This annual report of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Constabulary covers the period 1 April 2005 - 31 March 2007 and examines the efforts to improve efficiency and effectiveness of policing in England and Wales in this period. Divided into four chapters and an annex, each chapter looks at an area of policing: Chapter 1: Issues for the police service; Chapter 2: Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Constabulary work; Chapter 3: Joint working; Chapter 4: Police service performance. Some of topics covered under these chapters include: the review of policing, interim report (see ://police.homeoffice.gov.uk/news-and-publications/publication/police-reform/Review_of_policing_final_report/flanagan-final-report?view=Binary); freedom of information; personnel, training and diversity; race and diversity; special commissions, covering Jean Charles de Menezes, Iraq, the Palace of Westminster, counter-terrorism; managing sex offenders in the community; serious crime and public protection.
This report discusses the pre-appointment hearing of the preferred candidate, Tom Winsor, to the post of Chief Inspector of Constabulary. Pre-appointment hearings are to assess the suitability of the preferred candidate, but that cannot be done effectively in a vacuum and the Committee were disappointed that the Home Secretary initially refused to provide information on the selection process or the shortlist. The Committee recommends that the Government in future provide such information in keeping with the recommendation from the Liaison Committee. The Home Affairs Committee is content for the Home Secretary to proceed with Mr Winsor's appointment. This is considered against the background that his nomination was controversial. If appointed he will be the first Chief Inspector who has never served as a police officer. They urge Mr Winsor to reach out to forces, police officers of all ranks and their representative bodies to build bridges. He must create a strong relationship with forces and with police and crime commissioners. The Home Affairs Committee will take a continued interest in the work of the Chief Inspector and look forward to hearing evidence from him on a regular basis
This annual report from Her Majesty's Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales, covers the 2006-07 period. During this time the prison population increased to 81,500 prisoners, with over 1,000 a week being held in police cells, awaiting a prison place. The report also charts the effects on prisons and prisoners of an increasingly pressurised system. There were 40% more self-inflicted deaths in custody last year, particularly during a prisoners early days within the prison system, and particularly amongst groups of vulnerable prisoners, such as foreign nationals, indeterminate-sentenced and unsentenced prisoners and women. The effects of prison overcrowding place great strain on training prisons and local prisons, with more suicides, poorer resettlement outcomes and insufficient exercise activity. Further, the greater use of indeterminate sentences stranded many prisoners within inappropriate prisons further driving up the prison population. The Chief Inspector does commend the prison system stating they are better places than 10 to 15 years ago, with some prisons showing improvements. There are improvements in healthcare, though there are concerns expressed about such provision in private sector prisons. There is also more support during the vulnerable early days of custody, though too many prisoners spend their first night in a police cell. The Inspector believes the prison system is at a crossroads and praises recent signs of a more effective and measured approach to policy and strategy, with new initiatives and good operational practice to build on. But, there is also a real risk that the prison system will move towards large-scale penal containment so losing the progress gained in improving the prison system.
During the inspection year (September 2008 to August 2009) a total of 93 custodial establishments were inspected. Each establishment is assessed against four healthy prison tests: safety, respect, purposeful activity and resettlement. 72 per cent of assessments were positive. Full inspection reports made 4,513 recommendations for improvement, of which 96 per cent were accepted, wholly or in principle, by the National Offender Management Service. Unannounced follow-up inspections found that overall 67 per cent of recommendations had been achieved. Open and women's prisons performed best, with training prisons showing the lowest level of achievement. The Inspectorate published 103 reports on a wide range of establishments and topics. The annual report reflects on progress in reducing the women's prison population, contrasting with no discernable progress for young adults in prison who remain a neglected and under-resourced age-group with a high rate of re-offending. The report stresses the continual pressure from an increasing population set against actual and threatened budget cuts. Population pressure affects the whole system - stretching resources and managerial energy, keeping in use buildings that should be condemned, doubling-up prisoners in cramped cells, leading to unnecessary and destabilising prisoner moves. All this compromises successful rehabilitation. In 2009 the Inspectorate became the co-ordinator for the UK's National Preventive Mechanism (NPM) established under the Optional Protocol to the UN Convention against Torture and Inhuman and Degrading Treatment. The NPM consists of 18 existing bodies which are independent and have the right to inspect all places of detention.
In the UK and elsewhere there has been growing recognition of detainee's vulnerability and the need for robust, independent mechanisms to protect them from ill-treatment. This view was given formal recognition by the United Nations when it adopted the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (OPCAT) and its ratification by the UK in 2003. The basic premise of OPCAT is that protections for those who are detained can be strengthened by a system of regular visits to all places of detention. OPCAT requires the designation of a national preventive mechanism (NPM) to carry out such visits and to monitor treatment. The UK NPM was established in March 2009 when it was decided that the functions of the mechanism would be fulfilled by the collective action of 18 existing bodies with the HM Inspectorate of Prisons as co-ordinator. This report is the first annual report from the NPM in the UK. It details the individual and collective activities of its members in the period 1 April 2009 to 31 March 2010. As well as providing background information on OPCAT and the role of the NPMs, it outlines the role of the individual members and their detention-related activities. The NPM also makes its first collective recommendation that the UK government identifies any places of detention not visited by the NPM and ensures that those gaps are addressed
The Report follows a pre-appointment scrutiny hearing which the Committee held on Tuesday 24 November with Mr Peter Clarke, the Secretary of State's preferred candidate for HM Chief Inspector of Prisons, and Glenys Stacey, the preferred candidate for HM Chief Inspector of Probation.
This review began on 1 October 2010 and the reviewer, Tom Winsor, was asked to ensure that police pay and conditions and the structures around them are the best they could be given the challenges currently facing the police service. Budget cuts will see forces being required to achieve more with less, but also need to be fair to officers and staff. The review is to report in two parts, covering short-term and long-term improvements. This is Part one and covers: the deployment of officers and staff (including shift allowances, overtime and assisting other police forces); post and performance related pay (including special priority payments, competence related threshold payments for constables and bonuses at all ranks) and how officers leave the police service. Mr Winsor says his recommendations will produce savings of £485m over three years. The recommendations if implemented will concentrate the highest pay on the front line and more demanding roles in the police service. He says police earn 10 to 15% more than other emergency workers and the armed forces and in some areas they are paid up to 60% more than average local earnings. It also recommends making savings of £60m a year in overtime and he also suggests suspending chief officer and superintendent bonuses. The independent review calls for an end to the £1,212 competence-related threshold payment, the Special Priority Payment of up to £5,000 and says no officers should move up the pay scale for two years. The government is planning to cut its funding for the police by 20% by 2014-15. The 43 forces in England and Wales currently employ about 244,000 people, comprising 143,000 police officers and 101,000 civilians.
Over the next ten years, development aid in the form of grants should be replaced for lower middle income countries. DFID should continue to channel some of its finance through multilaterals, making greater use of their specialist skills and expertise rather than replicating these within its own bilateral programmes. DFID should also establish a financial instrument team, prepare a development finance strategy and publish a Development Finance White Paper during 2014. This strategy should include consideration of whether to establish a UK development bank. The overwhelming drive in UK aid should continue to focus on lifting people out of poverty and meeting post-2015 development objectives. The UK should continue to fund the development and delivery of key services to the very poorest people in low income countries through a system of grants. We should also continue to channel 0.7 % of GNI into development cooperation. But, to support structural transformation in lower middle income countries a significant proportion of future UK development finance should also be delivered via a system of concessional loans and other financial instruments
The Justice Committee held a pre-appoointment hearing with the preferred candidate, Mr Paul McDowell. This report contains the oral evidence from that meeting and the Committee approves his appointment. The report also contains correspondence between the Chair of the Committee and the Secretary of State, the job advertisement, the person specification used in the recruitment process, and Mr McDowell's curriculum vitae.
The remit of the Office for Standards in Education (OFSTED) is to improve standards and quality of childcare and education for learners up to 19 years of age through regular inspection, some of which is carried out jointly with other inspectorates. This annual report covers the year 2005-06 and includes sections on the quality of education and care, covering such areas as childcare and early learning; maintained schools; independent schools; further education colleges; initial teacher training. The second section looks at issues in education and care, as they apply to primary and secondary schools, as well as post 16-settings, including: local children's services; healthy eating; physical health; drug education in schools; sexual health; behaviour and anti-bullying strategies.
With the establishment, on 1 April 2007, of the Office for Standards in Education, Children's Services and Skills, Ofsted's responsibilities for inspecting children's services changed substantially, with Ofsted now regulating and inspecting childcare, children's social care and provision for learners of all ages. This report covers the first full year of reporting on the organisation's new remit. The first section presents an evaluation of the quality and standards in care, early education, schools, colleges, adult learning and skills, and children's services. It is based on evidence from more than 45,000 inspections and regulatory visits in 2007-08. The second section draws on Ofsted's thematic inspections and surveys in the different areas of its remit. This section evaluates the effectiveness with which providers seek to address three important matters: improving the life chances of the least advantaged members of society through excellence in provision; safeguarding children and young people from neglect, abuse and other forms of harm; and enabling learners to acquire the skills they need to succeed in their working lives. The Chief Inspector is encouraged by the recognition that much is going well for so many children, young people and adult learners, but frustrated that there is still too much that is patently inadequate and too many settings and institutions where the rate of improvement is unacceptably slow.
This NAO report (HC 1035, session 2007-08, ISBN 9780102954371) focuses on the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) investigation of complaints against the police. The IPCC has responsibility for the performance of the whole police complaints system and has a remit to investigate complaints and conduct matters involving police officers. It can recommend appropriate action by the police force concerned and forward information to the Crown Prosecution Service. It employs just under 400 staff and has a net expenditure for 2007-08 of £32.2 million, with £30.1 million financed from the Home Office. In 2007-08 nearly 29,000 complaints were made against the police. Most were dealt with locally by the relevant police force, and did not involve the IPCC. The NAO findings include: supervised investigations are not the most effective use of IPCC resources; the IPCC is facing an increasing workload when its funding is being reduced; the IPCC is not yet providing full guidance and training for its staff; there was a number of investigations where there was no auditable record that an IPCC Commissioner had reviewed and approved an investigation report; the review functioning of the IPCC is not operating as intended; there is no formal review of cases after they have been completed; the work carried out by the IPCC is not subject to external scrutiny; there is significant inconsistency across the IPCC regions in the way recommendations arising from investigations are being followed up; no single organisation has responsibility for monitoring the implementation of recommendations by police forces; the IPCC should undertake regular surveys to obtain feedback and identify actions that need to be taken to improve client satisfaction.
The Committee says during the pause in the Home Office's review of the police funding formula, an independent panel of accounting firms, financial experts and the College of Policing should be appointed to assist the Home Office in formulating revised proposals. The review process was paused after Home Office officials made serious errors in calculating the funding allocations for police force areas. These errors resulted in forces who had been advised they would be "winners" under the new funding allocation finding they are in fact facing cuts, and vice versa.
In 2005, traffic collisions killed 3,201 people with almost 29,000 seriously injured on British roads. Although the level of road crash fatalities and injuries has fallen over successive decades and Britain has one of the safest road environments in the world, the numbers still remain far too high and many of these casualties might have been avoided if there was a higher level of compliance with traffic law. The Committee's report examines the road casualty problem, focusing on the role of roads policing and the contribution which enforcement can make to casualty reduction. It considers how technology is influencing the policing and enforcement of particular offences, relating to speeding, drink and drug driving, driving whilst using a mobile phone and driving while impaired by fatigue. The report finds that, despite progress made by the Department for Transport against its 2010 casualty reduction targets, the Home Office has continued to deny traffic law enforcement issues the priority it requires and must explicitly adopt the targets as a key part of its future national policing plans. Investment and research into new technological equipment, such as roadside breath testing equipment and time-distance cameras, and a higher profile and more visible traffic enforcement effort would bring important casualty reductions. However, the efficiencies which technology can bring should not be seen as a opportunity to cut the number of roads police officers, as technology alone cannot carry out the multitude of functions undertaken by roads police officers.
The Home Office is responsible for allocating grants to Police and Crime Commissioners (who decide how much goes to police forces and how much to other crime reduction initiatives); establishing an accountability framework to assure Parliament on the regularity, propriety and value for money of police spending; and intervening if Chief Constables or Commissioners fail to carry out their functions effectively. The Committee is concerned that the Department lacks all the information it needs to know the impact of reductions in funding on police capability at local level. Most police forces lack sufficient information on the current and future demands they face, which is essential for the Department, Commissioners and the police to ensure forces have the right skills and resources and understand the impact of savings measures. There is limited information on the impact of cost reductions made by other government departments on the police's workload (cost shunting). It is not clear how the structural reforms necessary to make expected further significant savings will be made within the devolved delivery model.
When public trust in the police is tested by complaints of negligence, misconduct and corruption, a strong watchdog is vital to get to the truth: but the IPCC leaves the public frustrated and faithless. The public are bewildered by its continued reliance on the very forces it is investigating. The IPCC investigated just a handful of cases and often arrived at the scene late, when the trail had gone cold. Serious cases involving police corruption or misconduct are left underinvestigated, while the Commission devotes resources to less serious complaints. It is woefully underequipped to supervise the 43 forces of England and Wales, never mind the UKBA, HMRC, NCA and all the private sector agencies involved in policing. It is buried under the weight of poor police investigations and bound by its limited powers. The Committee makes a number of recommendations including: that the Commission should be given a statutory power to require a force to implement its findings and in the most serious cases, the Commission should instigate a "year on review" to ensure that its recommendations have been properly carried out, the Commission should be given a statutory power to require a force to implement its findings and the most serious cases, the Commission should instigate a 'year on review', the Commission's jurisdiction should be extended to cover private sector contractors
The Committees report examines the proposed restructuring of the four police forces in Wales, in light of the recommendations of the HMIC review ("Closing the gap: a review of the fitness for purpose of the current structure of policing in England and Wales" available at http://www.inspectorates.homeoffice.gov.uk/hmic/inspect_reports1/thematic-inspections/closinggap05.pdf) published in September 2005. Issues discussed include: the timetable for restructuring and provision for consultation; strategic policing needs in Wales; funding aspects and the impact on neighbourhood policing; and governance issues. The reports findings include: criticism that the tight timescale established for the restructuring process limited the scope for debate within police forces and police authorities, and for public consultation; and concern that the Governments approach to police restructuring across England and Wales reflects a failure to take sufficient account of the unique political, geographic and cultural characteristics of Wales.
Current arrangements for appointing Chief Inspectors and for setting their budgets potentially pose a significant threat to their independence. Chief Inspectors are reliant for their appointment, the length of their tenure and the size of their budgets on the very same Ministers who are responsible for the sectors they inspect. There is a risk that Departments could use these controls over inspectorates as levers to influence Chief Inspectors. The Chief Inspectors told that they do not believe the independence of how they conducted inspections was in doubt. However the Cabinet Office needs to conduct a full review of all arrangements for Chief Inspectors. Particularly shocking was the Ministry of Justice's mishandling of an entirely foreseeable conflict of interest in its appointment of Paul McDowell - whose wife held a senior position in Sodexo Justice Services. The independence of the Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration is also undermined by the fact that the Home Secretary now decides when to publish his reports. Since the Home Secretary took control of publishing the Chief Inspector's reports, there have been significant delays which can undermine genuine accountability by blunting the impact of reports. Inspectorates are not held to account, with no formal requirements for inspectorates to demonstrate their impact and effectiveness. The Chief Inspectors accepted that they needed to do more to follow-up and make sure their recommendations were implemented by inspected bodies. Inspectorates need to do more to exploit their findings, and do more to learn from each other
The concept of police and crime commissioners is still very much on probation. Some Commissioners have fallen well short of the public's expectations and urgent reforms are needed to ensure that this concept does not put at risk public trust and engagement in the police, the very objectives for which PCCs were brought in. New Commissioners should have a transition period of one month between election and taking office. The hiring of deputies and the decision to remove chief constables are critical decisions for local communities and it is vital that the amount of the scrutiny applied to commissioners by police and crime panels increases. Panels' powers must be strengthened and extended to ensure that any decision to remove a chief constable is the right one for the public. Only this will provide full public confidence. Deputies should not be cronies that are given their job on the basis of nepotism. Panels should have the power of veto over the appointment of a deputy commissioner, where they have not stood for election alongside the commissioner. By electing Deputies on the same ticket we ensure that the public will be able to have their say on someone who often acts with the powers of the Commissioner. Though good working relationships between chief constables and PCCs are welcomed, the arrangement should never be too cosy. The setting of targets by PCCs must not promote the manipulation of crime figures and all PCCs should review their auditing arrangements immediately
This report examines how well the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) is managing its resources, the adequacy of the IPCC's quality assurance arrangements and how far the IPCC has sought to assess the impact of its work. Complaints against the police of a serious nature requiring IPCC involvement led to it opening 100 independent investigations in 2007-08, compared to 31 in 2004-05. The IPCC also received 4,141 appeals about local police investigations which was a four-fold increase on the number in 2004-05. As a result of its increasing workload, the IPCC has found itself working at above full capacity. The IPCC has no formal quality control framework in place. The IPCC's Commissioners have not been formally approving all investigation reports, one of their key responsibilities. Public confidence in the police complaints system is essential. While the IPCC has commissioned research to look at levels of public confidence in the complaints system, it has not sought the views of complainants, police officers and appellants about their experiences of the IPCC's processes. The absence of feedback from those who have had direct experience of dealing with the IPCC is a significant oversight which the IPCC is now rectifying. There is a lack of clarity about who has responsibility for monitoring the implementation of IPCC recommendations. The IPCC accepts responsibility for recording each police force's acceptance or rejection of the recommendations following an investigation, but not for monitoring the implementation of the recommendations. The IPCC has, therefore, only limited evidence on the impact of its work.
This second edition of "Children's needs - parenting capacity" updates the original exploration of the research literature in the light of legal and policy changes in England and findings from more recent national and international research. The edition has also been expanded to cover parental learning disabilities and how it may impact on parenting and children's health and development. The findings show that these parenting issues affect children differently depending on their age and individual circumstances. While some children grow up apparently unscathed, others exhibit emotional and behavioural disorders. This knowledge can inform practitioners undertaking assessments of the needs of children and their families and effective service responses. This publication is essential reading for practitioners, managers and policy makers concerned with improving the outcomes for children and families who are experiencing such problems.
The report opens with an affirmation that the British Government should protect the right to protest peacefully. It then discusses some concerns about policing of protest which could be addressed by legal and operational changes : -- 1. Reference to insulting words or behaviour should be removed from section 5 of the Public Order Act. This change would allow the police to arrest people for using threatening or abusive language or behaviour but not for using insulting language or behaviour; -- 2. Counter-terrorism powers should never be used against peaceful protestors : the Government's guidance on stop and search powers in Section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000 should make this clear' - 3. The Government should protect the right to freedom of peaceful assembly around Parliament by repealing the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005. Protest around Parliament should be governed by the Public Order Act 1986, which should be amended to deal with the specific circumstances of Parliament; -- 4. police and protestors need to focus on improving dialogue. The police should aim for 'no surprises' policing : no surprises for the police; no surprises for protestors; and no surprises for protest targets. Protestors should also, where possible, engage with the police at an early stage in their planning, in order to facilitate peaceful protest; Tasers should never be used against peaceful protestors.
The UK retains responsibility for 14 overseas territories, 11 of which are permanently populated and opt to remain under British sovereignty. These territories are not constitutionally part of the UK. They have their own constitutions, legal systems and most have a democratically elected government. Most of these territories also share common features, including relative isolation, exposure to disasters and dependence on one or two key industries. The great majority of territory citizens are entitled to full British Citizenship. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office leads overall policy and maintains the main UK presence in the territories. The NAO's last report on this subject was in 1997 (HCP 13, session 1997-98, ISBN 9780102610987). This report reviews subsequent progress. It considers whether UK government departments work effectively in conjunction with territory governments to manage and mitigate risk. Whether there are suitable and sufficient resources available by the UK Government to manage the risk to the UK from its relationship with overseas territories. The report sets out a number of recommendations, including: that other UK government departments should be required to set out their arrangements for dealing with overseas territory issues; the FCO with the support of relevant agencies, such as the Treasury, FSA, SOCA, should develop a strategy to ensure stronger investigative and prosecution capacity; that the FCO needs to make real progress in developing territory administration. The NAO further concludes that while some progress has been made in managing risk, the degree of success in individual territories and across key areas has been mixed.
The Home Office has made substantial improvements in its financial management since 2006, when the Comptroller and Auditor General disclaimed an opinion on its 2004-05 Resource Accounts. Further sustained improvement will still be needed over the next few years, so that good financial management becomes "business as usual" across all of the Department's operations, which will help the Department maximise the value for money of its service delivery. The Department has increased the number of professionally qualified finance staff, particularly in senior finance roles, and has improved financial governance and leadership. Improvements are also evident in the Department's financial planning and decision making; budgeting; financial monitoring and forecasting; and financial reporting. The unqualified audit opinion on its 2007-08 Resource Accounts was an important symbol of the progress made. There are areas for further improvement. The strategic management of the Department's capital programme has not been responsive enough to avoid large underspends, which amounted to £725 million over the 5 years to 31 March 2008. The Treasury has capped access to these funds at £292 million and the Department will need to deliver on the plans it has in place to use them by 2010-11. The Department also needs to develop further its understanding of the cost of its activities and the relationship between resource consumption and service outcomes. The Department recognises these issues and has been undertaking work with the aim of improving capital programme management and the basis on which decisions are made for funding allocations.
This will help us customize your experience to showcase the most relevant content to your age group
Please select from below
Login
Not registered?
Sign up
Already registered?
Success – Your message will goes here
We'd love to hear from you!
Thank you for visiting our website. Would you like to provide feedback on how we could improve your experience?
This site does not use any third party cookies with one exception — it uses cookies from Google to deliver its services and to analyze traffic.Learn More.