
OFFICIAL SENSITIVE
2.26 The cost of a handgun is £470.
2.27 All armed officers must also be equipped with a Taser as a less lethal alternative; the cost of a Taser X2 is £800.
4. CONCLUSION
3.1 Recent events have reignited the debate on routine arming and future incidents will only serve to increase focus on the subject. Chief Officers have consistently held the line that we pride ourselves in being a largely unarmed police service and we police by consent, preferring to deliver armed policing through highly trained, carefully selected volunteers.
3.2 Historically we have relied on the fact that the majority of the public in this country do not want an armed police service and the majority of officers do not want to be armed. This may still be the case, but the balance is bound to be shifting and effective engagement and consultation may be required.
3.3 The level of armed policing in individual forces is an operational matter for Chief Constables, informed by their STRAs. Chiefs will have reflected on recent attacks, in particular London Bridge, and the impressive MPS response and they may have applied this scenario within the context of their own force area. If the conclusion is that armed response times need to be improved, then the options are to increase the numbers of ARVs and/or to consider the routine arming of response officers.
3.4 Recognising that the position may be different in different parts of the country, it may be time to reconsider and if necessary reaffirm the NPCC position on routine arming.
5. RECOMMENDATION
4.1 Chief Constables are invited to consider the issues raised in this discussion paper and reaffirm the NPCC position on routine arming.
Simon Chesterman NPCC lead Armed Policing.
204 RETURN TO CONTENTS/AGENDA
OFFICIAL SENSITIVE
Appendix
S31(1)(a)(b) & S24(1)
205 RETURN TO CONTENTS/AGENDA
OFFICIAL SENSITIVE
This page has been left intentionally black
206 RETURN TO CONTENTS/AGENDA
OFFICIAL SENSITIVE
Chief Constables’ Council NPoCC Resource Update
12 July 2017/Agenda item: 6.3
S31(1)(a)(b) & S24(1)
Person Submitting: ACC Chris Shead Rank: ACC Portfolio: NPoCC Strategic Lead
207 RETURN TO CONTENTS/AGENDA
OFFICIAL SENSITIVE
Chief Constables’ Council
The Impact of Non-recent Investigations
12th & 13th July 2017/Agenda Item: 6.4
Security classification: Not protectively marked Disclosable under FOIA 2000: Yes Author: ACC Chris Shead Force/organisation: NPoCC Date created: 05th June 2017 Coordination Committee: Portfolio: s Attachments @ paragraph:
1. Introduction
1.1. During recent meetings of Chief Constables’ Council there have been several debates on the impact of non-recent investigations. 1.2. In July 2016 a request was made to provide resource for Operation ‘Stovewood’ (Rotherham sexual abuse) and in January 2017 a further resource request was made for Operation Resolve (Hillsborough). Providing resources to both has proven difficult and there are numerous other ongoing investigations. 1.3. Some inquiries, although being conducted by other agencies such as the undercover policing inquiry, are nevertheless having a significant impact on policing. These inquiries are to be welcomed as they represent an opportunity to examine the past and ensure improvement in the future. If the service is to learn from the inquiries, we need to be transparent and provide the necessary information to meet the requirements of the inquiries even if this places an additional drain on police resources locally. 1.4. To date no attempt has been made to quantify, either in terms of resource or cost, the impact of such events on policing. At the January Chiefs’ Council meeting, it was articulated that this was becoming increasingly important as thoughts turn to providing evidence for the next spending review. However it is also necessary to generate debate on the most appropriate model to meet the demands of both non-recent investigations and current offending, establish whether demand exceeds current capacity and if so establish measures to redress this imbalance. Furthermore consideration must be given to the impact at a local level of resource diversion to non-recent investigations in terms of community visibility, engagement, prevention etc. 1.5. As a result, work was tasked to NPoCC to determine if an estimate of the impact of non-recent investigations could be provided. Consultation to establish ‘terms of reference’ for the work was completed with the final Terms of reference being sent all Chiefs and placed on Chief’s net.
2. Key Findings
2.1. Of the 47 forces or agencies canvassed (Home Office forces, PSNI, MDP, BTP, City of London and S23(1)), all but two responded and provided data however the data provided by two forces was unusable. Clarity has been sought from all four forces and a response is pending. 2.2. The key findings of the consultation are as follows: The estimated annual personnel cost of non-recent investigations is circa £80.73m, consisting of police officer costs of £61.22m, support staff costs of £9.66m and agency
208 RETURN TO CONTENTS/AGENDA
OFFICIAL SENSITIVE
staff costs of £9.85m. This figure will not represent a total cost and must be considered an estimate due to the variation in costing approach taken by each force and premises, equipment, training etc. not being included. S23(1)), The total number of staff dedicated to non-recent investigations for at least 75% of their time is 1394 made up of 875 police, 253 support staff and 266 agency staff. The average costs for personnel are £68,963 per police officer, £38,181 per support staff member and £37,054 per agency staff member. However these figures can only be treated with caution due to local variation in how forces have applied costs i.e. some have broken down by rank, some averaged, some included on costs whilst others have only included salaries (also see 3.2 below). The earliest commencement date for an investigation was 2010 and the latest estimated finish date is 2020. Three forces have provided a nil return suggesting there is no impact (two being non Home Office Forces). Five forces state that they are in receipt of all, or at least some, funding from the Home Office for specific enquiries. The remainder are financed locally. Most investigations are resourced internally by secondment of police and support staff. On numerous occasions, shortages of suitably trained personnel have resulted in the use of agency staff and many forces cite resilience challenges arising from diversion of personnel from current to non-recent investigations. Specific skills that are scarce include ‘Holmes’ indexers, specialist interviewers, audio/visual specialists, analysts, disclosure officers, detectives and SIOs. The most significant individual force or agency cost understandably rests with some of the larger organisations, namely the MPS, S23(1)),, PSNI and GMP. Between them these four account for 44% of the costs associated with non-recent investigations. The overall impact however could be greater in smaller forces who find the challenge of resourcing more significant.
3. Conclusions:
3.1. The overall cost and personnel numbers can only be considered an estimate. This is because not all forces provided details and the variance of approach in collating the cost data taken by forces. The findings therefore must be treated with some caution. However, given that the findings do not represent all forces, the overall cost is likely to be an underestimate and the true breadth of the challenge is unlikely to be fully represented in this paper. 3.2. The personnel numbers are an underestimate due to some forces supplying their costs in terms of hours worked on inquiries and not numbers of personnel. 3.3. Establishing the longevity of incidents has proven difficult and indeed the very nature of some of the investigations and inquiries being serviced will mean that the cost will vary throughout the course of the investigation. Determining cost therefore based on the personnel allocated to an investigation without conducting a full activity analysis of those involved can only ever represent an estimate. 3.4. To provide an accurate assessment of the overall impact of non-recent investigations, ancillary costs (buildings, training, equipment, accommodation for those seconded away from home etc.) would need to be included. These were not asked for as part of the data request that informed this paper. Similarly, this report has made no attempt to distinguish between the financial cost and cost recovery received from the Home Office or elsewhere. 3.5. Given the nature of some of the work covered by non-recent investigations, there is also likely to be a human cost that cannot be accurately or easily represented by the attribution of a financial cost. Welfare and wellbeing support for a workforce investigating what will often be traumatic cases is not easily costed but should be considered when attempting to fully establish the impact. 3.6. However, despite the above caveats, credence is afforded by this being a self-reporting survey and therefore an assessment has been made by those who best understand the local impact of non-recent investigations.
209 RETURN TO CONTENTS/AGENDA
OFFICIAL SENSITIVE
4. Recommendations:
4.1. Chief Constables note the report.
4.2. Any further work to enhance the accuracy, consistency and detail of the work to support representations to Government should be commissioned/undertaken through the finance co- ordination committee.
Name Chris Shead Title ACC Lead Area NPoCC
210 RETURN TO CONTENTS/AGENDA
OFFICIAL SENSITIVE
211 RETURN TO CONTENTS/AGENDA
OFFICIAL SENSITIVE
Chief Constables’ Council
Title: Probationers’ use of CED (Tasers)
12 July 2017/Agenda Item: 6.5
Security classification: Official – Sensitive Disclosable under FOIA 2000: Yes Author: Richard Bennett Force/organisation: College of Policing Date created: 04/07/2017 Coordination Committee: Operations Portfolio: Armed Policing Attachments @ paragraph: N/A
1. PURPOSE
1.1. Recent CT related incidents have led to concerns over the extent to which police officers are equipped to protect the public, colleagues and themselves from a range of threats that include the use of knives and other bladed weapons. In response to the increased threat some forces are planning to increase the number of officers trained and equipped with CED. In some forces this may mean a doubling of the number of CED officers. The current guidance on the training of CED officers requires them to have successfully completed their probation before being considered for CED training. This restriction is likely to impact upon the ability of some forces to train and equip sufficient officers to mitigate their assessed level of threat.
1.2. At the CC meeting in July 2016 the College of Policing was asked to reconsider the guidance in respect of probationers. The purpose of this paper is to update Chiefs’ Council on the activity that has been undertaken to date and on plans for further work to review and revise the current guidance.
2. BACKGROUND
2.1. The current policy in respect of the issue of CED to probationers and others was discussed at Chiefs’ Council in July 2016. At the meeting the College was asked to reconsider the current standard and for this to be discussed at College Professional Committee.
2.2. The matter was discussed at the Professional Committee meeting in September 2016. Committee members supported the College’s suggested approach which was to consult forces to establish the extent to which there is an operational requirement to change CED deployment models and to work with forces to develop and evaluate an alternative approach to the assessment and training of CED officers.
2.3. The NPCC has recently conducted a survey of forces in respect of their plans for CED use by probationers. It is reported that: 28 forces responded that they do not anticipate ever having a requirement to train probationers. 5 forces responded that they would anticipate needing to train probationers within the next 5 years 2 forces responded that they would anticipate needing to train probationers within two years
212 RETURN TO CONTENTS/AGENDA
OFFICIAL SENSITIVE
The remaining forces said they were either already training probationers (for example CNC which is an armed force) or were keeping an open mind and watching what the rest of UK policing were doing as a whole.
2.4. In the meantime the College has been doing some work with the NPCC to explore the sorts of approaches that might be introduced. The work has been low key, with the main focus of College activity being preparation for the Home Secretary’s decision in respect of a replacement CED model. Most recently the College has been concentrating on providing training to staff from forces who perform roles necessary for the role out of the new CED.
2.5. The College and NPCC are currently consulting on options for assessing and training probationers with a small group which contains subject matter experts on the use of CED and on probationer training. It is considered that there would be no benefit in changing the current process and training for officers who have successfully completed their probation as these have been shown to be effective to date. There could however, be additional pre and post course requirements for officers who are being considered for CED issue during their probation. Once an officer is confirmed in rank, and if there are no documented issues with their use of CED, they could revert to standard procedures.
2.6. The precise nature of the pre and post course requirements have not been developed or evaluated but the sorts of approaches being considered include: An application process for probationers requiring evidence of effective conflict management and decision making (in line with that required for the successful completion of IPLDP). Endorsement of application evidence by a line manager. Additional inputs on de-escalation and conflict management in recognition of more limited operational experience. Debriefing after every instance of probationer CED use by a suitably trained supervisor. A requirement that probationers patrolling with CED carry and use body worn video.
2.7. Following consultation a formal proposal will be developed and passed through appropriate governance processes before being presented to future Professional Committee and Chiefs’ Council meetings for consideration of endorsement.
2.8. A proposal to issue CED to new groups of staff would constitute a change to the current system of CED approval and is likely to need to be authorised by the Home Secretary. It may also be necessary to pilot and evaluate any new proposed processes.
2.9. CED is not at item of PPE and is issued to officers to provide a protective capability to their employing force. The force determines how many CED officers are required to mitigate their assessed level of threat. The work conducted so far has been in respect of developing options to enable probationers to be trained and authorised to carry CED for those forces who will need them in order to meet their assessed need. The College has not done any work specifically on what would be required to extend the use of CED to other groups of staff or members of the Special Constabulary.
3. DECISION REQUIRED
3.1. Chiefs’ Council is asked to note progress to date and to discuss and agree the proposed approach to developing options that would enable probationers to be trained and equipped to use CED.
Name Richard Bennett Title Head of Faculty: Uniformed Policing Lead Area College of Policing
213 RETURN TO CONTENTS/AGENDA
OFFICIAL SENSITIVE
Chief Constables’ Council
Current and Projected Demand Item: 7
Discussion only
214 RETURN TO CONTENTS/AGENDA
OFFICIAL SENSITIVE
215 RETURN TO CONTENTS/AGENDA
OFFICIAL SENSITIVE
Chief Constables’ Council
Finance Coordination Committee Update
12/13 July 2017 - Agenda Item: 8
Security classification: N/A Disclosable under FOIA 2000: Author: Chief Constable Dave Thompson Force/organisation: West Midlands Police Date created: 23rd June 2017 Coordination Committee: Finance Portfolio: Attachments: Extra background reading can be found here
1. INTRODUCTION Since the last Co-ordinating Committee there are a number of areas Chief Constables need to consider. The objective of the next year has to be to make a stronger case for police funding and demonstrate tangible progress on efficiency in the service.
2. CURRENT STRATEGIC FINANCE ISSUES
a. Review of Core Grant The previous government began a review of the formula for the allocation of the police grant. This work was reaching a conclusion prior to the general election with the intention of moving to statutory consultation. The new government policy position on the review is not determined, contrary to reports the review has been stopped. The ability to implement by 18/19 fiscal year, which appeared to be a consideration, would feel hard to achieve given the necessity of statutory consultation on the proposal. The position of a minority administration would mean implementation may have added complexity. The NPCC and APCC position is the current formula is in need of revision.
b. The current heightened security effort Whilst special grant submissions will be made for the Metropolitan Police and Greater Manchester there is an extensive pressure falling upon forces to elevate policing on security. National Police Counter Terrorism Headquarters (NCTPHQ) has repeated a costing exercise carried out after the Westminster attack upon the Manchester attack to assess the true cost of the response by forces. In due course the Finance Coordinating Committee may seek to collect information in this area.
216 RETURN TO CONTENTS/AGENDA
OFFICIAL SENSITIVE
c. Efficiencies Review In February 2017 HM Treasury began an Efficiencies Review to generate £3.5 billion in savings in 2019 and 2020 with the aim of re-investment of up to £1 billion in priority areas. The review excludes NHS and core schools budgets and maintains spending commitments to defence. Policing is not protected and departments, including the Home Office had begun to draw up proposals at 3 and 6% budget reductions. The status of the review within Whitehall is unclear but its aim was intended to address unfulfilled spending which remains. d. ROCU Grant Home Office are exploring the funding of ROCUs and how to approach their current grant. e. CIPFA The Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy (CIPFA) has challenged the service on the effectiveness and consistency of its finance capabilities. A proposal to develop a financial excellent model for policing is being discussed which will be brought back to Chief Constables at a future date. f. National Commercial Board This board has been established under the chair of Lynda McMullan MPS Director of Commercial and Finance with APCC, Home Office and the College of Policing in order to address how policing delivers the Home Office target of the police saving £350m savings required on back office and infrastructure services. This has increased governance over a series of work streams which at this stage are:
Collaborative Procurement (CLEP): To target goods and services savings. Shared Services and estate rationalisation: To target savings through shared delivery for support, administration and estates. Enabling data: To create more data driven insight on spending decisions. Commercial Models: To target income generation through exploitation of IP, merchandised goods, income from police property. This work stream is significant and will attract more attention in the next year. At this stage the group has secure transformation money to request CIPFA to carry out benchmarking activity on a series of transactional services. Thirty three forces have provided data which is enabling a more detailed opportunity to examine options for shared service provision. The current approach of the service on development of shared services is not nationally strategic and work is needed to develop a case for action. At this stage we believe £63 million of savings has been delivered. The service’s progress in this area is keenly observed by HM Treasury. g. Pensions The Pension regulator has recently raised concerns with the national pension lead concerning the administration of local schemes. Work is being undertaken to address these areas. This will be difficult to achieve with the current settlement and work is being done to scope options for change.
217 RETURN TO CONTENTS/AGENDA
OFFICIAL SENSITIVE
3. SPENDING REVIEW This remains the most significant fiscal issue facing the service.
Following an election it is normal for government to reset their spending commitments for the lifetime of the next parliament. This is normally done through a spending review leading to a comprehensive settlement. At this stage it is unclear if this will be the case. There are a number of reasons for this:
Brexit: creates uncertainty on spending requirements after the UK leaves the European Union. Continuity of government. Minority government. Capacity within government. Whilst the vehicle for review is unclear it is certain the Chancellor will use the autumn budget to reshape the government finances. Policing needs to prepare for this. This will require a high degree of coordination between Chief Constables, Police and Crime Commissioners, National Counter Terrorism Policing and S23(1)), to ensure a coherent position on the policing system is set out.
We have agreed that Chief Constables and Police and Crime Commissioners should submit a joint submission that is coordinated with NCPTHQ and S23(1)), . This submission should be delivered in conjunction with the Home Office and Ministers. However recognising the considerable pressures on the Home Office with BREXIT demands, policing needs to assert its voice.
On 9th June the Coordinating Committee Chair and the APCC lead for finance wrote to Chief Constables and Police and Crime Commissioners seeking £160k financial support to enable an effective submission into any review. Costs were apportioned on net budget.
At this stage the intention is to put forward an outline submission to Home Office Ministers before the summer recess and a more in-depth submission as the time line becomes available.
West Midlands Police has engaged the support at risk subject to agreement of Chief Constables, and where schemes of governance require this Police and Crime Commissioners. A client side manager is also to be appointed.
It is worthy of note that the Police and Crime Commissioners Treasurers have considerable capability to assist with this submission.
It is intended the work of the group will be steered by a Gold and Silver group. The membership from the NPCC for the Gold group is intended to be:
Chief Constable Dave Thompson (Finance CC Chair) and Co-Chair of the group. Chief Constable Mark Polin. Chief Constable Olivia Pinkney. Chief Finance Officer Avon and Somerset Police Julian Kern.
218 RETURN TO CONTENTS/AGENDA
OFFICIAL SENSITIVE
The tactical group will comprise:
Director of Commercial and Finance MPs Lynda McMullen. Assistant Chief Officer Nigel Brook West Yorkshire Police. Director of Resources Ian Cosh Lancashire Constabulary. Director of Finance and Business Services Terry Neaves Derbyshire Constabulary. At this stage the submission is likely to address a number of areas:
What has changed since the 2015 settlement for policing? The limitations of the current settlement and future risks. How the UK police spend compares internationally. The economic and social value of the policing pound. Efficiency achievements and proposals as a self-reforming service including income generation. Specific investment proposals for government. On the 23rd June NPCC set out the overall tone of its approach in the media. There are a number of considerations Chief Constables should note at this time.
a. The role of Coordinating Committees The Finance Coordination Committee cannot complete this work alone. There will be a necessity to task work to Coordinating Committees. At this stage Operations have been asked to carry out further work to model the 2011 disorders. Local Policing has been asked to consider how a neighbourhood policing investment model can be developed. Performance Management will be asked to lead some work on Activity Analysis.
Owing to the timelines work will be tasked on a very tight timeline and it is intended to schedule bi-weekly Coordinating Committee Chairs meetings to track this work.
b. Efficiency The service is constantly challenged on its efficiency narrative. In part this is due to the fact HMIC are one of the few Inspectorates to inspect public bodies on efficiency and the fact policing is treated as one entity in the public narrative but is many organisations. There will be a need to demonstrate efficiency achievements and make commitments for the future.
The work of the Police Transformation Board is critical in setting out a change direction for policing.
c. Baseline The baseline of police spending will be an important part of the work. Early attention will need to be paid to “cliff edge” resourcing.
d. Strategic Investment Whilst policing will seek overall real terms protection there will be a need to seek specific investment with clear propositions and choices for government. At this early stage investment in cyber, counter terrorism, neighbourhood policing and armed policing are expected areas.
219 RETURN TO CONTENTS/AGENDA
OFFICIAL SENSITIVE
The recent submissions made for the armed uplift are a model for this work as they afforded government clear costs and choices.
e. Chief Constables Council It is intended to agree the submission at a planned or extraordinary Chief Constable’s Council. In order to ensure continual visibility conference calls will be scheduled during the work with all Chief Constables.
4. Recommendations Chief Constables are requested.
A. To note the report. B. Agree financial request of £160k apportioned on net budget requested on the 9th June. C. Endorse the Gold and Silver Group Membership. D. Endorse the current focus of the submission. E. Endorse the decision to convene Coordination Committee Chairs and Chief Constables telecons. F. Agree a delegation to the Finance Committee Chair to progress this work as detailed in this report.
Dave Thompson QPM Chief Constable Finance Coordination Committee.
220 RETURN TO CONTENTS/AGENDA
OFFICIAL SENSITIVE
This page has been left intentionally black
221 RETURN TO CONTENTS/AGENDA
OFFICIAL SENSITIVE
Chief Constables’ Council
Data Protection Reform General Data Protection Regulation & the Directive
12th / 13th July 2017 Agenda Item: 9
Security classification: Official Disclosable under FOIA 2000: YES Author: Abby Turner [For and on behalf of Ian Readhead, NPCC Director of Information] Force/organisation: Derbyshire Constabulary Date created: 23 June 2017 Coordination Committee: Information Management and Operational Requirements (IMORCC) Portfolio: Data Protection, Freedom of Information and Records Management Attachments: 1. GDPR and Directive Implementation Timetable. 2. Police Service Implementation Plan.
1. PURPOSE
1.1. The purpose of this paper is to provide a briefing on forthcoming Data Protection Reform arising from the General Data Protection Regulation 2016/679 (GDPR) and the Police & Criminal Justice Authorities Directive 2016/680 (the Directive). This will require an altered Data Protection regime to be in place across the UK in May of next year.
2. SUMMARY
2.1. The implementation of the GDPR and the Directive represents the biggest change in data protection law for a generation. It will require organisations to make changes and will need board level support. 2.2. Whatever form Brexit may take the UK will be required to adopt similar standards to the Directive and Regulation to be seen as adequate in the eyes of remaining Member States. If any country wishes to share data with EU Member States, or for it to handle EU citizens’ data, they will need to be assessed as providing an adequate level of data protection. This will be a major consideration in the UK’s negotiations going forward. 2.3. The reform brings a more 21st century approach to the processing of personal data. It follows a trend that comes from other parts of the world for a demand that organisations understand the broader responsibility and impact of their work on society and mitigate the risks that they create for others in exchange for using their personal data. 2.4. It provides a framework which demands a culture of privacy that pervades the whole organisation. 2.5. There are specific new obligations for organisations including: reporting data security breaches transferring data across borders broader and deeper accountability for how organisations process data 2.6. The new legislation creates more rights for individuals including rights: to be informed about how their data is being used for data portability for how they give consent 227 RETURN TO CONTENTS/AGENDA
OFFICIAL SENSITIVE
to request data be deleted or removed (where there is no compelling reason for continued processing) 2.7. If organisations cannot demonstrate that good data protection is the cornerstone of business policy and practice, they will be exposed to enforcement action that can damage public reputation and finances. There are larger fines for getting data protection wrong, which of themselves attract headlines and damaging publicity. 2.8. There are business benefits for implementing an effective compliance regime, which include: supporting business and operational priorities with good quality data effectively addressing pressing public policy needs improved public confidence (privacy and dignity of individuals) accepting broad accountability for data protection encourages an upfront engagement in privacy fundamentals across the business 2.9. To respond to the need for change, organisations should ensure that they have suitably qualified individuals responsible for data protection, and that they are following the guidance and advice published by the Information Commissioner. Those individuals need to act independently, be adequately resourced and report at board level. 2.10. The police service is well placed to meet the challenge as many of the changes build on the good practice which forces have already adopted and where compliance with the existing regulatory regime is strong, the additional obligations will be easier to achieve and represent a lower risk. However, there is significant work to be done to fully understand the implications for police business and there will need to be organisational and cultural change to address the obligations particularly around; ICT Partnership working Human Resources Procurement 2.11. The implementation work which forces will need to undertake will require skilled staff and may demand additional resources depending on existing force compliance regimes.
3. THE LAW
3.1. The GDPR is a regulation by which the European Parliament, the European Council and the European Commission intend to strengthen and unify data protection for individuals within the European Union (EU). 3.2. The GDPR was adopted on 27 April 2016 and comes into force on 25th May 2018. As it is a Regulation it does not require enactment through legislation. 3.3. The GDPR will replace a previous EU Directive from 1995 which was enacted in the UK through the Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA). 3.4. The GDPR will not apply to personal information processed for national security or law enforcement activities. However, it will apply to the support activities undertaken by the force e.g. management of Finance and HR, and to activities conducted by many of our non-police partners. 3.5. The Directive will apply to processing of personal information for operational policing activities/purposes. As a Directive it can only take effect through legislation. 3.6. The UK will need to have enacted the Directive’s requirements by 5th May 2018 in order to continue to share information with our European Policing partners.
Key Changes
3.7. Under the GDPR the expectation is that most of the aspects of Data Protection with which we are familiar will be maintained and many will be strengthened requiring changes in the way we do some of our business. Those likely to be of most interest are: duty to report data breaches and increased security requirements – significant breaches must be reported to the regulator within 72 hours increased penalties - breaches incur fines ranging from 10 million Euros or 2% of annual global turnover, up to 20 million Euros or 4% of annual global turnover
228 RETURN TO CONTENTS/AGENDA
OFFICIAL SENSITIVE
Privacy by Design - privacy safe guards must by law be mainstreamed into new processing operations or systems which could impact negatively in individuals’’ rights Subject Access – the ability to charge a standard fee will be removed, however reasonable costs can be charged for requests which are manifestly unfound or repetitious or the request refused. The statutory forty day response period is being reduced to one month or sooner if possible however can be extended if the request is particularly complex Accountability – Data Controllers must be able to demonstrate compliance, including the lawfulness of processing personal data Data Processing– Data Processors will have increased obligations and liabilities Data Portability - individuals will have the right to have the ability to transfer data between service providers in a readily accessible form Right to erasure or ‘right to be forgotten’ Fairness and consent- increased obligations for transparency Pseudonymisation –new obligations and limitations on use of de-personalised data Data Protection Officer – professionalises role and sets mandatory requirements for public authorities 3.8. The changes will require revision of policy and procedure, training, and require improvements in records management and IT development activities. 3.9. In addition to the above, the main impacts for policing from the Directive are: Competent Authorities – covers the processing of personal data for law enforcement purposes by competent authorities such as police forces and the NCA. Will also cover processing by outsourced companies acting on behalf of law enforcement. Data Subject Rights – explicit rights to an effective judicial remedy against a Data Controller or Processor, rights to compensation and the right to lodge a complaint with the Information Commissioner. Categorisation of Data Subjects – requirement to distinguish between the status of individuals, eg, suspect, witness, accused. Facts to be distinguished from personal assessment – Where possible, facts should be distinguished from opinion or assessment. Data Quality – Inaccurate, incomplete or out of date personal data should not be transmitted/shared unless the receiving body is provided with further information to assess the accuracy, completeness or reliability of the personal data. Records review and deletion Controls over international transfers – subject to derogations, international transfers should be necessary for law enforcement purposes with specified safeguards.
4. THE GOVERNMENT POSITION
4.1. The UK Government has committed to implementing data protection reform in the UK by the deadline of 25 May 2018. 4.2. At the State Opening of Parliament, Data Protection featured in the Queen’s speech for the new parliamentary session and it is now expected that these changes will be brought into effect through primary legislation with a new UK Data Protection Act due to receive royal assent on 6 March 2018 and come into force from 25 May 2018. 4.3. Although there are still many uncertainties at present in terms of how the UK will transpose the Directive and the Derogations from the GDPR, this is a welcome development that will not only make it easier for practitioners to understand and use, and will help the UK prove its adequacy in processing data in a post Brexit environment.
5. THE REGULATOR’S POSITION
5.1. The Information Commissioner has created a specific section on her website devoted to Data Protection Reform. Within those pages it has published an Overview of the GDPR and Preparing for the GDPR: 12 steps to take now. Unfortunately the Information Commissioner’s office is yet to produce anything on the Directive or how the relationship between the GDPR and Directive is likely to play out. 229 RETURN TO CONTENTS/AGENDA
OFFICIAL SENSITIVE
5.2. The Information Commissioner is expected to write to Chief Constables to ensure that forces understand the severity and impact of not being compliant when the change of law comes into effect.
6. THE NPCC POSITION
6.1 This work is lead under the NPCC Portfolio for Data Protection, Freedom of Information and Records Management, and work to date initiated by Ian Readhead at ACRO prior to his retirement in July.
6.2 A data protection reform working group has been established to lead on data protection change for the police service and ensure a consistent approach is adopted. This Group is comprised of individuals with a wealth of data protection expertise including; Heads of Information Management from Bedfordshire, Cambridgeshire and Hertfordshire; Derbyshire; Essex; Lancashire; Norfolk and Suffolk; North Wales and the Metropolitan Police Service; Representatives from the College of Policing; NPCC National Police Freedom of Information and Data Protection Unit; DCMS and the Home Office. A programme of activity is underway and police specific guidance and training products will be produced as interpretation of the legislation is properly understood.
6.3 The Working Group will: assess and monitor the progress of the GDPR and the Directive and emerging guidance in a policing context support chief officers to achieve compliance with new legal requirements engage with government officials, the Information Commissioner and other relevant bodies to seek early interpretation and guidance on the implications for the police service and influence change where appropriate assist Heads of Information Management and data protection practitioners to manage and implement change programmes across the service through provision of advice and guidance review and update Authorised Professional Practice for Data Protection review national data protection training and advise on content co-ordinate compliance activity across the service in order to target effort effectively strive to achieve a compliance regime which supports the operational needs of the business promote and disseminate good practice
6.4 The Group will keep the NPCC Information Management and Operational Requirements Coordinating Committee (IMORCC) and other relevant police groups informed and up to date on its progress as required via the NPCC DP, FOI and RM lead as required.
6.5 The Group has produced an outline timetable and action plan based on the Information Commissioner’s “12 steps” plan (see Appendices A and B). A detailed self-assessment toolkit and implementation plan is underway to help forces understand the requirements. This will serve as a living document managing concerns, issues and actions as they arise and as further knowledge and understanding of the new domestic law is gained. An environmental scanning update is available for information and will be circulated to all forces in due course.
6.6 Additionally, a list of concerns and considerations for the legislators has been sent from the Group to the Home Office and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) with a view to influencing the drafting of the new Bill and seeking clarity on matters affecting the Police Service. There are also some specific actions for forces such as the need for an information asset and data flow audit for which the group is seeking guidance from the Home Office.
6.7 The Group will work closely with those in the DCMS, the Home Office and the Information Commissioner to ensure that we are sighted on government plans for implementation of the EU requirements into domestic law and take any opportunities to influence change affecting the police service. The NPCC Data Protection Officer, Mark Fraser has been seconded to the DCMS to lead in the transposition of the Directive into UK law and is therefore well placed to ensure the interests of the Police Service are fully represented and that good communication is maintained as decisions are made.
230 RETURN TO CONTENTS/AGENDA
OFFICIAL SENSITIVE
6.8 Whilst there is a need to focus on ensuring compliance with the legal framework and the organisational risks that brings, it should be recognised that this compliance regime also supports the management of key operational risks in ensuring that police data is fit for purpose and delivers against operational police priorities.
6.9 This work is also aligned with that being undertaken to progress MoPI in the police service and also that of the Information Assurance Portfolio. Whilst MoPI is guidance and the information assurances standards stem from government, the primary legislation underpinning all key principles is the Data Protection Act. There is therefore, a close relationship between the three areas of business and a need for clear communication.
7. NEXT STEPS & RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FORCES
7.1 Forces are encouraged to complete a self-assessment, gap analysis and preparation activity programme following the guidance which is now being produced. The ICO ’12 steps to take now’ guidance in relation to the Regulation is already available on the ICO website https://ico.org.uk/for- organisations/data-protection-reform/. Bespoke NPCC guidance on both Regulation and the Directive will follow as the Implementation Plan (Appendix B) is developed and populated over the coming weeks.
7.2 Chief Officers are invited to note the contents of this report, with recommendation to include Data Protection Reform as a standing agenda item at their relevant force governance board, and afford the necessary support to their Data Protection Officers to engage with this Working Group and carry forward a programme of activity for local compliance.
Ian Dyson Commissioner, City of London Police Lead for the Information Management and Operational Requirements Coordination Committee (IMORCC)
231 RETURN TO CONTENTS/AGENDA
OFFICIAL SENSITIVE
This page has been left intentionally black
232 RETURN TO CONTENTS/AGENDA
OFFICIAL SENSITIVE
Appendix A: GDPR and Directive Implementation Timetable. Initial Version: 23/06/2017
May-17 Jun-17 Jul-17 Aug-17 Se p-17 Oct-17 Nov-17
29 5 12 19 26 3 10 17 24 31 7 14 21 28 4 11 18 25 2 9 16 23 30 6 13 20 27
16 June - GDPR & Directive Portfolio Meeting 16 July - GDPR & Directive Portfolio Meeting 18 Aug - GDPR & Directive Portfolio Meeting Thu 21 Sept -GDPR & Directive Portfolio Meeting
20 Jun - IMORCC Jul - Mid Aug GDPR Public Consultation clausesof Bill 11 Sept - 1st Reading white paper
June - Complete and send 22 June - Complete and send report report to IMORCC to CC's council
12 June - Complete and send list of Produce & Circulate temp/draft board briefing docfor DPLeads Review APPand add caveats where neccessary considerations for leg drafters
Circulate IMPPlan to HOIMSForce DPO leads
7 June - PDEUpdate
De c-17 Ja n-18 Fe b-17 Ma r-17 Apr-17 Ma y-17
4 11 18 25 1 8 15 22 29 5 12 19 26 5 12 19 26 2 9 16 23 30 7 14 21 28
6 Mar - Royal Assent
Review and update APP
6 May - Implementation
233 RETURN TO CONTENTS/AGENDA
OFFICIAL SENSITIVE
Appendix B: Police Service Implementation Plan. Initial Version: 23/06/2017
Ref Compliance Requirement Source Self-Assessment Details of Action Suggested Action Owner Position Statement RAG required Approach Status Part 1 GDPR
1.1 Step 1 - Awareness
1.1.1 Consider how to raise ICO Whilst Forces already Local Forces may Local Forces awareness that decision have an established wish to consider how makers and key people are data protection to raise awareness aware that the law is regime there is a throughout the changing. need to determine organisation forthcoming 1.1.2 NPCC guidance to be made NPCC legislative changes Local Forces may DP Reform available wish to consider Portfolio national guidance Group (Abby when available Turner)
1.2 Step 2 - Information you Hold
1.2.1 Document what personal data ICO The Police Service Local Forces may Local Forces is held and consider and an has a good wish to consider information audit across the information reviewing and organisation management regime updating the in place which information asset includes a register of register information assets 1.2.2 Local Forces may Local Forces wish to consider conducting information audits
234 RETURN TO CONTENTS/AGENDA
OFFICIAL SENSITIVE
Ref Compliance Requirement Source Self-Assessment Details of Action Suggested Action Owner Position Statement RAG required Approach Status Local Forces may Local Forces wish to consider understanding information flows across the organisation NPCC to produce DP Reform good practice Portfolio mapping tool for Group to seek data flows advice from Home Office regarding level of granularity 1.2.3 Complete map of DP Reform data flows for major Portfolio national systems Group
1.3 Step 3 - Communicating Privacy Information
1.3.1 Consider current privacy ICO Forces have a Local Forces may notices and put a plan in place reasonable regime in wish to consider for making any necessary place and follow the gaining an changes ICO Privacy Notices understanding of Code of Practice what privacy notices are in place
235 RETURN TO CONTENTS/AGENDA
OFFICIAL SENSITIVE
Ref Compliance Requirement Source Self-Assessment Details of Action Suggested Action Owner Position Statement RAG required Approach Status Local Forces may Local Forces wish to consider reviewing and revising privacy notices against new standard
1.3.2 Local Forces may Local Forces wish to consider their fair processing concerning the collection of data for human resources and provide more explicit details of use for staff and applicants etc 1.3.3 Portfolio Group to DP Reform make available new Portfolio standard (Abby Turner)
1.4 Step 4 - Individuals' Rights
1.4.1 Consider current procedures ICO Forces have Local Forces may Local Forces to ensure they cover all the established processes wish to consider rights individuals have in place for reviewing and including how personal data managing individual updating processes may be deleted, provided rights and procedures to electronically and in a ensure that all rights commonly used format individuals have are covered
236 RETURN TO CONTENTS/AGENDA
OFFICIAL SENSITIVE
Ref Compliance Requirement Source Self-Assessment Details of Action Suggested Action Owner Position Statement RAG required Approach Status 1.4.2 Local Forces to Local Forces consider reviewing what processes are in place which allow for the deletion of data as necessary 1.4.2 Local Forces to Local Forces consider reviewing what processes allow for data portability, and in a commonly used format
1.5 Step 5 - Subject Access Requests
1.5.1 Consider updating ICO Forces have an Local Forces may Local Forces procedures and plan how to established subject wish to consider any handle requests within the access regime and a changes required to new timescales and provide National Subject manage reduced any additional information Access Group timescales for response and what efficiencies can be made, or if they can evidence business requirements for resource growth
237 RETURN TO CONTENTS/AGENDA
OFFICIAL SENSITIVE
Ref Compliance Requirement Source Self-Assessment Details of Action Suggested Action Owner Position Statement RAG required Approach Status 1.5.2 Local Forces to Local Forces consider what financial dependency they have on receipt of subject access fee
1.5.3 Local Forces may Local Forces wish to understand new standards which include: a) Manifestly unfounded or excessive requests can be refused or charged for b) The requirement to provide additional information such as data retention periods
1.5.4 Forces to consider reviewing and updating policy and procedure to reflect new standard
238 RETURN TO CONTENTS/AGENDA
OFFICIAL SENSITIVE
Ref Compliance Requirement Source Self-Assessment Details of Action Suggested Action Owner Position Statement RAG required Approach Status 1.5.5 National Subject Subject Access Access Group to issue Portfolio updated guidance on (Hayley various matters to Youngs) include the refusal of or charging for manifestly unfounded or excessive requests, to ensure a consistent application across the Police Service
1.6 Step 6 - Legal Basis for Processing Personal Data
1.6.1 Review various types of data ICO Local Forces may Local Forces processing and identify legal wish to consider the basis for processing it and review and update document the information asset register to ensure legal basis is properly documented
1.6.2 Local Forces may Local Forces wish to identify and consider where consent is relied upon for processing, and document
239 RETURN TO CONTENTS/AGENDA
OFFICIAL SENSITIVE
Ref Compliance Requirement Source Self-Assessment Details of Action Suggested Action Owner Position Statement RAG required Approach Status 1.6.3 Local Forces may Local Forces wish to consider the review and update of privacy notices
1.6.4 Local Forces may Local Forces wish to consider for HR purposes to identify where processing is for legitimate interests, and ensure that there are compelling grounds which can be evidenced to override any objection if raised
1.6.5 National Portfolio APP Portfolio Group to review and (Andy Begent) revise national privacy notice
240 RETURN TO CONTENTS/AGENDA
OFFICIAL SENSITIVE
Ref Compliance Requirement Source Self-Assessment Details of Action Suggested Action Owner Position Statement RAG required Approach Status 1.7 Step 7 - Consent
1.7.1 Review procedure for seeking, ICO The requirement for Local Forces may Local Forces obtaining and recording consent for wish to consider consent to ensure that there processing is often where consent is is an effective audit trail exempt as this falls relied upon for within the law processing and how enforcement this is managed to provision. The impact ensure that this has on forces will standards of new be assessed legislation are met, nationally. The Police specifically that a Service is good at process is in place to ensuring consent is manage the sought and recorded withdrawal of where necessary, consent however, there is 1.7.2 probably more work Seek clarity on the DP Reform to be done nationally difference between Portfolio on the management consent and explicit (Abby Turner) of audit trails and the consent as withdrawal of referenced in GDPR consent
241 RETURN TO CONTENTS/AGENDA
OFFICIAL SENSITIVE
Ref Compliance Requirement Source Self-Assessment Details of Action Suggested Action Owner Position Statement RAG required Approach Status 1.8 Step 8 - Children
1.8.1 Consider putting systems in ICO The verification of Local Forces to Local Forces place to verify individuals' individuals' ages and consider a review of ages and gain parental consent is where and in what parental/guardian consent already a common circumstances they feature within collect data from policing so this children to ensure should not be compliance with problematic for standards forces. The extent of 1.8.2 Privacy Notices to be written ICO special protection Local Forces to Local Forces in language children measures the GDPR consider reviewing understand creates for children's privacy notices to personal data is not ensure that they are known but it is written in a language believed that this is that children will more prominent for understand commercial internet service providers and those hosting social networking sites, as opposed to professional bodies working within safeguarding and law enforcement that will be likely to be exempt from many conditions.
1.9 Step 9 - Data Breaches
242 RETURN TO CONTENTS/AGENDA
OFFICIAL SENSITIVE
Ref Compliance Requirement Source Self-Assessment Details of Action Suggested Action Owner Position Statement RAG required Approach Status 1.9.1 Ensure right procedures are in ICO Forces have Local Forces to Local Forces place for the investigation, procedures in place consider review of detection and reporting of for handling data internal security personal data breaches breaches and management process reporting when to ensure that it can appropriate to the meet new timescales ICO
1.9.2 National Portfolio National Group to seek clarity DP/FOI/RM and issue guidance Portfolio on expected Group standards for the Police reporting breaches to ICO
1.9.3 Local Forces may Local Forces wish to consider procedures to notify individuals of breaches, where required
1.9.4 Local Forces may Local Forces wish to ensure that arrangements are in place for Force DPO and ISO to work in conjunction to embed new standards
243 RETURN TO CONTENTS/AGENDA
OFFICIAL SENSITIVE
Ref Compliance Requirement Source Self-Assessment Details of Action Suggested Action Owner Position Statement RAG required Approach Status 1.9.5 Local Forces may Local Forces wish to ensure compliance with ICO data breach standards and guidance
1.9.6 Local Forces may Local Forces wish to ensure that adequate data protection risk and impact assessments are undertaken within timescales following ICO timescales
1.10 Step 10 - Data Protection by Design and Data Protection Impact Assessments
1.10.1 Implement Privacy Impact ICO Local Forces may Local Forces Assessment guidance wish to identify and produced by ICO assess the circumstances in which it is necessary to conduct a PIA
1.10.2 Local Forces may Local Forces wish to consider arrangements to clearly identify who will conduct PIA
244 RETURN TO CONTENTS/AGENDA
OFFICIAL SENSITIVE
Ref Compliance Requirement Source Self-Assessment Details of Action Suggested Action Owner Position Statement RAG required Approach Status 1.10.3 Local Forces may Local Forces wish to ensure DPO is properly consulted with to enable the provision of their service to the organisation in producing PIAs compliant with ICO Code of Practice
1.10.4 Local Forces may Local Forces wish to ensure that the DPO is identified through PIA process to determine assessable processing (or its equivalent) and to ensure that the ICO is consulted as required
245 RETURN TO CONTENTS/AGENDA
OFFICIAL SENSITIVE
Ref Compliance Requirement Source Self-Assessment Details of Action Suggested Action Owner Position Statement RAG required Approach Status 1.10.5 Privacy by Design and Data ICO Local Forces may Local Forces Minimisation wish to ensure that DPO's are engaged at a sufficiently early stage in any new project or initiative in order to provide advice on standards for compliance with Privacy by Design, Data Minimisation and PIA's
1.10.6 National Portfolio to APP Portfolio review and update (Andy Begent) APP Privacy Impact Assessment
1.10.7 National Portfolio to APP Portfolio review and update (Andy Begent) APP Privacy by Design 1.10.8 National Portfolio APP Portfolio Review and update (Andy Begent) APP Data Minimisation
246 RETURN TO CONTENTS/AGENDA
OFFICIAL SENSITIVE
Ref Compliance Requirement Source Self-Assessment Details of Action Suggested Action Owner Position Statement RAG required Approach Status Need to seek Home DP Reform Office advice to Portfolio understand the (Abby Turner) requirements for processing and transitional provisions for processing post May 16 1.10.9 Report to NPCC leads DP Reform on the requirements Portfolio for processing (Abby Turner)
1.11 Step 11 - Data Protection Officers
Designation of Data ICO Local Forces may Local Forces Protection Officer wish to ensure that they have a suitably qualified and experienced individual to lead on data protection who has the knowledge, support and authority
247 RETURN TO CONTENTS/AGENDA
OFFICIAL SENSITIVE
Ref Compliance Requirement Source Self-Assessment Details of Action Suggested Action Owner Position Statement RAG required Approach Status 1.11 Step 12 - International
1.11.1 Consider if the organisation ICO The majority of National Portfolio to National operates internationally and international assess what DP/FOI/RM determine which data operations are international data Portfolio protection supervisory applies undertaken transfers take place Group nationally and regionally or via National Crime National Portfolio National Agency. Group to consider DP/FOI/RM issuing guidance Portfolio once UK position is Group clear
Part 2 Directive
2.1 General 2.1.1 Interpretation Need to seek to Comments due Completed achieve clarity on to be sent to terminology in the Home Office LED and and DCMS interpretation in the officials by new law plus Monday 18 June consideration of 2017 improvement of existing exemptions - send list of police concerns and queries for the consideration of legislators
248 RETURN TO CONTENTS/AGENDA
OFFICIAL SENSITIVE
Ref Compliance Requirement Source Self-Assessment Details of Action Suggested Action Owner Position Statement RAG required Approach Status 2.1.2 Data Processing See clarity around IT DP Reform storage requirements Portfolio from Home Office (Abby Turner)
2.2 Biometrics 2.2.1 Biometrics National Portfolio to DP Reform seek clarity and Portfolio guidance on the (Abby Turner) processing of photographs for policing purpose
2.3 Suspect, Witnesses and Third Parties 2.3.1 Requirement for clear National Portfolio to DP Reform distinction between suspects, seek clarity and Portfolio witnesses and third parties guidance (Abby Turner)
249 RETURN TO CONTENTS/AGENDA
OFFICIAL SENSITIVE
Ref Compliance Requirement Source Self-Assessment Details of Action Suggested Action Owner Position Statement RAG required Approach Status 2.4 Partnership Working 2.4.1 Partnership working Local Forces may Local Forces wish to consider where police data is shared with partner agencies and non-law enforcement purposes, and review relevant information sharing agreements
2.3.2 National Portfolio to DP Reform seek clear Portfolio interpretation about (Abby Turner) patnership working and sharing data beyond competent authorities
250 RETURN TO CONTENTS/AGENDA
OFFICIAL SENSITIVE
Chief Constables’ Council Senior PNAC and the Review of Strategic Command Course
13 July 2017 /Agenda item: 10
Security classification: Official Disclosable under FOIA 2000: Yes Author: Helen Ball, College of Policing Force/organisation: College of Policing Date created: June 2017 Coordination Committee: Workforce
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1. This paper is submitted to update Chief Constables’ Council on the Review of the Senior Police National Assessment Centre (Senior PNAC), the Senior Police Staff Assessment Process (from here forward included in ‘Senior PNAC’) and the Strategic Command Course (SCC). Urgent changes to both Senior PNAC and the SCC, discussed at the last meeting, have been implemented and the Review is now moving to the second phase in which longer-term and more fundamental changes will be considered.
1.2. Chief Constables’ Council is asked to proactively promote the attendance of a larger than usual number of candidates for Senior PNAC. It is also asked to contribute to the development of the 2018 / 2019 SCC with ideas on content and approaches, which will be discussed during the meeting itself.
2.0 BACKGROUND
2.1. CCC received a paper at its last meeting which summarised the Review of Senior PNAC and the SCC. Appendix 1 provides the Review’s scope, aims and immediate actions. Among a range of reasons for the Review were the concerns that too few UK police officers are coming through to Senior PNAC to meet the forthcoming vacancies, that the numbers of BME candidates are so low that it may prove impossible even to maintain current numbers of BME chief officers and, finally, that the numbers of police staff both applying for and succeeding at PNAC are extremely low.
2.2. S23(1) S40(2)
2.3. This outcome would mean that low levels of competition for Chief Officer vacancies continue, the number of Chief Officers from BME backgrounds continues to fall, and we do not develop a sensible proportion of our senior police staff through the opportunity provided by the SCC. It is worth noting that about 90 per cent of the 2016 SCC police officer cohort and about 70 per cent of the 2017 cohort have taken up Chief Officer roles already. Most of the remainder are in temporarily promoted roles. It is also clear that there are a significant number of Chief Superintendents who 251 RETURN TO CONTENTS/AGENDA
OFFICIAL SENSITIVE have not completed the SCC who are temporarily promoted in Chief Officer roles.
3. PHASE 1 - IMMEDIATE ACTIONS
3.1. Because of this pressing shortfall, several immediate actions were identified for Phase 1 of the Review. These have been progressed and communicated.
3.2. Senior PNAC changes are as follows:
The application form has been extensively revised, particularly in order to allow Chief Constables / equivalents to endorse applications from those who may need further development before appointment to a Chief Officer or equivalent role. Chief Constables and Commissioners who did not support superintendents for Senior PNAC are reviewing this position. Briefings, Career Development Workshops and a Development Centre for potential Senior PNAC candidates have been organised. The latter two are for officers and staff from under- represented groups in policing. At time of writing, one Career Development Workshop has been held. Of the 60 officers and staff members who attended 97 per cent reported that they are more likely to apply for the SCC via Senior PNAC after the workshop. The physical events will be supplemented by webinars. It has been established that Senior PNAC can be delivered twice a year. The resourcing implications are being reviewed, with a view to establishing this as routine practice. There has been a recruitment drive for more assessors, both Service and independent. In particular, increasing the number of assessors from under-represented groups will contribute to the joint Service and College efforts to improve the progression of under- represented officers and staff by increasing confidence that the assessment process is a fair and achievable process.
3.3. If these changes do not yield a substantial increase in candidates in October 2017, the Review will urgently consider and consult on other means of increasing the pool.
3.4. Other changes in response to the Immediate Actions are as follows:
The modular option for the SCC is being developed to create an attractive option for completing the SCC over 15 months. Dates have now been provisionally set for 2018 (Module 1: 15th January to 9th February; Module 2: 26th February to 23rd March). Accreditation for the SCC at Level 8 is being researched. The Review team is keen to achieve this for the next SCC in January 2018.
252 RETURN TO CONTENTS/AGENDA
OFFICIAL SENSITIVE
The impact of the PEQF is being clarified. A date will be agreed by when police officers and police staff applying to Senior PNAC will be required to be qualified to Level 7, but this date will not be before 2022. An Equality Impact Assessment has been completed and is at the heart of the review team’s method of operating.
4. CHIEF OFFICER AND EQUIVALENT ‘CAREERS DEVELOPMENT SERVICE’
4.1. The Review has been a key recommendation of the response to the Chief Officer survey conducted by the College in 2016. A further action in response to the survey was that the College of Policing working with the NPCC should develop a proposal for a “hub that allows the college, NPCC, PCCs and Home Office to develop and support selection of senior leadership”. This action is led by Giselle Lockett, Faculty Lead - Professional Development and Integrity, but the Review Team are supporting her work by developing a range of options for the hub. Early ideas range from a full-scale careers development service with oversight of progression and CPD to a ‘virtual’ jobs matching service.
5. PHASE 2
5.1. Having launched the SCC application process and progressed the immediate actions, the Review is now moving into Phase 2. This phase will consider the full scope and aims of the Review (see Appendix 1), as well as completing the immediate actions.
5.2. The concept of direct entry at ACC / Commander level has arisen in recent discussions about direct entry Chief Constables. The legal position and potential requirements for training and experience will be explored by the Review Team during Phase 2.
6. CONSULTATION
6.1. The review reports to the Senior PNAC and SCC Professional Reference Group and is being carried out in close consultation with the NPCC Workforce Coordination Committee, the Professional Development and Integrity Professional Community, the Superintendents’ Association, the Chief Police Officers’ Staff Association (CPOSA) and the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners (APCC). Update papers are also received by the College Board of Directors and the Workforce Transformation Oversight Group.
7. RECOMMENDATIONS
7.1. Chief Constables’ Council is asked to proactively promote the attendance of a larger than usual number of candidates for Senior PNAC. It is also asked to contribute to the development of the 2018 / 2019 SCC with ideas on content and approaches, which will be discussed during the meeting itself.
253 RETURN TO CONTENTS/AGENDA
OFFICIAL SENSITIVE
Appendix 1 Scope, aims and immediate actions of the Review of Senior PNAC and the SCC
Chief Constables’ Council agreed the following scope for the Review: Progression to Senior PNAC The content, structure, frequency, level and approach of Senior PNAC The content, structure, level and approach of the SCC, Chief Officer and equivalent continuing professional development (CPD) BME progression to chief officer and equivalent roles
The aims of the Review were agreed as follows: Clarify the purpose of Senior PNAC and the SCC; Widen the pool of potential candidates for Chief Officer and equivalent roles, for example in terms of numbers, diversity, age, length of service, ranks, grades and readiness for executive roles; Ensure that the content and delivery of SCC is fit for purpose (preparation for the ACC / equivalent role); Position the SCC as the senior leadership programme of choice for senior police staff and partners, for example the National Crime Agency, Fire Service, Border Force and Home Office; and Develop guidance on the CPD requirements at each Chief Officer and equivalent rank.
Proposals for immediate action were agreed as follows: Deliver a development centre in Summer 2017 for BME Superintendents/Chief Superintendents and staff equivalents; Review the eligibility criteria and application form for Senior PNAC to ensure . Parity for police officers and staff . There are no unnecessary barriers, perceived or real; . The encouragement of those from minority groups is clear; and . The modular option for completing SCC is clear and supported; Evaluation into the impact of the PEQF (masters requirement for application for chief officers and equivalent) on the pipeline, with proposals for implementation timeframe; Briefing days and awareness events for potential Senior PNAC candidates are delivered throughout the year; Review the SCC selection criteria for overseas and partner agency applicants; Seek to gain academic accreditation for the SCC; A Review communications strategy developed; and The College’s Chief Officer Hub proposal is expanded to incorporate these actions and the Review.
254 RETURN TO CONTENTS/AGENDA
OFFICIAL SENSITIVE
S23(1) & S40(2)
255 RETURN TO CONTENTS/AGENDA
OFFICIAL SENSITIVE
This page has been left intentionally black
256 RETURN TO CONTENTS/AGENDA
OFFICIAL SENSITIVE
Name of meeting: Chief Constables’ Council Date of meeting: Item lead at meeting: Alex Marshall
Agenda item number:
Title of paper: Investing in Professional Development
1. Issue
The purpose of the paper is to provide chief constables with:
i) a summary of the future context and case for investment in workforce development. ii) an update on key initiatives underpinning workforce reform and professionalisation. iii) an overview of implementation timeframes and financial modelling for the Police Education Qualifications Framework and specifically the Police Constable Degree Apprenticeship.
2. The Context
2.2 The fall in police officer numbers coinciding with an increase in ‘complex’ demand involving public protection and/or cybercrime has led to a critical moment for policing. Incidents involving mental health, CSA and domestic violence appear to be increasing, while two indicators of emerging pressure on police resilience: decreased levels of police visibility and increasing requests for mutual aid are already showing.
2.3 The challenging context for forces, which includes restricted budgets, has been recognised in the Policing Vision 2025. A central theme of the Vision is the need to develop and equip the policing workforce to ensure it is able to adapt and meet these challenges.
3. The Current Workforce Profile
3.2 The 124,000 full time equivalent police officers in 2016 represents a reduction of 2.5%, or 3,200 officers since 2015. Since 2008/9 the police service has lost 19,700 officers, which represents a loss of just under 1 in 7 officers (14%) and is equivalent to an average loss of 2% every year.
3.3 Length of service profiling shows a peak in officer numbers at 10-15 years’ service. This pattern corresponds with changes in the recruitment rate from around 5,000 officers per year (prior to 2001), to 10,000 in the three years from 2002-04, before falling back to an average of 6,500 per year from 2006-10. The average turnover of police officers is typically around 2-4% per year which remains low compared to other sectors. 265 RETURN TO CONTENTS/AGENDA
OFFICIAL SENSITIVE
3.4 This profile is likely to mean that this large group of officers will remain in policing until they start to come to the end of their careers in 15-20 years’ time. In this scenario, the pattern is then likely to be repeated around 2030, when a new bulge is created as these experienced officers retire and new ones are recruited to replace them.
Length of Service Profile - 2016 Police Officers (Headcount) at March 2016 40,000
35,000
30,000 25,000 20,000 15,000
10,000 5,000 0 0 to 5 yrs 5 to 10 yrs 10 to 15 yrs 15 to 20 yrs 20 to 25 yrs 25 to 30 yrs
4. The value of professional development
4.2 There is strong evidence from other sectors including health, teaching and child care that education and continuing professional development (CPD) improve outcomes for the public. The changing context and significant proportion of officers that will remain the core of our workforce for the next 15 years mean there is an urgent case to develop professionalism and embed continuing professional development in policing, to ensure the police can remain responsive to change and meet public expectations.
4.3 There are increasing examples of police officers taking responsibility for their own professional development through education, while contributing towards the policing knowledge base by evaluating interventions. A current example is the ‘Turning Point’ trial in West Midlands which is testing the effectiveness of alternatives to prosecution in reducing offending and saving cost. This work has been further developed by Durham who are piloting a similar approach. In both forces these pilots are led by police officers whose study was co-funded by the College and the force themselves.
4.4 The cost effectiveness of CPD alone has also been tested to a limited extent, with a number of trials in healthcare finding that education interventions and CPD realise the value of the cost incurred.
4.5 Update on key professional development programmes
Police Education Qualifications Framework
4.6 The Police Education Qualifications Framework seeks to provide existing police colleagues, if they so choose, with academic recognition for their skills, training and experience and an extension to their expertise. It will also set the educational
266 RETURN TO CONTENTS/AGENDA
OFFICIAL SENSITIVE
requirements for those who join policing in the future. The framework represents a significant step towards embedding accredited learning and education as an intrinsic part of professional development within the service.
4.7 The College consulted on the PEQF from 2 February to 29 March 2016 and has now undertaken additional engagement with Police and Crime Commissioners, Higher Education Institutions and forces. This work examined financial implications and timescales and has been presented to the NPCC Finance Committee Coordination Committee and the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners annual conference. Further information about the costings and timescales is included in annex A & B.
4.8 National resources in support of implementation of the PC Degree Apprenticeship have now been published to support forces in planning. These resources include: The National Curriculum National Programme Specification Guidelines for Assessment of Professional Competence National Guidance for Collaborative Provision National Quality Assurance Strategy
4.9 The College has requested Home Office Legal Advisers commence drafting changes to police regulations to allow for new entry routes at undergraduate degree, graduate conversion and higher level apprenticeship. In parallel, the project will be conducting an impact analysis on the proposed changes.
4.10 The Welsh government has yet to indicate whether policing will receive any funding through the apprenticeship levy. The College has made representations to Welsh government officials leading on apprenticeships, to set out the likely financial implications and the risk of not being able to fund Welsh police apprenticeships.
4.11 The NPCC and APCC summit meeting on 18 July will consider proposals for forces to draw down financial support from the Police Transformation Fund which would enable existing officers and staff to seek academic accreditation. The intention is for the funding to be drawn down on a pro-rata basis based on FTE numbers. A total of £2m funding over three years (eg a force just above the middle of the range) would allow a force to fund accreditation for a total of 421 officers and staff across a range of ranks and roles, and part fund 165. The officers and staff concerned would have Recognised Prior Learning, so would complete a degree accreditation process in a significantly reduced timeframe compared to normal full time or part time study. Further information about potential use of the funding by forces will be circulated in advance of the July summit.
Licence to Practise
4.12 Policing already applies licensing arrangements to some specialist areas of policing including firearms and undercover. Development of a licence to practise approach would provide assurance that those working in high risk areas of policing have appropriate levels of training, professional development and support. The College is currently in the process of designing an operating model for licensing and is recruiting for a new lead for this work. Three forces have volunteered to pilot a licence to practise approach in CSA investigations. The PTF bid submitted for consideration aimed to accelerate this work and ensure there is the infrastructure and support available to all forces to implement the reform. This bid will be remodelled to take into account an approach using existing secondary legislation.
267 RETURN TO CONTENTS/AGENDA
OFFICIAL SENSITIVE
Professional Role Profiles
4.13 This work forms an important foundation for professional development including underpinning PDRs, CPD and ARC assessments. It will replace the existing Police Professional Framework with up-to-date and fit for purpose professional profiles for all police specific roles. 4.14 Kornferry Hay Group have been engaged to support development of the role profiles, which will be hosted on a new digital platform. Final endorsement of the profiles in most cases will be via the relevant NPCC lead. The Chief Constable profile is currently being consulted on and is attached as Annex C. We invite Chiefs’ to provide views through Workforce Coordination Committee on how this profile should be approved with appropriate input from PCCs. This work is due to be completed by September.
5. Recommendations 5.2 Chiefs are asked to: i) Note the update on the PEQF, Professional Role Profiles and License to Practice initiatives. ii) Note and provide feedback on the indicative and estimated costings and timescales for the implementation of PEQF (Annex A & B). iii) Note and provide feedback on the Chief Constable Role Profile (Annex C).
Author name: Sam Peach/ Matt Peck Author job title: Curriculum, Assessment and Accreditation Lead Author email: [email protected] / [email protected] Author tel number:
268 RETURN TO CONTENTS/AGENDA
OFFICIAL SENSITIVE
Annex A
Introduction This annex has been written to give an indicative overview of what the programme of apprenticeships and qualifications proposed within the PEQF might cost. Significant elements have either yet to be developed or are of a transient nature; this makes the figures heavily reliant on estimates and assumptions. The abstraction cost for all levels of PEQF cannot be estimated, as levels other than for the apprenticeship require further development to confirm the required type and length of additional learning. Options including research and project work will be explored to ensures ‘protected learning time’ also provides benefit for forces. The assumptions / estimates used will be clarified throughout the document for transparency. These costings were shared and discussed with the College Board on the 26 April and Professional Committee on 9 May (where CC York and CC Pinkney offered to do further modelling with live force data to test and challenge the model), Workforce Transformation Oversight Group on the 23 May and Workforce Co-ordination Committee on the 25 May. Further consultation and the general feedback is summarised below:
Group Comments
Implementation Reference Group Need to have a better understanding of abstraction. Work being taken forward by CoP / Staffs / MPS. Output due August (earlier July deadline was pushed back at request of forces involved).
Directors of Finance / PCC Treasurers Presentation (included costing) well received. Concern that the % split used as an indicative example used the force’s share as a ‘balancing transaction’ – not the case as 3 forces were involved in developing the cost and the force % of delivery was decided first. Costs of abstraction and impact on frontline, specifically costs of backfilling.
Welsh Directors of Finance / PCCTs Presentation (included costing) well received. Willingness to make it work with or without Welsh Government’s funding.
Workforce Co-ordination Committee Need for a before and after comparison between IPLDP and PEQF. Action for Julian Kern (Avon & Somerset) to produce with CoP assistance.
West Midlands – various stakeholders Presentation (included costing) well received.
269 RETURN TO CONTENTS/AGENDA
OFFICIAL SENSITIVE
The next steps are for the IRG (Staffs and MPS specifically) to take forward more detailed analysis of abstraction. Intended outcomes of this work are for the College, working with forces and HEIs, to develop specific guidance on ‘off-the-job learning’ to support the curriculum and degree specification documents. A final version of this should be available before the end of 2017, although a ‘road-test’ of a draft version will be undertaken with early- adopting forces during the latter half of 2017 and as such, an early draft is planned for August. It is intended that this guidance will include: o Definitions of off-the-job learning including those from the English and Welsh funding bodies. o At least one worked through model of off-the-job learning / abstraction applied to an operational scenario. o More accurate costing of off-the-job learning / abstraction. o Over-arching guidance including potential ‘creative’ solutions that meet with funding rules.
Overarching assumptions All figures are based upon English Government policy proposals for the funding of apprenticeships as at September 2016. As this policy is a proposal, it may change. All costs are estimates as none of these programmes currently exist in a tangible or deliverable state. Comparison figures for existing (pre-PEQF) training are not provided – this information is not readily available and varies significantly from force to force. This document provides a picture for an ‘average’ English force. Currently Welsh Government has indicated that policing will receive no apprenticeship funding (despite having to pay the Levy) which dramatically alters costs for a Welsh force. Cost modelling has been completed taking account of proposals for PCs, PCSOs, Sgts, Insps and Supts. Costs are estimated L&D costs and do not include individuals’ salaries, uniform, protective equipment, etc. (two reasons: these costs cannot be covered by apprenticeship funding; with or without the PEQF’s proposals these costs would be incurred.) For simplicity, the modelling is post-transition and assumes that all PEQF proposals are in place and deliverable – any transitional arrangements are complete. Assumes that the cost of Functional Skills (if required) is covered by Government. Assumes that all cost, payroll and Levy figures remain static year on year.
270 RETURN TO CONTENTS/AGENDA
OFFICIAL SENSITIVE
Costings for PC Degree Apprenticeship per candidate The co-investment funding line below relates to the costs that would be incurred per candidate if the force wished to recruit numbers above that covered by its apprentice funding subsidy. The funding is based on 90% of full subsidy per candidate (excluding the 5% of ineligible delivery and assessment costs). The additional 10% cost would be covered by forces.
Current Total Net Total Estimated Total Net Total Estimated Net Delivery & Anticipated Total Current Delivery Delivery Abstraction Abstraction Saving (-) / Cost Route / rank Assessment funding Delivery Abstraction Costs Costs Costs (20% / Cost (20% / (Abstraction 20% / Costs cap Cost Costs 35%) 35%) 35%)
PC Degree £16,731 / £4,446 / Apprenticeship £28,400 £27,000 £1,420 £8,000 - £6,580 £12,285 - £2,134 / £10,385 £29,250 £16,965 – Full Subsidy
PC Degree £24,300 Apprenticeship (£27k less £16,731 / £4,446 / – Co- £28,400 £4,120 £8,000 - £3,880 £12,285 £566 / £13,085 10% force £29,250 £16,965 investment contribution) funding
Assumptions The abstraction costs are opportunity costs. The net costs above may not represent the cash cost to the force which is dependent on any back- filling of abstracted officers. The abstraction costs are based on figures noted in Table 2 below and on a cost of £117 per day per officer. The delivery costs are based on figures noted in the Table 3 below. The current delivery costs are based on 2 years at £4,000 per year for initial recruitment training. It is assumed that 5% of delivery and assessment costs will not be eligible for funding.
271 RETURN TO CONTENTS/AGENDA
OFFICIAL SENSITIVE
Abstraction Costs Estimates Table 2 HE/MPS Pre or post PEQF* Pre-PEQF Apprenticeship Variance estimate Indicative Delivery Model PC Minimum (20%) (20%/35%) (35%) Delivery would be front-loaded and delivered in force and / or HEI by both HEI staff and police staff. Remainder of Apprentices’ non
-20 days / work based learning would be via one of the following options: Year 1 95 days 69 days 120 days +25 days o Return to HEI for 3 blocks in academic year. o Return to HEI reduced supported online. o Innovative distance learning. Initial block would be required at the start of the year to embed +30 days / the progression to level 5 study. Year 2 10 days 40 days 70 days +60 days Remainder of Apprentices’ academic learning would be via options noted in year one. Initial block would be required at the start of the year to embed +34days / the progression to level 6 study. Year 3 0 days 34 days 60 days +60 days Remainder of Apprentices’ academic learning would be via options noted in year one. +38days / + Totals 105 days 143 days 250 days 145 days Total Abstraction cost / officer (based +£4,430 / + £12,285 £16,731 £29,250 on average daily £16,965 cost of £117) (Baseline = 230 deployable days / annum (365 – 23 leave days – 104 rest days – 8 bank holidays) Updated costing for delivery Table 3
272 RETURN TO CONTENTS/AGENDA
OFFICIAL SENSITIVE
The following figures have been used as the basis for hypothetically costing the PEQF for an average force. The table considers duration, apprenticeship funding band (where applicable), internal delivery and assessment costs, and external delivery and assessment costs as key variables that impact cost modelling estimates. Costs have been updated where appropriate and other variables have been amended in light of discussions with Implementation Reference Group members.
Cost with Cost – no Cost with Anticipated Delivery & assessment co- Route / rank Duration subsidy / no Levy Comments/Assumptions funding cap costs investment negotiation funding funding
Assumed that 95% of apprenticeship
learning and assessment costs are
‘eligible’ and can be funded up to the PC app (50% 3 years £27,000 £28,400 £28,400 £1,420 £4,118 funding cap. of entry) In addition to this, the force will have to pay 10% of the eligible costs under co- investment.
Extrapolating a 3-6 month programme
from the 3 year PCDA gives the cost
PC pre-join range presented here. 3-6 graduate £2,370 - £4,740 £3,555 months Cost is based on mid-point of range. (25%) Assumes competence mostly achieved as Special during pre-join phase
A low cost estimated at £8,000 based
on 2 year IPLDP. PC graduate £8,000 - £18,900 conversion 2 years £13,450 Cost is based on mid-point of range. (25%) A high cost based upon extrapolation from the 3 year PCDA is £18,900
273 RETURN TO CONTENTS/AGENDA
OFFICIAL SENSITIVE
Cost with Cost – no Cost with Anticipated Delivery & assessment co- Route / rank Duration subsidy / no Levy Comments/Assumptions funding cap costs investment negotiation funding funding
Low estimate based on 1 year of
IDLDP
Cost is based on mid-point of range.
High estimate extrapolated from 3 year PCDA £9,500 Assumed that 95% (£6,413) of apprenticeship learning and assessment costs are ‘eligible’ and can be funded up to the funding cap. PCSO app 1 year £6,000 £4,000 - £9,500 £6,750 £750 £979 Subtotal = £6750 - £6413 = £338. In addition to this, the force will have to pay 10% (£642) of the remaining eligible costs (£6,413) under co- investment. Total cost to force = £338 + £641 = £979 50%+ of L4 apprenticeships allocated £6k cap
274 RETURN TO CONTENTS/AGENDA
OFFICIAL SENSITIVE
Cost with Cost – no Cost with Anticipated Delivery & assessment co- Route / rank Duration subsidy / no Levy Comments/Assumptions funding cap costs investment negotiation funding funding
Cost of L6 M&L qualification estimated
at £2,500 + 100% for other costs +
15% for end point assessment.
Assumed that 95% of apprenticeship learning and assessment costs are ‘eligible’ and can be funded up to the 12-18 Sgt app £6,000 £5,750 £5,750 £288 £834 funding cap. months In addition to this, the force will have to pay 10% of the eligible costs under co- investment. Most Level 6 apprenticeships at £18k cap but they are degrees and / or over longer duration hence lower £6k band
Cost of qualification + 20% for other Insp PG Cert 1 year £3,600 £3,600 costs
Average MA cost = £14k negotiated
down by 20% + 30% internal costs +
15% for end point assessment
Assumed that 95% of apprenticeship learning and assessment costs are Supt app 2 years £18,000 £16,744 £16,744 £837 £2,428 ‘eligible’ and can be funded up to the funding cap. In addition to this, the force will have to pay 10% of the eligible costs under co- investment.Most existing Level 7 apprenticeships allocated £27k cap.
275 RETURN TO CONTENTS/AGENDA
OFFICIAL SENSITIVE
Annual cost estimate for a hypothetical ‘average’ force (individual force estimates cannot be extrapolated from the table below.) Table 4 Table 4 uses the figures in Table 3 above to estimate the annual costs for an average force (taking account of multiple annual where relevant). The average force recruitment and promotion rates were determined by averaging Home Office workforce data (as at March 2016 and where available) for all 43 forces. This assumes average recruitment / promotion as follows: 108 PCs (50% / 25% / 25% split); 20 PCSOs; 19 Sgts; 6 Insps; 1 Supt. It also assumes a levy pot of £905k (based on a payroll of £164.5m). The figures below are broad estimates with a level of uncertainty so should be treated with caution. Figures in the table have been rounded for clarity so may not sum to the exact totals shown.
Cost per year per Total cost per individual before Potential funding Levy or co- Indicative cost Route / rank year before Comments/Assumptions funding (Delivery per year investment per year to force & Assessment Cost funding table 3/ duration)
PC app x 54 x 3 34 x Levy £9,500 £1,534,000 £1,403,000 £130,700 annual intakes 20 x Co-inv. No attempt has been made to model the timing of cohorts and how this
PC pre-join would impact the Levy / co-investment £3,600 £96,000 N/a N/a £96,000 graduate x 27 usage. PC app – 3 years’ intakes running PC graduate concurrently conversion x 27 x £6,700 £363,000 N/a N/a £363,000 2 annual intakes PC grad conversion - 2 years’ intakes running concurrently PCSO app x 20 £6,800 £135,000 £115,000 All co-investment £19,600 Supt – 2 years’ intakes running concurrently Sgt app x 19 £5,800 £109,300 £93,400 All co-investment £15,800
Insp PG Cert x 6 £3,600 £21,600 N/a N/a £21,600 The significant difference to previous figures produced in August 2016 is the Supt app x 1 x 2 £8,400 £16,700 £14,300 All co-investment £2,400 result of the updated higher funding annual intakes band for the PCDA.
Total costs £2,275,400 £1,626,100 £649,300
276 RETURN TO CONTENTS/AGENDA
OFFICIAL SENSITIVE
Table 5 Table 5 compares indicative pre-PEQF / pre-Levy figures to indicative post-PEQF / post-Levy delivery cost figures. Please note that this is for a hypothetical ‘typical’ force.
Estimated annual cost pre- Typical Force recruitment Estimated total annual cost Estimated total annual cost post- Rank PEQF / individual needs / year pre-PEQF PEQF £4,000 per intake per year PC 108 £864,000 £590,000 x 2 PCSO £1,150 20 £23,000 £19,580 Sgt £1,750 19 £33,250 £15,840 Insp £850 6 £5,100 £21,600 £250 per intake per year x Supt 1 £500 £2,430 2
Totals £925,850 £649,300
Figures in the table have been rounded for clarity so may not sum to the exact totals shown.
Comments/Assumptions
This comparison assumes that apprenticeship funding is constant and that there is no change to the (English) Government’s policy
The level of Welsh funding is not yet known
Other costs (e.g. abstraction) would be in addition to these.
277 RETURN TO CONTENTS/AGENDA
OFFICIAL SENSITIVE
This page has been left intentionally black
278 RETURN TO CONTENTS/AGENDA
OFFICIAL SENSITIVE
Annex B – PEQF timeline Issue
The College has been working to produce recommended timescales for implementation for the PEQF for officers and staff on entry and promotion. This work has been supported by the Implementation Reference Group which has discussed a wide range of considerations in order to produce the recommended timescales noted below.
Recommended Timescales
Level Timing PCSO and PC April 2020 Sergeant April 2021* Inspector / Superintendent / Chief Officers April 2022
* There was a strong view within the IRG that levels from Sergeants upwards should be delayed until 2022. However, it was also recognised that Sergeants will be managing new PCs coming through the PEQF with its new Level 6 entry routes. Given this, a degree of priority should be attached to Sergeants over other senior ranks, and 2021 was agreed as an ambitious, but appropriate date.
Rationale / key concerns The Implementation Reference Group (IRG) which includes representatives from across forces has discussed a wide range of considerations as part of the development of these recommended timescales. A summary of these discussions is included below to provide the context and rationale for the recommended extension to implementation dates noted above. Timescales Any slippage in product development timescales or associated critical dependencies (for example, regulatory change) will impact forces’ ability to efficiently and effectively implement. Forces require sufficient time to be internally-ready, for example upskilling managers in relation to apprenticeships, provision of apprentice support, etc. Sufficient lead-in time must be built-in to accommodate the recruitment and procurement processes. An absolute minimum would be 6 months, although many forces may require longer. Significant development work is needed with the partner of choice, but this requires a procurement process prior to securing. Although the PC Degree Apprenticeship is gaining clarity, the other entry routes are still unknown. This impacts on the engagement and marketing that can be undertaken with future applicants as the ideal is for all 3 PC routes of entry to be planned, promoted and implemented simultaneously. The complexity of the PEQF implementation in such a short period of time leading to key barriers or changes required being missed, not fully understood or fully addressed. Lack of opportunity to pilot different delivery models, which would helpfully inform implementation of the PEQF, particularly for initial learning, address some of the unknowns and provide valuable data for transition.
279 RETURN TO CONTENTS/AGENDA
OFFICIAL SENSITIVE The implementation speed of the PEQF causes concern due to other Learning & Development related changes taking place within policing. There is a risk of overly- complicated delivery models. Impact analysis The magnitude of change will have significant impact, yet operational (abstraction / agility) and financial impacts are still not fully known. It is recognised that there will be a change to training costs within a relatively short period of time – this includes the introduction of the Levy, and changes to the costs of training / education programmes. The first half of this paper discusses some of the cost aspects, although there are still a number of unknowns. Capacity and capability Sufficient time is required to build geographically-uniform capacity across both forces and HEIs. Pockets of insufficient competition could present a significant risk to the project. Consideration needs to be given to alignment with other significant national and local change programmes, for example licence to practice. The limitations of existing force and College resources and the changing or conflicting priorities need to be considered. The impact of other mandated requirements by College of Policing during the implementation period that may impact on forces’ Learning & Development resource- resilience should be factored in. The roll-out of the ESN communication system may also create tension. Delivery of the vocational element of the graduate policing degree, may result in it not being possible to offer the volume of work placements / Specials Constable placements required. Clear guidance as to staff qualifications required to deliver training (in particular at what level) and any upskilling required need to be given. Unknowns There are gaps in knowledge about current new recruit training and the delivery across all current operating models. The quality of learning needs to be ensured as not all HEIs have direct policing experience. Of the existing policing-degree providers, it would be useful to understand what feedback exists on the quality of graduates, gaps in learning and how these are to be addressed. There remains an absence of detail on expectations of the impact of learning products on future applicants, and the implications on forces for planning delivery (including abstractions) and costs. Other It is unclear if the schemes will generate sufficient recruitment numbers and whether recruits will be representative of the communities they serve. There is a need for national and local marketing to ensure policing is seen as a valid profession in line with law, medicine, etc. There is a concern that the introduction of the Level 7 pre-requisite for entry to SSC may limit the numbers who can apply. It would be helpful to have more time to allow for more effective succession planning. HEI-involvement may lead to a lack of agility to respond to the changing policing environment - training content could quickly become not fit for purpose with required
280 RETURN TO CONTENTS/AGENDA
OFFICIAL SENSITIVE training sitting outside of the degree, running alongside the degree or being provided as additional training after qualification. The dates recommended by the IRG do not align with expiry dates on existing qualifications. This primarily impacts the existing Level 4 and Level 5 Sergeant’s and Inspector’s qualifications. Transition time and staggered implementation across forces should be considered. If early adopters offer the Sergeant’s Apprenticeship from 2019, that may entail officers in some forces being supported by apprenticeships toward a qualification while others carry on ‘as is’ until the mandatory date for change-over. Within any one force, there will be officers promoted within the previous year who will not have the same opportunity as the new apprentice. There has to be a ‘cut-off’ point, but strategies for managing each of the elements will be paramount. Similarly there will be a period when the service will have PCs joining, with some being trained to L6 and some to L3 (with potentially different pay for an apprentice subject to the outcome of the pay review work). An overly lengthy transition period would compound this further. Some non-HO forces may be left disadvantaged by the PEQF. Additional transition time would permit them to explore alternative options where the requirements of the PEQF cannot be met.
281 RETURN TO CONTENTS/AGENDA
OFFICIAL SENSITIVE
Policing Professional Role Profile Chief Constable Role Purpose To set the direction for the organisation and create a vision that the public and organisation are confident in. Responsible for contributing to national policing by providing an effective and efficient policing service and in doing so fulfil all statutory and legal obligations of the office of Chief Constable.
Primary Accountabilities To set the organisational and operational strategy for the force, to deliver the requirements of the Police and Crime Plan. To have regard to the Strategic Policing Requirement when exercising and planning policing functions in respect of the Force’s national and international policing responsibilities. To provide effective leadership of the organisation, communicating a clear direction and setting the tone, standards and values for the organisation. To lead the Executive Team, ensuring they are developed and motivated to deliver the best possible policing service in line with the requirements of the organisation's strategy and requirements of the Police and Crime Plan. Lead the professional development for the organisation, creating a culture where staff are empowered and motivated to perform to their full potential and achieve organisational goals. Have overall responsibility for the day to day financial management of the force within the framework of the agreed budget as issued by the Police and Crime Commissioner. To set a strategy for organisational development and change, to ensure enhanced productivity, value for money and continuous improvement, making efficient use of resources. To recognise the primary accountabilities in law to the Police and Crime Commissioner. Provide professional policing advice to the Police and Crime Commissioner whilst protecting the principle of operational independence. To develop and maintain effective relationships with local, regional and national partners, understanding the broader operating context of the Police Service. To represent the organisation at local, regional and national level, developing public confidence in policing. To play an active role in decision making on national standards and common approaches as part of Chief Constables' Council to develop the Police Service further in protecting the public from the most serious and strategic threats. To maintain operational oversight of the policing response to critical incidents through an understanding of the strategic issues that surround operational policing. To appropriately discharge all operational, financial and employment duties of a Chief Constable. To set and personally promote high standards of professional conduct and champion the Code of Ethics in the organisation's working practice and in the delivery of policing services.
282 RETURN TO CONTENTS/AGENDA
OFFICIAL SENSITIVE
Essential Skills Operational/technical policing knowledge Legal knowledge/up to date knowledge of changing legislation Knowledge of all duties and responsibilities of a Chief Constable Knowledge of budgets and financial position of the organisation Knowledge of the role and contribution of policing to society
The ability to demonstrate and promote high standards of professional conduct and integrity. Ability to identify and manage risk
Decision making in line with the NDM Model/Code of Ethics Relationship management of internal and external colleagues Ability to reflect on own approach and performance of the organisation Ability to reflect on own wellbeing and the wellbeing of others in the organisation Strategic political engagement
Behaviours The Competency and Values Framework (CVF) has six competencies that are clustered into three groups. Under each competency are three levels that show what behaviours will look like in practice.
It is suggested that this role should be operating or working towards the following levels:
Resolute, compassionate and committed
We are emotionally aware Level 3 We take ownership Level 3 Inclusive, enabling and visionary leadership We are collaborative Level 3 We deliver, support and inspire Level 3 Intelligent, creative and informed policing
We analyse critically Level 3 We are innovative and open-minded Level 3
Education, Qualifications and Experience
Successful completion of Strategic Command Course Have held rank above ACC/Commander in a UK Police Force (or have held one of the designated roles in if appointed from overseas) Level 7 Educational Qualification – Masters Qualification Wide ranging operational policing experience (Gold) Authorising Officer Training A demonstrable track record of exceptional experience of working at a strategic level, including the operational command of police officers at senior leadership level Experience of working with and successful engagement in partnerships in the public, private and voluntary sectors Experience of implementing an effective performance management framework Experience of overseeing change and organisational development
283 RETURN TO CONTENTS/AGENDA
OFFICIAL SENSITIVE
CPD Requirements
Professional Registration/Licences
Not applicable.
Career Pathways
To be determined at later phase.
284 RETURN TO CONTENTS/AGENDA
OFFICIAL SENSITIVE
Chief Constables’ Council
Direct Entry to Chief Constable Item 12
Letters Attachments Only – No Paper
285 RETURN TO CONTENTS/AGENDA
OFFICIAL SENSITIVE
This page has been left intentionally black
286 RETURN TO CONTENTS/AGENDA
OFFICIAL SENSITIVE
S31(1)(a)(b)
22 March 2017
To: CC Sara Thornton/ CC Giles York/ CC Francis Habgood, NPCC Dafydd Llywelyn / Ron Hogg, APCC CCMark Polin/ CCGareth Wilson, CPOSA Ch Supt Tim Jackson, PSAEW lnsp Steve White, PFEW CC Alex Marshall, College of Policing
Dear colleague,
Consultation on proposed changes to chief constable appointments and the police pay machinery
I am writing to seek your views on two legislative proposals designed to: (i) widen the pool of eligible candidates for appointment as chief constable; and (ii) further streamline the police pay machinery.
Appointment of chief officers
The issue of choosing our police leaders is one of vital importance. Recent police- led activity shows the seriousness with which this issue is being approached. Following the landmark publication of the Leadership Review in 2015 we have seen progress across a broad programme of activity. For example, CPD for senior leaders is well underway and, following concerted effort by the College of Policing and local police leaders, direct entry looks set to expand this year from four forces who recruited nine officers in 2014 to 24 forces who are recruiting for 75 posts in 2017. Additionally, the recent survey conducted by the College into barriers to senior officer roles has given us a route map for further action. We therefore find ourselves at a turning point in the drive to ensure that the most senior posts can be opened up to talented people from a broader range of backgrounds alongside police professionals.
The College's survey into senior appointments showed chief constables reported that due to the limited number of eligible applicants from which to attract candidates, there was a lack of diversity and ability to share ideas, thoughts and experiences. One of the key deterrents to applying for jobs were the challenges around
287 RETURN TO CONTENTS/AGENDA
OFFICIAL SENSITIVE
relocating. The difficulties were not necessarily financial, but particularly focused on the impact on families. We know from looking at the superintendents direct entry programme that policing attracts high performing professionals from a wide range of sectors• including industry, local government and academia. Furthermore, with PCCs and chiefs constables increasingly seeking innovative partnership approaches, introducing greater flexibility will help them create the right leadership teams for their local areas.
Direct entry for senior police officers from specified overseas forces and for senior fire officers where a PCC has adopted the 'single employer' model under the provisions in Part 1 of the Policing and
Crime Act 2017 has already been introduced. To support these measures, the College identified the appropriate overseas forces and ranks that should be eligible which are now set out in regulations and it is developing the standards which candidates who come from the fire sector will be required to fulfil. Setting out these standards represents an excellent opportunity to expand chief constable appointments further to include senior leaders from Home Office agencies and potentially other sectors.
PCCs have resp nsibillty for appointing the chief constable but they must adhere to provisions in the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011. This includes a requirement to have served as a constable in the UK subject to the two exceptions referred to above. While these changes represent important steps to widening entry at the chief constable rank it is clear that this approach does not provide the legislativeflexibility to respond to the changing needs of policing.
Repealing this requirement would provide greater flexibility and in its stead the Government proposes to amend the 2011 Act to provide that a person is eligible for appointment as a chief constable or Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police if:
a. he or she satisfies eligibility requirements specified in regulations made under section 50 of the Police Act 1996; b. and, if he or she has not previously served as a constable in a force in the UK or as an officer of an approved rank in an approved overseas police force, he or she has undertaken training in relation to policing matters of a kind specified by the College of Policing.
There is no question that appointments should not adhere to standards which reflect the requirements of the role. We believe that these proposals will put the responsibility for setting standards for appointing chief constables where they should be: in the hands of the profession itself.
Streamlining police pay machinery
In relation to the reform of the existing police pay machinery in England and Wales, we propose to remove chief police officers from the remit of the Senior Salaries Review Body (SSRB). In its place, the Police Remuneration Review Body (PRRB)
288 RETURN TO CONTENTS/AGENDA
OFFICIAL SENSITIVE
would advise the Home Secretary on the pay and conditions of service of officers of all ranks.
In the context of the sector-led programme of workforce reform which is currently underway, we must ensure that pay advisory structures are configured in the most effective and efficient way to support that process. Consolidation of the police officer remit groups would enable a consistent approach to be taken to new pay and reward structures and would ensure that the longer term impact of reforms can be properly considered across all ranks over time.
Consideration will be given to making a similar change in Northern Ireland. Your views on this matter would also be welcomed.
I would be grateful for responses by 10 April 2017.
Yours sincerely,
Rachel Watson Head of Police Workforce and Professionalism Unit
289 RETURN TO CONTENTS/AGENDA
OFFICIAL SENSITIVE
290 RETURN TO CONTENTS/AGENDA
OFFICIAL SENSITIVE
Chairman Vice-Chairman Negotiating Secretary Secretary Mr Mark Polin Mr Dave Jones Mr Gareth Wilson Mr Ian Readhead Chief Constable Chief Constable Chief Constable ACRO Criminal Records Office North Wales Police North Yorkshire Police Suffolk Constabulary PO Box 481 Police Headquarters Newby Wiske Martlesham Heath Fareham Glan-y-Don Northallerton Ipswich Hampshire Colwyn Bay North Yorkshire IP5 3QS PO14 9FS Conwy LL29 8AW DL7 9HA Tel: S31(1)(a)(b) Tel: Tel: S31(1)(a)(b) Tel: S31(1)(a)(b) S31(1)(a) (b)
Rachel Watson Head of Police Workforce and Professionalism Unit Home Office Crime, Policing and Fire Group 6th Floor Fry 2 Marsham Street London SW1P 4DF
Sent via email to:S31(1)(a)(b)
7 April 2017
Dear Rachel,
Consultation on proposed changes to chief constable appointments and the police pay machinery
I write in response to your letter of 22nd March 2017 concerning the above.
Appointment of chief officers
Let me start by saying that CPOSA has a real concern that we are being asked to respond to a proposal which represents a major constitutional change within a very narrow timescale. There has simply not been enough time therefore for the Association to consult its membership sufficiently. The level of concern is such that I have been encouraged to write to the Home Secretary directly, something that I have elected not to do but rather to afford you the opportunity to reply to this response first.
There has been a strong feeling expressed by those who have been consulted notwithstanding the timescale that we should indicate we are open to discussion but should such a fundamental decision that affects the constitutional position of chief constables be taken in such a short space of time, without careful consideration and more appropriate consultation, we would intend to declare strong opposition to the proposal as outlined. We would rather work with you and your colleagues to identify whether, and if so how, such a scheme could be created capable of addressing the
291 RETURN TO CONTENTS/AGENDA constitutional and other issues whichOFFICIAL will otherwise SENSITIVE arise.
292 RETURN TO CONTENTS/AGENDA
OFFICIAL SENSITIVE
Nevertheless, the Association wishes to set out some of the more significant concerns we have in terms of the proposal.
It is a truth to say that much is being done to address the leadership challenges faced by the police service and CPOSA is doing everything it can to contribute to this work. Whilst the College may have carried out the survey to which you refer, CPOSA was instrumental in his initiation and construction. Indeed, the Association made reference to its wish to see such a survey conducted in the course of its evidence to the SSRB in 2015.
In your letter you highlight some of the factors which are clearly impacting upon the number of candidates applying for chief officer posts and chief constable positions in particular. At this point in time the Association strongly believes that the primary focus of all stakeholders in this matter should be concerned with confirming support for the proposed options to be taken forward to address these factors, under the purview of the Leadership Review Oversight Group, and applying considerable effort to do so. We consider that Home Office involvement, to a greater degree than witnessed to date, is essential if the necessary traction and progress is to be achieved.
It would appear from your letter that the Home Office considers that extending the potential candidate pool will address the shortage of candidates that arises on occasion without addressing the underlying causes such as the challenges and costs of relocation, the impact on family and a perception that some selection processes are biased in some way. Yet no evidence whatsoever is offered to support this view. Furthermore, we are somewhat concerned that to do one without the other will serve to directly disadvantage our current and future members. We feel a more strategic and all-encompassing series of solutions is needed rather than a piecemeal approach.
We are also unclear as to whether what belies the proposal is some perception held somewhere that there is a deficit of available leadership talent within the police service to fill the most senior posts and if so the basis for this. Your letter might be said to infer that the complexities of policing require a new skill set, however there is no indication offered as to what the problems might be perceived to be with the current cohort nor do you seem to acknowledge that most chief officer teams are constructed to include business professionals to advise on finance, resourcing, and organisational development.
We are also concerned that in the absence of substantive changes that will engender a greater sense of job security - for example alterations to the current FTA regime, the provision of a no blame exit option with suitable compensation or an uplift in pay/allowances - chief officer posts will prove unattractive to those working in other sectors. We are also not aware of any evidence that what is being advocated has proved a successful means by which to attract external candidates into other public sector fields such as the NHS, fire service or prison service, address any perceived skills deficit and/or to generate a step change in performance.
As you indicate, measures to widen the candidate pool have already been introduced but we are yet to see the impact of the changes on the senior leadership of the service for good or for bad. It therefore seems to us to be a leap of faith to take steps to widen the pool significantly further and that insufficient consideration is being given to learning, potentially setting up good people to fail (particularly in a period when the provisions under s.38 of the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act are being threatened or deployed more so than ever) and the underlying detail that would need to accompany what is proposed. In terms of the latter, for example, the suggestion that someone could be appointed as a chief constable subject to undertaking training would in our view be unworkable.
293 RETURN TO CONTENTS/AGENDA
OFFICIAL SENSITIVE
The Association supports the direct entry schemes in place already and we would support extending the pool for chief constable positions to other similar Home Office agencies such as Border Force subject to the necessary standards being set and met.
We are of the view that the credibility of leaders in the eyes of the workforce is an important consideration and extending the applicant pool for the most senior positions in the police service beyond similar Home Office agencies without careful consideration and examination of the implications would undermine this.
Moreover, the policing protocol indicates the chief constable is the principal policing advisor to the police and crime commissioner and a question arises as to how this could be achieved if the former possessed no policing experience. Indeed, the Policing Minister said at the chief constables’ development day that he wanted the most competent police and crime commissioners standing next to the most competent police professionals. This seems to be somewhat at odds with the current proposal.
In summary then we feel your letter fails to offer any evidence base for the change advocated and we are strongly of the view that the use of the survey is out of context and your letter does not link the change to the problems that exist as highlighted by the survey.
SSRB
It is only relatively recently that government introduced the Body which was supported within the Winsor Leadership Review and it is not clear to the Association why it is now being proposed that the body should be removed from the pay structure.
The Association has been concerned for some time now, as shared with Home Office officials, that the stakeholders that should be concerned with responding to the observations and recommendations set out by the body have been insufficiently focused on doing so. In our view this particularly applies the Home Office itself as we articulated to the Body when we made our submission to them this year. An obvious example of this is their expressed, continuing concern about the lack of comprehensive data to inform the work of the Body. For example, in terms of the numbers of chief officer vacancies arising, the success in filling them, the terms and conditions set on appointment and exit information. As the Association has repeatedly asserted we do not view it as our role to fill this gap, even though on two occasions we have funded Hayes to undertake comparative pay studies and as indicated we were instrumental in initiating the survey carried out by the College, and yet the gap remains. In short, we do not think the Body has been assisted in its work in the way that it should have been and we do not support its removal.
It is not uncommon in other sectors for a separate body of this nature to exist and we can only assume they are being supported to operate in a way that they should. There is already a provision for the PRRB and the SSRB to be cognisant of any overlapping issues from their remit groups. Whilst we understand that some may be concerned about the necessity to make submissions to two bodies rather than one this is surely not a a good reason to remove one element.
We also believe that, at a time at which evidence has been presented that there exists a number of concerns within the chief officer ranks and the feeder group such that it is affecting the numbers applying for chief officer positions, now is certainly not the time to be dismantling the Body charged with assisting to remedy this situation. Indeed to the contrary, as the Association have repeatedly asserted, we believe the remit of the SSRB should be extended beyond pay. It any case appears somewhat contradictory that on the one hand it is being proposed to extend the pool of those able to apply for chief
293 RETURN TO CONTENTS/AGENDA
OFFICIAL SENSITIVE constable positions and on the other hand remove the Body which exists to ensure comparability in pay terms with other senior roles across different sectors.
Yours sincerely,
Mark Polin CPOSA Chairman
294 RETURN TO CONTENTS/AGENDA
OFFICIAL SENSITIVE
Rachel Watson 18 April 2017 Head of Police and Professionalism Unit Classification: Not Marked Crime, Policing and Fire Group Home Office 2 Marsham Street London SW1P 4DF
[sent by email]
Dear Rachel,
I am writing in response to your letter dated 22 March 2017. The letter specifically requested views on the widening of the pool of eligible candidates for appointment to chief constable and a proposal to undertake changes to the current police pay machinery. The letter was debated at the end of last week’s meeting of Chief Constables’ Council but timescales have constrained my ability seek the thoughts of colleagues regarding these issues. However, during the course of the discussion chiefs highlighted a number of concerns, agreed on the importance of proper consultation and the need for a sound understanding of the supportingrationale for the proposals.
Appointment of chief officers
It is essential policing is well led, now, and in the future. The NPCC recognises the current challenges in recruiting talented people into the highest roles in the service and have, as a consequence, been working with yourselves, the College of Policing and staff associations, for some time to explore the factors deterring talented and capable officers from seeking promotion to the chief officer ranks. This activity has been undertaken by the Leadership Review Oversight Group, supports the Policing Vision 2025 and has resulted in a number of initiatives to address the problem.
The proposal to amend the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011 by repealing the requirement for chief constables to have previously served as a constable in the UK (recognising that there are two exceptions already within the legislation) has the potential to present a series of challenges.
The proposal outlined in your letter appears to contradict the ministerial emphasis on the importance of operational chief constables working alongside democratically elected Police and Crime Commissioners as
295 RETURN TO CONTENTS/AGENDA
the principle policing advisors. Many colleagues see the proposal as undermining the balance between democratic accountability and operational expertise in a way that is of grave concern. The ability of an individual to perform this role in the absence of any previous operational policing experience is questionable.
The current model allows chief constables to simultaneously discharge both operational and strategic functions. They are both leaders and constables and if the office of constable is to be held – surely it should be meaningful rather than just an empty title? There is a concern that a perception of a chief constable as a ‘senior administrator’ would have the effect of shunting significant operational risk and responsibilities to Deputy and Assistant Chief Constables. Such a shunt may well require legislation in respect of the authorisation of operations to be amended.
Chief officers also questioned the mechanics of selecting a candidate to a specific chief constable post ahead of undertaking a period of ‘training in relation to policing matters of a kind specified by the College of Policing.’ It is presumed this approach would be similar to that adopted in respect of other direct entry schemes and it is questionable whether such a model would be either practically or economically viable.
Finally, it is not clear how the proposed changes will address the issues identified within the College of Policing survey referred to within the letter. The impact of direct entry at the superintendent rank will not be independently evaluated until 2019. Chief constables cautioned against the introduction of such a fundamental constitutional change ahead of an understanding of the costs and benefits of other recently introduced reforms.
You will recall that the original proposal from those of us who were involved in the chief officer survey was to amend regulations (rather than legislation) so that those with a law enforcement background who had passed the Police National Assessment Centre and the Strategic Command Course would be eligible to apply for assistant chief constable positions. We thought that it made good sense to open up recruitment to colleagues within organisations such as the National Crime Agency or Immigration Enforcement who are currently excluded from chief officer processes. I would suggest that such an approach could well assist in strengthening the supply of candidates without causing the difficulties outlined above.
Streamlining police pay machinery
The existing pay machinery is now entering its fourth cycle. It would be fair to say that all stakeholders are still learning about the process and understanding where consultation on non-pay review body issues sit. For example, the PRRB and SSRB only look at pay and conditions and not the total reward package.
The programme of workforce reform over the next few years will be significant and will affect the whole landscape. There are separate pressures on the recruitment of staff into certain key roles, chief officers being one example of this. Therefore, any changes to the existing structure must take these issues into account.
296 RETURN TO CONTENTS/AGENDA
The decision to place chief officers’ pay within SSRB, rather than any new pay review body for other ranks, was proposed in the Winsor report. Interestingly there was little commentary to support this decision. However, the benefits of linking the pay of the most senior public servants was clearly recognised as were the benefits of widening the scope of SSRB. An extract from the 2016 SSRB report which sets out the background and terms of reference of SSRB is attached for information.
There are four key bullet points within the terms of reference that are relevant to any streamlining debate (and I have underlined certain phrases):
□ The need to recruit, retain, motivate and, where relevant, promote suitably abled and qualified people to exercise their different responsibilities □ Difference in pay and conditions of employment between the public and private sector and between the remit groups, taking account of relative job security and the value of benefits in kind □ Changes in national pay systems including flexibility and the reward of success; and job weight in differentiating the remuneration of particular posts
□ To insure that, as appropriate, the remuneration of the remit groups relates coherently to that of their subordinates, encourages efficiency and effectiveness, and takes account of the different management and organisational structures that may be in place from time to time.
If these elements are applied effectively then they should adequately cover both the reform and recruitment issues that we will face as employers in the future. In the short term, the existence of two separate pay bodies will inevitably create a less efficient and effective way of designing a reward framework across policing (and the relationship between chief officers and other ranks is an important factor). However, once the new framework is in place then the experience and expertise of the SSRB in looking at other senior public servants might be more beneficial for attracting and retaining the best chief officers in the future. Although there is a responsibility on SSRB to be aware of issues within PRRB (and for some matters to be delegated to PRRB) it is probably too early in the new bodies’ development to say how effective this has, or will, be.
In summary, the NPCC recognise the benefits and risks of either retaining or streamlining the pay machinery. Rather than focus on the structure, the NPCC is more concerned about achieving the outcomes of a fair and affordable reward framework. As an employer, it is really important that the pay and conditions of all ranks are considered in parallel, or at the very least in conjunction, to ensure that we do not see an unhealthy breakdown of the relationship between the different organisational levels. However, if changes are made to the existing machinery then the terms of reference for PRRB will need to be strengthened to ensure that appropriate comparisons and the necessary expertise are included to deal with chief officers.
297 RETURN TO CONTENTS/AGENDA
Conclusions
Chief constables are agreed on the importance of proper consultation on these matters and the need for a sound understanding of the rationale for these proposals, the benefits and risks. As presented, the proposal regarding the appointment of chief constables represents a significant constitutional shift from the current arrangement of a Police and Crime Commissioner elected by the public holding to account the operational leader of the force and relying on him or her for their professional expertise. We would counsel strongly against making any such decision in haste and thereby provide an unnecessary distraction from our joint endeavour of providing a strong supply of capable professionals to lead our police forces over the next ten years.
Yours Sincerely,
Chief Constable Sara Thornton
Chair, National Police Chiefs’ Council
298 RETURN TO CONTENTS/AGENDA
Background information on the setting of police pay andthe Terms of Reference of the SSRB
Following the Winsor Review26 and the passing of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014, chief police officers (Chief Constables, Deputy Chief Constables and Assistant Chief Constables) in England, Wales and Northern Ireland were moved from Police Negotiating Board to the SSRB’s remit. The Act also established the Police Remuneration Review Body (PRRB) to consider the pay of all police ranks up to and including Chief Superintendent.
The Review Body on Senior Salaries (previously known as the Review Body on Top Salaries) was formed in 1971 and is appointed by the Government to provide it with independent advice. The Government wrote to us in September 2014 to confirm changes to the SSRB’s terms of reference to reflect:
• The transfer of responsibility for MPs’ pay, allowances and pensions from the SSRB to the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority following the 2009 Parliamentary Standards Act. • The addition of Police and Crime Commissioners to the SSRB’s remit in 2013. • The addition of senior police officers in England, Wales and Northern Ireland to the SSRB’s remit from 2014. • The removal of the requirement to maintain broad linkage between the remuneration of the SCS, judiciary and senior military.
Our terms of reference are now as follows: The Review Body on Senior Salaries provides independent advice to the Prime Minister, the Lord Chancellor, the Home Secretary, the Secretary of State for Defence, the Secretary of State for Health and the Minister of Justice for Northern Ireland on the remuneration of holders of judicial office; senior civil servants; senior officers of the armed forces; very senior managers in the NHS28; police and crime commissioners, chief police officers in England, Wales and Northern Ireland; and other such public appointments as may from time to time be specified.
The Review Body may, if requested, also advise the Prime Minister from time to time on Peers’ allowances; and on the pay, pensions and allowances of Ministers and others whose pay is determined by the Ministerial and Other Salaries Act 1975. If asked to do so by the Presiding Officer and the First Minister of the Scottish Parliament jointly; or by the Speaker of the Northern Ireland Assembly; or by the Presiding Officer of the National Assembly for Wales; or by the Mayor of London and the Chair of the Greater London Assembly jointly; the Review Body also from time to time advises those bodies on the pay, pensions and allowances of their members and office holders. In reaching its recommendations, the Review Body is to have regard to the following considerations:
• The need to recruit, retain, motivate and, where relevant, promote suitably able and qualified people to exercise their different responsibilities; • Regional/local variations in labour markets and their effects on the recruitment, retention and, where relevant, promotion of staff; • Government policies for improving the public services including the requirement on departments to meet the output targets for the delivery of departmental services; • The funds available to departments as set out in the Government’s departmental expenditure limits; • The Government’s inflation target. 299 RETURN TO CONTENTS/AGENDA
In making recommendations, the Review Body shall consider any factors that the Government and other witnesses may draw to its attention. In particular, it shall have regard to:
• Differences in terms and conditions of employment between the public and private sector and between the remit groups, taking account of relative job security and the value of benefits in kind; • Changes in national pay systems, including flexibility and the reward of success; and job weight in differentiating the remuneration of particular posts; • The relevant legal obligations, including anti-discrimination legislation regarding age, gender, race, sexual orientation, religion and belief and disability.
The Review Body may make other recommendations as it sees fit:
•To ensure that, as appropriate, the remuneration of the remit groups relates coherently to that of their subordinates, encourages efficiency and effectiveness, and takes account of the different management and organisational structures that may be in place from time to time; • To relate reward to performance where appropriate; • To maintain the confidence of those covered by the Review Body’s remit that its recommendations have been properly and fairly determined; • To ensure that the remuneration of those covered by the remit is consistent with the Government’s equal opportunities policy.
The Review Body will take account of the evidence it receives about wider economic considerations and the affordability of its recommendations.
300 RETURN TO CONTENTS/AGENDA
College of Policing response to: Rachel Watson
Head of Police Workforce and Professionalism Unit
12 May 2017
Dear Rachel
Consultation on proposed changes to chief constable appointments - widening the pool of eligible candidates for appointment as chief constable
I write to offer you some observations on the above subject on behalf of the College of Policing Board. As Alex Marshall indicated in his letter to you of 7 April, your request for responses by 10 April did not allow sufficient time to permit consultation with the College Board. He therefore provided an interim response in advance of the Board meeting of 26 April. I am now in a position to supplement Alex’s response with a response informed by a full discussion at the board.
In general, members of the board supported the principle of widening the talent pool of candidates for chief constable roles. The College has consistently emphasised the importance of leadership, at all levels, in equipping the police service to meet future challenges. The Leadership Review noted the value added by those with experience outside policing and recommended a structure of entry, exit and re-entry points to allow career flexibility.
There was a view, however, that the issue of a perceived shortage of suitable candidates for some chief constable (and chief officer) roles might be more effectively addressed by other, more immediate measures. For example, the board meeting also heard an update on the current review of the Senior National Police Assessment Centre (SPNAC) and Strategic Command Course (SCC). The aims of the review include widening the pool of potential candidates for chief officer and equivalent roles, for example in terms of numbers, diversity, age, length of service, ranks, grades and readiness for executive roles. As part of the review, the board also supported a range of proposals for immediate action which will improve the pipeline to SPNAC. These include briefings and awareness events for potential candidates, an immediate review of the eligibility criteria and application form, and a modular option. All Chief Constables and Commissioners who do not currently support superintendents for SPNAC have also agreed that they will re-examine their position.
In discussion, board members felt that it would be helpful to better understand all the reasons for the proposal to open up chief constable appointment at this point in time. There was more solid support for consideration of incremental options such as opening up access to chief officer roles to candidates from wider law enforcement agencies, or developing options for a direct entry approach at Assistant Chief Constable/Commander level.
The board strongly supported the view that any changes should be underpinned by the College establishing robust criteria setting out knowledge, skills and experience requirements for chief constable roles, underpinned by appropriate regulation. It was noted that there are differences between the skills and experience required to run the ‘business’ of a force and those necessary to lead and command the confidence of the workforce in policing, and make operational decisions at 301 RETURN TO CONTENTS/AGENDA
chief constable level. We of course now have a training and development programme for superintendents and our thoughts are that should the policy be implemented, a similar programme at chief constable level would need to be designed.
The Board believes that Police and Crime Commissioners should have access to a wide pool of talent and appropriate sources of support when making chief constable appointments. We welcome the work of the College in this area and the opportunity to provide you with these views. We look forward to working with you on next steps.
Kind regards
Millie Banerjee Interim Chair
302 RETURN TO CONTENTS/AGENDA
Chief Constables’ Council
Personal Resilience Survey Item: 13
Presentation from the Superintendent’s Association Presentation from the Police Federation
303 RETURN TO CONTENTS/AGENDA
This page has been left intentionally black
304 RETURN TO CONTENTS/AGENDA
Leadership and learning
13 July 2017 / Agenda Item 14
Security classification: N/A Disclosable under FOIA 2000: Yes Author: Tim Metcalfe Force/organisation: NPCC Date created: 13 June 2017
5. PURPOSE
1.1 The Learning Leaders work considered different approaches to achieving a better balance between personal accountability and a bureaucratic fear of making mistakes to support the Policing Vision 2025. The review argued that to effectively address future challenges and opportunities, senior leaders must build processes and trust based cultures which enable dynamic and continuous learning. Chief officers interviewed as part of the work recognised the importance of knowledge management and organisational learning but expressed frustration at the fragmented approach adopted by the police service. The purpose of this paper is, following discussion at Chief Constables’ Council in April 2017, to outline and summarise ongoing work linked to the development of a learning culture and invite stakeholders to form a steering group to progress this within policing using four main headings:
Building a learning culture Performance and misconduct Peer review and support development Organisational learning and development
1.2 Chief constables are asked to consider supporting the adoption of this four strand approach.
6. BUILDING A LEARNING CULTURE
2.1 The objective is to promote a ‘learning culture’ through the development of a ‘growth mind-set’, shaped by the Code of Ethics, characterised by procedural justice, Continuous Professional Development (CPD), reflexive learning, effective knowledge transfer and informed decision-making. If delivered effectively, such an approach will establish a basis for informed organisational development, preparedness and adaptation as well as offering a clear narrative to stakeholders substantiated by an evidence base. There are several ongoing areas of change activity that could be coordinated with some new activities:
Development of a confident and empowered workforce (CC Marshall) Engaged Leadership – recommendation 6 of the Leadership Review2 (Leadership Oversight Group) Feedback loops between the frontline and the executive (CC Rhodes and College of Policing) The de-stigmatisation of failure in policing (DAC Ball and CC York) Establishment of reflexive mind-sets at the organisational level through debriefing to support service improvement (ACC Shead NPoCC)
2 Leadership Review Recommendation 6: Create a new model of leadership and management training and development which is accessible to all within policing. 305 RETURN TO CONTENTS/AGENDA
7. PERFORMANCE AND MISCONDUCT
3.1 The NPCC Professional Standards and Ethics Committee and the College of Policing are working to support the establishment of a shared understanding of accountability in policing that distinguishes between learning and misconduct:
Development of a procedurally just culture (CC Jelley and IPCC) o Improving future conduct and efficiency by remitting assessments of conduct to be dealt with under Performance Regulations (Mr Lee Catling) o Increasing transparency through the publication and circulation of investigation reports, conduct assessments and the outcomes of proceedings to improve cross force learning (CC Guildford) o Inform amendments to the complaints and misconduct system to achieve greater efficiency, simplification and learning focus (CC Guilford) National guidance on Abuse of Authority for Sexual Gain has been approved and a parallel strategy for addressing this form of misconduct in the context of behaviour within the workplace is being developed (CC Watson). Development of an approach to develop a shared understanding of accountability that distinguishes between learning and misconduct (CC Pinkney and College of Policing)
8. PEER REVIEW AND SUPPORT DEVELOPMENT
4.1 Learning Leaders workshops and interview participants made numerous positive references regarding the value of peer review processes in support of forces experiencing organisational strain. The College of Policing peer review model is different to the formal inspection process and draws on expertise from across policing to develop a rounded and supportive picture of how the organisation is operating. The following work is ongoing:
Peer Review standards, development of capability and assurance model (CC Rhodes) Peer Support development post review (CC Rhodes)
9. ORGANISATIONAL LEARNING AND DEVELOPMENT
5.1 Cultural change, knowledge sharing and a systemic approach to organisational learning and development are critical elements underpinning a learning organisation. The Learning Leaders work identified that individual forces, the national CT Network and the College of Policing have been developing approaches to organisational learning within their own domains. To avoid a fragmented approach, that fails to capture the totality of learning across the police service, it is proposed a survey of forces, NPCC Coordination Committees and national law enforcement organisations is undertaken to capture emergent approaches to organisational learning with the aim of developing a consistent methodology, forward looking accountability and a knowledge sharing function.
Landscape review of existing and emerging approaches to organisational learning (College of Policing) Development of Horizon Scanning capability (NPCC Futures Scanning Group) Establishment of an organisational learning methodology (College of Policing) Development of a national Knowledge Sharing Network Model (College of Policing)
10. STEERING GROUP
306 RETURN TO CONTENTS/AGENDA
6.1 It is proposed a steering group, comprised of key stakeholders and ‘critical friends’, is established to oversee, support and promote the development of a learning culture in policing. The steering group should include senior level representatives from the following groups, PCCs, Chief Constables, Home Office, IPCC, HMIC, Staff Associations and experts in this field.
11. DECSION SOUGHT
7.1 Chief constables are asked to consider supporting the adoption of this four strand approach.
Chief Constable Sara Thornton
Chair NPCC
307 RETURN TO CONTENTS/AGENDA
308 RETURN TO CONTENTS/AGENDA
OFFICIAL SENSITIVE
Title: UKPPS Business Case
S23(1)
This page has been left intentionally black
309 RETURN TO CONTENTS/AGENDA
OFFICIAL SENSITIVE
S23(1)
313 RETURN TO CONTENTS/AGENDA
OFFICIAL SENSITIVE
This page has been left intentionally blank
314 RETURN TO CONTENTS/AGENDA
OFFICIAL SENSITIVE
315 RETURN TO CONTENTS/AGENDA
OFFICIAL SENSITIVE
Chief Constables’ Council Emergency Services Mobile Communications Programme (ESMCP): Police Gateway Review 14 July 2017 Agenda item: 16 S43(1) & S31(1)(a)(b)
Francis Habgood Chief Constable Emergency Services Mobile Communications Lead
316 RETURN TO CONTENTS/AGENDA
OFFICIAL SENSITIVE
This page has been left intentionally blank
317 RETURN TO CONTENTS/AGENDA
OFFICIAL SENSITIVE
318 RETURN TO CONTENTS/AGENDA
OFFICIAL SENSITIVE Chief Constables’ Council
Police Reform
13 July 2017 /Agenda item: 17
Security classification: N/A Disclosable under FOIA 2000: Yes Author: Supt Tim Metcalfe Force/organisation: NPCC Date created: 30 June 2017
1. PURPOSE
1.2 The purpose of this paper is to update chief constables in respect of the Police Reform and Transformation Board (PRTB) which met on 26 April, 25 May and 12 June. Full sets of papers relating to each have been published on ChiefsNet3. Chief constables are asked to note:
(i) The discussion relating to national change management scheduled for the July Summit (paras 2.2-2.4) (ii) The prioritisation of national reform ‘building blocks’ (para 2.5) (iii) The use of the July Joint Summit to discuss PTF submission from the College of Policing (para 2.6) (iv) The review of PTF submitted bids (paras 3.1-3.2) (v) Support for the Enabling Programmes, Specialist Capabilities and Digital Policing proposals (paras 4.1-4.10) (vi) Proposals to adopt a portfolio management approach (paras 4.11-4.12)
2. UPDATE FROM APRIL PRTB
2.1. The PRTB sat on 26 April 2017 to discuss challenges relating to national change management and to review proposals relating to the prioritisation of police reform ‘building blocks’.
2.2. In light of concerns relating to the ability of forces to optimise the use of Police Transformation Fund (PTF) resources to embrace transformation the board considered the structural and cultural barriers to concerted change activity at the national level and potential solutions. Barriers relating to the following areas were identified:
Localism
3http://intranet.npcc.pnn.police.uk:8080/central_office/strategy/Shared%20Documents/Forms/AllItems.aspx?RootFolder= %2Fcentral%5Foffice%2Fstrategy%2FShared%20Documents%2FPolice%20Reform%20and%20Transformation%20Board%2 FMeetings%2F2017&FolderCTID=0x0120000038F09F8AB78D499450189556176731&View=%7B21B5F795%2D074E%2D40 43%2DB3DA%2D1C1F1F9BB79E%7D
319 RETURN TO CONTENTS/AGENDA
OFFICIAL SENSITIVE
Capability and capacity Benefits definition Legal ambiguity relating to accountability Poor organisational agility Over-programmed change landscape at the local, regional and national levels
2.3. The options of overcoming the barriers to change by establishing larger forces, greater Home Office direction and stronger regulation were each considered but identified as unlikely to be pursued. It was therefore proposed the current approach could be refined by adopting the following strategies to refine the current system:
building central capacity and capability to support service wide change the establishment of a ‘coalition of the willing’ comprised of participating forces developing a collaborative ‘networked’ approach to encourage shared methodologies and better utilisation of change capacity
2.4. Proposals to establish a more innovative approach in support of police transformation were discussed. These included the selective use of the private sector to reduce the pressures associated with change implementation and the establishment of an organisation with a mandate to deliver change on behalf of forces and PCCs. The board recognised that challenges of delivering change across widely varying organisations and proposed that this issue be discussed at the Joint Summit for Chief Constables and Commissioners on 18 July.
2.5. The PRTB also discussed the prioritisation of the reform building blocks following the review and validation exercise undertaken in the last quarter of 2016-17. The following ‘high priority’ areas for potential national commissions were agreed:
Specialist Capability Supply & Demand Mgt. Model (2.1) Policing Data Strategy & Foundations (4.1) Video Enabled Justice Platforms (5.1) Reform & Transformation Support Capability (6.4) Multi-agency Case Management Platform (7.1) Knowledge Sharing Network Model (8.2)
2.6. The Board also agreed the following:
The commission of a review of ongoing and proposed activity relating to Predictive Analytics, Big Data and Open Source Exploitation to ensure a coherent and aligned approach. The initiation of a landscape review of current multi-agency case management systems used by the police service is supported by the PRTB. That the Police Education Qualification Framework building block is discussed at the Joint Summit for Chief Constables and Commissioners on 18 July.
3. UPDATE FROM MAY PRTB
3.1. Ninety-seven proposals for PTF allocation, four resubmissions and two profiling submissions were assessed by the Gateway Group on 10-11 April and presented to the Board in 25 April. Each of the proposals was considered and the Board agreed the majority of the recommendations in the Report, with the exception of those proposals relating to ROCUs.
3.2. The Board agreed further discussion was required with the Home Office on the approach to the funding of the ROCUs. This was in the context that PTF monies sought almost equalled the existing funding Home Office allocation. Additionally several proposals supported by the Board would require funding beyond the PTF lifetime. It was suggested that for those proposals which enhance ROCU capabilities funding requested should be allocated to the ROCUs with oversight through existing regional structures. For other proposals submitted by the NCA and NPCC Lead for Serious Organised Crime the Specialist Capabilities
320 RETURN TO CONTENTS/AGENDA
OFFICIAL SENSITIVE
Board should consider appropriate oversight arrangements.
3.3. A review of the position of any legacy systems used by the police service, but hosted by the Home Office, which may require replacement or updating was agreed to understand what future role, if any, might be played by the Board and/or PTF.
3.4. The Board also received updates in respect of the following ongoing PTF resourced national programmes:
Specialist Capabilities (phase 2) Digital Policing Portfolio Enabling Programmes (Identity Access Management, Security Operations Centre and Productivity Services) Transforming Forensics
4. UPDATE FROM JUNE PRTB
Enabling Programmes
4.1. The June PRTB meeting received an overview of the Enabling Services programmes, highlighting the objectives of the Productivity Services (to include Identity Access Management) and Security Operations Centre (SOC) programmes, and the work and consultation that had been undertaken to-date to develop the Outline Business Cases (OBCs).
4.2. The PTF noted the Gateway Group’s comments on these business cases, especially in relation to the assumptions associated with the timescales around the take-up from forces. Additional concerns were raised that the future costs to and return on investment for individual forces needed more work to provide the Board with assurance that Chief Finance Officers had been adequately engaged in the process of developing the OBCs.
4.3. The Board noted the options for the delivery vehicle for these Programmes included: a lead force, the Home Office or the Police ICT Company with the appropriate governance mechanisms. It was agreed more discussions would need to be undertaken with the ICT Company, to articulate the expectations of their role in the delivery of the programmes. This was an important element of the wider discussion required on national delivery vehicles.
4.4. The Board supported the OBCs for Enabling Services Programmes (IAM and Productivity Services and the Security Operations Centre), with the following caveats:
More work is undertaken to address the hosting and delivery vehicle Work is undertaken force-by-force on the estimates and assumed costs for each force, in consultation with Commissioners’ Chief Finance Officers. It is anticipated this will demonstrate cost avoidance/cost savings. Costs are to be re-profiled ahead of any PTF submission.
4.5. The Board requested the outcomes of the ongoing work associated with these programmes report to the Business Enablers Reform Board. The PRTB agreed to delegate its authority to the Chair of the Business Enablers Reform Board and the Chair of the Board to approve a recommendation for funding out-of- session, noting that this decision did not need to come back to the September Board meeting
Specialist Capabilities
4.6. The Board discussed the Specialist Capabilities which sought £3,087,920 from the 2017-18 PTF. It was noted that feedback has been sought from chief constables and Police and Crime Commissioners through the meeting structures of the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners and Chief Constables’ Council on the options presented by the Specialist Capabilities Programme team.
4.7. At the time of the meeting feedback from some PCCs was still being sought but the indication was that, 321 RETURN TO CONTENTS/AGENDA
OFFICIAL SENSITIVE
while there was broad agreement with the direction of travel, not all PCCs supported all aspects of the recommendations contained in the Specialist Capabilities Programme Team’s Phase 2 Report. However, the Board did acknowledge the importance of progressing this work in a timely manner, especially in the context of the recent terrorism incidents in London and Manchester.
4.8. The Board supported the proposal to seek PTF resources to support the ongoing work of this reform strand. The Board delegated its authority to the Chair of the Board, Chair NPCC and Chair APCC to make a recommendation to the Home Secretary for funding of the Specialist Capabilities proposal out-of-session. This recommendation will be made subject to the views of PCCs not being discordant with the recommendation of the Board. To do this, the Chair APCC will consult with the two PCC representatives on the Specialist Capabilities Board. The Board agreed the proposal did not need to be returned to the September meeting.
Digital Policing
4.9. The Board noted that the Digital Policing Portfolio team were working towards the production of two interim outline business cases for mid-June. These had been requested by the Home Office to enable advice to be provided to Ministers ahead of the summer recess on the funding for the programme. The final versions of the outline business cases are expected by the end of July 2017. Ministers will be asked to ‘ring fence’ monies over three years to support the portfolio with a view to the staged release of funds against agreed milestones and deliverables.
4.10. The Board was of the view that the core team supporting the programme required a degree of certainty in respect of its funding and to enable this, Minsters could be asked to agree funding for the core team for the full 2017-18 financial year subject to any agreed deliverables/milestones. It was hoped a similar approach could be taken over the anticipated funding period. It was agreed the PRTB would need to review the two outline business cases at its meeting in September ahead of making recommendations to Ministers.
Portfolio Management
4.11. The Director of Police Reform Development (Jacky Courtney) presented a potential approach to portfolio management to support the delivery of the Policing Vision 2025. The PRTB supported the proposal to move the focus for the Board towards a coherent transformation programme and away from an emphasis on the allocation of a pot of money. The Board recognised the need for:
more engagement with force change managers Force and Commissioner Chief Finance Officers to be made aware of the impact of programmes to ensure forces are aware of future funding commitments associated with national change management programmes. This is both in terms of costs and benefits governance and oversight mechanisms to be flexible with staged gateway processes managed in a way to not disrupt the momentum of achieving the outcomes for a programme/project any portfolio management approach, including the identification of further programmes and projects, to adopt the language of a funded change programme, shifting away from a bidding process for funding centrally managed national change programmes to be proportionate to locally and regionally based initiatives
4.12. The PRTB agreed to ring-fence £2m-3m to support the development of the portfolio management approach and the work needed to implement the priority building blocks. The Board recognised that its need to focus on PTF allocation in recent meetings had prevented it from giving due attention to its strategic role. An autumn workshop will provide the opportunity to give the appropriate consideration to the ongoing business with consideration given to developing a short and medium term plan. It was suggested that the workshop could be informed by information on threat assessment and a recognition that the work of the Board was to build an effective law enforcement community.
322 RETURN TO CONTENTS/AGENDA
OFFICIAL SENSITIVE
5. SUMMARY
5.1 There have been three PRTB meetings since the April 2017 Chief Constables’ Council. Chief constables are asked to note:
(i) The discussion relating to national change management scheduled for the July Summit (paras 2.2-2.4) (ii) The prioritisation of national reform ‘building blocks’ (para 2.5) (iii) The use of the July Joint Summit to discuss PTF submission from the College of Policing (para 2.6) (iv) The review of PTF submitted bids (paras 3.1-3.2) (v) Support for the Enabling Programmes, Specialist Capabilities and Digital Policing proposals (paras 4.1-4.10) (vi) Proposals to adopt a portfolio management approach (paras 4.11-4.12)
Person Submitting: Sara Thornton
Rank: Chief Constable
Portfolio: NPCC Chair
323 RETURN TO CONTENTS/AGENDA
OFFICIAL SENSITIVE
This page has been left intentionally black
4
OFFICIAL SENSITIVE
FINAL REPORT OF
THE PRESIDENT'S TASK FORCE ON
21ST CENTURY POLICING
MAY 2015
S27(1)(a)
4
OFFICIAL SENSITIVE
Chief Constable David Thompson West Midlands Police Chief Constables' Council - 12/13July 2017
NPCC f inance Coordination Committee Update
OFFICIAL SENSITIVE
Big ticket items
• Police Core Grant Formula. • Efficiencies Review 2017. • ROCU grant. • National Commercial Board. • Pensions. • 2017 pay settlement.
OFFICIAL SENSITIVE
OFFICIAL SENSITIVE
What is the policing narrative.
• Connected story: APCC/NPCC,S23(1), NPCHQ. • Context: What has changed since 2015? The value of the police £ (economist outlook) The international comparison of police spending v UK. • Flat cash to real term. The limitations of flat cash. The use of reserve. Pressures and service resilience. Cliff edge items. What policing activity is being spent on ( Activity analysis)
OFFICIAL SENSITIVE
What is the policing narrative.
• Real terms means: Baseline point. Real terms defined.
OFFICIAL SENSITIVE
The efficiency deal..... The first hard bit?
• How do we project a service wide efficiency narrative and targets? - Vision 2025 and the programmes. - £350m back office and procurement. - Case studies of local. - Commitments to re-investment.
• Coordination Committees need to start examination of where there a re efficiency areas.
OFFICIAL SENSITIVE
The investment ...... potentia l for tensions.
• Investment requests need to afford government choice set against a clea r service offer. It may need to connect to efficiency.
• Which areas are we asking for investment in?
- Loca l? Firea rms? Cyber? Cou nter terrorism ?
• How are we creating a choice?
OFFICIAL SENSITIVE
Recommendations.
• A. To note the report. • B. Agree financial request of £160k apportioned on net budget. • C. Endorse the Gold and Silver Group Membership. • D. Endorse the current foc us of the submission. • E. Endorse the decision to convene Coordination Committee Chairs and Chief Constables telecons. • F. Agree a delegation to the Finance Committee Chair to progress this work as detailed in t his report.