Scottish Government

2005

ISBN 0 7559 1197 0(Web only publication)

This document is also available in pdf format (300k)

Contents

1 INTRODUCTION
2. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
2.1 Summary of Progress against outstanding Recommendations/Suggestions
3. RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE 2002 PRIMARY INSPECTION
4. SUGGESTIONS OF THE 2002 PRIMARY INSPECTION
5. NATIONAL AND FORCE ISSUES
5.1 Force arrangements for Special Constables 5.2 Force response to the Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000
5.3 Action taken in relation to Community Planning
5.4 Disability and property management strategy
5.5 Management of force projects
5.6 Preparation for the introduction of AIRWAVE communications
5.7 Implementation the Freedom of Information Act
5.8 Force approach to the management and execution of warrants
5.9 Force approach to dealing with people with mental illness or learning difficulties
5.10 Force Approach to antisocial behaviour
5.11 Force call handling/call management process
5.12 Force approach to management of persons in custody
5.13 Force performance in relation to crime reduction
5.14 Force performance in relation to crime detection y
5.15 Force Performance in relation to Road Traffic Accident Casualtiesy
5.16 Force performance in relation to drug seizures y
5.17 Force performance in relation to ethnic minority officersy
5.18 Force performance in relation to reliability of data
5.21 Multigraph No 1
5.22 Multigraph No 2
6. THEMATIC UPDATE

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary ( HMIC) has a statutory duty under section 33(3) of the Police (Scotland) Act 1967 to report to the Scottish Ministers on the effectiveness and efficiency of the police service in Scotland. It discharges this duty through an inspection programme that involves primary and review inspections of forces and common police services and through conducting thematic inspections on areas of particular interest or concern.

1.2 Following a review of the inspection process in 2002, HMIC has moved to a five yearly inspection cycle. The primary inspection, which initiates the process, comprises a comprehensive examination of all aspects of force activity at a more strategic level with subsequent field work focusing on areas of business which attract particular attention due to performance levels, variations from common practice or concerns identified about the approaches followed. The process also seeks to identify good practice from which other forces or common services could learn. The primary inspection is followed by two review inspections at 18-month intervals. These focus on:

• progress against the recommendations made in the preceding primary inspection
• progress against suggestions in the preceding primary inspection
• progress against the recommendations made in recent thematic inspections
• items nominated by the force regarding their current position and issues seen by the force as representing significant challenges in the future
• national developments in policing
• events or developments relevant to the particular force as identified through the environmental scanning process by HMIC Knowledge Management Unit
• outcomes of the force's self-assessment and internal inspection work
• outcomes of other external scrutiny, for example Police National Computer ( PNC) Audit, Health and Safety Executive ( HSE) Inspections, Audit Scotland studies and audits, and Commission for Racial Equality ( CRE) reports
• review of performance information - leading to a risk assessment led focus on any area seen as under-performing.

1.3 HMIC methodology for review inspections involves the preparation of an appropriate set of questions to address the issues selected from the list shown in paragraph 1.2. This facilitates a structured and relevant examination of the organisation and ensures the inspection is evidence based.

1.4 This Review Inspection includes the force's response to the recommendations and suggestions in its Primary Inspection, conducted under an earlier schedule of inspection in 2001. In an 18 month review in 2003, 4 recommendations and 24 suggestions were discharged. The remainder have been re-visited and progress is reported on. HMIC recognises that the recommendations and suggestions require to be carefully considered by the force, often have resource implications and may need to be approached in a phased and prioritised way.

1.5 A force may choose not to follow or adopt an HMIC recommendation and set out an argued case for not doing so. In turn, HMIC may comment on this but the debate is a public one for the police authority, Scottish Ministers and the wider public to take a view.

1.6 This review, which is made public through the police authority and the HMIC website, contributes to the transparency and accountability of a police force.

2. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

2.1 The Primary Inspection of Grampian Police in 2001 identified a total of 11 recommendations and 34 suggestions. The 2003 review found that significant progress had been made by the force in addressing these and HMIC was able to discharge 4 recommendations and 26 suggestions. During the course of this review, HMIC found that almost all the remainder of the recommendations and suggestions had been successfully addressed by the force and HMIC is able to discharge 5 of the remaining 7 recommendations and 6 of the 8 suggestions. Two recommendation and 2 suggestions remain that the force is still addressing and HMIC will revisit this at the next Primary Inspection in 2006.

2.2 As part of this Review Inspection, HMIC asked for the force to provide information on a number of topics, which were identified through the process described at paragraph 1.2. This resulted in the inspection protocol extending to a detailed examination of

While a more detailed analysis can be found later in this report, HMIC found that Grampian Police is actively addressing each of these areas and demonstrating clear progress.

2.3 HMIC also sought an update on progress made against the recommendations of certain thematic inspections conducted since the Primary Inspection of Grampian Police:

• "Safety First" (July 2004)
• "Quality of Service" (June 2004)
• "Local Connections" (March 2004)
• "Pride and Prejudice" (June 2003).

2.4 HMIC found that the force has made considerable progress in addressing the recommendations and suggestions made in these reports. To enhance its ability to address these and future reports, HMIC notes that the Development and Governance Department continues to collate and record all HMIC thematic inspection reports and oversee the force's response, reporting progress to the Force Executive Board. HMIC welcomes this approach.

2.5 Summary of Progress against outstanding Recommendations/ Suggestions

2.6 HMIC acknowledges the positive progress made in addressing the recommendations and suggestions of the Primary Inspection Report 2001 and clear evidence of progress made, as well as several examples of good practice, across the range of issues examined at paragraph 2.2 including:

In this regard, HMIC also recognises the progress made in tackling anti social behaviour and the force's commitment to it, as well as its pioneering work in relation to special constables. Nonetheless, HMIC would urge the force to refocus its efforts in relation the current staff appraisal backlog and translate the work already undertaken around custody issues into concrete action. Further, HMIC has identified a need for the force to refine its approach to ethnic minority consultation, give further consideration to its structural organisation, complete a Best Value review of productions and consider the need for a resource allocation formula. The force should also continue to support the Joint Police Board in relation to its efforts to introduce an independent custody visiting scheme.

2.7 The next inspection of Grampian Police will be conducted during 2006, and at that time HMIC will revisit the recommendations/suggestions which has not yet been discharged, together with progress made in other areas reflected in this report.

3. RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE 2001 PRIMARY INSPECTION

Recommendation 1 - HMIC recommends that the force act to reduce the backlog, and thereafter ensure the expeditious submission, of Staff Appraisals. Consideration should be given to this important element of staff management being made the subject of a specific performance indicator. (paragraph 3.16)

Force Position 2003

The attached table illustrates the overall decrease for the Force together with the anomaly in Aberdeen Division which has been exacerbated by the amalgamation of the two Command Areas.

This has been acknowledged at both Operational Commanders' Meetings ( OCM) (see also suggestion 4 below) and at the Division where steps are being taken to reduce the backlog which has built up because of a number of factors including the pressure of work/competing demand with Project Aberdeen. Aside from Aberdeen, the figures show continued improvement.

The raw data is as follows for overdue appraisals by 150 days.

Latest figures for outstanding appraisals, although showing an overall statistical increase, actually represent a downward trend for all areas except Aberdeen. The amalgamation of Bucksburn and Queen Street Command areas into one Division has had a significant detrimental effect on the statistics which is recognised by the Command Area. Some stability in staff roles and responsibilities is required prior to making significant inroads into this figure, however the Command Area are looking at short term measures to reduce the back-log. In support of this, the method in which the statistics are presented to OCM has been further refined in order to facilitate a more structured approach to performance information, including outstanding appraisals. Quarterly performance reviews are now an integral part of the OCM calendar which will facilitate a periodic intensive scrutiny of this PI. Copies of the most recent OCM minutes, together with an explanation of the rationale behind the performance report, are attached.

In addition the formula which calculates when probationers cease their probationer reports and commence their annual appraisal failed. This technical fault has just been identified but has created a surge in overdue appraisals (which because most probationers are in Aberdeen, inflates Aberdeen's situation). Essentially PS2000 has generated overdue reports without ever telling the line manager that an appraisal was due. This anomaly is being addressed urgently.

The Force acknowledges the unfavourable position with regard to outstanding appraisals and is concentrating efforts on raising the profile and value of performance review rather than on addressing the statistics alone. We have raised this matter recently with ACPOS Personnel and Training Committee at their meeting on 6 August 2003 with a view to commencing two projects to review the value and effectiveness of performance review, and to review the actual process bearing in mind the opportunities offered by the new HRIT System.

It is anticipated by ACPOS Personnel and Training Committee that that there will be a recommendation to depart from the national system and members were asked to explore the ACPOS position on the retention of the current national system. Our view is that until the overall effectiveness of the appraisal system is addressed, and staff have confidence in it, there will continue to be short term variation in the numbers of outstanding appraisals.

HMIC Response

HMIC notes and welcomes the additional monitoring of staff appraisal submission that is being conducted and the establishment of this issue as a performance indicator. HMIC acknowledges that organisational restructuring of the type that has taken place in Aberdeen will result in changes of line management with consequent difficulties and delays in the completion of appraisals. Similarly the IT problems that created delays in the generation of appraisals for officers completing their probation period are recognised. In addition HMIC notes the pressure on supervisors arising from the requirement to complete applications for competency related pay awards and promotion using different sets of competencies from those applied in the Police Advisory Board for Scotland ( PABS) performance review (appraisal) system. However, the force's level of backlog is very significant with around 15% of appraisals taking over 150 days to complete. In addition, without prompt completion of appraisals all support staff and police officers who are not applying for promotion or competency based pay awards are less likely to receive structured feedback on their performance to guide their future development.

HMIC supports the adoption of a standard set of competencies to be used throughout Scotland for appraisal, promotion and pay awards and welcomes the initial steps in this direction signalled in the recently published ACPOS Human Resources ( HR) strategy. However, in the interim, both to ensure that the force sustains a culture where appraisal is recognised to be important, and to secure prompt performance review for all staff, HMIC advocates sustained effort to reduce the delays in appraisal submission. This area will be the subject of further scrutiny at the next review inspection.

Force Position 2005

Considerable effort has been made to reduce the number of 'late' appraisals. An entry was inserted in Force Weekly Orders in November 2004, giving permission for 'abbreviated' appraisals in situations where the appraisee was deemed to have shown competency. The notice also 'wrote off' appraisals for previous periods (i.e., where more than one year's appraisal had been missed) to encourage discussion on current performance. This initiative did bring about a marked increase in appraisal submission. However, several remain outstanding.

During 2005 Grampian Police will be the pilot force for the proposed National Performance and Development Review ( PDR) System. Within this system every supervisor and manager will have a specific performance indicator regarding the effective completion and timely submission of the PDRs of their staff. The pilot project offers the Force an excellent opportunity to disseminate 'refresher' training on performance management. This will integrate details of the new system with reminders of the critical organisational and business reasons for monitoring and improving the performance of all staff. Reiterating and reinforcing the organisational benefits to be gained from effective performance management should allow the Force to gain a new momentum in this area.

Where effective PDR takes place, staff are better informed as to their contribution to Force and Departmental objectives and both appraisee and appraiser are in agreement regarding appropriate personal objectives for the coming period. The structured evaluation of the forthcoming pilot will offer robust data on any benefits gained from the forthcoming initiative.

HMIC Comment 2005

HMIC notes the efforts undertaken by the force and welcomes the force's participation in the pilot for the new national PDR system. However an examination of performance data shows that, for the financial year 2003 - 2004, on average, 379 police officer PDR's were overdue by at least 150 days. This represents 27% of current police officer establishment and indicates the situation, despite continued monthly monitoring, has deteriorated since the last review inspection. While HMIC acknowledges that at the time of the review a further force instruction was issued in an attempt to tackle this issue, it is disappointed that a problem identified during the primary inspection in 2001 still exists nearly 4 years later. HMIC would expect to see significant efforts to remove this backlog prior to becoming involved in the pilot of the National Performance and Development Review System. The performance of the force in recent times in this area makes it additionally important that administrative processes and timings are adhered to and that robust monitoring will be essential In the interim HMIC is unable to discharge the recommendation.

Recommendation 2 - It is recommended that the force consider development of a project plan, with appropriate milestones, which will allow for the management of staff pay budgets by Departmental and Local Area Commanders. (paragraph 4.57)

Force Position 2003

Since the publication of the Report, Grampian Police have been actively discussing the viability of this recommendation and has embarked on a programme of work which will explore alternatives to the current structure, including the devolvement of financial responsibility. This is a long term project in which the above recommendation will feature for consideration.

HMIC Response

HMIC notes that the force has this matter under consideration and will review progress at the next inspection.

Force Position 2005

A pilot exercise was started in August 2004 covering Moray and OSD Divisions and, following the Business Planning exercise currently being undertaken throughout the Force, the intention is to devolve fully the pay budgets to all Divisions from 1 April 2005.

HMIC Comment 2005

During the inspection HMIC examined progress in respect of devolved budgeting and interviewed the Head of Finance and Administration as well as an operational commander who had been involved in the pilot. In preparation for devolvement of pay budgets, business managers have been appointed to the main business units within the force e.g. local command areas, crime management and operational support. Awareness training around the devolved budget scheme is planned following further work to update the force's "Scheme of Devolved Budgets". Both the head of finance and operational commander identified that devolving the pay budget had been made more difficult because the force had no resource deployment formula and therefore a baseline figure with regard to personnel as at December 2004 had been used upon which to base budgets. HMIC has previously commented on the need for forces to utilise a resource allocation formula and would suggest the force examine this area. However clear progress has been made and HMIC is satisfied that the recommendation can be discharged. The Primary Inspection of Grampian Police to be carried out in 2006 will afford an opportunity to examine the impact of devolved budgeting.

Recommendation 3 - Discharged (First Review)

Recommendation 4 - Discharged (First Review)

Recommendation 5 - HMIC recommends that a regular independent audit process exists to ensure that crimes and offences reported and recorded within the command and control system can be tracked through to the crime recording process. (paragraph 5.46)

Force Position 2003

Central audit no longer takes place to ensure that incidents recorded on STORM are translated, where appropriate, into crime reports, the focus of the annual Performance Review of the Command Areas now being linked to self assessment and continuous improvement.

The creation of the new Service Centre has to some extent negated the need for this as staff at the Centre create Crimefiles directly from calls and have no 'vested interest' in concealing possible crime figures. Additionally, and arguably more important in terms of the ethos lying behind this area of concern, the Service Centre staff have access to repeat incident software which automatically generates details of previous calls and gives access to quality of life solutions and Problem Solving Policing directions. This allows issues, which technically may not be crimes, to be dealt with by targeting an appropriate issue and provision of the most effective solution. This demonstrates a commitment to awareness which goes one level deeper than that sought by HMIC.

Nevertheless, until the Service Centre is fully operational, it is accepted that some calls might slip through the net in the interim. It is my understanding, from conversations with Command Areas, that this difficulty was discussed at various fora, including Operational Commander's meetings. The problem was well understood and this is currently still a matter for the Commanders to audit in their own areas of responsibility. This issue was recently discussed at a self-assessment review meeting, under the heading of 'processes' attended by Mr Shearer and South Aberdeenshire Command, and it was felt that the present transitional arrangements were satisfactory. In the light of this being one of Mr Shearer's specific areas of concern the matter was subsequently brought to the attention of other Command Areas by Inspector Walker, Strategic Development Department, who was advised that the issue was acknowledged 'live', and being dealt with.

HMIC Response

HMIC recognises that the imminent developments in relation to force call handling and the Scottish Crime Recording Standard ( SCRS) make the development of a detailed audit process a more complex issue than originally anticipated. HMIC welcomes the assurance provided during the inspection visit that this is being addressed and will be developed as part of the implementation of the SCRS. Progress in this area will be reviewed at the next inspection.

Force Position 2005

Update November 2004

The Force position in 2003 has now changed as a consequence of our response to the Scottish Crime Recording Standard implemented on 1 April 2004. Officers have been instructed that, when dealing with reports of crime where a STORM Command and Control incident has also been raised, they must also have the STORM incident updated with the associated CrimeFile number in the 'Case No' field of the relevant STORM Call Card. This is added by staff in the Force Service Centre. The Force Crime Desk is tasked with checking crime related STORM incidents raised on an ongoing basis, 5 days after creation. Based on the information recorded, they discern whether or not a CrimeFile should have been raised in line with the Scottish Crime Recording Standard. If it appears that this has not been done, e-mail correspondence is entered into with the Enquiry Officer and s/he is requested to ensure the situation is rectified or explain why an SCRS exemption ought to apply. The end result should be that the STORM incident will have the associated CrimeFile number recorded on it, or other information indicating why this is not appropriate. This helps assure that there is tracking between the Command and Control system and our Crime Recording system, although the link is not a direct electronic one.

Reports of crime dealt with exclusively within the Force Service Centre, i.e., by telephone contact with the complainer and 'screened out' without sending a resource to visit the victim, will not usually result in a STORM incident being created. There is however a direct electronic link between the Easyspeak call handling software that is installed in the FSC and the CrimeFile crime recording system. These links are by way of hyperlink. Work is ongoing to develop electronic queries capable of allowing the Force Crime Desk to monitor FSC staff performance in relation to 'contacts' within the Easyspeak system that should have resulted in CrimeFiles being created in respect of the SCRS. This is not possible at present.

Update April 2005

The process of auditing STORM incident reports against crime reports as intimated in the November 2004 update is still in place with Crime Desk operatives administering compliance with SCRS. This process will shortly be improved by the introduction of a bespoke e-mailing system with a database attached that has been developed in Force. It will allow fairly detailed monitoring of all remedial e-mails sent to enquiry officers to ensure that they have been appropriately dealt with. It should also allow statistics to be drawn and assist in targeting SCRS training needs effectively. The means of monitoring the Easyspeak system in relation to calls to the Service Centre has not yet been developed due to other pressing priorities within the IT Department. The drive, however, persists to build an appropriate system and this business need has been included in the Force thinking in relation to the development of a system capable of providing much broader management and performance information at Force, Divisional and Analyst levels, respectively. Options are currently being considered and the performance management needs of the organisation examined closely. This is considered the most effective use of limited IT resources, but should this development work be delayed significantly, an interim solution in relation to SCRS requirements will be sought.

HMIC Comment 2005

The Scottish Crime Recording Standard was introduced in April 2004 with the aim of providing a more victim orientated approach that serves the needs of communities and ensures uniformity in crime recording standards throughout Scotland. At the time of this review, HMIC was carrying out a thematic inspection across the Scottish police service to examine the implementation of the Standard and its impact on recorded crime. The resultant report is due for publication in August 2005. In light of this project, which has examined policy and procedure in all forces, HMIC is content to discharge this specific recommendation. The thematic report will contain recommendations for the service in Scotland and will itself be subject of a review process.

Recommendation 6 - HMIC repeats its recommendation that the practice of retaining drugs productions within the Forensic Science Laboratory be reviewed. (Paragraph 5.89)

Force Position 2003

The Director of Corporate Services has examined this issue and considered the evidence following the Common Police Services Review. The matter has still to be resolved and a review has recently been implemented under the guidance of the Chief Inspector, Corporate Services Division.

HMIC Response

HMIC notes this issue is under review and will reconsider at the next inspection.

Force Position 2005

It has been agreed that the drugs productions currently handled by the lab at Nelson Street, Aberdeen, will be transferred to the main Production Store at Force Headquarters. Building work is in progress to enable the storage and handling of the extra productions within the Production Store at Force Headquarters. Training issues have been identified and addressed by the Productions manager. There are, however, staffing issues which require to be addressed but this will not hold up the process of transfer. The coming together of staff has not been an easy transition due to the differing staff grades of persons doing the same job. This is currently being reviewed by the Force HR department. It is anticipated that these issues will be revolved prior to the 'Go Live' date which has been set for 1 June 2005.

HMIC Comment 2005

HMIC found positive progress with regard to this recommendation. Building work had been completed and all drugs were due to be moved to the new secure accommodation as per the go live date. Staff grading issues had also been addressed. It was noted that a Best Value review of productions which had commenced in October 2003 was still not completed. This has the potential to be a valuable piece of work and, while able to discharge the recommendation, HMIC would encourage the force to complete the review.

Recommendation 7 - HMIC recommends that the Force vary their firearms administration procedures to ensure that Firearms Licensing Department is aware of the location of every firearm and what specific action has been taken where certificates have lapsed.

(paragraph 5.100)

Force Position 2003

Our starting point for this recommendation is to try to ensure that the number of firearms and shotgun certificates which have lapsed are always kept to a minimum. Currently, out of a combined total of 14,146 Certificates registered at Grampian Police, only 81 (0.57%) are shown as having lapsed for reasons stated on the schedule at item 5.9 below.

The Schedule shows the various reasons why Certificates have lapsed and as a consequence of this recommendation we now formally apply the principles of risk assessment to determine the action we need to take in order to locate firearms for which there is no current certificate.

This approach is embodied in a recent amendment to General Order 17/00 and means that in practice certificates which lapse in the following circumstances will always trigger immediate action to trace the weapons:

'Code 002 - Marked Gone Away'
006 - Expired-failed to renew memo sent to LCA
010 - Enquiry not returned, memo to LCA
012 - Application rejected

The Firearms Licensing Department is primarily an administrative unit and requires action, information and support from 'operations' - Divisions/Command Areas - in order to efficiently and effectively carry out its functions.

The Firearms Licensing Department sends a renewal reminder to certificate holders 12 weeks prior to the expiry of their certificate. If the certificate holder has not intimated his/her renewal within the next 10 weeks, i.e. within 14 days of the expiry of the certificate, the Firearms Licensing Department writes to the certificate holder advising them that there is insufficient time to conduct enquiries to facilitate the renewal of his/her certificate before the expiry date and further advising him/her of the requirement to lodge, prior to the certificate expiry date, any weapons or ammunition with a Registered Firearms Dealer or a certificate holder authorised to possess said weapons/ammunition. At the same time, the Firearms Licensing Department sends a Memorandum to the relevant Division/Command Area advising of the failure to renew timeously and urging urgent enquiries to ensure that any weapons and/or ammunition will not be held without a certificate. The Division/Command Area is required to advise the Firearms Licensing Department by 'Outlook' (internal email system) of the location of the weapons/ammunition at the time of the certificate expiry.

The above situation apart, there are other scenarios when a renewal cannot be completed before a certificate expires. In such situations, Divisions/Command Areas are similarly required to ensure that no weapons/ammunition are held without a certificate.

General Order 17/00 has been revised to incorporate the above and this has been reinforced by the circulation of an 'Outlook' from the Chief Inspector, Corporate Services (Administration), to the various Divisional/Area Commanders.

HMIC Response

HMIC notes the developments to force orders and procedures to address this recommendation. Following additional inspection activity HMIC concluded it is important that the firearms licensing department is able to secure prompt action by divisional staff to prevent weapons being retained beyond the expiry date of firearms licences and shotgun certificates. It may be helpful for the Firearms Licensing section to generate data in relation to the time taken by operational staff to complete such enquiries, to assist in the performance monitoring in this area. Whilst the relatively low number of renewal applications anticipated over the next 15 months will allow close monitoring within current processes and capacity, HMIC suggests that the force consider establishing more robust arrangements in readiness for the greater demands of the renewal cycle as it gathers momentum in 2005. A proposal to establish a centrally managed team of support staff to undertake the additional work volume is being prepared and such a step, supported by closer monitoring and calling to account of operational managers, should provide the basis for improvement in this area. Development of the firearms licensing administrative processes will be subject of consideration at the next inspection.

Force Position 2005

During the latter part of 2004 the Force, in conjunction with an outside agency, carried out an in depth review of all Firearms Licensing renewal procedures. Seven Support Staff Enquiry Officers are now in place supplemented by two police officers. All certificates falling due for renewal are passed to the dedicated enquiry officer twelve weeks before expiry regardless of whether or not an application has been received. This allows the Enquiry Officer to monitor the situation where an application has not been received or make enquiries before the certificate expires.

There are still some ongoing issues with regards to staffing numbers to be resolved but the onus to monitor and take action has now passed from the Command Areas to Firearms Licensing. Early indications are that the system will be robust as long as sufficient manpower is in place to provide an efficient service. The clumsy system of memos and reminders to Command Areas has ceased now and Enquiry Officers report direct to Firearms Licensing who generate internal enquiries, if necessary. To date, however, this has not been necessary and Enquiry Officers have reported and resolved the issue prior to the expiry date.

HMIC Comment 2005

At the time of the inspection HMIC was pleased to note that there were only 3 expired certificates recorded within the force which shows a very significant improvement over time. Grampian Police have been to the fore in adopting a systems thinking approach to continuous improvement and it is this approach which has been applied to the review of firearms administration. More detailed comment around systems thinking is made under Recommendation 11 but in adopting the approach the force has recognised that a weakness has been a lack of detailed written record of the process, something they are addressing. While disappointing from the point of view of facilitating others to share in this good practice this does not detract from the benefits that have accrued. By centralising and largely civilianising posts involved in firearms licensing, administration and renewal, where previously nearly 19 full time equivalent police officers were involved in firearms licensing throughout the force area, the work is now being undertaken by 7 full time force support staff and 2 police officers. The force estimates an annual financial saving of nearly £150,000 is involved. HMIC considers this recommendation to be discharged.

Recommendation 8 - HMIC recommends an action plan of remedial work is drawn up to address identified Health and Safety issues. (paragraph 5.104

Force Position 2003

Introduction of Corrective Action Report

Following the recommendation by HMI and comments by the local authority auditors that there was no auditable trail regarding how serious issues were dealt with and closed out a corrective action report form has been devised and published for use across the Force. The use of this report has been cascaded by Area Commanders/Heads of Departments and will be more widely used following the publication of a Chief Constables Memorandum in the autumn of 2003.

HMIC Response

HMIC notes the introduction of the corrective action form, which should prove useful to secure completion of identified priority Health and Safety tasks. At the next inspection HMIC will check progress on the specific health and safety issues raised within the report regarding equipment availability in cell areas.

Force Position 2004

The force is 2 Ampel Probes short of a full complement; these are in future budget plans. Metal Detectors are provided where reasonably practicable. Different types of metal detector are currently being trialled to obtain the most appropriate type. Leg restraint equipment is fitted to the custody in the police transport prior to a custody entering the custody suite if they are deemed necessary. Given the current cell layout and proposals to rebuild the custody area no observation cells have been built. They are included in current plans for a new custody area. It is not felt practicable for cells to be individually labelled if a prisoner is high risk as this may cause confusion if prisoners are moved and the labels are not moved at the same time. In addition it is felt that they increase the amount of information visible to prisoners which may lead to unmanageable situations developing -the current arrangements for identification of these prisoners has to date been successful. Panic Alarms are provided in most areas although where unavailable then personal alarms are issued. Staff have been made aware of the location of panic alarms. The current provision of panic alarms will be reviewed in plans to upgrade the custody suite.

Force Position 2005

The situation reported in 2004 still prevails. The Force has not yet managed to fully equip all of its Custody Areas with Ampel probes. This issue is currently being addressed by the relevant Area Business Managers and is almost complete. The Force recently completed an evaluation of a particular model of hand held metal detector; a procurement process is currently underway.

Unsuitability of no proper observation cells or availability of leg restraints in custody suites: None of the Force Custody Centres have observation cells. Given the future plans for new / developed Custody Areas this is certainly a prominent item on the agenda. Leg restraints are not present in any of the Custody Centres. Force Officer Safety Training has recently incorporated training in the use of these items in re-certification courses. They are progressively being rolled out to operational vehicles.

Cells are not labelled if they contain high risk prisoners although the detaining officer and custody officer are aware of their status: Grampian Police does not operate a policy of labelling cells to identify the presence of high risk prisoners.

Provision of panic alarms should be reviewed to ensure they are provided in all locations and are easily identifiable: The situation reported in 2004 remains. This is the subject of ongoing review.

The Custody Programme Board was reconvened on 13 April 2005. The Custody Programme Board (answerable to Chief Superintendent Blake) has a remit to consider and constantly review the current facilities and practices operated by Grampian Police to ensure the fair and safe management of all custodies under the care of the Force. The Custody Programme Board is answerable to the Force Programme Board. Its management of its remit, and actions promulgated from its meetings is subject to strict management under the Programme and Project Support Office. Accordingly, issues arising relative to equipment, fabric and training are closely scrutinised by the Board.

HMIC Comment

This recommendation, Suggestion 25 which refers to a review of CCTV in custody areas and Suggestion 26, which relates to a consolidation of the force's custody facilities, are closely related. HMIC has examined the force's response and progress made in relation to both the recommendation and suggestions and detailed comment in response to all three is provided below.

At the 2001 Primary Report HMIC highlighted a number of issues around custody and identified a "wide variation in custody provision across the force area".HMIC acknowledged however that the force was carrying out a major review of the provision of custody facilities. This review reported in March 2003 and recommended a reduction in the number of custody centres together with an upgrading of the standards of those that remained. The Force Executive agreed that there was a requirement for custody centres in Moray, North Aberdeenshire and Aberdeen. Subsequent to this in September 2003 a project was commissioned to gather data on custody patterns in the force. This and previous information was used to inform a further report submitted to the Force Executive in June 2004 on custody facilities linked to a capital spending bid. Throughout this period until the current time, custody issues have been considered by a working group which has now been subsumed into the Custody Programme Board as part of the force's new programme board structure. The Working Group, now Board, has undergone changes in chairmanship and membership and for substantial periods has not met. It is clear from the minutes that a great deal of discussion and research has been undertaken around a wide range of issues including those highlighted by HMIC.

While HMIC acknowledges the considerable analysis and research that has been carried out this has not as yet materialised into a comprehensive and structured action plan to address custody issues. At the time of the inspection fieldwork, HMIC was informed by the chair of the Custody Programme Board that the 2004 report had been circulated to divisional commanders for comment including the rationalisation of custody facilities. In addition, before any decision would be taken, consideration was being given to the potential to contract out custody arrangements. These developments, while important, will further delay progress.

In relation to the identified health and safety issues (Recommendation 8), these for the most part have been addressed although without recourse to a specific action plan. Indeed recent impetus to address these issues seems to have come from the force's own Safety Adviser who has recently highlighted a number of outstanding issues around equipment following her own inspections. The custody working group, now board, has had as a standing agenda item the creation of a standard list of equipment for custody suites throughout the force area. Discussion around this has been ongoing since at least August 2003 when the Custody Working Group was reconvened as the Custody Programme Board. The final delivery of ampel probes to custody suites took place during field work for this review inspection and of hand held metal detectors subsequent to fieldwork. While leg restraints have not been issued for custody suites they have been to vehicles regularly used to transport custodies. The force however still does not have any observation cells. Instead the Programme Board has been considering for the last 18 months the potential to install life signs monitoring equipment which activates an alarm should a prisoner stop breathing.

HMIC also notes the information supplied by the force at 2003 that a corrective action report had been introduced is incorrect "The use of this report has been cascaded by Area Commanders/Heads of Departments and will be more widely used following the publication of a Chief Constables Memorandum in the autumn of 2003". The force's current Safety Adviser has identified that, while agreement had been reached to introduce such a form, it was subsequently not implemented.

With regard to a review of CCTV in custody areas (Suggestion 25), again this has been under debate since August 2003 but was removed from the programmes board's agenda in June 2004 as "it had been agreed that all new buildings and re-developments should have CCTV" and " Once new buildings or refurbishment commence it can be revisited." It remained however, the subject of discussion at Board meetings in 2005. At the current time the force has installed CCTV within custody suites at Queen Street, Aberdeen, Bucksburn, Elgin, Fraserburgh, Peterhead, Ellon, Stonehaven and Inverurie. As part of the refurbishment of Banff, CCTV will be installed. The CCTV installed however predominately covers charge counter areas. The Board has attempted to establish standards for CCTV installation seeking advice from HMIC. HMIC's position is quite clear that, where volume dictates, charge bars should be covered as should prisoner entrances to custody suites and cell passageways. The force has led the way in piloting the installation of CCTV in custody vehicles and now has 6 such suitably equipped throughout the force area. HMIC welcomes this development and regards it as good practice.

Around rationalisation of custody facilities (Suggestion 26), reference has been made to a report that has been circulated to divisional commanders for comment. Currently the force has 17 custody sites, which is a significant number but reflects the geographical nature of the force. Following consultation, an early decision on which, if any, facilities should be closed will allow the force to move forward to enhance custody facilities. While HMIC would not wish to be prescriptive, the force's own response identifies 4 primary centres (Queen Street, Inverurie, Elgin and Peterhead) and 3 secondary centers for the respective areas (Bucksburn, Stonehaven & Fraserburgh) as the focus for refurbishment/rebuild. This appears a sensible approach and HMIC would like to see a comprehensive strategy that focuses on these facilities in terms of CCTV, custody recording software and associated equipment/accommodation issues. In particular, HMIC would like to see the installation of observation cells at Queen Street, Elgin and Peterhead, where overnight custodies are held.

Allied to this, the force currently only has dedicated force support staff in the custody suite at Queen Street, Aberdeen. Elsewhere comment is made regarding the introduction of the new Airwave digital radio system and the implication for local control rooms (paragraph 5.6). A concentration of facilities around the primary custody suites, allied to the potential to relocate roles currently designated as control room staff, affords the force the opportunity to consider the introduction of suitably trained force support staff to other custody suits within the force area.

As acknowledged, the force has spent considerable time analysing and debating custody issues. The current consultation exercise, the introduction of Airwave, the potential to relocate force headquarters as well as other capital projects e.g. the refurbishment of Elgin police station, create an ideal opportunity to make significant progress around a whole range of custody issues. HMIC would urge the force to act. In the interim neither the recommendation or suggestions are discharged and HMIC will revisit the area of custody at the next Primary Inspection of the force scheduled for 2006.

Recommendation 9 - Discharged (First Review)

Recommendation 10 - Discharged (First Review)

Recommendation 11 - It is recommended that the force review the process for the selection of 'service' areas for Best Value review and their linkage to the 'strategic' priorities for the force. The Best Value service reviews selected should be encompassed within a programme which allows for monitoring of progress against given milestones. (paragraph A44)

Force Position 2003

A Timetable for Best Value Service Selection has been developed. This process takes into consideration the many elements which will impact on the selection of a service area to be considered under Best Value. EFQM (European Foundation for Quality Management) Self Assessment will provide evidence of poorly performing services. The Forces' Strategic intentions, and National and environmental scanning issues will also be considered when selecting areas of service for review. Opportunities for consultation are also encompassed within selection process, mainly in the form of Staff Survey results, Conferences and Feedback from Elected Members. All these elements and feedback will culminate in a Programme of reviews being drawn up for the forthcoming financial year.

The reviews programmed for 2003/2004 have focussed on the Strategic intentions of the Force. The current review of Roads Policing coincides with the restructure of the Force but will also contribute to Enhancing Community Safety. The remaining reviews fall under the strategic headings of Increasing Public Confidence and Developing the Organisation. Cognisance of the increasing importance of collaboration has also been considered upon service selection for review. This will see the Joint Review of Productions with the Procurator Fiscal.

HMIC Response

HMIC notes the methodology for the selection of service reviews and the timetable that was created to secure appropriate consultation and consideration as part of the selection process. HMIC notes the need for the force to develop reviews in a manner which will secure clear outcomes with appropriate financial information and at the next inspection will consider the outcomes of the 2 reviews currently ongoing and the 2 scheduled to commence in the near future. Similarly HMIC will consider progress against the programme of reviews which will be developed for the incoming financial year.

Force Position 2005

The Best Value review of Roads Policing was terminated following an appointment of a new Head of Operational Support Division who instigated measures within the Traffic Department which negated any further Best Value work. In regard to the joint review of Productions with the Procurator Fiscal and Scottish Court Service work is still ongoing in this review primarily because of the competing demands of the partner organisations. Nevertheless, a number of improvements have already been introduced which have significantly improved the management of productions.

The Force has adopted a Systems Approach to Best Value and Continuous Improvement. This methodology allows the performance of the review to be managed and monitored, through the setting of milestones and measurement of outcomes. The completion of the "Check" stage provides a detailed baseline which allows achieved business benefits to be accurately measured. The performance of the unit is managed by the "Best Value Programme Board" which is chaired by Chief Superintendent Colin Menzies, Force Development & Governance. The Board meets on a monthly basis and has representation from the Police Board Stewardship Sub-Committee. Chief Superintendent Menzies subsequently reports progress through Highlight and Exception reporting to the Force Programme Board. The utilisation of IPSO project support software allows the planning and monitoring of programmed work. Close working relations with the newly appointed Head of Finance has resulted in the drafting of a template to record the costs associated with the reviews and projects. A further template for recording cash releasing and non cash releasing efficiencies is also being drafted.

HMIC Comment

HMIC notes the force's commitment to continuous improvement through the systems thinking approach. The force has been to the fore in this regard and the local external auditor has acknowledged the force's commitment to the approach. A prime example of the approach in practice has been referred to under Recommendation 7 which deals with firearms licensing administration.

Currently the systems thinking approach is being applied to the summary criminal justice system under the auspices of the Local Criminal Justice Board. Redesign work has been undertaken to identify a "clean stream" system which will allow cases to flow through the criminal justice system more quickly, reduce the number of court callings per case and incorporate new work processes to eliminate waste. The "clean stream" system commenced in March 2005 involving 20 officers from the Aberdeen Division, Mobile Support Unit, and has now been enlarged to involve officers working at Invururie police station. Although only a relatively small number of cases are involved at this early stage, a significant number have been disposed of in an average of 15.5 days compared to the normal average of 217 days. HMIC and the Inspectorate of Prosecution in Scotland plan to undertake a thematic inspection of case management in the latter half of this year. The progress of this project will be of particular interest.

The force's current continuous improvement programme for the financial year 05 - 06 includes, as well as the criminal justice review, a public office review, fleet management and camera safety unit. The Best Value Improvement Board has a responsibility to oversee the programme and to ensure action plans associated with the programme are delivered and HMIC would wish it to ensure that the best value review of Productions is completed as commented on at Recommendation 6 and that proper details of process and outcomes is kept as at Recommendation 7. HMIC considers the recommendation discharged but, given the potential significance of the force's approach, will be interested to see progress made at the next Primary Inspection of the force scheduled for 2006.

4. SUGGESTIONS OF THE 2001 PRIMARY INSPECTION

Suggestion 1 - Referred to Recommendation 5 - Discharged (First Review)

Suggestion 2 - Discharged (First Review)

Suggestion 3 - Discharged (First Review)

Suggestion 4 - Discharged (First Review)

Suggestion 5 - Discharged (First Review)

Suggestion 6 - Discharged (First Review)

Suggestion 7 - Discharged (First Review)

Suggestion 8 - Discharged (First Review)

No.9 -
HMIC suggests the force consider the introduction of regular secondment to the operational planning department as part of the succession planning process in this vital area for Grampian Police.

(paragraph 2.56)

Force Position 2003

The Force continues to recognise the value of succession planning and actively examined this suggestion. The introduction of a regular secondment to the operational planning department however was found not to be viable in the immediate future due to it being a further abstraction from front-line operational policing.

HMIC Response

HMIC recognises the underlying pressure to maximise front line operational policing capability that has caused the force not to progress this suggestion. HMIC would suggest that it would however be appropriate to consider a secondment in the context of immediate preparation for succession planning and would urge the force to consider the suggestion within that context.

Force Position 2005

In 2003, a Part-Time Sergeant was seconded to the Operational Planning Department, with a view to personal development. Her remit gave her experience in all key areas of the departments work, including Oil Liaison, Counter Terrorism, Emergency Planning and Events Coordination. However, the workload of the department was such, that in September 2004, this post was made permanent and the same officer was retained as a member of the Emergency Planning and Event Coordination Unit.

In February 2005, a further secondment opportunity arose, resulting in a full-time Sergeant being seconded to the department. This officer is currently working on Counter Terrorist issues within the Oil and CTSA Unit. The intention is that this post will last for six months pending review at that stage. It may be possible to build a business case to have this post made substantive as this area of work continues to grow.

A further secondment opportunity is being planned for a Constable to join the Royalty and VIP Planning Unit during the Summer period. This will assist in the planning of the Royal Court and also the Braemar Highland Gathering.

A fresh outlook has been taken in respect of the HMI recommendation. Benefit has been received both by the department and by the officers involved in taking this approach. It not only assists in long term continuity planning, but also supports the department in fulfilling a growing number of obligations in what is an extremely important field.

HMIC Comment 2005

HMIC notes and welcomes the force's response. This suggestion is discharged

Suggestion 10 - Discharged (First Review)

Suggestion 11 - Discharged (First Review)

Suggestion 12 - Discharged (First Review)

No. 13 -
HMIC suggests that an action plan be developed to progress costed service plans linked with multi-year budgeting.

(paragraph 4.58)

Force Position 2003

See Recommendation 2. Since the publication of the Report, Grampian Police have been actively discussing the viability of this suggestion. More recently however the Force has embarked on a programme of work which will explore alternatives to the current structure, including the devolvement of financial responsibility. This is a long term project in which the above suggestion will feature for consideration.

HMIC Response

HMIC notes this subject is under active consideration and is being assisted by the force's participation in national activity analysis exercises. HMIC will review progress at the next Inspection.

Force Position 2005

The Force is currently undertaking an exercise of Business Planning, concentrating mainly on 2005-06 but also looking beyond this. This work will help inform thinking and allow the Force to consider producing multi-year budgets linked to Force priorities and plans. This also ties in with current work within the Force to finalise a new Strategic Plan which will include the key priorities & objectives for each of the Business Areas.

HMIC Comment 2005

HMIC notes the current position and the progress made under the stewardship of the current head of Head of Finance and Administration. Taking the evidence presented throughout in particular in response to Recommendation 2 and Suggestion 14, HMIC considers this suggestion discharged.

No. 14 -
HMIC suggests that the Best Value Service review and the production of a Business Plan for the Finance function be addressed within a short timescale.

(paragraph 4.63)

Force Position 2003

The Best Value Programme Board has scheduled the review of the Finance Department, to commence in December 2003. This will allow the Senior Finance Officer, to be used as a critical friend and act as an independent Service Review manager.

HMIC Response

HMIC notes the schedule for the conduct of a best value review of the Finance Department in December 2003. HMIC also recognises that an agenda of key projects for the finance department is being considered and that this would provide the basis for a departmental Business Plan. HMIC will be anxious to see progress on these twin issues at the time of the next Review Inspection.

Force Position 2005

Following the recruitment of a new Head of Finance and Administration in August 2004, and the settling down of the Team, (now with a full complement of staff), a Business Plan has recently been prepared for the Finance Team. Included in the plan are objectives relating to the need to review various parts of the SLA service provided by Aberdeen City Council as well as setting performance standards and targets for internal service levels. In addition, as part of the Force Strategic Plan, Finance will be required to produce a list of specific priorities and projects for the next 3 years. At this stage, there is no thought or desire for a further Best Value review of the Finance function areas.

HMIC Comment

HMIC notes the positive developments that have taken place following the appointment of a new head of Finance and Administration. In addition to these, a successful business case has been made to the force's Programme Board to examine the potential for a new finance system. Most recently, approval has been given to examine the potential for a new force headquarters shared with the other emergency services. In light of this, the head of Finance and Administration considers that a best value revue as suggested is not necessary. By implication both the aforesaid developments will require financial structure and strategy to be examined. Both Audit Scotland and HMIC agree that this represents a sensible way forward and consider this suggestion discharged.

Suggestion 15 - Discharged (First Review)

Suggestion 16 - Discharged (First Review)

Suggestion 17 - Discharged (First Review)

Suggestion 18 - Discharged (First Review)

Suggestion 19 - Discharged (First Review)

Suggestion 20 - Discharged (First Review)

No. 21 -
HMIC suggests that the Force review the area of crime recording and reporting in order to firmly establish the appropriate timescales for submission of all reports, detected and undetected within one point of reference and easily accessible to all. This should also establish a mechanism by which all 'late' report lists is compiled and acted upon.

(paragraph 5.44)

Force Position 2003

The General Order on Crime Recording, delayed due to piloting a new approach to Victim Support issues, has now been separated from the latter and was submitted to the Operational Commanders Meeting in July 2003, the last stage in the consultation/approval process. It is hoped that it will be published in September 2003. A copy of the proposed General Order is attached herewith. It covers the timescales for the submission of Offence Reports, and for having Crimefiles approved and archived within specified periods, i.e. days for undetected and 28 days for cited cases (14 days in the case of a juvenile).

As regards the mechanism by which a 'late' reports list could be compiled and acted upon, work around this suggestion has taken place involving setting up an Intranet based list of Crimefiles over 28 days since creation and not 'Completed'. There have been a number of technical problems encountered with this attempted solution and it is not currently operational as a consequence, pending updated 'Microsoft Business Objects' software being installed. It is still the case, however, that senior officers can access the Crimefile crime recording system and check individual Supervision Lists therein for late Crimefiles.

HMIC Response

HMIC notes and welcomes the clear guidance on report submission timescales provided within the updated General Order and notes the ongoing effort to secure management information regarding report submission timescales. Progress in this area will be reviewed at the next Inspection.

Force Position 2005

General Order 12/03 was introduced last year and this reinforced the various CrimeFile submission timescales (e.g., the 14 day rule in relation to the 'Completion' of CrimeFiles). In terms of 'late reports', work is to be carried out to review and reinstate Business Objects queries in the CrimeFile pages of the Intranet, broken down into geographical Command Area (there is no easy way of breaking them down into discrete CID or OSD areas). Business Objects queries were built to cover HMIC's request for a management tool to monitor CrimeFiles that have not been completed within a given timescale. The queries will run on the first of each month and will highlight all CrimeFiles over 28 days old that are sitting not marked as 'Complete'. It should be pointed out that the queries will flag up CrimeFiles that have been re-opened more than 28 days after creation for legitimate reason (i.e., the crime has been detected or where SPRs are in the process of being compiled). Such action artificially inflates the apparent number of incomplete CrimeFiles.

HMIC Comment

HMIC found that a management tool to monitor CrimeFiles over 28 days has been created and the data is published on the force's intranet broken down by local command area. Additional work will be undertaken to further sub divide the data as appropriate. Since the making of this suggestion, a Local Criminal Justice Board has been established and performance regarding the submission of police reports is an area over which the Board, comprising representatives of the various elements of the criminal justice system, exercises oversight. This oversight will further drive continuous improvement in this area. This suggestion is discharged.

Suggestion 22 - Discharged (First Review)

No.23 -
HMIC suggests that the CID use the vehicle of their 'Business Plan' to clarify operational expectations between CID, Operational Support and Local Command Areas and provide a clear framework for effective and efficient working arrangements between local area crime operations and headquarters crime support.

(paragraph 5.71)

Force Position 2003

The Criminal Investigation Division's 'Business Plan' clearly reflects the Division's role within policing in Grampian. It demonstrates our commitment to supporting both the Force's overall policing plan and the policing plans of the constituent parts. Further the National Intelligence Model, which we use as the process to achieve a structured management of our Intelligence Led Policing philosophy, allows for a further regular check on performance and interaction at the strategic, tactical and operational level. The foregoing arrangements are, it is suggested, the most appropriate means to achieve effective and efficient working arrangements between local area crime operations and Headquarters crime support.

HMIC Response

The CID Business Plan for 2003/04 sets out the priorities of the department and identifies how the department seeks to support divisions on crime initiatives and crimes which cross the territorial boundaries. The Plan does not however set out the respective roles of the headquarters Department and Area Commands, an exercise that would secure compliance with this suggestion. HMIC will monitor progress in this area at the next inspection.

Force Position 2005

Update November 2004

The Force very much sees the processes of the National Intelligence Model as the method for ensuring Headquarters CID are providing appropriate levels of specialist support. Each Command Area / Division produces fortnightly Level 1 tactical assessments ahead of their tactical T & CG meetings. At any stage they can and will identify emerging trends and threats or obvious level 2/3 criminality which might be deserving of specialist assistance. Requests for such assistance are normally processed by means of a bidding process to the Level 2 tactical T & CG meetings. Whilst this formal structure exists it is common for requests for assistance to be made as and when necessary. At the same time within Headquarters CID there are processes in place for identifying level 2/3 criminality and emerging threats and ensuring that these are given appropriate ownership.

Prior to the commencement of the financial year 2004/2005 the Force strategic T & CG set the Force's priorities for the forthcoming year. Each of these priorities was given ownership and an action plan was developed, for example, the Detective Chief Superintendent has ownership of six of the eight priorities. Each of the action plans in respect of these priorities details the plan objectives, method of delivery, ownership and indicator (performance measure). These include areas of responsibility for Headquarters CID and Command Areas / Divisions.

The Force is producing a new 3 year strategy for 2005 - 2008 and it is anticipated that a Crime Strategy will be developed in support of this. This Crime Strategy will undoubtedly detail areas of responsibility for CID, Command Areas/Divisions and Operational Support.

Update April, 2005

The Crime Management 3 year strategy has been produced, the CID annual business plan has been produced and the Unit plans are being progressed. The NIM business processes allow for the appropriate interaction between the CID and Divisions at all levels of policing.

HMIC Comment 2005

HMIC notes and welcomes the creation of a 3 year crime management strategy with supporting departmental and unit annual plans. The force's Detective Chief Superintendent has been designated crime manager and as the response indicates has significant responsibilities for a number of the force priorities. Within the CID's annual business plan for 2005 - 06, key objectives include the development of the NIM business process within force and to enhance the provision of training to all staff within CID and divisional Criminal Investigation Units. A maturing of the NIM process together with the discipline of the force's strategy and business planning process being proactively managed should make a significant contribution to this suggestion and HMIC is able to discharge same. It is an area to which HMIC will return at the next Primary inspection of Grampian Police to assess the effectiveness of this approach.

Suggestion 24 - Discharged (First Review)

No. 25 -
HMIC suggests the force review the extent of CCTV coverage in relation to custody areas and consider how this might be improved.

(paragraph 5.107)

Force Position 2003

This matter was subsumed into the Care and Custody of Prisoners Review being undertaken by Superintendent Laurie Stewart, which was passed to Superintendent Blake and now tasked to Chief Inspector Graham Wilson.

Currently the Primary custody centres are FHQ, Inverurie, Peterhead & Elgin

Secondary centres for the respective areas are Bucksburn, Stonehaven & Fraserburgh. (None in Moray)

These were the sites identified over a year ago and were to be concentrated on, however the refurbishments and rebuilds at Ellon & Ballater have had considerable time and money spent on the custody areas. They do not have any CCTV coverage and do not incorporate all facilities that are currently required in overnight custody centres.

The IT Department is currently looking at the storage of the images on hard drives. Until such time as a suitable system has been decided on and the contractor chosen through the proper tendering process, the Property Departments involvement will be negligible

Aberdeen Division has two Custody Centres, Bucksburn and Queen Street.

Bucksburn is equipped with one camera linked to a monitor and VCR which monitors/records activity at the Charge Counter. A second camera covers the male cell passage area. This camera is not linked to a VCR and its monitor is also used by the Public Office camera.

Queen Street is equipped with four cameras linked to VCR's and monitors. Two cameras record the Charge Counters while the remaining two cover the custody reception area and the entrance to the cell passageway.

Consideration was given to an extended upgraded cell block CCTV system. Digital recording was trialled with the existing cameras as part of that. It was not considered technologically suitable at that time although advances are being monitored. At Queen Street, due to the design of the building, a large complex system of cameras would have been required to cover all areas.

The subject of CCTV coverage is part of the overall review of care and custody of prisoners presently being undertaken.

Queen Street is trialling a hand held video camera which can be deployed to record particular incidents or procedures at the discretion of the Custody Sergeant. This has been beneficial in some incidents.

HMIC Response

HMIC notes the issue of CCTV coverage is being considered within the ongoing force review of care and custody issues and will examine progress at the next review inspection.

Force Position 2005

Update 05.03.05

Further to the earlier comments in the Action Plan, the reconstituted Custody Programme Board continued to consider CCTV as part of its' remit. Due to cost and technology issues it was not deemed a viable option to retrospectively install CCTV in all the Force's current custody facilities. However, a review of these facilities was completed in June 2004 with recommendations made to the Chief Constable regarding options for developing the Force custody facilities. These included a minor rationalisation of facilities with expansion at some landward stations. It is proposed that a major re-build be completed at Force Headquarters and decisions are to be made in this regard. It is intended that any major re-build or new-build will contain CCTV coverage, as well as life monitoring technology in several cells. The Custody Programme Board has undertaken analysis via Professional Standards and Conduct Department to identify any custody handling areas that appeared to attract issues that might particularly benefit from CCTV coverage.

The Custody Programme Board has been in abeyance since June 2004 due to staff capacity resulting from the implementation of the Reliance Contract and staff absence. Both these issues are being addressed and PS Raymond Munro (Aberdeenshire, Operations) has been drafted in to assist with the management and administration of the Board.

Update 11.03.05

The Custody Programme Board is now, in itself, a recognised Force Project. As such, it is required to provide regular updates on its progress to the Force Programme Board vis a vis identified tasks relating to its function.

HMIC Comment

Detailed comment is made in relation to this suggestion under Recommendation 8. The suggestion is not discharged and HMIC will revisit the suggestion and area of custody at the next Primary Inspection of the force scheduled for 2006.

No. 26 -
HMIC suggest the force consider the consolidation of custody facilities to serve the respective command areas and Sheriff's Courts.

(paragraph 5.111)

Force Position 2003

A previous working group examined this matter and recommended some options for change. The Custody Programme Board now has the remit to examine the long term future of custody facilities and drive those forward.

The rationale is to consolidate the present facilities at fewer locations, possibly serving more than one command area. These facilities would be refurbished and modernised to appropriate standards. Queen Street has no space for meaningful expansion or development but is conveniently linked by an underground corridor to the Sheriff Court.

Again, this forms part of the review into the Care and Custody of Prisoners and liaison is ongoing between the Custody Programme Board and the Force Property Strategy Group in order that the issue is properly addressed bearing in mind the needs of custody management and the future strategic development of the Force property portfolio.

HMIC Response

HMIC again notes the relevance to the ongoing force review of care and custody and will examine progress at the next review inspection.

Force Position 2005

See Suggestion 25 above for comments regarding the general progress of the Custody Programme Board.

Before a final decision is to be made regarding the building programme, some investigation is being carried out with regard to the outsourcing of this issue to the private sector. This may impact of the requirement to build the large-scale development currently envisaged.

HMIC Comment

Detailed comment is made in relation to this suggestion under Recommendation 8. The suggestion is not discharged and HMIC will revisit the suggestion and area of custody at the next Primary Inspection of the force scheduled for 2006.

Suggestion 27 - Discharged (First Review)

Suggestion 28 - Discharged (First Review)

Suggestion 29 - Discharged (First Review)

No. 30 -
It is suggested that there is a need to increase awareness of the Best Value framework, beyond consideration of service reviews and involve the Joint Board in setting the criteria for determining the service review programme and ensure they have a role in monitoring the programme's progress.

(paragraph A11)

Force Position 2003

The new Police Board Stewardship Best Value Sub-Committee was to receive a Best Value Training Session at their inaugural meeting in August but this was changed at their request at the last minute. Efforts are being made to have this training conducted as soon as possible, and before the November meeting of the Committee. This session will concentrate on three areas:

• Local Government in Scotland Act 2003, Part 1, the Duty to Secure Best Value.
• The roles and responsibilities of Elected Members and what is expected of them
• A description of the Best Value Framework within Grampian Police

Elected members were invited to attend the Force Annual Conference, "Policing & Best Value". During the Conference, workshops were held to allow informed discussion in prioritising identified service areas to be considered under Best Value. Elected Member involvement was also encouraged in two further workshops which examined the awareness and understanding of Best Value within Grampian Police and also the driving and restraining forces which exist within Grampian Police with regard to Best Value.

Updates regarding the development of Best Value with in Grampian Police and the progress of service reviews are provided by the Best Value Officer at each Sub-Committee meeting.

Following the Best Value Programme Board meeting held in August 2003 it was recommended that an Elected Member be part of each Best Value Service Review Team and that a representative from the Stewardship Sub-Committee sit on the Best Value Programme Board. It was felt that these moves would increase Elected Member involvement at a strategic level as well as a functional level. These recommendations were raised at the next Stewardship Sub-Committee meeting and received positively. No further action has been taken on this issue, pending the training of Members in the principles of Best Value.

HMIC Response

HMIC welcomes the steps taken and proposed which, once completed will address the recommendation fully. HMIC will review progress at the next inspection.

Force Position 2005

The Stewardship Sub Committee received a training and awareness session in March 2004. This detailed the new Systems approach to Best Value and outlined the roles and responsibilities of the elected members. The working relationship with the elected members has further developed with their presence at the workshop which was held to prioritise and draft a programme of work for the forthcoming financial year. Elected members are also present at the monthly Best Value Programme Board where progress is monitored. Elected member involvement has also been sought on individual reviews. This has been welcomed and will provide an element of independent challenge.

HMIC Comment

HMIC notes the developments detailed above and the desire of the Chief Superintendent, Corporate Development and Governance to enhance this involvement. Consideration is being given to introduce a "Challenge Panel" of outside representatives and HMIC will be interested to see its impact if it proceeds. The statutory duty to secure Best Value is directed towards the police authority rather than the Chief Constable and the 2001 Primary Inspection report highlighted the importance of a higher level of involvement by Joint Board Members in the Best Value agenda. It is noted that the Chair of the Stewardship Sub Committee is also a member of the Best Value Improvement Board. Audit Scotland, who provided assistance to HMIC in this aspect of the Review Inspection, is currently developing, in consultation with HMIC, a new arrangement for Best Value scrutiny of police forces. Against this background it is important that the active involvement of the authority is maintained and developed. HMIC however considers this suggestion discharged.

Suggestion 31 - Discharged (First Review)

Suggestion 32 - Discharged (First Review)

Suggestion 33 - Discharged (First Review)

Suggestion 34 - Discharged (First Review)