Provision of police advice and assistance to international agencies

Report: 16
Date: 22 September 2006
By: Commissioner

Summary

This report outlines existing corporate governance for international activity within the Metropolitan Police Service. It highlights the legal requirement to incorporate the Authority into this process and seeks a decision on how this may best be achieved.

A. Recommendation

That

1. the Corporate Governance Committee and Co-ordination and Policing Committee recognise the existing MPS process for managing overseas assistance deployments;
2. Co-ordination and Policing Committee delegate authority to the Commissioner via the MPS’s International Crime Coordination Unit (ICCU) to approve s.26 Police Act applications for onward transmission to the Home Office (option 2), with the exception of cases of full cost, sensitive or contentious cases (outlined in para 14); and
3. Corporate Governance Committee and Co-ordination and Policing Committee to set a level of cost and approve arrangements to settle a protocol for handling exceptional cases;
4. the Co-ordination and Policing Committee receive twice yearly on all MPS overseas assistance deployments under section 26 of the Police Act 1996 with monthly data sent to the Chief Executive for monitoring and analysis; and
5. all ACPO non-operational overseas travel, subject to section 26 approval, to be policy compliant and given MPA prior approval.

B. Supporting information

1. In May 2006, a letter jointly issued by the Home Office, Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) and Association of Police Authorities (APA) was published on the ACPO intranet site reminding Chief Officers of Police and Chairs of Police Authorities of the procedures to be followed when police officers are deployed to provide assistance overseas. This letter is attached at Appendix 1.

2. Section 26 of the Police Act 1996 prescribes this procedure. It places a statutory obligation on a police authority to approve the provision for ‘advice and assistance’ to an international organisation or a body outside the UK that is engaged in policing activities. It does not include deployment outside the UK where personnel are pursuing enquiries on behalf of the Commissioner. This approval is then referred to the Home Office who grant the final authority for the granting of a Section 26 authority. This provides statutory confirmation that police officers and staff engaged in overseas service, when providing assistance; have their rights and entitlements protected for pay and pension purposes. Historically this process did not apply to the Metropolitan Police Service, which sought authority directly from the Home Office. This anomaly was removed by the 1999 Greater London Authority Act, which required all s.26 applications be first approved by the newly created Metropolitan Police Authority.

3. The nature and urgency of deployments where a s.26 authority is required will vary considerably. These can range from the fast time assistance and advice to overseas law enforcement offered by the Anti-Terrorist Branch following a terrorist outrage to a staff member being invited to be a guest speaker at an international seminar. Likewise, the demand for s.26 authority can be difficult to predict. During 2005/6, 725 officers in total requested s.26 letters. However, this figure includes 441 requests due to assisting with the international response to the Asian tsunami. An analysis of records shows that the MPS requests approximately 30 to 50 s.26 authorities a month.

4. Since its formation in 2004, the International Crime Coordination Unit (ICCU) within the Metropolitan Police Service has been responsible for quality assuring the process of deploying MPS personnel overseas. The ICCU has identified gaps in corporate governance, prioritised international business, instigated cost recovery opportunities and forged sustainable links with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Home Office and external funding providers for the benefit of London’s diverse communities.

5. The ICCU seeks to ensure all overseas deployments must be efficient, safe and appropriate. These values are delivered through an established overseas travel policy and clear standard operating procedures (SOP). The SOP and overseas travel policy can be provided to members should they require it. The ICCU delivers a monthly performance management report to assess the effectiveness of MPS overseas activity.

6. The travel policy requires that staff first register their intended deployment centrally with the ICCU and then complete a proforma report (form 9750) seeking authority from a senior officer. This report details the nature of the deployments and also enables the authorising officer to satisfy themselves that appropriate measures have been taken to manage associated risk and that a s.26 Police Act 1996 has been complied with where appropriate. Form 9750 is attached at Appendix 2.

7. To support staff and to help meet the MPS’s duty of care a series of corporate risk assessments have been developed that offer practical guidance on a range of standard overseas deployments. These include travelling overseas, on duty activity overseas and off duty activity overseas.

8. Examples of each corporate risk assessment are attached at:

• Appendix 3 General Travel Activity Overseas on MPS ICCU Business
• Appendix 4 On Duty Activity Overseas on MPS Business
• Appendix 5 Off Duty Activity Overseas on MPS Business

9. Where there are specific risks associated with that deployment that are not covered in the corporate risk assessments a separate risk register is supplied where these may be addressed.

10. Currently all applications for s.26 Police Act 1996 authorities are made by the travelling officers direct to the Home Office. In light of the ACPO letter, this process clearly needs adjustment.

11. Presently the ICCU collate all of the information submitted by officers deploying into a central database ensuring that the MPS is aware at all times where its overseas staff are, the nature of their work and that they are contactable. The sensitivity and urgency of some deployments requires that ICCU staff are security cleared up to the highest level and able to provide a service 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.

12. While it is recognised there is a need to adjust the overseas deployment process there are a range of options by which this may be achieved. These options are considered below along with some of their key implications:

Options 1. MPA scrutinise all applications for s.26 approvals

This would ensure the police authority has complete real time transparency on all s.26 approvals. This would require the authority to develop a mechanism capable of 24/7 response with consequent financial and resourcing costs.

Option 2. MPA conditionally delegate s.26 approvals to MPS, with the exception of cases of full cost, sensitive or contentious cases.

This would provide the Authority with real time transparency on specified s.26 approvals with other matters being dealt with in the first instance through delegated authority by the MPS (via ICCU). All s.26 authorities would subsequently be reported to the Co-ordination and Policing Committee for scrutiny and monitoring with monthly reports to a designated officer at the MPA. This would have some financial and resourcing costs but would broadly compliment existing structures.

Option 3. MPA delegate all s.26 approvals to the MPS

The authority would delegate all s.26 approvals to the MPS (via the ICCU) in the first instance. All s.26 authorities would subsequently be reported to the authority for scrutiny. There would be little financial or resourcing costs associated.

13. It is recommended that option 2 provides best value in delivering a process that addresses the need for transparency and real time resilience.

14. It is proposed the MPA delegate conditional authority for the MPS via the ICCU to approve s.26 Police Act applications for onward transmission to the Home Office. The exceptions to this delegated authority will be those deployments where:

• The proposed deployment will incur a full cost, including financial and staff opportunity costs, in excess of an agreed level of expenditure
• The deployment is considered sensitive or contentious either in the nature of the proposed assistance or location of the recipient agency; criteria for such cases are to be set out in an agreed MPA/MPS protocol

15. Should either of these conditions be relevant then all applications will be referred to an agreed contact point within the MPA. This nominated point of contact will need to be available to deal with urgent requests and be vetted to DV level.

16. If this is agreed it is proposed that the ICCU develop a protocol and reporting process with a nominated point of contact within the MPA. This process would be subject of ongoing review through a meeting structure to be agreed between nominated leads within the MPA and MPS.

C. Race and equality impact

The MPS Policy Clearing House and Diversity & Citizen Focus Directorate have assessed the MPS Travel Policy and standard operating procedures as ‘low’ impact for equality and diversity implications. It is not envisaged that the decisions recommended by this paper should change this assessment.

D. Financial implications

There are no significant financial changes envisaged for the MPS or MPA should the recommendations of this report be adopted. Should the Authority require a broader role within this issue then this may have consequent financial implications.

E. Background papers

• MPS Overseas Travel Policy
• MPS Overseas Travel Policy Standard Operating Procedures

F. Contact details

Report author: Det Chief Supt. Richard Gargini, MPS.

For information contact:

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

Send an e-mail linking to this page

Feedback