|Previous Section||Index||Home Page|
Mr. Ruffley: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department with reference to Table 5.2 of the Home Office Annual Report 2007-08, what the crime reduction resource budget has been spent on in each of the last five years for which figures are available. 
Mr. Alan Campbell: The expenditure figures in Table 5.2 of the Home Office Annual Report 2007-08 reflect those in the HM Treasury database as reported in the Main and Supplementary Estimates 2007-08 and approved by Parliament. To remain consistent with the figures approved by Parliament, information in the Annual Report was grouped under the Strategic Objectives published by the Home Office in February 2008.
The expenditure identified in the table as dedicated to crime reduction resource covered a wide range of locally determined and national interventions aimed at tackling crime and antisocial behaviour. It formed an important contribution, along with investment in the Police Service, towards the delivery of an 18 per cent. reduction in crime between 2002-03 and 2007-08 as measured by the British Crime Survey. Over the same period, this expenditure also helped to secure a 24 per cent. reduction in crime within the 40 high crime areas. A detailed breakdown of expenditure by activity could be provided only at disproportionate cost.
The Privacy and Electronic Communications Regulations 2003 (PECR) apply to location based services including Google Latitude. Regulation 14 requires that traffic data can be processed only for a value added service with the user or subscribers consent. Possible breaches of privacy should initially be reported to the service provider and failing this to the Information Commissioners Office (ICO). The ICO can investigate as they have responsibility for enforcement of the regulations.
Mr. Dhanda: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much and what proportion of its section 17 budget Gloucestershire county council has spent in relation to the case with Home Office reference G1082747; and if she will make a statement. 
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) when the Chairman of the Independent Police Complaints Commission was
appointed, and by whom; what process was followed in the appointment; and what qualifications the Chairman has; 
(2) when each serving commissioner of the Independent Police Complaints Commission was appointed, and by whom; what process was followed in each appointment; and what qualifications each has. 
Mr. Coaker: The chair was originally appointed on 1 February 2003 and was reappointed for a term of five years on 1 February 2008. This is a Crown appointment. He was appointed following a selection process in accordance with the Office of the Commissioner for Public Appointments (OCPA) code of practice. The chair of the IPCC must never have served as a police officer nor have worked for any of the organisations over which the IPCC has jurisdiction. Further information on the chairmans background can be found on the IPCC website at:
On first appointment, all commissioners underwent an external selection process, including assessment and interview, in accordance with the OCPA code of practice. Those commissioners re-appointed last year were appointed in line with the OCPA code of practice.
Commissioners come from a wide range of backgrounds and by law they must never have served as a police officer nor have worked for any of the organisations over which the IPCC has jurisdiction. Further information on the individual backgrounds of current commissioners can be found on the IPCC website at:
James Brokenshire: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent estimate she has made of the cost of implementing the Mastering the Internet Project; and if she will make a statement. 
Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ) continues to invest to maintain its capabilities in the
face of growth in internet-based communications. The use of internet technologies and skills are one of the greatest challenges GCHQ has to master in order to deliver intelligence in accordance with its statutory purposes set out in the Intelligence Services Act 1994 (section 3). In the interests of national security detailed figures on Security and Intelligence Agency expenditure are not made public, but are subject to parliamentary scrutiny through the Intelligence and Security Committee (ISC). The ISC's annual report for 2007-08 was published in March 2009.
Patrick Mercer: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what budget has been allocated for security technology for the London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games; and whether this allocation is drawn from the Olympic security budget; 
Mr. Coaker: The Home Office is committed to the delivery of a safe and secure 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games. Work is continuing to finalise the plans for the provision for policing and wider security within the overall funding envelope of £600 million. This funding is separate from the ODA budget for security and the provision that LOCOG has set aside for in-venue security.
Our strategy for 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games is to ensure that security technology is proven, reliable and effective. This means that we do not currently envisage developing new technology specifically for the Games. Any decisions regarding the use of technology will need to take account of the operational needs of the police and other security agencies; affordability within the total funding envelope; and the need to secure value for money. These factors will inform decision-making regarding the appointment of security technology companies.
Bob Spink: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if she will commission an opinion poll in each major conurbation on the attitudes to the provision of public access to police stations. 
Mr. Coaker [holding answer 14 May 2009]: The management of the police estate, the allocation of resources and local surveys and or public consultations are matters for each police authority and chief officer, who are responsible for assessing local needs to determine the demand for access to police stations.
Mr. Mark Field:
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what information her Department holds on the proportion of the working time of (a) all police forces in England and (b) Avon and Somerset Constabulary which was spent on (i) different types of non-frontline duties, (ii) frontline duties spent on
incident-related paperwork and (iii) frontline duties not spent on incident-related paperwork in each year since 1997. 
|Table 1: Front-line policing, incident-related paperwork, and other activities, by year, for England and Wales( 1)|
|Front-line policing (FLP)||All other activities||Incident-related paperwork||FLP excluding incident-related paperwork|
|(1) Data for Staffordshire are not available for 2007-08 and these figures therefore exclude Staffordshire.|
Mr. Amess: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what discussions she has had with the Independent Police Complaints Commission on the disclosure of information between a police force and a complainant since January 2008; and if she will make a statement. 
Mr. Amess: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many serving police officers at each rank in each police force have received words of advice by a senior officer following an investigation by the Independent Police Complaints Commission in each year since 2004; 
(2) what definition of words of advice issued in a disciplinary context her Department uses; what representations on the definition she has received since June 2007; and if she will make a statement. 
The phrase "words of advice" is not defined in the current disciplinary regulations (Police (Conduct) Regulations 2008), nor was it used in the preceding regulations: the Police (Conduct) Regulations 2004.
Under the previous disciplinary arrangements, the term 'words of advice' was used in the Home Office Guidance on 'Unsatisfactory Performance, Complaints and Misconduct Procedures' to refer to a managerial method for dealing with allegations of misconduct.
Under the current regulations (the Police (Conduct) Regulations 2008) one possible outcome from a formal disciplinary meeting is management advice. Management
advice is defined in the regulations to mean "management action imposed following misconduct proceedings or an appeal meeting".
Mr. Amess: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what research her Department (a) has undertaken, (b) plans to undertake and (c) has evaluated on the number of complaints that have been referred to the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) in each police force in England since the IPCC was established; 
(2) what research her Department (a) has undertaken, ( b) plans to undertake and (c) has evaluated on the complaints made to the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) that have been upheld since the establishment of the IPCC; and if she will make a statement; 
(3) what research her Department (a) has undertaken, (b) plans to undertake and (c) has evaluated on the number of complaints that have been made against police officers in (i) Southend and (ii) Essex in each year since 1997; and what action was taken against each officer concerned when complaints were upheld. 
Mr. Coaker: The Home Office has not carried out any research into the number of complaints nationally, by force area, or more locally made against police officers, and has no plans to do so. Responsibility for the guardianship of the police complaints system is the statutory responsibility of the IPCC.
As part of that role, the IPCC analyses and publishes statistics detailing the number and type of complaints made by members of the public and also their outcomes. These reports can be accessed via the IPCC website on www.ipcc.gov.uk. In addition, the IPCC regularly collates and disseminates best practice through its Learning the Lessons bulletins, which are also published on its website.
In its 15th reportIndependent Police Complaints Commissionpublished on 31 March 2009, the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) recommended that the Home Office should clarify who is responsible for monitoring the implementation of IPCC recommendations. Discussions are already underway between the IPCC, HM Inspectorate of Constabulary (HMIC) and police authorities on introducing an appropriate system.
|Next Section||Index||Home Page|