RESTRICTED
POLICE NATIONAL COMPUTER NAMES GROUP
Minutes of the one hundred and forty second meeting held on Thursday 5th June 2014. At 09:30 at The Met Hotel, Leeds Persons Present
Tina Watson TW Northumbria Police (Chair) Shaun Beresford SB ACRO (Secretary) Scott Gunn SG Leicestershire Police Vivien Jaymes VJ Merseyside Police Wendy Davies WD PNC Business Development Partner John Rice JR Home Office JOA SIS II Gavin Ireland GI Home Office Corporate Services Peter Smith PS PNC Services (SEG) Dave Low DL Metropolitan Police James Smart JS Police Scotland ************S40 BD PSNI Jess Maltby JM ACRO (Minute Taker)
Apologies for absence
David Senior DS HMIC Joanne Cawood JC College of Policing (ICTLP) Carolyn Leonard CL Avon & Somerset Police Raymond McIntyre RM Police Scotland Graham Parkes GO College of Policing (ICTLP)
1. Introduction
TW welcomed all attendees and acknowledged apologies from DS, JC, CL, RM and GP. JS is representing Police Scotland in the absence of RM.
TW advised that CL will no longer be attending PNG meetings due to her new role and that a new SW Region Representative will be identified in due course.
On behalf of the group, TW thanked CL for her support to the PNG over years and the assistance she had provided in dealing with complex national issues.
2. Minutes of the previous meeting
Minor spelling amendments were brought to attention.
Page 4 – ‘met’ not ‘meet. Page 5 – should be ‘NPAs’ not ‘suppliers’ Page 7 – ‘e-borders’ not ‘e-boarders;
Subject to amendment the minutes were agreed by the group and will be published on POLKA.
Secretary’s Note: Minutes published on POLKA on 14th June 2014.
RESTRICTED 1 RESTRICTED
3. Actions
133 5.1 - Not guilty by reason of insanity with guilty disposal
DL confirmed that although all the disposal codes are available on the PNC there are some adjudication values that have not been assigned. DL to liaise with PS to address the deficiencies and to circulate a PNC LOL.
Action: DL to liaise with PS and circulate PNC LOL.
137 5a - Update PNC processes for gender reassigned
DL has completed the work required in respect to this action. The views of the PNG were fed back to the (old) National Policing Lead (NPL) for LGBT and to Everett Henry (College of Policing). Subject to approval of the new NPL for LGBT, the new guidelines will be circulated by LOL for use by forces. Updates for GR markers will be carried out by the Home Office Reconciliations Team.
Action: Closed.
139 4a(2)(c) - CRQs which relate solely to third parties and PNG involvement
This action relates to the group being unclear on whether the PNG were being asked to review and prioritise the work of PNCS/SEG in relation to decisions made in other PNC Working Groups (WG). DL has spoken with ************S40 and TW has sought clarity from ************S40 , Head of PNCS. The PNG is not being asked to prioritise CRQs raised by other PNC WG e.g. PIAP. Information about CRQs submitted by these groups is being shared by PNCS with the PNG for information purposes.
Action: Closed.
139 4b(6) - Use of disposal code 2053
This will be addressed in agenda item 8e.
139 6c - Use of Disposal Code 3069
DL advised that the DBS has challenged some forces on the recording of text relating to the DBS in a PNC court disposal. This was also raised at the P4G by ************S40 This has been a long standing debate between the PNG and the MoJ Results Sub Group.
SB stated that it is about how such information is recorded on PNC i.e. it’s not part of a sentence. If it’s recorded as part of the ‘sentence’ then it will appear on the criminal record certificates produced by the DBS. This matter has been discussed at a previous PNG meeting.
JM to check the previous minutes from Meeting 139, August 2013 (see note below).
Secretary’s Note: Extract from Minutes from meeting 139: The Courts under paragraph 25 of Schedule 3 to the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act (SVGA) 2006 must inform the defendant upon their conviction for a relevant offence under the SVGA, that the person will or (as the case may be), may, be included in a Disclosure and Barring Service’s (DBS) list of people barred from working in regulated activity with children and/or list of people barred from working in regulated activity with adults. Consequently, as of 17th June 2013, Disqualification Orders (DOs) are no longer being issued by the courts. The court practice of adding text to the result “DBS adult barring may apply” was not deemed to be a result by the Results Sub Group. DL to raise the risk of not recording such text at the P4G.
TW stated this is not a decision for the PNG and the DBS should take legal advice.
Action: TW to write to ACC David Pryde.
RESTRICTED 2 RESTRICTED
140 4a2(e) - Secure Dial
WD advised that the PNC LOL has been circulated.
Action: Closed.
140 4a7(b) - Additional offence added at court to go on DH page or generated via AS page
This was discussed at a previous meeting (140). SG and DL briefly outlined the issue again. The B7 Solution currently adds additional offences via the DH page where it can and the asterix (*) is displayed. The solution will only be able to do this when the original offence(s) is still impending. The B7 Solution can not add an additional offence when it has been added following a previous hearing where an interim result was added to the original offence(s) as there is no longer an impending prosecution. Manual intervention is required to de-link and re-link accordingly in order to display the asterix.
To prevent the lengthy manual intervention process of de-linking and re-linking on the DH page, additional offences can be added via the AS page however this does not display the asterix. If this method was adopted it would mean there would be a two tier approach in relation to recording additional offences on the PNC.
Guidance was sought from the group regarding the necessity of displaying an (*) which indicates that there are additional offences on the DH page.
VJ advised that she had raised this issue with her Region and they were in favour of displaying the (*) as this indicates there is court information.
TW had an opposite response from her Region which was that displaying the (*) was deemed unnecessary. TW outlined the feedback and it was clear there was confusion towards the process. SG confirmed the NW Region’s understanding of the issue was incorrect.
SB asked whether this was a conflict in guidance between the functional specification and the PNC Manual. SG advised that he adopts the approach from the PNC Manual but it is time consuming.
TW asked what the benefits of displaying the (*) were. Who would know that the (*) indicates that the offence(s) was added at court. TW could not see any advantage in this.
DL advised that it was a quick way of highlighting that additional offences had been added. SG stated that some change needs to happen to avoid inconsistency. The B7 consensus was that the (*) should be displayed as it shows the information came from court.
DL suggested that a PNC LOL should be created by the B7 Group outlining that displaying the (*) offers small tangible benefits and there is a small issue with the data quality. The PNG are happy for forces to manage the process either way depending on available resources.
TW said that she cannot see the tangible benefits and asked about the time and resources needed to make this happen. It’s not something that we can dictate and there is such a small difference in the quality of data.
PS advised that complicated changes would need to be made to the B7/PNC interface. DL stated that this was a lot of work for little change. SB agreed but said that we should not discourage suggestions on how to bring about improvements that benefit the users of our systems. The group agreed that it was a ‘nice to have’. If a CRQ were to be submitted to PNC Customer Support it would attract a ‘Low’ priority meaning that work would only be done if the opportunity arises. Until then, it should be business as usual.
Action: Closed.
RESTRICTED 3 RESTRICTED
140 4a8 – PoFA
DL provided the group with an update.
The ‘Single Search’ guidance was published under PNC LOL 2014/017. Additional changes will take effect in September 2014.
TW said there was a lack of guidance in relation to what was expected from forces. The PNC LOL from May 2014 advised that implementation into ‘Live’ was postponed until June 2014. However, timings have still not been confirmed by PNC Customer Support which prevents forces allocating resources to manage the change requirements.
WD advised that the ‘Go Live’ was on Sunday 15th June. GI added that there maybe a valid reason why a time had not yet been confirmed. TW said that implanting the change on a Sunday had resource implications insofar as staff would have to come in to work on their day off?
DL input that any updates on a record will be lost unless the work required is carried out.
GI made a call and confirmed times to the group. It was agreed that these should be adjusted and the new date/time notified to forces.
Action: WD to circulate revised dates and times via a PNC LOL.
140 9b - Use of court code 9998
There has been no feedback from DS.
Action: DS to provide update at the next meeting.
140 10e - Direction to release on bail
The group had previously been asked by SG for their thoughts on what process forces should adopt when the hearing outcome at court is ‘Direction to release on bail’. The response from the group was that PNC should be updated as ‘remanded in custody’. SG identified that there was a lack of consistency around the updating the PNC in these circumstances.
DL advised that a ‘Trigger’ exists in B7 to alert forces that this has occurred and forces should be reacting to this ‘Trigger. However, TW advised that ‘Triggers’ are not mandatory and that forces can decide which ‘Triggers’ they use.
Following discussion it was agreed that a CRQ is needed from the B7 Group to ensure that the wording on the ‘Trigger’ is the same as wording that should be recorded on the PNC.
TW advised that for now we continue as we are.
On a broader note, it was identified that many of the proposals and CRQs submitted to improve the automated exchange between B7 and PNC have not been progressed for various reasons and that can’t be right. PNCS should collate all the change requests that would improve the B7 Solution and these should be worked on whenever time and resources permit.
The group agreed that this requirement was similar to 140 47(b) above; it was a ‘nice to have’. It should therefore be ‘listed’ for action at some point otherwise users will simply become despondent and not bother suggesting ways in which electronic information exchange could be improved.
Action: SG to raise a CRQ.
141 4a1 – PNC Development Programme – CRQ Review
Meeting held on 4th June 2014 and all outstanding CRQs were either weeded or re-prioritised.
Action: Closed.
RESTRICTED 4 RESTRICTED
141 8a – Domestic Violence Markers
The question of whether a specific DV Marker is required in respect of perpetrators was discussed at Meeting 141. Currently, a variety of markers are available to forces including Violent Markers, Information Markers and LOCATE/INFO. All have the capacity to add free text in relation to a person’s propensity to commit DV. Accordingly, the group had determined that there are sufficient PNC Markers available for forces to use and therefore a specific DV Marker is not required: the problem is perhaps more to do with the fact that forces are using the existing Markers as they ought to be doing!
SB spoke to the other aspect of his paper which asks whether victim information should be recorded the PNC? The group were not in favour however after a short discussion it was decided that it was not for the PNG to determine whether or not victim information should be held on the PNC. This was a matter for P4G and the relevant National Policing Leads.
Action: TW to write to ACC David Pryde.
141 8c – Recording of Non Molestation Orders
TW advised that the re-wording of PNC LOL 2012/07 issued in March 2012 which refers to the recording of non molestation orders on PNC has been completed.
Action: TW to send completed PNC LOL to SB for circulation.
Secretary’s Note: PNC LOL submitted to PNC Customer Support on 15th August 2014.
141 9 – Driving Disqualifications dropping off PNC
WD advised that the examples from CL have not yet been received; this has also been discussed with ************S40 .TW stated that this needs to be researched; WD will confirm with CL whether there are any examples. Until a problem has been identified then this Action is closed.
Action: Closed.
4. Standing agenda items
4a PNC Development Programme
PS spoke briefly to his report. a. PoFA. The project is in Stage 6. There are some residual changes needed to improve the user interface for match investigations and further work required on retention dates. b. SIS II. There is little to update in the Names area. PSNI CJA has had no software changes as yet which may cause them some issues in terms of ‘Go Live’. GI stated that resources are currently being allocated from a project perspective for this piece of work. c. #HS. PS advised that the work on cross force updating is now complete. WD added that there has been a pilot with West Yorkshire Police and this is looking promising regarding the SSU collaboration. SB asked whether a list of the forces involved in PNC collaboration arrangements could be added to POLKA. WD confirmed that this could be done. d. CRQs. TW asked whether the table of outstanding CRQs can have dates added to show a running log, much like the PNG action log that we maintain. PS confirmed that this could be done.
GI commented that the PNG report highlighted that the majority of CRQs were ‘awaiting resources’: he advised that he would look in to this. e. Duplicate Persons Statistics. There has been a large increase in the number of duplicate records (+83K) in the past year which potentially could be attributed to PoFA. TW stated that the significant increase is worrying and research is needed into why there has been such a significant
RESTRICTED 5 RESTRICTED increase in this area. It was noted that Cumbria Police has had no increase in their duplicate records: VJ was asked to enquire why this was so and report back to the group.
SB noted that that force code 71 indicated as ‘Navy’ is incorrect as all PNC transactions for the Armed Services (Navy, Army and RAF) are conducted through Force Code 15 (Service Police Crime Bureau).
Action: Members to take back to their Regions.
Action: VJ to contact Cumbria Police and report back at the next PNG meeting.
4b PNC SEG Business Analysis
SB spoke briefly to LM’s paper. a. PoFA. Work is in progress on the software required to support the ‘Single Search’ capability due for implementation in June 2014. Further software releases planned for August and September will deliver additional functionality including on screen Sample Guidance. b. PSNI Link Project. PSNI BRC started on 7th October 2013. As at 2nd May 2014, 198,200 new nominals had been created on PNC comprising some 732,736 cases together with 119,826 sets of fingerprints having been added to the IDENT1 unified collection. Provision is being made for NI NCD (non court disposals) to be recorded on the PNC. c. LASPO. Changes to introduce a bespoke solution for Youth Cautions and PND education options are still being delayed by higher priority work. This work is likely to be done in conjunction with the NI NCD work mentioned above. d. Review of Information Management Arrangements in the Police Service – RIMAPS. A workshop was held at ACRO on 8th April.
GI thanked LM for her input to this section of the meeting.
4c ACRO Update
SB spoke to his paper and invited comments from the group.
The TD case has significance in the world of records management and the Management of Police Information (MoPI).
With regards to the RIMAPS project there is no change as of yet in terms of the PNC Stub Record.
4d SIS II
JR advised that the programme is currently undergoing Police and Judicial Co-operation evaluation. Evaluators from other Schengen Member States are in the UK to inspect the UKs progression to ‘Go live’ which is expected to be in the 4th Quarter of 2014.
Business Survey 2 (assessing forces readiness for ‘Go live’) is now complete. There are a small number of forces that show cause concern. These forces have been contacted and the JOA is assisting them in there implementation of SISII local policy.
Business survey 3 will be issued to forces in Mid July with a view to final sign off.
4e BR7
SG spoke to his paper.
Release 5.8 was implemented in March 2014. Changes included a new trigger for Civil Court Cases but it is not an auto alert neither is it mandatory. TW stated that it should be given to forces
RESTRICTED 6 RESTRICTED and should be ‘On’ otherwise this is a risk. The consensus was that this should be a mandatory trigger and the PNG would like this to be considered by the B7 Group. SB advised that they also have the power to update the mandatory list anyway.
The 5.9 release is due for release in July and the changes made are around improving automation and small cosmetic changes. One expected change includes the handling of civil offences which are added to a criminal case.
SB queried this and a group discussion followed. TW said that this should apply to only those cases that have direct police involvement, e.g. civil orders that can be issued following a police investigation or prosecution.
DL provided further clarification.
The group discussed the issue of which force is responsible for updating PNC with a warrant when the original offence(s) is owned by one force, but the warrant is issued by a Court in another force’s area. The B7 Group agreed it should be the force where the warrant was issued; however VJ and TW argued that it should go to the force where the original offence occurred so the responsibility lies with them to update PNC. The process starts and ends with the starting force. **
** TW later advised (5/9/14) that on reflection she would like to see a process map of the court process to see which ASN is being used for the FTA. If the court is applying the ASN of the original case the FTA result will go to that portal, if the court is applying a dummy ASN using a pre fix number of a force in the Courts area the FTA will go to that forces portal.
Action: SG to take this back to the B7 Group.
SG advised that the B7 Group had put forward an RFC to request the removal of future hearing dates when an interim result is added to PNC. This RFC was still outstanding.
TW recalled that questions had been raised in relation to why a date was needed? SB said that he could not recall the RFC ever being raised through the PNG and suggested that the matter should enquired into and therefore deferred for further discussion at the next PNG meeting.
Action: JM to check previous meeting’s minutes to see if the outstanding RFC was discussed.
Secretary’s Note: JM checked the minutes from May, August and November 2013 and could find no record of this matter being discussed.
5. Scotland
JS advised that the phased implementation of the collaborative working record ownership arrangements on the PNC will be utilised by force codes 90 and 96. There is still a lot of work to be done but services are now moving away from the legacy F/S codes towards the new 90 F/S codes.
JS thanked PNC Services for the delivery of this functionality.
6. Northern Ireland (PSNI Link Project)
BD advised that the project is coming to an end but going forward PSNI will be seeking support.
A letter has been drafted to go the Biometrics Commissioner regarding the work needed on the PNC to accommodate NI NCD as the current inability to record a proper disposal will prevent the weeding of biometric information held against records created in England & Wales.
Support from PNC Services will be also required to give effect to the biometric retention provisions contained in the Criminal Justice (Northern Ireland) Act 2013.
RESTRICTED 7 RESTRICTED
7. Change Requests 7a. Transfer of occupations during #ND record makeover
North Yorkshire submitted a CRQ advising that currently, during the #ND transaction, any occupations recorded on the source record are not transferred to the destination record if that same occupation type already exists even where the relevant date does not match.
The business objective is to ensure that all recorded occupations transfer from the source record to the destination record where the same occupation is not already recorded with the same relevant date on the destination record. SB advised that the Notifiable Occupation Scheme (NOS) is being withdrawn by the Home Office.
TW and VJ stated that there was no benefit to in this CRQ: it was a ‘nice to have’ but not critical.
The CRQ was not supported by the PNG.
8. New Business a. DVPN / DVPO
Domestic Violence Protection Notices and Orders.
SG and VJ both submitted papers on this topic.
SG led the discussion. A pilot scheme was carried out in GMP and two other forces. Guidance was issued via PNC LOL 2011/065 which instructed forces to enter a LOCATE/INFO marker and add conditions of the DVPN on to the OD page, whereas when a DVPO is issued at court it is placed on the WM page as a Miscellaneous Order.
SG advised that the West Midlands Region felt that the use of the OD page in relation to adding conditions of the DVPN should cease.
VJ’s paper advised of the request by GMP with regards to this topic. As they were part of the pilot scheme they had the following recommendation as staff found it extremely time consuming to create the DVPN as a LOCATE/INFO and record all the conditions on the OD page. The suggestion was made that a new order type of 'Domestic Violence Protection Notice or Order' could be created on PNC. This would enable all staff to be able to create the initial notification using this report type and enter text to state that it is a 'Domestic Violence Protection Notice' before entering the relevant conditions. If the DVPO was then granted this would prevent the double keying of information and therefore be less time consuming.
VJ then drew the group’s attention to the 48 hour weed date policy and that this needs to be addressed. DL responded that there are three lines available on PNC and referred to the attachment circulated with VJ’s paper. The example text on an actual PNC screen would leave enough space to fit the weed date and time.
TW queried whether the weed date starts from when the Notice is signed or when it is received by the recipient? A lengthy discussion ensued. TW stated that clarification is needed about in relation to when the 48 hour clock starts. DL said that this was for the National Policing Lead not the PNG.
Following further discussion continued and it was agreed that the recommendation from the pilot forces should adopted in that a new order category of DVPN / DVPO would better suit the recording requirements and avoid the need for double keying.
PS added that this was a simple change and the CRQ could be completed in just a few days.
Action: DL to create CRQ.
Action: WD to produce PNC LOL.
RESTRICTED 8 RESTRICTED
Action: SB to speak with NPL regarding the 48 hour weed policy.
Secretary’s Note: CRQ submitted to PNC Customer Support Friday 20th June 2014. b. PNC Manager Course Review
College of Policing – PNC Manager Course Review
SB presented this information on behalf of the College of Policing. He asked the group whether collective PNG input was required. The group acknowledged that the relevant contact details have been provided and forces should make direct contact to the Cathy Alliss at the College if they wish. c. Membership of Other Groups
PNG member contributions to other groups
TW lead the discussion. She stated that it was interesting on two fronts; who has membership of other groups and the impact that membership has on everyone’s day jobs.
TW advised that she was concerned about the amount of responsibility given to group members on certain pieces of work of national importance when they already have busy day jobs.
A lot of actions arose from the last PNG meeting for DL which covering a wide variety of topics.
Action: Members to e-mail TW with their views and details of the other groups the support by the end of June 2014. d. SW Region Representative
New representative needed for the South West Region
TW stated that due to CL leaving the group a new representative for the SW Region would need to be identified.
SB asked whether there are any other groups that should be invited and went through the Regions covered by each current member. All Regions and jurisdictions were represented albeit due to DLs role, the SE Region might wish to consider sending an additional representative.
Secretary’s Note: Tanya Bowen is the new SW Region representative. e. Disposal Codes Effecting Biometric Weeding
Proceedings Stayed and Other PoFA Non Standard Disposals
DL spoke to his paper.
All PNC disposal codes require an adjudication to be added as part of the updating.
The PNC currently has three possible adjudications Guilty (G), Not Guilty (N) and Non Conviction (O) to be updated with the adjudication.
Following the introduction of PoFA, the non conviction adjudications have been causing issues with regards to the retention of biometrics on PNC i.e. ‘Proceedings Stayed’ (code 2061).
DL stated that there is no specific guidance or approach dictated on ‘Proceedings Stayed’ and any resolution to this matter will need to address new entries going forward and all earlier instances of this disposal being used on the PNC by English and Welsh forces.
DL put forward 4 possible options to the group and the group agreed option 3:
RESTRICTED 9 RESTRICTED
3. Original indictment proceedings stayed, no additional indictments – result the proceeding stayed with a non conviction and investigate the result of the case. Time limit to be determined (see old record resolution).
DL to inform ACC Pryde of the groups’ recommendation prior to a planned meeting with the Biometrics Commissioner on 18th June 2014.
Action: DL to develop the proposed solution with PNCS and implement any change requirements.
Secretary’s Note: Logged on Action Log under previous action 139 4(b)6 f. #DL Issue (Motorcycle Entitlement)
#DL issue and automatic upgrade for motorcycle entitlement past the 2 years.
SG spoke to his paper which outlined an issue reported by forces regarding the data held on #DL in relation to the entitlement for driving a motorcycle.
When a driver passes their test they have an automatic entitlement to drive a motorcycle with up to a 25kw output for two years, following this their entitlement automatically updates to an output of greater than 25kw. The data held on PNC does not reflect this automatic update and relies on the PNC operator to count forward two years from the date the test was passed to establish their entitlement.
TW asked whether this was perhaps a training issue and is not something for the PNG to consider as there is no quick fix. The content has been noted and in the future there’ll be a solution.
DL input that this is something to be solved between DVLA and PNC. In conclusion TW advised that there needs to be a reiteration of communication from DVLA to confirm the process. g. Concurrent, Consecutive and Extended Qualifiers
Use of qualifiers ‘concurrent’, ‘consecutive’ and ‘extended’ are present on a Court result
SG spoke to his paper and informed the group that the B7 Group has discussed an issue experienced by forces in relation to exceptions which occur when the use of qualifiers ‘concurrent’, ‘consecutive’ and ‘extended’ are present on a Court result.
The data definitions state that these qualifiers are mutually exclusive, thus it prevents PNC being updated accurately to reflect the court result and B7 is unable to automate the result requiring manual intervention.
The group discussed the issue raised and it was decided that the issue should be taken back to Regions and thereafter a view from ************S40 be obtained.
Action: Members to take back to Regions and discuss at next meeting. h. Breach Process
Breach offence guidance
SG spoke to his paper and outlined that when a breach of an order occurs it is owned by one force, however the original sentence/offences from whence the order was issued is owned by another. The B7 Group were of the opinion that one force should own all aspects of a case/breach?
SG asked whether the group agreed with the B7 Groups view. DL asked whether it was a recordable of non-recordable breach? DL advised re-result / compensation (same category) and that breaches don’t have their own AS.
TW advised that the B7 should use a ‘Trigger’.
RESTRICTED 10 RESTRICTED
Action: SG to advise the B7 Group that the PNG do not agree with the proposal. i. Breach notifications to be sent to the UKCA-ECR
In order to comply with EU legislative requirements, the UKCA-ECR DAF report needs to be amended to show all breaches relating to foreign offenders.
SB spoke to the paper submitted by the UKCA-ECR.
Following a brief discussion it was agreed that the changes to the DAF report required by the UKCA-ECR should be raised directly with PNCS. It is not a matter requiring PNG intervention.
A further discussion followed regarding the capability of the PNC to be able to link breach information to specific disposals and it was the considered view of those present that it would not be possible as breaches do not have their own specific ASN or other unique reference.
DL advised that the breach information recorded on the PNC can be complex or incomplete and often needs to be interpreted by the user. j. UKCA-ECR Subsequently Varied
In order to comply with EU legislative requirements, the UKCA-ECR DAF report needs to be amended to show all occasions when disposals relating to foreign offenders are subsequently varied.
SB spoke to the paper submitted by the UKCA-ECR.
Following a brief discussion it was agreed that the changes to the DAF report required by the UKCA-ECR should be raised directly with PNCS. It is not a matter requiring PNG intervention.
SB to advise his UKCA-ECR colleagues accordingly.
9. AOB
None discussed.
10. Date of next meeting: 10th/11th September 2014.
Location: Leeds.
RESTRICTED 11