Undercover Policing

Baroness May of Maidenhead Excerpts

Thursday 2nd February 2012 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)]

Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of the Constabulary (HMIC) has today published its review into undercover policing entitled “A review of national police units which provide intelligence on criminality associated with protest”.

The review was initiated by HMIC following revelations about the activities of Mark Kennedy, a police officer working undercover for the then National Public Order Intelligence Unit (NPOIU), that led to the collapse of the trial of six people accused of planning to shut down a large power station in Nottinghamshire.

The report acknowledges that intelligence provided by undercover officers of the NPOIU enabled the police to prevent acts of the most serious violent nature.

The report examines the systems used by NPOIU to authorise and control the development of intelligence and the oversight of the activities of individual undercover officers. The report found that NPOIU undercover operations were not as well controlled as those of other units that deploy undercover officers such as the Serious Organised Crime Agency, Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, the Security Service and the FBI. This was especially so in the case of Mark Kennedy.

The report makes four recommendations to improve the controls and effectiveness of undercover policing of criminality associated with protest. The recommendations are as follows:

Recommendation 1

The arrangements for authorising those police undercover operations that present the most significant risks of intrusion within domestic extremism and public order policing should be improved as follows:

(a) ACPO should give serious consideration to establishing a system of prior approval for pre-planned, long-term intelligence development operations subject to the agreement of the OSC.

(b) The level of authorisation for long-term deployments of undercover police officers should be aligned with other highly intrusive tactics such as Property Interference, as defined by section 93 of the Police Act 1997, (subject to the legal requirements and the agreement of the OSC).

In the interim:

(c) Either a collaborative agreement should be entered into between police forces and MPS that allows one authorising officer within NDEU to own undercover operations from start to finish, or these operations should be managed in police forces by authorising officers that are:

a. Properly trained and accredited. In particular this training should cover the concepts of necessity, intrusion, proportionality, disclosure and risk management.

b. Fully briefed with all the relevant information.

In making these changes, consideration will need to be given to ensuring the police have some flexibility to deploy covert resources at short notice where operationally necessary, and to minimising potential impacts on covert human intelligence (CHIS) work and police collaboration with partners.

HMIC makes a number of further recommendations to improve the NPOIU’s management of the risk associated with intrusion (see recommendations 3 and 4 below).

Recommendation 2

In the absence of a tighter definition, ACPO and the Home Office should agree a definition of domestic extremism that reflects the severity of crimes that might warrant this title, and that includes serious disruption to the life of the community arising from criminal activity. This definition should give sufficient clarity to inform judgments relating to the appropriate use of covert techniques, while continuing to enable intelligence development work by police even where there is no imminent prospect of a prosecution. This should be included in the updated ACPO 2003 guidance.

Recommendation 3

The positioning of both public order intelligence and domestic extremism intelligence within the NDEU needs to be reconsidered. There will need to be an incremental transfer to any newly created hub for public order intelligence.

Recommendation 4

In recognition that undercover operations aimed at developing intelligence around serious criminality associated with domestic extremism and public order are inherently more risky, additional controls should be implemented as follows:

(a) MPS and ACPO leads should adopt a practical framework for reviewing proposed operations or their continuation.

(b) Authorising officers should conduct a thorough review of all undercover operations that last longer than six months. This review will be in addition to an independent review by the Surveillance Commissioners.

(c) Subject to reconsideration of the public order component (see recommendation no.3), domestic extremism operations should continue to be managed within the existing regional counter-terrorism unit structure, and there should be oversight by an operational steering group representing a range of interests and agencies. External governance could be provided using arrangements similar to those employed by the counter-terrorism network.

(d) The rationale for recording public order intelligence material on NDEU’s database should to be sufficient to provide assurance that its continued retention is necessary and justified given the level of intrusion into people’s privacy.

(e) Exit plans should be an addendum to the risk assessment and should be reviewed by the authorising officer, and they should be considered by appropriately trained police cover officers and police-employed psychologists collectively, alongside risks to the operational strategy and welfare of undercover officers.

(f) In order for safeguards to operate effectively consideration should be given to undercover officers waiving their right to confidentiality allowing the psychologist to brief managers of any concerns.

(g) The 2003 ACPO guidance needs urgent revision taking account of the findings of this and other reviews.

With the police, the Government will consider carefully the recommendations to ensure enhanced control of these undercover police officers in the future. Indeed, steps have already been taken to address some of the concerns. For example, the Metropolitan Police Service runs the National Domestic Extremism Unit (which now carries out the functions of NPOIU) on behalf of the police forces in England and Wales. This new arrangement came into effect in early 2011 and simplifies the scrutiny of the NDEU as it will be subject to the Metropolitan Police Service governance and accountability arrangements.

I am grateful to Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Constabulary for his review. A copy of this report will be placed in Library of the House.

Justice and Home Affairs Post-Council Statement

Baroness May of Maidenhead Excerpts

Thursday 2nd February 2012 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)]

Attending on behalf of the United Kingdom were my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Justice, the Scottish Minister for Community Safety and Legal Affairs Roseanna Cunningham MSP and myself. The following issues were discussed at the Council:

The first plenary session focused on solidarity in immigration and asylum, considering the need for Council conclusions on a common framework for solidarity; the trigger for solidarity measures; whether the agencies should have a strengthened role; whether there should be intra-EU relocation of refugees; and whether a framework should include Schengen and third-country co-operation. The UN Refugee Agency (UNHCR) said that the starting point for all should be to meet existing obligations, alongside burden-sharing. Within the EU joint asylum processing and voluntary relocation would be welcome, while there was a need for external action to strengthen resettlement and develop regional protection pilots. There was also a need to ensure that improved management of migration at the borders was sensitive to the needs of refugees and asylum seekers.

The Commission said that assistance could be provided within the framework of the Common European Asylum System (CEAS) but solidarity was also about keeping one’s own house in order. Commissioner Malmström supported a soft-law framework plus the early warning system, but any mechanism should be on the request of the member state with consideration by the European Asylum Support Office (EASO) and the Commission. She noted that the EU agencies could only work within their competence and co-ordination could only be done by the Commission. She also urged support for the voluntary relocation scheme and noted there was a link between Schengen and solidarity, against which evaluation of the former needed to be strengthened. The chair of the European Parliament (EP) Civil Liberties Committee emphasised the need to keep international protection distinguished from migration. They had consistently made the case for internal relocation and wanted the European Parliament to be informed at the earliest stage of early warning systems.

Many member states intervened to emphasise that solidarity depended on trust and should not detract from responsibility, which included investing in appropriate systems to manage changes in migration flows. The UK agreed that the need to have a functioning domestic system was the basic building block, without which real solidarity was impossible. The UK also expressed caution over EASO’s role being further developed at this stage and would not support an extension of relocation beyond the Malta pilot project, at least before it was evaluated. The UK said that relocation simply moved the problem around Europe rather than addressing the underlying problems. The UK also welcomed the presence of Turkey at the Council, with whom it supported strengthened co-operation. The majority of member states’ interventions supported the creation of a framework for solidarity in the form of Council conclusions and supported the inclusion of co-operation with third countries and consideration of Schengen within the proposed framework.

The presidency concluded that solidarity was dependent on trust and that a framework would be useful as a supplement to an early warning system. There was support for including components related to Schengen and co-operation with third countries and there was a place for strengthening the agencies. They noted there was not support for relocation. They committed to preparing draft conclusions in March which they hoped would unlock negotiations on the Dublin regulation. The task would then be to turn them into results by June. They noted it was closely linked to better political management of Schengen which would go to the March JHA Council.

In the light of the review of the family reunification directive, over lunch Ministers discussed the challenges facing them with respect to family reunification.

The next plenary session focused on the financing of passenger name records (PNR) under the proposed directive on the collection and sharing of PNR between member states. The presidency noted that, while the starting point for the implementation of EU policies was that member states took the cost of implementation, the EU could sometimes meet set-up costs. The Commission said they were willing to co-finance set-up costs in this case but could not finance running costs or all set-up costs. They had allocated €50 million (£41.76 million) for 2012 and fully intended to finance it in the future, via the new Internal Security Fund, currently under negotiation. The UK reiterated the importance of an EU PNR system for fighting terrorism and organised crime. Given its benefits the UK hoped the finance issue would be resolved and offered its own experience to assist others in helping to reduce their costs.

The majority of member states intervened to support funding from the EU financial instruments, with most supporting an explicit reference in the text of the new Internal Security Fund instrument. The European Parliament said that the issue for it was not cost, but noted that cost could affect them. The European Parliament believed that excluding EU internal flights from the scope of the directive would be cheaper. The presidency concluded there was general agreement to use the Internal Security Fund for funding for PNR, but member states needed reassurance that substantial financial support would be available. Discussions on the directive and Internal Security Fund will continue at expert level.

The Justice day commenced with a discussion on the Brussels I regulation, where the presidency invited delegations to discuss the proposed rules of jurisdiction in cases involving defendants in non-EU member states. The UK did not see any evidence of practical problems with the current arrangements, whereby national rules applied to such cases. Most other member states thought there was no need to extend the rules of jurisdiction in Brussels I to such cases. The presidency concluded that further work should be taken forward on basis of maintenance of the status quo.

This was followed by a discussion on criminal sanctions in the context of the current proposal for a directive on insider dealing and market manipulation. Ministers were asked to consider whether a provision for minimum levels of maximum penalties should be included in the proposed directive, and whether there should, as a rule, be provision for minimum-maximum levels of sanctions in future criminal law directives. The Commission stated that there must be respect for subsidiarity and proportionality and that there was no need for such a rule in the directive. The UK supported the Commission’s approach and felt that the first priority was for some criminal provision to be in place so that it was clear that the conduct would be treated as a serious offence. The UK also stressed the importance of enforcement and that having the options of both a criminal and civil approach would aid prosecutors, bearing in mind that criminal offences were harder to prove. The presidency concluded that the majority of states considered that having no specific minimum-maximum sanctions would be the right approach and that the question of sanctions in future instruments should be considered on a case by case basis.

During the ministerial lunch there was a discussion on the transfer of sentenced persons and social rehabilitation. Member states reviewed implementation so far of the framework decision on transfer of sentenced persons. Most states are in the process of implementation. There was widespread agreement that additional legislative measures to facilitate implementation were unnecessary, but that practical measures to activate the process must be addressed. The UK supports the framework decision so that foreign national offenders are able to serve their sentences in their own country to facilitate their eventual reintegration into the community in which they will live.

UK Border Agency (Report)

Baroness May of Maidenhead Excerpts

Tuesday 31st January 2012 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)]

Following the resignation of Brodie Clark, a senior UK Border Agency official, last November, I asked John Vine, the Independent Chief Inspector of the UK Border Agency, to carry out an independent investigation into border checks conducted by the UK Border Agency. Mr Vine has asked for more time to complete his investigation. Once I have received his final report I will update the House after constituency recess on both the findings of the report and on the action the Government will take.

Police Remuneration and Conditions

Baroness May of Maidenhead Excerpts

Monday 30th January 2012 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)]

This statement is about police pay and pensions. It provides the Government’s response to the Police Arbitration Tribunal’s findings on the recommendations in the part 1 report of Tom Winsor’s “Independent Review of Police Officer and Staff Remuneration and Conditions” and the consultation on the proposed increase in pension contributions for police officers. Both issues have the potential to affect police officer remuneration and so the Government have considered them in the round.

On 30 March 2011 I laid a statement to respond to Tom Winsor’s part 1 report of the review of remuneration and conditions of service for police officers and staff. I announced that I was directing the Police Negotiating Board and the Police Advisory Board for England and Wales to consider proposals within their remits for police officers in England and Wales as a matter of urgency.

The Police Negotiating Board was not able to reach agreement on several important proposals, and these were referred to the Police Arbitration Tribunal. The tribunal has now provided its recommendation and reasons, which I received on 9 January. The tribunal considered 18 recommendations from the Winsor part 1 report. The tribunal accepted 10 recommendations, modified five and made no award on three. I have today placed a copy of the Police Arbitration Tribunal report in the House of Commons Library.

I am grateful to the tribunal for its comprehensive and balanced consideration of these important issues. I have now considered its report thoroughly. I have decided to accept its recommendation and am minded to implement the package of reforms it has put forward in full.

I have also decided to accept the recommendation of the Police Negotiating Board on those recommendations that it agreed in principle, which were not referred to the PAT.

These reforms represent an important first step in modernising police pay and conditions so that they are fair to officers and to taxpayers. They include redistributing pay to officers who work unsocial hours, abolishing ineffective post-related payments (SPPs), suspending some elements of time-served pay and improving managers’ ability to manage shift arrangements. However, as a Government we remain committed to further reform and to the principles set out in the Winsor part 1 report. The PAT recommended that a small number of recommendations should be deferred until part 2 has made longer-term recommendations on pay structures. We will consider these matters along with part 2, in light of the review’s principles. In particular, the link between pay and skills remains a key principle and will be an important part of our consideration.

We have the best police service in the world, and these reforms will support the police in maintaining and improving the service that they give the public. In particular, they will support the objectives I set out in the review’s terms of reference to:

use remuneration and conditions of service to maximise officer and staff deployment to front-line roles where their powers and skills are required;

provide remuneration and conditions of service that are fair to, and reasonable for, both the public taxpayer and police officers and staff;

enable modern management practices in line with practices elsewhere in the public sector and the wider economy.

In reaching this decision, I have had regard to a number of vital considerations, including:

the review’s three key objectives as set out above;

the absolute necessity to reduce the fiscal deficit inherited from the previous Government and the part the police service must play in this and the role that changes to pay and conditions can play in protecting police jobs;

the need to maintain and improve the service provided to the public, taking account of a strong desire from the public to see more police officers and operational staff out on the front line of local policing and also recognising that there are less visible front-line roles that require policing powers and skills in order to protect the public;

the particular front-line role and nature of the Office of Constable, including the lack of a right to strike;

the Government’s wider objectives for police reform, including the introduction of police and crime commissioners, the reduction of police bureaucracy and collaboration between police forces and with other public services;

the Government’s wider policy of pay and pensions in the public sector;

the review’s analysis of the value of officers’ remuneration and conditions, as compared to other work forces;

parallel work by the police service to improve value for money, including collaboration with the private sector;

the impact of the recommendations on equality and diversity.

The service must be able to benefit from these reforms as soon as possible. I will therefore begin the necessary action to amend the Police Regulations 2003 and issue determinations under them shortly.

These reforms will make short-term improvements to police remuneration and conditions. Part 2 of the review will look at longer-term reform and is due to be published shortly.

Increases to police officer pension contributions

Turning now to police officer pensions, the Government want to ensure that public sector workers continue to have access to pension schemes that are among the very best available. However, reform is inevitable because people are living longer. Costs have risen by one third over the last 10 years to £32 billion. That is more than we spend on police, prison and the courts. These costs have generally fallen to the taxpayer. This is unfair and unaffordable, so it is also fair that we should ask public sector workers, including police officers, to contribute a bit more towards their pension.

That is why on 29 July 2011, I wrote to members of the Police Negotiating Board asking that they consider a proposal to increase police officer pension contribution rates. I am grateful to members of the Police Negotiating Board for considering the proposal and for the responses they provided.

Having considered the points raised alongside the recommendation from the recent Police Arbitration Tribunal, I have decided to implement the first year of increases in line with the proposal put to the Police Negotiating Board. This proposal meets the Government’s objectives of protecting lower earners, asking higher earners to pay more and, by reducing the burden on those in the first two years of their career, minimising the rate of opt out.

The Government are committed to securing in full the savings announced at spending review 2010 from increases in employee pension contributions for the unfunded schemes for 2013-14 and 2014-15. I will ask the Police Negotiating Board to consider the proposed increases for these years in line with other public service schemes.

Again, I will begin the necessary action to amend the relevant regulations in order that the changes take effect in April of this year.

Metal Theft

Baroness May of Maidenhead Excerpts

Thursday 26th January 2012 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)]

I am announcing today our intention to lay a Government amendment to the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill to tackle metal theft.

The Government consider that legislation is the only sustainable, long-term solution to the growing menace of metal theft. There is an urgent need to make stealing metal less attractive to criminals, and tackling the stolen metal market will act as a significant deterrent.

That is why I can confirm that we will lay amendments to:

create a new criminal offence to prohibit cash payments to purchase scrap metal; and

significantly increase the fines for all offences under the existing Scrap Metal Dealers Act 1964 that regulates the scrap metal recycling industry.

Cash transactions for scrap metal are often completed without any proof of personal identification or proof that the individual legitimately owns the metal being sold. This leads to anonymous, low-risk transactions for those individuals who steal metal. In addition, the widespread use of cash facilitates poor record keeping by the metal recycling industry and can support tax evasion activity.

Today’s announcement follows the commitment outlined in the national infrastructure plan published in November 2011 when the Government announced £5 million to establish a dedicated metal theft taskforce to enhance law enforcement activity in this area.

These amendments are part of our wider attempts to tackle all stages in the illegal trading of stolen scrap metal, and we shall bring forward further measures in due course.

Police (Financial Management Code of Practice)

Baroness May of Maidenhead Excerpts

Monday 16th January 2012 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)]

I am today presenting to Parliament a revised financial management code of practice for the police service in England and Wales to reflect the Government’s reform of policing through the introduction of police and crime commissioners. The code provides clarity around the financial governance arrangements within the police service in England and Wales and builds on the policing protocol issued by means of the Policing Protocol Order 2011. Copies of the code of practice are available from the Vote Office.

This code is issued under section 17 of the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011 and section 39A of the Police Act 1996, which permit the Secretary of State to issue codes of practice to police and crime commissioners (“PCCs”) and the Mayor’s office for policing and crime (“MOPC”), chief constables and the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police. As set out in section 17(4) of the 2011 Act and section 39A(7) of the 1996 Act, PCCs, the MOPC, chief constables and the Metropolitan Police Commissioner must have regard to this code in carrying out their functions.

This new code will apply to the MOPC and the Metropolitan Police Commissioner from today. The existing financial management code of practice for the police service in England and Wales, issued under section 39 of the Police Act 1996 and presented to Parliament on 24 October 2000, will continue to apply to police authorities outside London until their replacement by PCCs on 22 November 2012. From that date, this new code will apply to PCCs and chief constables.

Rules of Engagement (HMIC Review of August 2011 Disorders)

Baroness May of Maidenhead Excerpts

Tuesday 20th December 2011 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)]

On 15 August I wrote to ask Her Majesty’s chief inspector of constabulary, Sir Denis O’Connor, to undertake a review of public order policing and to consider further work to support clearer guidance to forces on the size of deployments, the need for mutual aid, pre-emptive action, public order tactics, the number of officers (including commanders) trained in public order policing and an appropriate arrests policy. I am pleased to be able to tell the House that HMIC has concluded its review and have today published its report, entitled “The Rules of Engagement: A Review of the August 2011 Disorders”.

HMIC recognises that the events of August 2011 were

“unparalleled in terms of speed, scale and geographical spread of disorder”.

HMIC also recognises the achievements of the police in bringing the disorder under control and in particular, the individual acts of bravery displayed by police officers across the country.

The report confirms that the initial response, in particular to the disorder which broke out in Tottenham, was too slow. This has been acknowledged in the interim reports released by the crime and victims panel and by the Metropolitan police themselves.

This review makes a number of interrelated recommendations which will require careful and serious consideration by the Government and the police service working together. This work will be aligned with the development of the strategic policing requirement.

The way in which the police respond to public disorder is a matter of key public interest. The August disturbances brought havoc to some of our cities and communities. HMIC has, in a short period of time, produced a wide-ranging and detailed report and this is to be commended. The report contains a significant amount of detail and evidence which will require detailed assessment by the Government and the police service as a whole.

A copy of this report will be placed in Library of the House.

Control Orders

Baroness May of Maidenhead Excerpts

Monday 19th December 2011 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)]

Section 14(1) of the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 (the 2005 Act) requires the Secretary of State to report to Parliament as soon as reasonably practicable after the end of every relevant three-month period on the exercise of the control order powers during that period. Paragraph 5 of schedule 8 to the Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Act 2011 (the 2011 Act) requires the Secretary of State to report to Parliament covering the period that begins immediately after the end of the last three-month period and ends immediately before commencement.

The level of information provided will always be subject to slight variations based on operational advice. This report covers both reporting periods.

The transition to TPIMs

The 2011 Act commenced on 15 December 2011. A copy of the Act can be found on Parliament’s website. The home page for the Act is:

www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2011/23/contents/enacted.

The 2005 Act has now been repealed but the control orders in force at the time of commencement of the 2011 Act will remain in effect for a 42-day transitional period concluding on 25 January 2012 unless revoked before then. This is to allow for an orderly, managed and—above all—safe transition to the new system.

The exercise of the control order powers in the relevant periods

As explained in previous quarterly statements, control order obligations are tailored to the individual concerned and are based on the terrorism-related risk that individual poses. Each control order is kept under regular review to ensure that the obligations remain necessary and proportionate. The Home Office continues to hold Control Order Review Groups (CORGs) every quarter, with representation from law enforcement and intelligence agencies, to keep the obligations in every control order under regular and formal review and to facilitate a review of appropriate exit strategies. During the reporting periods, two CORGs were held in relation to the control orders in force at the time. Other meetings were held on an ad hoc basis as specific issues arose.

During the period 11 September 2011 to 10 December 2011, no non-derogating control orders were made or served. Two control orders were revoked during this period and two control orders have been renewed in accordance with section 2(6) of the 2005 Act. No non-derogating control orders were made, served, revoked or renewed during the period 11 December 2011 to 14 December 2011.

In total, as of 10 and 14 December, there were nine control orders in force, all of which were in respect of British citizens. All of these control orders were non-derogating.

Two individuals were charged with breaching their control order obligations during this period. One further individual was acquitted of two counts of breaching a control order; the jury failed to return a verdict on the remaining 13 counts against the same individual.

During the period 11 September 2011 to 10 December 2011, 76 modifications of control order obligations were made. Nineteen requests to modify control order obligations were refused. No further modifications were made or requests refused during the period 11 December 2011 to 14 December 2011.

Section 10(1) of the 2005 Act provides a right of appeal against a decision by the Secretary of State to renew a non-derogating control order or to modify an obligation imposed by a non-derogating control order without consent. Two appeals have been lodged with the High Court during this reporting period under section 10(1). A right of appeal is also provided by section 10(3) of the 2005 Act against a decision by the Secretary of State to refuse a request by a controlled person to revoke their order or to modify any obligation under their order. During this reporting period one appeal was lodged with the High Court under section 10(3), and then withdrawn.

One judgment has been handed down by the High Court during this reporting period in relation to a control order case.

On 3 October 2011, the High Court handed down a judgment in relation to five appeals brought by a controlled individual under section 10(3) of the 2005 Act. In AM v. Secretary of State for the Home Department [2011] EWHC 2486 (Admin) the High Court upheld the Secretary of State’s decisions.

Most open judgments are available at http://www.bailii.org/.

National Policing Improvement Agency

Baroness May of Maidenhead Excerpts

Thursday 15th December 2011 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)]

As part of the wider reform of policing, I wish to update the House on plans to phase out the National Policing Improvement Agency (NPIA), to transfer its critical national functions and to establish a police professional body and a new IT company. I am also, today, placing in the Library a summary of the responses that were received in relation to Peter Neyroud’s report, “Review of Police Leadership and Training”.

I am committed to a methodical and careful phase-out of the NPIA in 2012. Good progress is being made. The NPIA’s headcount has reduced by 25%. The NPIA has announced its departure from its site at Harrogate. Some of NPIA’s procurement functions have already transferred to the Home Office, and important detailed work has been done to identify successor bodies for the NPIA’s critical national functions and services that are required to support an effective and modern police service.

In response to the policing leadership challenge set out by Peter Neyroud’s review (which I placed in the House Library in April 2011), I intend to create a new police professional body. This is a unique opportunity to further professionalise policing, creating a body that directly supports police officers at all ranks and civilian policing professionals. It will also create opportunities to open up the closed system of leadership within the police service, to harness greater diversity and experience at a senior level, and to equip the service with the skills it needs to deliver effective crime fighting in a changing, leaner and more accountable environment.

Peter Neyroud, in his review, outlined a policing professional body which held chartered status. This will be an issue for the professional body itself to pursue when it has developed a body of evidence demonstrating it reaches the rigorous criteria required.

Whilst the police professional body will focus on policing in England and Wales, it will be important that it takes into account, and works closely with, forces in Scotland and Northern Ireland, particularly on cross-border issues.

The police professional body will develop policing as a single profession; it will represent the entire service and will act only in the public interest. Chief constables also need to come together for discussion, focusing on key operational issues, when it is in the public interest for them to do so. I envisage a need for a chiefs’ council, and I am working with ACPO and key partners to consider the precise remit of the chiefs’ council and its relationship with the police professional body.

As announced in July, the Government also intend to establish an information and communications technology (ICT) company. The company will be responsible for the procurement, implementation and management of complex contracts for information technology, related business change and outsourcing services, supplying both national and local services for police. The company will be owned by police authorities and subsequently police and crime commissioners, with the police service as its customer. It will provide:

better value to forces for their ICT spend;

greater innovation in police ICT, so that operational officers have better systems;

freedom for chief constables to focus on fighting crime rather than managing ICT;

services and products that support forces and other customers in their drive for inter-operability.

We are discussing the key design elements of the new company with representatives of forces and authorities to ensure that it meets their needs first and foremost. It will operate in such a way that forces can more quickly, easily and efficiently collaborate and procure IT solutions which meet local requirements.

Turning to plans for other NPIA functions, not in scope for either the police professional body or the ICT company, I intend to:

transfer key national critical operational functions to the National Crime Agency (NCA), which naturally fit with its new national crime fighting remit. Those areas already identified include the Central Witness Bureau, Crime Operational Support, the National Missing Persons Bureau, the Serious Crime Analysis team, and the Specialist Operations centre. In the short term, these important functions will move to the Serious Organised Crime Agency, one of the major precursor bodies to the NCA;

transfer responsibility for the 101 non-emergency phone service, crime mapping, pathology services, forensic and other non-ICT procurement and the programme for implementing Schengen Information System (II) (SIS II), to the Home Office. These moves follow the non-ICT procurement transfers that were completed in October 2011;

hand over, to a lead force, the hosting of the new National Police Air Service;

end the work NPIA currently does advising on value for money by November 2012. In its place, police and crime commissioners will drive value for money in the police service, with further support where necessary.

All other NPIA functions are the subject of further detailed analysis and consultation with the wider police service. I expect to be able to make an announcement about the future of the NPIA’s estate in the spring of 2012.

Of particular note will be reviews into the future viability of Bramshill House and the utilisation of Hendon Data Centre (HDC), which provides vital IT services at the very heart of policing. The HDC review will consider how services should be delivered in the future, by whom, and any transitional arrangements that will be necessary to ensure public safety is protected.

Domestic Violence

Baroness May of Maidenhead Excerpts

Wednesday 14th December 2011 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)]

I am launching today a consultation on the cross-Government definition of domestic violence. The consultation will run until 30 March 2012 and a consultation paper is available on the Home Office website. A copy of the consultation document will also be placed in the House Library.

The ambition of this Government is nothing short of ending violence against women and girls. As we set out in our strategic vision—“Call to End Violence Against Women and Girls”—prevention will be key to achieving that ambition. Effective prevention can only happen when it involves all agencies, working together to common goals and common understanding. That is why we are now consulting on a definition of domestic violence that all agencies and all parts of Government should use.

There are a number of aspects to the definition that this consultation considers. We are seeking views on whether the current cross-Government definition of domestic violence is working and should remain. We are also consulting on whether the definition of domestic violence should include younger victims below 18 years of age, including boys, and whether coercive control should also be reflected in the definition.