Home Office Data Hub update

Report: 10
Date: 14 October 2010
By: Director of Information on behalf of the Commissioner

Summary

Following the actions from the Strategic and Operational Policing Committee in October 2009, this report is created to provide Committee Members an update on the progress of the proposal to share Metropolitan Police Service crime and human resources data with the Home Office to populate the Home Office Data Hub as per the ACPO / Home Office Data Hub Memorandum of Understanding May 2007.

A. Recommendation

That

1. Members  note the contents of this update report.

B. Supporting information

1. A Memorandum of Understanding was agreed by ACPO Cabinet and the Home Office on 2 May 2007, which authorised the release of live record level crime and human resources (HR) data to the Home Office (please refer to Appendix 1 for a quick reference guide to the information requested).

2. The Home Office Data Hub (HODH) is intended to provide a central database of crime and HR data, replacing existing spreadsheet statistical returns and giving a richer set of data for research to government. Provision of data to the HODH has previously been agreed by ACPO Cabinet and the Home Office have made substantial investment in the infrastructure.

3. The MoU recites powers under Sections 43 - 45 of the Police Act 1996 (please see Appendix 2 for extract from the Police Act 1996) under which the Home Office may require the provision of reports. In paragraph 3.2 of the MoU it is stated that, “The Home Office has received legal advice and is satisfied that the Secretary of State has the powers to request any information pertaining to criminal statistics and police personnel data from Home Office police forces in England and Wales”. The Home Office interpretation of Sections 43-45 of the Police Act was further ratified by Vic Hogg (Home Office Deputy Director General) in writing to Martin Tiplady, Director of Human Resources, in June 2009.

4. The legal advice obtained on behalf of the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) via Directorate of Legal Services states that the Home Office has the power to request, and indeed receive, such information; however the power to require reports does not extend to a power to require a live record level crime and HR data feed such as is proposed by the Home Office, so presenting the MPS with significant Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA) issues. This view was later summarised within a letter to Vic Hogg from Martin Tiplady dated 26 May 2009.

5. DCC Andy Parker (ACPO lead for HODH and DCC of Warwickshire Constabulary) and the Home Office are of the view that the above legal debate is resolved by virtue of the fact that ACPO Cabinet had signed off this MoU in 2007 (please refer to Appendix 3 for transcript of minutes). However, following receipt of Counsel’s and the Information Commissioner’s Office advice, in December 2009 the Commissioner took the position that it was not in the Public’s Interest to share large bulks of (sensitive) personal data with the Home Office without sound legal basis which would adhere to the requirements of the DPA and Article 8 of the Human Rights Act 1998. However, the Commissioner stated that the MPS will endeavour to seek a negotiated position which will adhere to the legal requirements and assist our Home Office colleagues in meeting the HODH requirements. This position was communicated to Sir Hugh Orde by way of letter from Ailsa Beaton, Director of Information, in March 2010.

6. Discussions between the MPS and Home Office have secured reductions in the level of data requested. In respect of crime data this was significantly reduced to the point where it would not be possible to identify an individual. However, the Home Office has since proposed as part of a current consultation on the Annual Data Requirement for 2011/12 that many of these reductions would be reversed; if these proposals are agreed it would again be possible to identify individuals. The HR data requirement has been reduced, but concerns remain about the ability to identify individuals in the higher ranks and grades from the information requested. A further negotiated position has resulted in a separate agreement between the MPS and the Home Office as the ACPO MoU presents the MPS with a number of legal difficulties not easily resolved. The wording of this agreement is currently subject to on-going negotiation to address the legal requirements and secure improved safeguards.

7. Committee members may wish to note that, in response to the current (as of September 2010) Home Office consultation on “Policing in the 21st Century: Reconnecting Police and the People” the MPS further raised its concerns around the level of detail at which the Home Office has required information about police officers through the Home Office data hub and have again suggested a reassessment of this requirement.

C. Other organisational and community implications

Equality and Diversity Impact

1. As set out currently, there are no race and equality implications of providing crime data to the HODH.

2. Should the requested HR data be supplied this would enable production of statistical and research papers regarding the diversity strands of age, gender, ethnicity and disability of MPS staff members of all grades.

Consideration of MET Forward

3. Met Partners - assembling the coalition to fight crime
As stated by the above Met Forward Strand, we must have better shared ownership of local issues and effective joint problem solving with national bodies such as the Home Office by pulling together and drive performance in Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnerships across the capital, and indeed nationally. The above agreement may support the initiatives driven by the London Crime Reduction Board, led by the MPA and created under this strand, therefore, all avenues to secure a legally compliant agreement between the MPS and the Home Office are being considered.

Financial Implications

4. The estimated cost of the development work to allow the provision of the data to the HODH is £150,000. There would also be ongoing revenue costs to support this requirement, but these are not known at this stage. There is currently no funding available for either the development work or the ongoing revenue costs pending a decision on whether to proceed and the scope of the requirement. Any decision to proceed will be subject to agreed approval processes and will have to be considered against other priorities in an increasingly constrained financial environment.

Legal Implications

5. The Commissioner is the "Data Controller" for this information for the purposes of the DPA. Some of the information requested may be "personal data" or “sensitive personal data” as defined in the Act, i.e. information from which individuals can be identified (e.g. the requests for officers' collar numbers, staff unique reference numbers, victim or perpetrator information linked to type of offence and location).

6. The Commissioner must keep personal information confidential unless a relevant exemption under the DPA applies. Although there is some comfort from indications by the Information Commissioner’s Office that any enforcement action would be against the Home Office, this ‘protection’ does not include complaints / civil claims being made by individuals who contend their rights to confidentiality have been infringed, therefore leaving an avenue for individuals to claim that the processing caused them damage / damage and distress. The possibility of succeeding with such a claim is minimal but opportunity still remains available.

7. It is with the above in mind that the Commissioner must ensure that the negotiated position with the Home Office complies with the requirements under the DPA and Article 8 of the Human Rights Act 1998.

Environmental Implications

8. There are no environmental implications identified at this stage.

Risk Implications

9. The risks posed to the MPS and the Commissioner in not complying with the requirements of the DPA are financial (through civil claims) and legislative breaches under the DPA, which are actionable by the Information Commissioner’s Office and individuals (through civil action).

D. Background papers

None

E. Contact details

Report author: Merilyne Knox, Head of Public Access Office / Data Protection and Freedom of Information Officer, MPS

For information contact:

MPA general: 020 7202 0202
Media enquiries: 020 7202 0217/18

Appendix 1

Quick Reference Guide to the Home Office Data Requirements

A: reduced crime requirement

The reduced crime requirement comprises the following CRIS fields:

•  CRIS number
•  Dates recorded, cleared up, confirmed, no crime
•  Classification code, crimsec code (these are used to identify the offence type)
•  Status (detected, undetected, no crime, transfer), prefix (attempted, conspired, substantive)
•  Victim information (required to count fraud offences), accused information (required to link to proceedings codes)

In addition the Home Office have said that they would ‘very much like’

•  Geocode / postcode (in order to calculate the middle super output area for Office for National Statistics)
•  Time and date of offence
•  Age gender and ethnicity of victims and offenders
•  DV and hate crime flags
•  Gun and knife feature codes
•  Location list to identify ‘commercial’ burglaries and ‘public places’
•  Cash in transit indicator

A large number of data items have been removed; in particular there is no longer a requirement to provide the warrant number of investigating / recording officers which would allow the linkage of crime data to HR data and would have been very high risk. In addition codes which could have conflicted with others supplied, in particular relationship codes and injury levels which could have conflicted with DV flagging and assault classification, are no longer required.

SCIRG (the Strategic Crime and Incident Recording Group) have agreed a recommended position that:

•  that the ‘reduced’ requirement set out above is low risk in terms of the risk of identification of an individual, is proportionate to the use which the data will be put, and should be supplied;
•  that the DV and hate crime flags, time and date of offence, and gun / knife feature codes are low risk and proportionate, and should be supplied;
•  rather than supply the geocode and postcode the recommendation is to supply middle super output area data as this will reduce the risk of identification of individuals. A middle super output area has a minimum population of 5,000 and a mean population of 7,200;
•  that age, gender and ethnicity data for victims and offenders is not supplied, as together with middle super output area and crime type this could potentially identify individuals (medium risk, medium impact). Similarly the location list is not recommended as, for example, this could be used to identify particular offences in schools, churches of which there may only be one in any given MSOA (medium risk and impact high). A cash in transit indicator is not recommended as there is no suitable field to feed this.
  

B: reduced HR requirement

The reduced HR requirement includes the following information:

For employees

•  Pay number or another unique identifier is required to link data together
•  Staff type (e.g. PCSO, police staff, police officer)
•  Dates of joining, leaving,
•  Reason for leaving (e.g. Retire, resign)
•  Date of birth, gender, ethnicity (6+1 and 16+1), disability
•  Identifiers for suspended, probationer, re-joiner, transfer
•  Part-time / full-time / hours per week
•  Rank record
•  Abstraction record
  •  abstraction type - sickness, maternity etc.
  •  start and end dates
  •  for sickness hours lost / days lost / assault on duty identifier
•  Assignment record
  •  BCU, post, start and end dates, secondments
•  Employment type

For applicants

•  Type of application
•  Date received
• Identifiers for specials, graduates
•  Postcode
•  Status of application with dates

Information which is no longer required includes:

•  Sickness reasons and sick pay status
• Training records and competencies
•  Basic pay
•  Marital status
•  Rank qualifiers (e.g. substantive, acting) and reasons (eg. Joiner, promoted)
•  Identifiers for Ospre qualification, graduates
•  Fitness levels
•  Length of tenure
•  Collar number
•  Pensionable service date
•  Job reference numbers for applicants

Appendix 2

Extract from the Police Act 1996

Section 43 - Reports from police authorities

1. A police authority shall, whenever so required by the Secretary of State, submit to the Secretary of State a report on such matters connected with the discharge of the authority’s functions, or otherwise with the policing of its area, as may be specified in the requirement.
2.  A requirement under subsection (1) may specify the form in which a report is to be given.
3.  The Secretary of State may arrange, or require the police authority to arrange, for a report under this section to be published in such manner as appears to him to be appropriate.

Section 44 - Reports from chief constables

1. The Secretary of State may require a chief constable to submit to him a report on such matters as may be specified in the requirement, being matters connected with the policing of the chief constable’s police area.
2.  A requirement under subsection (1) may specify the form in which a report is to be given.
3.  The Secretary of State may arrange, or require the chief constable to arrange, for a report under this section to be published in such manner as appears to the Secretary of State to be appropriate.
4.  Every chief constable shall, as soon as possible after the end of each financial year, submit to the Secretary of State the like report as is required by section 22(1) to be submitted to the police authority.
5.  This section shall apply in relation to the City of London police force as if for references to a chief constable there were substituted references to the Commissioner.

Section 45 - Criminal statistics

1. The chief officer of police of every police force shall, at such times and in such form as the Secretary of State may direct, transmit to the Secretary of State such particulars with respect to offences, offenders, criminal proceedings and the state of crime in the chief officer’s police area as the Secretary of State may require.
2.  The Secretary of State shall cause a consolidated and classified abstract of the information transmitted to him under this section to be prepared and laid before Parliament.

Appendix 3

Minutes of the decision made at ACPO Cabinet on 2 May 2007 and associated letter

Association of Chief Police Officers of England, Wales and Northern Ireland

Cabinet

Extract from Minutes of the meeting held at the ACPO Offices, 10 Victoria Street, London, on Wednesday 2nd May 2007, at 11.00 am

13. NMIS data hub memorandum of understanding

13.1 Mr Maddison introduced a paper requesting that Members ratify the above Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the Home Office and ACPO on the use or supply of information received onto the Home Office NMIS Data Hub, for publication as ACPO Guidance.

13.2 He said that the proposal was a practical measure brought about by the fact that data could not be depersonalised and weeded out by the programme. The data would not be provided for use but for secure storage. It was not so much a matter of ownership as jurisdiction. Forces would retain jurisdiction over their data. Access to the data would not be allowed by the Home Office and severe sanctions would be in place to deter unauthorised use.

13.3 The Chairman said the concerns raised made it clear that there was a need for an audit trail by letter to be established in order to provide the necessary assurances for the concerns raised above, both to colleagues and to the various staff associations. He asked Mr Maddison to write to the Home Office to seek the assurances and communicate them to all interested parties. Members agreed the MOU for publication subject to the above caveat and inclusion of the assurances.

Action: Mr Maddison/Mr Baker

Send an e-mail linking to this page

Feedback