GREATER MANCHESTER JOINT AUDIT PANEL …...[p] Paper attached GREATER MANCHESTER JOINT AUDIT PANEL (POLICE AND CRIME) 10:20 a.m. – 12:00 p.m., Tuesday 30 July 2019 The Boardroom,

[p] Paper attached

GREATER MANCHESTER JOINT AUDIT PANEL (POLICE AND CRIME)

10:20 a.m. – 12:00 p.m., Tuesday 30 July 2019

The Boardroom, Churchgate House, 56 Oxford St, Manchester M1 6EU

PART A

10:20 – 10:25 1. Welcome and Apologies for Absence Chair

10:25 – 10:30 2. Urgent Business (if any) at the discretion of the Chair Chair

10:30 – 10:35 3. Declarations of Interest All

10:35 – 10:40 4. Approval of previous minutes and actions [p] [1 - 8] Chair

10:40 – 10:45 5. Terms of Reference [p] [10 - 11] Chair

10:45 – 10:55 6. External Audit Completion Report [p] [13 - 34]

Mazars

10:55 – 11:25 7. Chief Constable’s Statement of Accounts 2018/19 [p] [36 - 103] Including Annual Governance Statement

GMP

11:25 – 11:35 8. HMICFRS Integrated PEEL Assessment Report [p] [105 - 166] Verbal Update

GMP

11:35 – 11:40 9. Anti-Fraud Policy Documentation Verbal Update

GMP

11:40 – 11:50 10. Progress against the Internal Audit Plan 2018/20 [p] [168 - 177] Report of the Head of Audit and Assurance

Internal Audit

11:50 – 12:00 11. Internal Audit Action Tracker Report [p] [179 - 188] Report of the Head of Audit and Assurance

Internal Audit

Future meeting dates

Wed 9 October 2019 (GMP Force Headquarters,09:30 – 12:30)

This page is intentionally left blank

GMCA Joint Audit Panel 18th

June 2019

JOINT AUDIT PANEL

Date: 18th June 2019

Time: 10:45 – 12:30

Venue: Room F12, Friends’ Meeting House, Mount Street, M2 5NS

Attendees Peter Morris (Chair) Foluke Fajumi (Panel) Ian Cayton (Panel) John Starkey (Panel)

ACO Lynne Potts (GMP)

Janet Moores (GMP – Head of Finance) Julia Chilton (GMP - Strategic Financial Advisor) Clare Cowap (GMP – Governance Officer) Candice Simms (GMP – Minutes)

Cath Folan (GMCA - Audit Manager (Police and Crime)) Sarah Horseman (GMCA – Head of Audit and Assurance)

Tom Powell (GMCA – Head of Audit and Risk Management)

Chris Whittingham (Mazars – Senior Manager) Mark Kirkham (Mazars - Partner (Public Services))

Apologies Richard Paver (GMCA – Treasurer)

Cath Millington (Panel)

M022/JAP Welcome & Apologies for Absence

Apologies were noted from the treasurer Richard Paver and panel member Cath Millington.

M023/JAP Urgent Business (if any) at the discretion of the Chair

None raised.

M024/JAP Declarations of Interest

None raised.

M025/JAP Approval of previous minutes and actions

The Panel sought an update on the action assigned to Mazars (external Auditors) under minute M020/JAP.

Mazars advised they are aware of the close overlapping relationship between GMCA and GMP in relation to financial sustainability. Mazars will reflect upon this in their External Audit Findings Report, which will be

published in the papers for the July Joint Audit Panel.

Page 1 of 188


June 2019

The Terms of Reference for the Joint Audit Panel state that the Panel will be properly accountable to the

Chief Constables’ Executive and GMCA Audit Committee (in relation to the Police Fund).

The Chair noted the working relationship between GMP and GMCA is unique as brought about by legislation. He advised that Richard Paver, GMCA Treasurer, will be bringing the GMCA side of the Police Fund accounts

to the July Joint Audit Panel.

The Panel concluded that understanding the elements of the Police Fund which are in the GMCA accounts

and scrutinisng the Chief Constable’s Statement of Accounts will allow them to fulfill their role.

GMP confirmed the refreshed Strategic Risk Register will be included in the papers of the July Joint Audit

Panel.

M026/JAP Terms of Reference

The Chair commented on the enthusiasm and progress made by members of the Panel since it was formed,

and the benefits from the training sessions. He was confident that the Panel would continue to develop over

the next 12 months.

M027/JAP Chief Constable’s Draft Statement of Accounts 2018/19

GMP provided a summary of the Annual Governance Statement, which is tailored to the organisation and contained within the Chief Constable’s Statement of Accounts.

The Chair queried if the Annual Governance Statement is used by auditors to flag and monitor improvement.

Mazars noted the Annual Governance Statement needs to be pitched at a corporate level to give the readers

of the accounts a depiction of the risks and activities of the Force, and also how the Force is meeting those challenges. Mazars added that they do not compare and contrast Annual Governance Statements between

forces, they are deemed as unique to each individual force. GMP said that they would welcome advice from

Mazars as to how the Annual Governance Statement could be further improved.

GMP provided an overview of the Narrative Report within the Chief Constable’s Draft Statement of

Accounts, which contains a forward-look into some of the challenges the Force is addressing. It was noted

that the document was a draft and changes will be made where more clarity is required or errors need

correcting.

GMP advised that on the first year of the elected Mayor’s establishment (2016/17), accounts were done on a

13 month basis. In 2017/18 the accounts were done on a 10 month and three weeks basis; therefore, there is not a like for like comparison between the financial years and this explains some variances between years.

GMP also flagged the actuarial valuation at the end of the 2018/19 financial year that was more favourable

than expected.

The Chair queried what determines how capital expenditure is financed. GMP advised that the funding of the

capital programme was undertaken by GMCA.

The Chair queried the net budget difference compared to the actual. GMP advised that at the end of the 2018/19 financial year there was a net overspend of £0.8m. This was after accounting for the actuarial

valuation and the creation of a number of earmarked reserves.

The Panel questioned if fewer officers leaving the Force in 2018/19 woukld affect the delivery of the precept

commitment. GMP confirmed that this commitment would still be met. The Panel queried if GMP expect natural wastage to continue to increase or decrease in the forthcoming year. GMP advised that officer

turnover has continued to slow down and that this might be indicative of the fact that the Force is now

Page 2 of 188


June 2019

running promotion processes across all ranks every year. The rate at which turnover is also slowing down

itself.

The Chair queried if there are different types of overtime, and if there is any overtime that is not funded externally. GMP advised overtime is monitored and coded very carefully. GMP noted that overtime arises for

a number reasons and not all of it is funded externally. For example where there are vacancies within the

Force, overtime will be incurred to backfill the vacancies. Members were advised that some local sporting events can be planned into the budget, however, due to the unpredictability of cup runs etc not all fixtures

can be predicted.

The Chair queried how GMP control overtime where there are a number of unfortunate events happening in

a short space of time around Greater Manchester. GMP advised all overtime has to go through an internal

line of approval. GMP noted that the Internal auditors have recently completed their review of the use of overtime in two of the Force’s Branches.

GMP provided an overview of the Capital Expenditure. The largest underspends, Information Services

Transformation Programme and Target Operating Model, will be carried forward into the forecasted capital

programme for 2019/20.

The Panel queried the definition of a neighbourhood policing officer. GMP advised neighbourhood policing

officers are police officers and not police community support officers (PCSOs). GMP noted that delivery of the 2019/20 budget will see a reduction in the number of police community support officers and an increase

in the number of police officers.

GMP provided an overview of the Comprehensive Income and Expenditure Statement. GMP advised that

depreciation is calculated by GMCA at the end of the financial year, and then charged through to the Chief Constable’s accounts as part of the cost of policing services.

Members were advised the comprehensive income and expenditure statement include the implications of IAS 19 pension contribution and FRS 17 retirement contributions. The Panel queried why there is such a large

difference between the ‘remeasurement of pension assets / liabilities’ from 2017/18 to 2018/19. GMP informed members that advice will be sought on this query. The Chair queried how much time external audit

spend looking into pension figures. Mazars advised pension liabilities are identified as a risk within the Audit

Strategy Memorandum, and extensive work is done in this area.

GMP provided an overview of the Movement in Reserves Statement, 2017/18 Comparative Movement in

Reserves Statement, Balance Sheet and Cash Flow Statement. GMP advised the Cash Flow Statement will

always total £0, as the Force does not hold any cash.

GMP provided an overview of the Accounting Policies, noting that there have been no major changes in the

last 12 months.

GMP advised a number of Accounting Standards have changed; however, the changes have not affected the

Chief Constable’s Statement of Accounts. The Panel queried if external audit provided guidance on any

changes to accounting standards. Mazars confirmed that they do.

The Chair queried the Expenditure and Funding Analysis with regards to the Force holding a general fund.

GMP advised this fund is held in GMCAs accounts, therefore, certain figures within the Expenditure and

Funding Analysis will continue to remain at £0.

Page 3 of 188


June 2019

The Chair noted how difficult the accounts can be to understand, whereby a simplified version of the

accounts would be easier to comprehend. Members were advised that an internal reconciliation document could be produced for management purposes that reconciles the management accounts into the final

accounts, incorporating areas of GMCA accounts.

ACTION – GMP to provide context behind the ‘remeasurement of pension assets / liabilities’ figures from

2017/18 to 2018/19, in the comprehensive income and expenditure statement.

ACTION – GMP to provide context behind the ‘intercompany adjustments’ figures from 2017/18 to 2018/19,

in the expenditure and income analysed by nature section of the accounts.

M028/JAP Progress against the Internal Audit Plan 2018/20

New reporting format

An introduction was given from the new Head of Audit and Assurance at GMCA. Internal Audit advised members of the proposition going forward, noting that the progress report in its new format will come to

every Joint Audit Panel. Internal Audit noted that at the end of the year this report will illustrate to members

how the audit opinion has been reached with regards to governance, risk management and internal control.

Internal Audit provided an overview of the Progress against the Internal Audit Plan 2018/20.

Internal Audit sought approval for the audit plan to be changed with regards to a further health and safety

audit. GMP advised the findings in the previous health and safety audit have now been rectified and the Force is now reporting in accordance with Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences

Regulations (RIDDOR). It was noted that incidents have been uploaded onto the health and safety executive

portal. The Panel queried the timing of another health and safety audit, as the last report was issued only several months ago. Internal Audit advised the additional audit will be considering the implementation of

Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations; seeking assurance that changes

have been made since the last audit. Members were advised this audit has been requested by GMP.

Internal Audit provided an overview of the key performance indicators (KPIs), noting that they have been slightly amended. The amendments ensure that the plan is progressing and includes responsibility for

management engagement. Internal Audit noted the report contains the utilisation rate of the team and an

action implementation rate.

The Panel queried how key performance indicators are set. Internal Audit advised key performance

indicators are set at industry standard but are open to suggestions for improvement.

Internal Audit provided a summary of the recommendations within the report.

The Chair questioned how much external audit relied on internal audit reports. Mazars advise no direct

reliance is formally placed on internal audit reports. Mazars noted it would be beneficial to liaise with

internal audit to see what areas they are working on within GMP. The Chair queried if external audit could

influence what work is undertaken by the internal auditors. Mazars advised any risks to the Force are flagged

to GMP, which can then be undertaken by internal audit.

Internal Audit advised a key aim is to produce assurance mapping framework across the lines of defence,

which will identify where assurance originates across all of the key risks.

The Panel suggested the Internal Audit Plan 2018/20 be revised to address how the additional 55 audit days stated on page 88 affects the audit plan.

Page 4 of 188


June 2019

GMP queried how reports are produced, specifically who is stated as the report holder when bringing reports to the Joint Audit Panel. GMP noted that majority of the work is on the Force’s account; however, it

cannot be a joint report from the Head of Audit and Assurance and the Treasurer as the audit opinion belongs to the Head of Audit and Assurance. Internal Audit advised the Head of Audit and Assurance is to

report in their own name in accordance with the charter.

ACTION – Head of Audit and Assurance to clarify which entities are stated on the reports brought to the Joint

Audit Panel.

M029/JAP Internal Audit Charter Refresh 2019/20

Internal Audit provided an overview of the Internal Audit Charter Refresh 2019/20, noting that the charter has been refreshed by means of standardisation to allow for consistency across GMCA and Transport for

Greater Manchester (TfGM).

Internal Audit summarised the changes that have been made to the Internal Audit Charter, noting there are

no significant changes.

The Panel queried if contracts with third parties address an agreement for Internal Audit to access all

records. Internal Audit advised this is looked into prior to auditing.

The Panel queried the resourcing section; specifically how Internal Audit ensures there is no conflict during the procurement process. Internal Audit advised that the use of framework already in place avoids conflict.

Internal Auditors noted there are checks to see if there are other parties working in different areas of the

organisation that could present a conflict. Members were advised conflict of interest is very much dependant on the contract type.

ACTION – Head of Audit and Assurance to update the access and authority section to incorporate the Mayor and the PCC.

M030/JAP Internal Audit Annual Report 2018/19

Internal Audit provided a summary of the Internal Audit Annual Report 2018/19, noting that there is a positive opinion overall.

Internal Audit advised there has been positive client satisfaction based on questionnaire feedback. The Panel

queried the figures related to the questionnaires, and if more information could be provided with regards to

the response rate. The Panel suggested benchmarking is put in place to compare with other Forces.

GMP queried how internal audit record when agreed actions have been amended prior to a report being

finalised. Internal Audit advised they have moved away from making recommendations to producing agreed

actions, which allows for discussions to take place around the risks and how the Force can address the

issues. It was noted that this process enables the Force to take ownership of the agreed actions, therefore,

the percentage of agreed actions within the report should always be 100 percent.

Internal Audit provided a summary of improvements to be addressed in the current financial year. It was

noted that one of the key aims of Internal Audit is to ensure there is a positive working relationship with

GMP. Internal Audit advised a key aim is to look at internal audit methodology, ensuring consistency across

portfolios. It was concluded that Internal Audit hope to be focused on strategic risks, and observe strategic

meetings to ensure the audit plan is assessing the strategic risks.

Page 5 of 188


June 2019

The Panel queried the 25 days allocated in the 2018/19 Audit Plan to Police and Crime (GMCA). Internal

Audit advised the time had been allocated to assess the Police and Crime functions that sit with GMCA. The Internal Audit Team are in the process of undertaking an Audit Needs Assessment process to define the

scope of the audits to be carried out over the Mayoral PCC functions. This will be incorporated into the 2019/20 plan and reported to the Joint Audit Panel in the same way the Force internal audits are reported,

and will contribute to the Head of Audit and Assurance Annual Opinion.

Page 6 of 188


Page 7 of 188

ID Agenda Ref. Date Owner Update Open/ Closed

A003/JAP M015/JAP 04/04/2019 GMP Action ‐ To update the Strategic Risk Register. To be brought to the July 2019 meeting. Open

A009/JAP M027/JAP 18/06/2019 GMP Action ‐ GMP to provide context behind the ‘remeasurement of pension assets / liabilities’ figures from 2017/18 to 2018/19, in the comprehensive income and expenditure statement. To be brought to the July 2019 meeting.

Open

A010/JAP M027/JAP 18/06/2019 GMP Action ‐ GMP to provide context behind the ‘intercompany adjustments’ figures from 2017/18 to 2018/19, in the expenditure and income analysed by nature section of the accounts. To be brought to the July 2019 meeting.

Open

A011/JAP M028/JAP 18/06/2019 Internal Audit

July 2019: Reports now state only one entity ‐ 'Report of the Head of Audit and Assurance' to the Greater Manchester Combined Authority to the Joint Audit Panel

Action ‐ Head of Audit and Assurance to clarify which entities are stated on the reports brought to the Joint Audit Panel.

Closed

A012/JAP M029/JAP 18/06/2019 Internal Audit

July 2019: The Charter has been updated and will be brought to future meetings in accordance with the Joint Audit Panel Workplan.

Action ‐ Head of Audit and Assurance to update the access and authority section to incorporate the Mayor and the PCC.

Closed

Joint Audit PanelAction and Decision Log

Page 8 of 188


Page 9 of 188

GREATER MANCHESTER JOINT AUDIT PANEL (POLICE AND CRIME)

TERMS OF REFERENCE

PURPOSE

To provide independent assurance on the adequacy of the risk management framework, the internal control environment and the integrity of the financial reporting and annual governance processes in operation within the Chief Constable’s Corporation Sole and the functions of the GMCA responsible for administering the Police Fund (income, expenditure, assets, liabilities).

(NB. for the purposes of this document the term “authority” means the Chief Constable’s Corporation Sole and the functions of GMCA responsible for administering the Police Fund).

CORE FUNCTIONS

To ensure that assurance statements, including the Annual GovernanceStatement, properly reflect the risk environment and any actions required toimprove it, and demonstrate how governance supports the achievements ofthe Chief Constable’s objectives;

To oversee the independence, objectivity, performance and professionalismof the internal audit function;

To support the effectiveness of the internal audit process;

To promote the effective use of internal audit within the assuranceframework;

To consider the effectiveness of the authority’s risk managementarrangements and the control environment;

To review the risk profile of the organisation and assurances that action isbeing taken on risk-related issues, including partnerships with otherorganisations;

To monitor the effectiveness of the control environment, includingarrangements for ensuring value for money and for managing the authority’sexposure to the risks of fraud and corruption;

To receive the reports and recommendations of external audit and inspectionagencies and consider their implications for governance, risk management orcontrol;

To support effective relationships between external audit and internal audit,inspection agencies and other relevant bodies, and encourage the activepromotion of the value of the audit process;

To review the financial statements, external auditor’s opinion and report tothe authority, and monitor management action in response to the issuesraised by external audit.

Page 10 of 188

REQUIREMENTS

The Panel will:

Act as the principal non-executive, advisory function supporting thosecharged with governance;

Be independent of the executive or operational responsibilities of theMayor and Chief Constable;

Have clear rights of access to other committees;

Report to the GMCA Audit Committee on Police Fund activity andassurance;

Be properly accountable to the Chief Constables’ Executive and GMCAAudit Committee (in relation to the Police Fund);

Meet at least five times a year, and have a clear policy on those items tobe considered in private and those to be considered in public;

Be able to meet privately and separately with the external auditor andwith the head of internal audit (outside of formal, public meetings);

Include, as regular attendees, the chief financial officer(s) or appropriatesenior and qualified substitute, the Chief Constable, the Chief Executiveto GMCA, the head of internal audit and the appointed external auditor;

Have the right to call, as required, any other GMP police officers/staff,GMCA officers, including the Mayor/Deputy Mayor;

Report regularly on their work, and at least annually report anassessment of their performance.

MEMBERSHIP

The Panel will comprise a maximum of five members including the Chair who are independent of the Chief Constable and the Mayor. The meeting will only be quorate if at least three members are in attendance.

Initial term of office to be 3 years with up to a further 3 years on renewal.

Chair to be agreed by the Chief Constable/Mayor after considering applications for those interested.

SKILLS

To aid the Committee in delivering its purpose all Members will be required to undergo appropriate training which will be funded by the authority.

REVIEW

The Committee will review its terms of reference annually.

Page 11 of 188


Page 12 of 188

Audit Completion ReportChief Constable of Greater Manchester PoliceYear ending 31 March 2019

Page 13 of 188

CONTENTS

1. Executive summary

2. Significant findings

3. Internal control recommendations

4. Summary of misstatements

5. Value for money conclusion

Appendix A – Draft management representation letter

Appendix B – Draft auditor’s report

Appendix C – Independence and fees

Our reports are prepared in the context of the ‘Statement of responsibilities of auditors and audited bodies’ and the ‘Appointing Person Terms of Appointment’ issued

by Public Sector Audit Appointments Limited.

Reports and letters prepared by appointed auditors and addressed to the Chief Constable of Greater Manchester Police are prepared for the sole use of the Chief

Constable and we take no responsibility to any member or officer in their individual capacity or to any third party.

Mazars LLP is the UK firm of Mazars, an international advisory and accountancy group. Mazars LLP is registered by the Institute of Chartered Accountants in

England and Wales.

Page 14 of 188

Mazars LLP

One St Peter’s Square

Manchester

M2 3DE

Chief Constable

Greater Manchester Police

Central Park

Northampton Road

Manchester

M40 5BP

23 July 2019

Dear Chief Constable

Audit Completion Report – Year ended 31 March 2019

We are pleased to present our Audit Completion Report for the year ended 31 March 2019. The purpose of this document is to

summarise our audit conclusions based on work completed as at 23 July 2019.

The scope of our work, including identified significant audit risks and other areas of management judgement, was outlined in

our Audit Strategy Memorandum which we presented on 4 April 2019. We have reviewed our Audit Strategy Memorandum

and concluded that the original significant audit risks and other areas of management judgement remain appropriate.

We would like to express our thanks for the assistance of your team during our audit.

If you would like to discuss any matters in more detail then please do not hesitate to contact me.

Yours faithfully

Signed: {{_es_:signer1:signature }}

Mark Kirkham

Mazars LLP

Mazars LLP is the UK firm of Mazars, an integrated international advisory and accountancy organisation. Mazars LLP is a limited liability partnership registered in England and Wales with registered number OC308299 and with its registered office at Tower Bridge House, St Katharine’s Way, London E1W 1DD.

We are registered to carry on audit work in the UK and Ireland by the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales. Details about our audit registration can be viewed at www.auditregister.org.uk under reference number C001139861.VAT number: 839 8356 73

Mazars LLP – One St Peter’s Square, Manchester, M2 3DE

Tel: 0161 233 9300 – Fax: 0161 238 9201 – www.mazars.co.uk

Page 15 of 188

Purpose of this report and principal conclusionsThe Audit Completion Report sets out the findings from our audit of the Chief Constable of Greater Manchester Police (‘the Chief

Constable’) for the year ended 31 March 2019, and forms the basis for discussion at the Joint Audit and Panel meeting on xx July 2019.

The detailed scope of our work as your appointed auditor for 2018/19 is set out in the National Audit Office’s (NAO) Code of Audit

Practice. Our responsibilities and powers are derived from the Local Audit and Accountability Act 2014 and, as outlined in our Audit

Strategy Memorandum, our audit has been conducted in accordance with International Standards of Auditing (UK) and means we focus

on audit risks that we have assessed as resulting in a higher risk of material misstatement.

Sections 2 and 5 of this report outline the detailed findings from our work on the financial statements and our conclusion on the Chief

Constable’s arrangements to achieve economy, efficiency and effectiveness in its use of resources. Section 2 also includes our

conclusions on the audit risks and areas of management judgement in our Audit Strategy Memorandum, which include:

• management override of control; and

• valuation of the net pension liability.

Status of our workAs we outline on the following page, our work is substantially complete. Subject to the satisfactory completion of the outstanding work,

at the time of issuing this report we have the following conclusions:

The 2014 Act requires us to give an elector, or any representative of the elector, the opportunity to

question us about the accounting records of the Chief Constable and to consider any objection made to

the accounts. We have not received any objections in respect of the 2018/19 statement of accounts.

1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

We anticipate issuing an unqualified opinion, without modification, on the financial statements. Our

proposed audit opinion is included in the draft auditor’s report in Appendix B.

We anticipate concluding that the Chief Constable had proper arrangements in place to secure economy,

efficiency and effectiveness in its use of resources. Our draft auditor’s report, including proposed

conclusion, is provided in Appendix B

Opinion on

the financial

statements

Value for

money

conclusion

Wider

powers

Executive summary Significant findingsInternal control

recommendationsSummary of

misstatementsValue for money

conclusionAppendices

Page 16 of 188

Status of our audit work

We have substantially completed our work on the financial statements and Value for Money conclusion for the year ended 31 March

2019. At the time of preparing this report the following matters remain outstanding:

We will provide the Chief Constable with an update in relation to these outstanding matters in a follow-up letter, prior to signing the

auditor’s report.

Our audit approach

We provided details of our intended audit approach in our Audit Strategy Memorandum in April 2019. We have not made any changes to

our audit approach since we presented our Audit Strategy Memorandum.

Materiality

We set materiality at the planning stage of the audit at £10.653m using a benchmark of 1.5% of Gross Operating Expenditure. Our final

assessment of materiality, based on the final financial statements and qualitative factors is £11.882m, using the same benchmark. We

set our trivial threshold (the level under which individual errors are not reported by us, at £0.356m based on 3% of overall materiality.

Misstatements and internal control recommendations

Section 3 sets out the internal control recommendations that we make, together with an update on any prior year recommendations.

Section 4 outlines the misstatements noted as part of our audit as at the time of issuing this report. If any additional misstatements are

noted on completion of the outstanding work, these will be reported in a follow-up letter.

1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY





Audit area Status Description of outstanding matters

Pensions

The Chief Constable has now received updated evidence of the impact on the

pension liability valuation of two legal judgments: one relating to guaranteed

minimum pensions; and the other involving age discrimination in public sector

pension scheme transition arrangements. The required amendments have been

made to the draft financial statements and we are working to complete the

required audit procedures to review the revised figures.

Testing of income,

expenditure and Police

pensions

A small number of responses are required in relation to our testing of Police

pensions and we continue to work through sample documentation provided

relating to a sample of income and expenditure transactions.

Signed final statements

and signed Management

Representation Letter

Following the Joint Audit Panel the Chief Constable will provide signed copies of

the financial statements, annual governance statement and Management

Representation Letter

Status Likely to result in material adjustment or significant change to disclosures within the financial statements Potential to result in material adjustment or significant change to disclosures within the financial statements Not considered likely to result in material adjustment or change to disclosures within the financial statements

Page 17 of 188

2. SIGNIFICANT FINDINGS

Set out below are the significant findings from our audit. These findings include:

• our audit conclusions regarding significant risks and key areas of management judgement outlined in the Audit StrategyMemorandum;

• our comments in respect of the accounting policies and disclosures that you have adopted in the financial statements. Wehave concluded that the financial statements have been prepared in accordance with the financial reporting framework andcommented on any significant accounting policy changes that have been made during the year;

• any further significant matters discussed with management; and

• any significant difficulties we experienced during the audit.

Significant risks and key areas of management judgement

As part of our planning procedures we considered the risks of material misstatement in the your financial statements that requiredspecial audit consideration. Although we report identified significant risks at the planning stage of the audit in our Audit StrategyMemorandum, our risk assessment is a continuous process and we regularly consider whether new significant risks have arisen andhow we intend to respond to these risks. No new risks have been identified since we issued our Audit Strategy Memorandum.

Significant risk

Management override of

controls

Description of the risk

In all entities, management at various levels within an organisation has a unique position to

perpetrate fraud because of the ability to manipulate accounting records and prepare fraudulent

financial statements by overriding controls that otherwise appear to be operating effectively.

Because of the unpredictable way in which such override could occur, we consider there to be a risk

of material misstatement due to fraud and thus a significant risk on all audits.

How we addressed this risk

We addressed this risk by performing audit work in the following areas:

• accounting estimates impacting on amounts included in the financial statements;

• consideration of identified significant transactions outside the normal course of business; and

• journals recorded in the general ledger and other adjustments made in preparation of the

financial statements.

Audit conclusion

There are no matters arising from our work on management override of controls.





Page 18 of 188

2. SIGNIFICANT FINDINGS (CONTINUED)

Significant Risk

Defined benefit

liability valuation

Description of the risk

The financial statements contain material pension entries in respect of retirement benefits for both the

Police Officer Pension Scheme and the Local Government Pension Scheme.

The calculation of these pension figures, both assets and liabilities, can be subject to significant volatility

and includes estimates based upon a complex interaction of actuarial assumptions. This results in an

increased risk of material misstatement

How our audit addressed this risk

We have:

• identify and assess the controls put in place by management to ensure that the pension fund liability

is not materially misstated.

• evaluate the competence, expertise and objectivity of the actuaries who carried out your pension

fund valuations.

• Consider the reasonableness of the actuaries outputs, referring to an expert’s report on all actuaries

nationally which is commissioned annually by the National Audit Office.

• check the consistency of the pension fund asset and liability and disclosures in notes to the financial

statements with the actuarial reports from your actuaries.

Audit conclusion

Our work on this risk is still in progress. Legal rulings in respect of guaranteed minimum pension

equalisation and the McCloud judgment relating to transitional provisions created additional defined benefit

liabilities. These were not taken into account in the actuary’s estimate of the defined benefit liability.

Management has worked with the actuary to identify the impact of these rulings on the defined benefit

liabilities. This has created a material adjustment to the defined benefit liability that has disclosed in the

financial statements.





Page 19 of 188

Qualitative aspects of the Chief Constables' accounting practicesWe have reviewed the Chief Constable’s accounting policies and disclosures and subject to a small number of narrative amendments

we have concluded they comply with the requirements of the Code of Practice on Local Authority Accounting (the Code), appropriately

tailored to the Chief Constable's circumstances.

Draft accounts were received on 31 May 2019 and were of a good quality supported by appropriate working papers. Management has

responded promptly to queries raised throughout the audit process.

Significant difficulties during the auditDuring the course of the audit we did not encounter any significant difficulties and we have had the full co-operation of management.

Queries were dealt with promptly allowing the audit to progress well.

Wider responsibilitiesOur powers and responsibilities under the 2014 Act are broad and include the ability to:

• issue a report in the public interest;

• make statutory recommendations that must be considered and responded to publicly;

• apply to the court for a declaration that an item of account is contrary to law; and

• issue an advisory notice under schedule 8 of the 2014 Act.

We have not exercised any of these powers as part of our 2018/19 audit.

The 2014 Act also gives rights to local electors and other parties, such as the right to ask questions of the auditor and the right to make

an objection to an item of account. We have received no correspondence from local electors regarding the 2018/19 accounts.

2. SIGNIFICANT FINDINGS (CONTINUED)





Page 20 of 188

The purpose of our audit is to express an opinion on the financial statements. As part of our audit we have considered the internal

controls in place relevant to the preparation of the financial statements. We do this in order to design audit procedures to allow us to

express an opinion on the financial statement and not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of internal control,

nor to identify any significant deficiencies in their design or operation.

The matters reported here would be limited to those deficiencies and other control recommendations that we identified during our normal

audit procedures and that we consider to be of sufficient importance to merit being reported. If we had performed more extensive

procedures on internal control we might have identified matters to report.

We have no internal control recommendations to bring to your attention.

3. INTERNAL CONTROL RECOMMENDATIONS





Page 21 of 188

We set out below the misstatements identified for adjustment during the course of the audit, above the level of trivial threshold of

£0.356m.

There are no unadjusted misstatements to report to the Chief Constable

The table below outlines the misstatements that have been adjusted by management during the course of the audit.

Adjusted misstatements 2018/19

In late June 2019, two legal judgements relating to guaranteed minimum pensions and transitional provisions created additional defined

benefit liabilities that had not been taken account of in the actuarial estimates of the defined benefit liability as reflected in the Chief

Constable draft financial statements. These changes impact both the Police and Local Government pension scheme (LGPS) liabilities.

To determine the significance of the changes on the reported pension liability within the Chief Constables’ s financial statements

management have obtained updated actuarial assessments.

The Government Actuary Department have updated their assessment applying specific assumptions across the Police scheme as a

whole and have estimated the potential increase in scheme liabilities for Greater Manchester Police to be approximately £343.9 million.

With regard to the LGPS an adjustment to past service costs within the IAS19 Disclosure has been made for the McCloud judgment and

the impact of the GMP equalisation changes. This corresponds to a £1.948 million increase in liabilities.

Management has amended the draft financial statements for these changes and the consequential impact throughout the draft financial

statements.

4. SUMMARY OF MISSTATEMENTS





Page 22 of 188

4. SUMMARY OF MISSTATEMENTS





Disclosure amendments

During the course of the audit we identified a number of disclosure changes, the majority of which related to minor presentational issues

with the more significant changes detailed below. All have been adjusted for in the final version of the financial statements and include:

1. Additional disclosure added to the narrative report to include assessment of the financial position relating to 2018/198 and

commentary on the future financial position for the Chief Constable.

2. Note 6 – Material items of income and expense – Note 6 as per draft unaudited statement of accounts has been deleted as it

duplicated disclosures elsewhere in the financial statements

3. Note 11 – creditors. The Note has been amended to be consistent with the Balance Sheet and to correctly disclose the pension

liability as a long term liability

4. Note 13 – Officers’ remuneration. Small number of presentational changes to ensure all references and inclusions are correct.

Page 23 of 188

Our audit approachWe are required to form a conclusion as to whether the Chief Constable has made proper arrangements for securing economy, efficiency and effectiveness in the use of resources. The NAO issues guidance to auditors that underpins the work we are required to carry out in order to form our conclusion, and sets out the criterion and sub-criteria that we are required to consider.

The overall criterion is that, ‘in all significant respects, the Chief Constable had proper arrangements to ensure properly informed decisions were taken and resources were deployed to achieve planned and sustainable outcomes for taxpayers and local people.’ To assist auditors in reaching a conclusion on this overall criterion, the following sub-criteria are set out by the NAO:

• informed decision making ;

• sustainable resource deployment; and

• working with partners and other third parties.

A summary of the work we have undertaken is provided below:

Significant audit risks

The NAO’s guidance requires us to carry out work to identify whether or not a risk to our value for money conclusion exists. Risk, in the

context of our work, is the risk that we come to an incorrect conclusion rather than the risk of the arrangements in place being

inadequate. In our Audit Strategy Memorandum, we reported that we had identified two significant audit risks

The work we carried out in relation to the significant risks is outlined overleaf.

Overall value for money conclusion

Our draft auditor’s report included in Appendix B states that we intend to issue an unqualified conclusion for the 2018/19 financial year.

5. VALUE FOR MONEY CONCLUSION





Risk assessment

NAO Guidance

Sector-wide issues

Risk mitigation work Other procedures

Consider the work of regulators

Planned procedures to mitigate

the risk of forming an incorrect

conclusion on arrangements

Consider the Annual

Governance StatementYour operational and business

risks

Consistency review and reality

checkKnowledge from other audit work

Page 24 of 188

5. VALUE FOR MONEY CONCLUSION (CONTINUED)Risk Work undertaken and findings

Financial

Sustainability

The financial position

that Greater

Manchester Police

faces continues to be

challenging in 2018/19

and beyond. The Police

grant for 2018/19

remained at the same

level as that received in

2017/18 with no

additional funding to

support increasing

costs and demands on

police services

Consequently, the

revenue budget set out

a savings requirement

for 2018/19 of £10.9m

with a further reduction

of £66m by 31 March

2023.

The position has been

exacerbated by the

impact of the HM

Treasury Valuation

Directions on unfunded

public sector pension

schemes that has

added £14.1m to

employer contributions

for 2019/20. Additional

funding has been made

available in 2019/20 to

cover this additional

cost however, only

£6.6m is non recurrent.

.

We have reviewed your arrangements for identifying and updating savings plans alongside the arrangements

in place to help deliver the budget and longer term financial plans.

Findings

The Chief Constable has track record of achieving required savings and between 2011/12 and 2017/18

some £204m of savings have been delivered. The 2018/19 revenue budget reflected the challenge of no

additional funding despite increasing costs and additional demands, although Police and Crime

Commissioners were able to increase precepts. The budget included a cost reduction requirement of £10.9m

and plans were made for delivery. Our review of financial monitoring confirmed that throughout the year there

was thorough and regular review with monthly reporting to the Chief Officer Group. The reports provide a

detailed update covering both capital and revenue that set out both the current position and a projected

position at the year end. GMP again delivered a balanced budget for 2018/19 with staff pay related

overspends offset by underspends achieved in other areas.

Longer term - Medium Term financial Planning

The Chief Constable continues to take a longer term view of financial challenges and continues to maintain a

Strategic Financial outlook (SFO) that is updated and rolled forward regularly and currently covers the period

2019/20 – 2021/23. However, the settlement for the police grant is annual which makes medium term

planning more challenging. The SFO sets out the governance arrangements that are in place to help deliver

financial sustainability and is based on best and most up to date information. This arrangement is limited

because some information needs to be confirmed in the next Comprehensive Spending Review (CSR) so

funding projections beyond 2019/20 assume a continuation of flat cash settlements but with a return to 2%

p.a. precept increases. This results in a further savings requirement of £66m for the period 2019/20 to

2022/23 The SFO articulates that future decisions to implement a new Funding Formula and the unknown

economic impact of Brexit only add to the uncertainty regarding future funding levels.

Further savings of £66mare required over the next four years including £7m in 2019/20, £25.8m in 2020/21

and £18.3m in 2021/22 and £14.5m in 2022/23. To date total savings have been identified of £40.8.m of the

total requirement of £66m with the majority of savings understandably predicated on a review and profile of

expected retirements and projected staff turnover.

Reserves and balances

The reserves position is complicated by responsibility for maintenance and application of reserves rests with

the Mayor rather than the Chief Constable. The Mayor both holds reserves and determines how they maybe

applied. This clearly limits the ability of the Chief Constable to undertake longer term financial planning and

the SFO savings identified does not require the use of reserves to achieve the necessary financial position.

As at 31 March 2019 GMCA held £75.6m within the "Mayoral Police Fund Reserves" compared to £79.8m as

at 31 March 2017.

The s151 officer recognises the risk that uncertainty over future precept levels and the continued commitment

to their increase is in the hands of the Mayor rather than being a GMP decision and GMP needs to continue

to work with the Mayor to establish a confirmed approach.

Conclusion

Our work on financial sustainability has concluded that GMP has appropriate financial arrangements in place

while continuing to operate in a very challenging financial environment. On that basis we concluded that the

risk was sufficiently mitigated and the Chief Constable has proper arrangements in place.





Page 25 of 188

5. VALUE FOR MONEY CONCLUSION (CONTINUED)

Risk Work undertaken and findings

IS

Transformation

The Chief

Constable and

the Chief

Officer’s Group

(COG) have

developed a

Target Operating

Model (TOM) for

the future

delivery of

policing services.

The IS

transformation

programme

(ISTP) is a key

element of the

change agenda

that GMP is

pursuing under

the TOM that is

designed to

fundamentally

change the

operational

policing model.

iOPS forms the

main part of the

ISTP and its

implementation

date has been

subject to a

number of delays

with an

anticipated "go

live" date yet to

be confirmed.

We reviewed the operational and governance arrangements established to support the delivery of the IS

Transformation programme and particularly the implementation of the iOPS service stream given the delays to date.

Findings

The Chief Constable has been working to deliver a number of transformational projects that are designed to meet the

evolving challenges that the Police service faces. The iOPs project is central to this aim and Its implementation will

replace all operational legacy systems with one integrated system, allowing for cradle to grave operational policing.

Since inception, the iOPS project has been subject to a number of changes to the original scope to overcome

operational challenges and to enhance the specific functionality of the programme and this has contributed to

significant delays to the planned “go live" date and we understand that the revised date was 8 July 2019 and has

been successfully met. . The view of the Chief Constable remains that under the terms of the contract certain

additional costs incurred as a consequence of the project delays will be recovered.

Arrangements to oversee delivery and progress

To oversee the delivery of IST programme the Chief Constable established a number of arrangements. Including a

number of Project Boards and a Programme Board which maintain governance and oversight. The iOPs Project Board

meets weekly and discusses the general maintenance of the project. and escalates additional cost approvals or

project changes upwards to the Programme Board for consideration. The Programme Board has broader oversight of

the overall programme, and has the authority to approve changes to finance or structure. This Board is chaired by an

ACC and meets monthly, or sooner if there are exceptional matters to be dealt with promptly.

We understand that this governance structure has been in place since the outset of the ISTP and will continue to be in

place following the successful delivery of the programme.

Frequency of updates and monitoring of the risk and issues register

The risk and issues register is updated once a fortnight and is reviewed by members of the Senior Leadership Team.

The risk register and monitoring processes have been set up to follow the programme delivery framework with issues

coded in terms of impact (high/medium/low) and response, with the date of the last review being recorded in the

register.

Financial monitoring

There is a dedicated Finance Manager in place to oversee delivery of the ISTP programme who supports regular and

comprehensive financial monitoring and reporting. Budgetary reporting is currently monthly but has been applied

flexibly to ensure more regular financial reporting was conducted as and when needed. The Finance Manager sits on

the Project Board and reports to the Programme Board. Costs of the project are subject to Programme Board

approval. We have reviewed and verified the frequency of financial reporting and conclude it is appropriate in scope

and detail. Review of the latest June 2019 financial monitoring report for ISTP confirmed that the cumulative budget

position over the various capital and revenue budget elements of the project is a £528k adverse variance across a full

ISTP budget of some £71.2m budget.

Conclusion

Our review has confirmed that appropriate operational and governance arrangements were in place to oversee

implementation of the ISTP including iOPS.





Page 26 of 188

Client Address on Headed paper

[Date]

Dear Mark

Chief Constable of Greater Manchester Police - audit for year ended 31 March 2019

This representation letter is provided in connection with your audit of the financial statements of Chief Constable of Greater Manchester

Police for the year ended 31 March 2019 for the purpose of expressing an opinion as to whether the financial statements give a true and

fair view in accordance with the CIPFA/LASAAC Code of Practice on Local Authority Accounting in the United Kingdom 2018/19 (the

Code) and applicable law.

I confirm that the following representations are made on the basis of enquiries of management and staff with relevant knowledge and

experience (and, where appropriate, inspection of supporting documentation) sufficient to satisfy ourselves that I can properly make each

of the following representations to you.

My responsibility for the financial statements and accounting information

I believe that I have fulfilled my responsibilities for the true and fair presentation and preparation of the financial statements in accordance

with the Code and applicable law.

My responsibility to provide and disclose relevant information

I have provided you with:

• access to all information of which we are aware that is relevant to the preparation of the financial statements such as records,

documentation and other material;

• additional information that you have requested from us for the purpose of the audit; and

• unrestricted access to individuals within Chief Constable of Greater Manchester Police you determined it was necessary to contact in

order to obtain audit evidence.

I confirm as Chief Finance Officer that I have taken all the necessary steps to make me aware of any relevant audit information and to

establish that you, as auditors, are aware of this information.

As far as I am aware there is no relevant audit information of which you, as auditors, are unaware.

Accounting records

I confirm that all transactions that have a material effect on the financial statements have been recorded in the accounting records and are

reflected in the financial statements. All other records and related information, including minutes of all Board and committee meetings,

have been made available to you.

Accounting policies

I confirm that I have reviewed the accounting policies applied during the year in accordance with Code and International Accounting

Standard 8 and consider these policies to faithfully represent the effects of transactions, other events or conditions on Chief Constable of

Greater Manchester Police’s financial position, financial performance and cash flows.

APPENDIX ADRAFT MANAGEMENT REPRESENTATION LETTER





Page 27 of 188

Accounting estimates, including those measured at fair value

I confirm that any significant assumptions used by Chief Constable of Greater Manchester Police in making accounting estimates,

including those measured at current or fair value, are reasonable.

Contingencies

There are no material contingent losses including pending or potential litigation that should be accrued where:

• information presently available indicates that it is probable that an asset has been impaired or a liability had been incurred at the

balance sheet date; and

• the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated.

There are no material contingent losses that should be disclosed where, although either or both the conditions specified above are not

met, there is a reasonable possibility that a loss, or a loss greater than that accrued, may have been incurred at the balance sheet date.

There are no contingent gains which should be disclosed.

All material matters, including unasserted claims, that may result in litigation against Chief Constable of Greater Manchester Police have

been brought to your attention. All known actual or possible litigation and claims whose effects should be considered when preparing the

financial statements have been disclosed to you and accounted for and disclosed in accordance with the Code and applicable law.

Laws and regulations

I confirm that I have disclosed to you all those events of which I am aware which involve known or suspected non-compliance with laws

and regulations, together with the actual or contingent consequences which may arise therefrom.

Fraud and error

I acknowledge my responsibility as Finance & Corporate Service Director for the design, implementation and maintenance of internal

control to prevent and detect fraud and error.

I have disclosed to you:

• all the results of my assessment of the risk that the financial statements may be materially misstated as a result of fraud;

• all knowledge of fraud or suspected fraud affecting Chief Constable of Greater Manchester Police involving:

• management and those charged with governance;

• employees who have significant roles in internal control; and

• others where fraud could have a material effect on the financial statements.

I have disclosed to you all information in relation to any allegations of fraud, or suspected fraud, affecting Chief Constable of Greater

Manchester Police’s financial statements communicated by employees, former employees, analysts, regulators or others.

Related party transactions

I confirm that all related party relationships, transactions and balances, have been appropriately accounted for and disclosed in

accordance with the requirements of the Code and applicable law.

I have disclosed to you the identity of Chief Constable of Greater Manchester Police’s related parties and all related party relationships

and transactions of which I am aware.

Future commitments

I am not aware of any plans, intentions or commitments that may materially affect the carrying value or classification of assets and

liabilities or give rise to additional liabilities.






Page 28 of 188

Subsequent events

I confirm all events subsequent to the date of the financial statements and for which the Code and applicable law, require adjustment or

disclosure have been adjusted or disclosed.

Should further material events occur after the date of this letter which may necessitate revision of the figures included in the financial

statements or inclusion of a note thereto, I will advise you accordingly.

Going concern

To the best of my knowledge there is nothing to indicate that Chief Constable of Greater Manchester Police will not continue as a going

concern in the foreseeable future. The period to which I have paid particular attention in assessing the appropriateness of the going

concern basis is not less than twelve months from the date of approval of the accounts.

Unadjusted misstatements - If applicable

I confirm that the effects of the uncorrected misstatements are immaterial, both individually and in aggregate, to the financial statements

as a whole.

Yours faithfully

Chief Finance Officer………………………






Page 29 of 188

Independent auditor’s report to the Chief Constable of Greater Manchester Police

Report on the financial statements

Opinion

We have audited the financial statements of the Chief Constable of Greater Manchester Police for the year ended 31 March 2019, which

comprise the Comprehensive Income and Expenditure Statement, the Movement in Reserves Statement, the Balance Sheet, the Cash

Flow Statement, and notes to the financial statements, including a summary of significant accounting policies. The financial reporting

framework that has been applied in their preparation is applicable law and the CIPFA/LASAAC Code of Practice on Local Authority

Accounting in the United Kingdom 2018/19.

In our opinion, the financial statements:

• give a true and fair view of the financial position of the Chief Constable of Greater Manchester Police as at 31st March 2019 and of its

expenditure and income for the year then ended; and

• have been properly prepared in accordance with the CIPFA/LASAAC Code of Practice on Local Authority Accounting in the United

Kingdom 2018/19.

Basis for opinion

We conducted our audit in accordance with International Standards on Auditing (UK) (ISAs (UK)) and applicable law. Our responsibilities

under those standards are further described in the Auditor’s responsibilities section of our report. We are independent of the Chief

Constable of Greater Manchester Police in accordance with the ethical requirements that are relevant to our audit of the financial

statements in the UK, including the FRC’s Ethical Standard as applicable to public interest entities, and we have fulfilled our other ethical

responsibilities in accordance with these requirements. We believe that the audit evidence we have obtained is sufficient and appropriate

to provide a basis for our opinion.

Conclusions relating to going concern

We have nothing to report in respect of the following matters in relation to which the ISAs (UK) require us to report to you where:

• the Finance & Corporate Services Director’s use of the going concern basis of accounting in the preparation of the financial statements

is not appropriate; or

• the Finance & Corporate Services Director has not disclosed in the financial statements any identified material uncertainties that may

cast significant doubt about Chief Constable of Greater Manchester Police’s ability to continue to adopt the going concern basis of

accounting for a period of at least twelve months from the date when the financial statements are authorised for issue.

Other information

The Finance & Corporate Services Director is responsible for the other information. The other information comprises the information

included in the Statement of Accounts, other than the financial statements and our auditor’s report thereon. Our opinion on the financial

statements does not cover the other information and, except to the extent otherwise explicitly stated in our report, we do not express any

form of assurance conclusion thereon.

In connection with our audit of the financial statements, our responsibility is to read the other information and, in doing so, consider

whether the other information is materially inconsistent with the financial statements or our knowledge obtained in the audit or otherwise

appears to be materially misstated. If we identify such material inconsistencies or apparent material misstatements, we are required to

determine whether there is a material misstatement in the financial statements or a material misstatement of the other information. If,

based on the work we have performed, we conclude that there is a material misstatement of this other information, we are required to

report that fact.

We have nothing to report in this regard.

APPENDIX BDRAFT AUDITOR’S REPORT





Page 30 of 188

Responsibilities of the Finance & Corporate Services Director for the financial statements

As explained more fully in the Statement of Responsibilities for the Statement of Accounts, the Finance & Corporate Services Director is

responsible for the preparation of the Statement of Accounts, which includes the financial statements, in accordance with proper practices

as set out in the CIPFA/LASAAC Code of Practice on Local Authority Accounting in the United Kingdom 2018/19, and for being satisfied

that they give a true and fair view. The Finance & Corporate Services Director is also responsible for such internal control as the Finance

& Corporate Services Director determines is necessary to enable the preparation of financial statements that are free from material

misstatement, whether due to fraud or error.

The Finance & Corporate Services Director is required to comply with the CIPFA/LASAAC Code of Practice on Local Authority Accounting

in the United Kingdom 2018/19 and prepare the financial statements on a going concern basis, unless Chief Constable of Greater

Manchester Police is informed of the intention for dissolution without transfer of services or function to another entity. The Finance &

Corporate Services Director is responsible for assessing each year whether or not it is appropriate for Chief Constable of Greater

Manchester Police to prepare its accounts on the going concern basis and disclosing, as applicable, matters related to going concern.

Auditor’s responsibilities for the audit of the financial statements

Our objectives are to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements as a whole are free from material misstatement,

whether due to fraud or error, and to issue an auditor’s report that includes our opinion. Reasonable assurance is a high level of

assurance, but is not a guarantee that an audit conducted in accordance with ISAs (UK) will always detect a material misstatement when it

exists. Misstatements can arise from fraud or error and are considered material if, individually or in the aggregate, they could reasonably

be expected to influence the economic decisions of users taken on the basis of these financial statements.

A further description of our responsibilities for the audit of the financial statements is located on the Financial Reporting Council’s website

at www.frc.org.uk/auditorsresponsibilities. This description forms part of our auditor’s report.

Matters on which we are required to report by exception under the Code of Audit Practice

We are required by the Code of Audit Practice to report to you if:

• we issue a report in the public interest under section 24 of the Local Audit and Accountability Act 2014;

• we make a recommendation under section 24 of the Local Audit and Accountability Act 2014; or

• we exercise any other special powers of the auditor under sections 28, 29 or 31 of the Local Audit and Accountability Act 2014.

We have nothing to report in these respects.

Conclusion on the Chief Constable of Greater Manchester Police’s arrangements for securing economy, efficiency and

effectiveness in the use of resources

Conclusion

On the basis of our work, having regard to the guidance on the specified criterion issued by the Comptroller and Auditor General in

November 2017, we are satisfied that, in all significant respects, the Chief Constable of Greater Manchester Police has put in place proper

arrangements to secure economy, efficiency and effectiveness in its use of resources for the year ended 31 March 2019.






Page 31 of 188

http://www.frc.org.uk/auditorsresponsibilities

Basis for conclusion

We have undertaken our review in accordance with the Code of Audit Practice issued by the Comptroller and Auditor General, having

regard to the guidance on the specified criterion issued in November 2017, as to whether the Chief Constable of Greater Manchester

Police had proper arrangements to ensure it took properly informed decisions and deployed resources to achieve planned and sustainable

outcomes for taxpayers and local people. The Comptroller and Auditor General determined this criterion as that necessary for us to

consider in satisfying ourselves whether the Chief Constable of Greater Manchester Police put in place proper arrangements for securing

economy, efficiency and effectiveness in its use of resources for the year ended 31 March 2019.

We planned our work in accordance with the Code of Audit Practice. Based on our risk assessment, we undertook such work as we

considered necessary to form a view on whether, in all significant respects, Chief Constable of Greater Manchester Police had put in place

proper arrangements to secure economy, efficiency and effectiveness in its use of resources.

Responsibilities of the Chief Constable of Greater Manchester Police

Chief Constable of Greater Manchester Police is responsible for putting in place proper arrangements to secure economy, efficiency and

effectiveness in its use of resources, to ensure proper stewardship and governance, and to review regularly the adequacy and

effectiveness of these arrangements.

Auditor’s responsibilities for the review of arrangements for securing economy, efficiency and effectiveness in the use of

resources

We are required under section 20(1)(c) of the Local Audit and Accountability Act 2014 to satisfy ourselves that the Chief Constable of

Greater Manchester Police has made proper arrangements for securing economy, efficiency and effectiveness in its use of resources. The

Code of Audit Practice requires us to report to you our conclusion relating to proper arrangements. We are not required to consider, nor

have we considered, whether all aspects of the Chief Constable of Greater Manchester Police’s arrangements for securing economy,

efficiency and effectiveness in its use of resources are operating effectively.

Use of the audit report

This report is made solely to the Chief Constable of Greater Manchester Police, as a body, in accordance with part 5 of the Local Audit

and Accountability Act 2014 and as set out in paragraph 44 of the Statement of Responsibilities of Auditors and Audited Bodies published

by Public Sector Audit Appointments Limited. Our audit work has been undertaken so that we might state to the Chief Constable of

Greater Manchester Police those matters we are required to state to them in an auditor’s report and for no other purpose. To the fullest

extent permitted by law, we do not accept or assume responsibility to anyone other than the Chief Constable of Greater Manchester

Police, as a body, for our audit work, for this report, or for the opinions we have formed.

Certificate

We certify that we have completed the audit of the Chief Constable of Greater Manchester Police in accordance with the requirements of

the Local Audit and Accountability Act 2014 and the Code of Audit Practice.

[Signature]

Mark Kirkham

For and on behalf of Mazars LLP

One St Peter’s Square

Manchester

M2 3DE

Xx July






Page 32 of 188

Auditor independence

As part of our ongoing risk assessment we monitor our relationships with you to identify any new actual or perceived threats to our

independence within the regulatory or professional requirements governing us as your auditors.

We can confirm that no new threats to independence have been identified since issuing the Audit Strategy Memorandum and therefore

we remain independent.

Audit & non-audit fees

We reported our expected audit fees in our Audit Strategy Memorandum. Below we report the audit and non-audit fees at this, our Audit

Completion phase. We confirm that we have completed no non-audit work.

APPENDIX CINDEPENDENCE AND FEES





Audit fees 2018/19 (actual) 2018/19 (planning)

Chief Constable of Greater Manchester Police £42,000 £42,000

Total audit fees £42,000 £42,000

Page 33 of 188

Mark Kirkham

Partner

Phone: 0113 394 5315

Mobile: 07747 764 529

Email: [email protected]

Chris Whittingham

Senior Manager

Phone: 0161 238 9349

Mobile: 07909 985 324

Email: [email protected]

CONTACT

Page 34 of 188

mailto:[email protected]



Page 35 of 188

Page 1

CHIEF CONSTABLE OF GREATER MANCHESTER POLICE

STATEMENT OF ACCOUNTS 2018/19

Page 36 of 188

Page 2

CONTENTS

PAGE

REGULATION AND INTRODUCTION

Independent Auditor’s Report (to be inserted on completion of audit report) 3

Narrative Report 4

Statement of Responsibilities for the Statement of Accounts 14

CHIEF CONSTABLE’S STATEMENT OF ACCOUNTS

Comprehensive Income and Expenditure Statement 15

Movement in Reserves Statement 16

Balance Sheet 18

Cash Flow Statement 19

Notes to the Accounts:

- Accounting Policies 20

- Accounting Standards, Not Adopted 25

- Critical Judgements in Applying Accounting Policies 25

- Assumptions Made About the Future and Other Major Sources of Estimation Uncertainty 26

- Events After the Reporting Period 26

- Expenditure and Funding Analysis 27

- Note to the Expenditure and Funding Analysis 28

- Adjustments Between Accounting Basis and Funding Basis Under Regulations 29

- Expenditure and Income Analysed by Nature 30

- Creditors 31

- Unusable Reserves 31

- Officers’ Remuneration 33

- External Audit Costs 36

- Related Parties 36

- Charges to the Chief Constable for Assets Consumed in the Year 37

- Regional Collaboration Arrangements 38

- Defined Benefit Pension Schemes 39

- Contingent Liabilities 51

Police Pension Fund Account 51

Notes to the Police Pension Fund Account and Net Assets Statement 52

Glossary 54

ANNUAL GOVERNANCE STATEMENT

Annual Governance Statement 57

Page 37 of 188

Page 3

[BLANK SECTION] [AUDIT REPORT TO BE INSERTED]

Page 38 of 188

Page 4

NARRATIVE REPORT

1. Introduction by the Chief Constable Organisational Overview and the External Environment Policing is now more complex than ever before with officers dealing with everything from serious crime and terrorism, through to burglary and antisocial behaviour. It is clear that crime levels are increasing and demand on policing continues to rise as a result of tackling complex issues such as modern slavery, domestic violence, child sexual exploitation, serious sexual offences and cyber-crime. Safeguarding vulnerable people and communities remains essential but it means that the neighbourhood policing model proven to help keep our communities safe is increasingly overstretched. In the last year Greater Manchester Police (GMP) has dealt with 66,000 domestic abuse incidents, 18,600 incidents involving people with mental health conditions and 234 modern slavery crimes. GMP receives the second highest number of 999 calls (3,000 per day) relative to population, of all police forces in England and Wales and dealt with the highest number of priority incidents relative to population. The latest Home Office statistics show that, in the 12 months to the end of June 2018, GMP recorded 343,089 crimes. This is an increase of 16% on the 12 months previous. This increase is due in part to changes in crime recording and changes in Home Office counting rules as well as changes in crime and steps to increase confidence in reporting crime. Keeping Greater Manchester safe isn’t just down to GMP; the public have to play their part in supporting policing by working with us. GMP has been listening to people across the city region as part of work to better understand and manage people’s expectations of policing. Through the principles laid out in the Citizens’ Contract, the police and public can help each other to ensure the best use of police resources, working together to protect the most vulnerable and build safer, and more resilient communities. There is no doubt the cuts faced during austerity have seen the number of Police Officers reduce by 2,000 since 2010. This is why we are looking to transform policing and find new ways of working to improve its capabilities in protecting victims and tackling crimes, so that, despite the challenges, we can still provide the best possible service to people across Greater Manchester. Together with dealing with calls for service and crime, GMP is increasing the diversity of its workforce to better reflect the communities it serves.

Page 39 of 188

Page 5

2. The Elected Mayor of Greater Manchester The first Elected Mayor of Greater Manchester (the Mayor), Andy Burnham, took up office on 8 May 2017, at which time, the functions of the Greater Manchester Police and Crime Commissioner (PCC) were transferred by Parliamentary Order to the Mayor. The transfer of the PCC functions to the Mayor meant that the legal entity known as the Greater Manchester Police and Crime Commissioner ceased to exist as of 8 May 2017. As a result, the accounts for 2016/17 were prepared on an extended period of time from 1 April 2016 to 7 May 2017 and the accounts for 2017/18 were consequently prepared for the shortened period 8 May 2017 to 31 March 2018. The 2018/19 accounts cover the normal financial period 1 April 2018 to 31 March 2019 so the two years 2017/18 and 2018/19 are not directly comparable when viewed within these accounts. The Mayor is responsible for the formal oversight of GMP, including provision of all funding, budget-setting, performance scrutiny and strategic policy development. The Mayor is also responsible for holding the Chief Constable to account for ensuring GMP is run efficiently and effectively. Operational decision-making on day-to-day policing matters and the employment of police staff remains the responsibility of the Chief Constable. Under the legislative framework and local arrangements, the Mayor is the recipient of funding relating to policing and crime reduction and allocates budget to GMP from the Mayoral Police Fund. As the Mayor is not a Corporation Sole, the Greater Manchester Combined Authority (GMCA) has overall responsibility for entering into contracts and establishing the contractual framework under which the Chief Constable’s officers and staff operate. Under the legislative framework and local arrangements, GMCA owns all the assets utilized by GMP and the functions and decisions relating to such properties, rights and liabilities are exercised and made by the Mayor. Any receipts arising from such properties, rights and liabilities are to be paid into the Mayoral Police Fund. The movement on the Mayoral Police Fund is disclosed in the notes to the Statement of Accounts of the Greater Manchester Combined Authority.

3. The Chief Constable The Chief Constable was established as a Corporation Sole under the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011 (PRSRA). The Chief Constable is a separate legal entity, distinct from the Greater Manchester Combined Authority and has operational independence. Each has specific roles and responsibilities under the PRSRA. The primary function of the Chief Constable is the exercise of operational policing duties under the Police Act 1996. He holds office under the Crown but is appointed by the Mayor and is accountable to the Mayor for the delivery of an efficient and effective police force in Greater Manchester. The Chief Constable fulfils his statutory responsibilities for delivering an efficient and effective police force within an annual budget which is set by the Mayor in consultation with the Chief Constable. The Chief Constable ultimately has a statutory responsibility for maintaining the Queen’s peace and, to do this, has direction and control over police officers and police staff employees. It is recognised that in exercising day to day direction and control, the Chief Constable will undertake activities, incur expenditure and generate income to allow the police service to operate effectively.

Page 40 of 188

Page 6

As a separate legal entity, the Chief Constable is required to prepare a set of statutory accounts which recognise all the financial transactions incurred during 2018/19 for policing Greater Manchester. GMCA, as the statutory body for the Mayor who has ultimate control over the Chief Constables’ resources, has to prepare consolidated group accounts. Expenditure in respect of operational policing, police officer and police staff employee costs is shown in the Chief Constable’s Statement of Accounts, whilst the funding sources (i.e. Central Government Police Grant) are shown in the consolidated group accounts of GMCA. It is appropriate that a distinction is made between the financial impact of the day to day direction and control exercised by the Chief Constable and the overall strategic control of the Mayor.

Page 41 of 188

Page 7

4. The Statement of Accounts The Statement of Accounts sets out the overall financial position of the Chief Constable of Greater Manchester Police for the year ended 31 March 2019. The accounts are published in accordance with the Accounts and Audit Regulations 2015, the Code of Practice on Local Authority Accounting in the United Kingdom 2018/19 and the Service Reporting Code of Practice (SeRCOP) 2018/19 and have been prepared on a going concern basis. The Statement of Accounts comprises core and supplementary statements, together with disclosure notes. The format and content of the financial statements is prescribed by the CIPFA Code of Practice on Local Authority Accounting in the United Kingdom 2018/19, which is underpinned by International Financial Reporting Standards. The Financial Statements comprise:

Comprehensive Income and Expenditure Statement – This statement shows the accounting cost in the year of providing services under IFRS. The Deficit on the Provision of Services is £773.990m.

Movement in Reserves Statement – This statement shows the movement in the year on the different reserves held by the Chief Constable.

Balance Sheet – The Balance Sheet shows that the Chief Constable has recognised net liabilities of £8.492bn at the end of the year, including a pension liability of £8.487bn.

Cash Flow Statement – This statement balances to zero as all cash transactions are held and managed by GMCA on behalf of the Mayor.

In addition to the Financial Statements, the Statement of Accounts also includes:

Statement of Responsibilities for the Statement of Accounts – This statement sets out the different responsibilities that the Chief Constable and his Chief Finance Officer have for the content, production and approval of the accounts.

Expenditure and Funding Analysis – This analysis shows how annual expenditure is used and funded from available resources by the Chief Constable in comparison with those resources consumed in accordance with generally accepted accounting practices.

Accounting Policies – Accounting policies are the specific principles, bases, conventions, rules and practices applied by the Chief Constable in preparing and presenting his financial statements. The Chief Constable and the Greater Manchester Combined Authority have the same accounting policies.

Notes to the Financial Statements – These notes include further information and additional material items of interest to assist the readers’ understanding of the Financial Statements.

Police Pension Fund Account – The Police Pension Scheme is unfunded and holds no assets. The purpose of this account is to demonstrate the cash-based transactions taking place over the year and to identify the arrangements needed to balance the account.

Glossary of Financial Terms – The nature of the Statement of Accounts means that technical financial terms are unavoidable. The glossary is intended to simplify and explain such words.

Annual Governance Statement – This statement explains how the Chief Constable has complied with his Code of Corporate Governance. Preparation and publication of the Annual Governance Statement fulfils his requirement to conduct a review at least once in each financial year of the effectiveness of his system of internal control and to include a statement reporting on the review within his Statement of Accounts.

Page 42 of 188

Page 8

5. Financial Review of 2018/19 The budget for 2018/19 was set by the Mayor. The budget is set in the context of the 4 year Strategic Financial Outlook (SFO), following consultation with the Chief Constable. The 2018/19 budget can be found on the website of the Greater Manchester Combined Authority. Impact of the Current Economic Climate The Government announced their settlement for policing on 31 January 2018 which included the following statements:

The police grant for 2018/19 would remain the same as the grant received in the 2017/18 financial year, there would be no additional funding to support increasing costs and demands on police services.

Mayors and Police and Crime Commissioners would be allowed to increase the police precept by £12.

Although it was clear that the Government accepted the need to invest more resources into policing services, additional funding was not provided and this burden has been placed on the local tax payer as the Mayor has increased the police precept by £12. Forward Look

The provisional settlement received on 13th December 2018 indicated that the police grant for 2019/20 will be £436.4m, an increase of £8.5m. In addition a one-off grant of £6.6m, from HM Treasury, was announced to partially mitigate against rising employer pension costs for police officers which have been calculated as £14.1m for 2019/20. As the additional grant only covers the increased pension costs, the provisional police grant is still ‘flat cash’ as there is no additional funding to cover pressures to meet rising / changing demand, new threats, pay awards and inflationary rises. Within the settlement the Home Secretary announced a maximum police precept increase of £24. The £24 increase will raise £18m and be invested in the following priority areas, addressing public concerns:

Neighbourhood policing;

Safety on the Transport network;

Safe night time economy;

Continue to improve the 101 service and other forms of customer contact;

Tackling serious and violent crime;

Tackling violence against women and girls;

Improvements to sickness absence. To support the delivery of the above priorities there will be:

An increase in police officer numbers by 320, in addition to the replacement of officers who

leave the force (c.500);

Recruitment of 220 new Neighbourhood Police Officers (NPOs) to enable an enhanced

response to calls, particularly to those most vulnerable;

Create a new proactive Force wide team of 50 officers to allow an effective, flexible, pro-

active response to local problems and priorities;

A new transport team, with 50 additional officers, to enable a more appropriate response to

problems on the transport network, including a wider focus on other transport matters.

Undertake direct entry detective recruitment which will support investigations, particularly

those into serious and violent crime and violence against women and girls.

Page 43 of 188

Page 9

Top Slicing In order to create budgets for national initiatives the Home Office top slices the Police Grant. In essence, this reduces the amount which is allocated to Police and Crime Commissioners to support local policing. Within the provisional settlement for 2019/20 the Home Office top sliced £1,029m (11%) from the Police Grant. For Greater Manchester this means that £59m has been top sliced from the Police Grant. Medium Term Planning Uncertainties The ability to plan for the medium term is severely hampered by a one year settlement and a number of uncertainties, detailed below. Spending Review This settlement is the last before the next Spending Review, which the Home Secretary has said will set long term police budgets and look at how resources are allocated fairly across police forces. The impact of both the spending review and the funding formula is significant for Greater Manchester due to the reliance upon government funding (80%). This is due to a low tax base compared to other, more affluent areas, and historic precept decisions. Funding Formula review In 2017 the Home Office undertook to launch a new consultation in the summer of 2017. However the General Election overtook events and the consultation was never launched. There are indications that the formula review could be resurrected alongside the Spending Review. It is recognised that the current funding formula is flawed and does not reflect the demographics and demands of an area nor the ability to raise taxes. However, given the heavy reliance on government funding in Greater Manchester the impact could have a significant impact, either positively or negatively. Pensions A significant pressure for policing is the impact of the Home Office Valuation Direction on unfunded public sector pension schemes. The current discount rate is based on 3%, whilst the new rate is 2.4%. The additional cost falls solely on the employer and for Greater Manchester is £14.1m. For 2019/20 this has been funded through £8.5m increase in the police grant and £6.6m one-off grant from HM Treasury. This poses a challenge for future years financial planning. Guidance has been given to assume the additional police grant will continue however the HM Treasury grant will not continue past 2019/20 with reference being made to the Spending Review in 2019. Emergency Services Mobile Communication Programme (ESMCP) A further concern is the delay in the £1bn project to transition from Airwave radio to the new Emergency Services Mobile Communications Programme (ESMCP). The original plan was a National Shut Down (NSD) date of December 2019, which the Home Office have now confirmed will not be achieved. A review is underway to ascertain a revised NSD date including the associated cost increase. There is a real concern that any additional costs arising from the delay will result in dual running costs, possible further top-slicing to the Police Grant and / or a transfer of costs to local policing.

Page 44 of 188

Page 10

Performance against Revenue Budget The Force seeks to demonstrate good financial management at a time of significant organisational transformation in response to both changing and exceptional operational demands. Through the financial forecasting process the Force has been able to make informed and timely decisions to ensure that value for money is achieved and operational risk is mitigated. The 2018/19 revenue outturn position below shows the financial impact of savings and growth which were planned for and agreed by the Chief Constable and the Mayor in the 2018/19 budget and reflects how budgets are managed within the Chief Constable’s accounts. Income and specific grants managed by the Chief Constable on behalf of the Mayor are included in the table. Examples of grants are those that relate to police pensions and the PFI buildings and examples of income are collaborations with other police forces and charges for policing the airport and football matches. Other funding sources (i.e. Central Government Police Grant) are shown in the consolidated accounts of the Greater Manchester Combined Authority. The table below shows the final outturn position for 2018/19 compared with the original budget. Figures in brackets in the variance column represent an overspend against the original expenditure budget.

Budget Actual Variance

£000 £000 £000

Police Officer Pay 330,002 331,416 (1,414)

Police Officer Related 4,178 4,713 (535)

Staff Pay 129,179 132,530 (3,351)

Police Staff Related 1,865 1,743 122

PCSO Pay 21,661 21,260 401

PCSO Related 8 9 (1)

Police Officer Overtime 13,644 16,021 (2,377)

Police Staff Overtime 1,692 2,357 (665)

PCSO Overtime 33 64 (31)

TOTAL EMPLOYEE RELATED 502,262 510,113 (7,851)

Pensions 125,621 128,599 (2,978)

Premises Related 31,281 31,565 (284)

Supplies and Services 48,855 43,904 4,951

Agency Payments 10,994 10,977 17

Transport Related 6,294 5,019 1,275

Capital Financing 0 2,331 (2,331)

Transfer to/from Reserves (583) (3,949) 3,366

Specific Grants (167,667) (170,829) 3,162

Income & Sponsorship (33,707) (34,380) 673

OTHER EXPENDITURE 21,088 13,237 7,851

TOTAL EXPENDITURE 523,350 523,350 0

Page 45 of 188

Page 11

The main reasons for the variances are: The overspend of £1.4m on Police Officer Pay is due to:

£0.9m overspend due to starting the year with 27 more officers than budgeted for.

£0.7m overspend due to 48 fewer officers leaving the Force than budgeted for. The overspend of £3.4m on Staff Pay is due to:

£1.9m overspend on agency staff largely within Serious Crime, Public Protection and Information Services.

£1.3m due to 49 fewer staff leaving the Force than budgeted for.

The overspend of £2.4m on Police Officer Overtime is due to increased demand and resource

management overtime. This includes the overtime worked for the visit of the President of the

United States and the extended tour of duty for the world cup and increased summer demand.

The underspend of £7.9m on Other Expenditure includes:

£2.4m underspend on support and maintenance costs mainly relating to delays in the Data Centre and iOPS projects.

£3.0m underspend on provisions set aside for uninsured liability claims and £1.3m underspend on provisions set aside for uninsured vehicle claims. These are made in line with the recommendations by actuarial advisors.

Capital In addition to revenue expenditure, money is spent on assets such as buildings, computers and vehicles. The Capital Programme is managed by the Force but all assets are owned by the Greater Manchester Combined Authority. The table below shows the net capital position by branch against the approved 2018/19 Capital Programme.

Branch Budget Actual Variance

£000 £000 £000

IS Transformation Programme 14,776 9,755 5,021

Target Operating Model 2,980 1,017 1,963

Business Support Services – Fleet 4,271 3,411 860

Business Support Services – Estates 1,704 1,451 253

Information Services 1,168 1,160 8

North West Counter Terrorism Unit 887 846 41

Public Protection Division 582 344 238

Strategic Change 550 246 304

Specialist Operations 388 401 (13)

Serious Crime Division 170 53 117

Other Branches 291 293 (2)

Total 27,767 18,977 8,790

Page 46 of 188

Page 12

At the end of the financial year, the Capital Budget is showing a full year variance of £8.8m on an approved programme of £27.8m. The main reasons for the underspend are within the Transformation programme, and include the delays in the Forensic Services relocation and the Centralisation of Specialist Operations programme. Additionally, within IS Transformation Programme, the IOPS and Data Centre projects have slipped. The table below shows the how the Capital Programme was funded.

£000

Capital expenditure 18,977

Funded by:

Borrowing 6,818

Capital Grants 3,432

Capital Receipts 378

Use of Reserves 2,219

Revenue Contribution to Capital 6,130

Total Funding 18,977

Strategy and Resource Allocation The table below shows the number of officers and employees and the full time equivalent (FTE) number as at 31 March:

Police Officers PCSOs Police Staff Total

No FTE No FTE No FTE No FTE

31 March 2019 6,524 6,285.06 631 620.39 4,007 3,715.09 11,162 10,620.54

31 March 2018 6,445 6,205.97 658 645.63 3,721 3,429.08 10,824 10,280.68

The table below shows the gender and ethnicity of officers and employees as at 31 March 2019:

Police Officers PCSOs Police Staff Total

No % No % No % No %

Gender:

Male 4,487 68.78% 375 59.43% 1,517 37.86% 6,379 57.15%

Female 2,037 31.22% 256 40.57% 2,490 62.14% 4,783 42.85%

Ethnicity:

White 6,054 92.80% 560 88.75% 3,761 93.86% 10,375 92.95%

BAME 470 7.20% 71 11.25% 246 6.14% 787 7.05%

Page 47 of 188

Page 13

Further information Further information about the accounts is available from: The Chief Finance Officer Greater Manchester Police Force Headquarters Central Park Northampton Road Manchester M40 5BP Telephone No: 0161 793 3337 E-mail: [email protected] In addition, members of the public have a statutory right to inspect the accounts before the audit commences. The availability of the accounts for inspection is advertised on the website of Greater Manchester Police.

Page 48 of 188


Page 14

STATEMENT OF RESPONSIBILITIES FOR THE STATEMENT OF ACCOUNTS The Chief Constable’s Responsibilities

The Chief Constable is required to:

Make arrangements for the proper administration of the financial affairs of the Greater Manchester Police and to ensure that one of his officers has the responsibility for the administration of those affairs. That officer is the Chief Constable’s Chief Finance Officer.

Manage the affairs of Greater Manchester Police to ensure economic, efficient and effective use of resources and safeguard the assets of Greater Manchester Police.

Approve the Statement of Accounts. Approval of the Statement of Accounts In accordance with the Accounts and Audit Regulations 2015, I approve the Statement of Accounts. Ian Hopkins, Chief Constable of Greater Manchester Police 30 July 2019

The Chief Finance Officer’s Responsibilities

The Chief Constable’s Chief Finance Officer is responsible for the preparation of the Chief Constable’s Statement of Accounts in accordance with proper practices as set out in the CIPFA/LASAAC Code of Practice on Local Authority Accounting in the United Kingdom (the Code). In preparing this Statement of Accounts, the Chief Finance Officer has:

Selected suitable accounting policies and then applied them consistently.

Made judgements and estimates that were reasonable and prudent.

Complied with the local authority Code. The Chief Finance Officer has also:

Kept proper accounting records which were up to date.

Taken reasonable steps for the prevention and detection of fraud and other irregularities. Certification of Accounts

I certify that this Statement of Accounts gives a true and fair view of the financial position of the Chief Constable of Greater Manchester Police at 31 March 2019, and of the income and expenditure for the year ended 31 March 2019. Lynne Potts, Chief Finance Officer 30 July 2019

Page 49 of 188

Page 15

THE CHIEF CONSTABLE’S FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

COMPREHENSIVE INCOME AND EXPENDITURE STATEMENT The Comprehensive Income and Expenditure Statement shows the accounting cost in the year of providing services in accordance with generally accepted accounting practices.

8 May 2017 to 31 March 2018 1 April 2018 to 31 March 2019

Gross Expenditure

Gross Income

Net Expenditure

Gross Expenditure

Gross Income

Net Expenditure

£000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000

505,591 0 505,591 Policing services 920,242 0 920,242

505,591 0 505,591 Cost of services 920,242 0 920,242

0 (536,445) (536,445) Funding set aside by the Mayor to fund policing services

0 (616,902) (616,902)

505,591 (536,445) (30,854) Net cost of services 920,242 (616,902) 303,340

204,616 0 204,616 Pension interest cost 217,702 0 217,702

0 (18,187) (18,187) Expected return on pension assets

0 (21,183) (21,183)

204,616 (18,187) 186,429 Financing and investment income and expenditure

217,702 (21,183) 196,519

710,207 (554,632) 155,575 (Surplus) or Deficit on Provision of Services

1,137,944 (638,085) 499,859

(3,491) Remeasurement of pension assets / liabilities

274,131

152,084 Total Comprehensive Income and Expenditure

773,990

Lynne Potts, Chief Finance Officer 30 July 2019

Page 50 of 188

Page 16

MOVEMENT IN RESERVES STATEMENT The Movement in Reserves Statement shows the movement from the start of the year to the end on the different reserves held by the Chief Constable, analysed into ‘usable reserves’ (i.e. those that can be applied to fund expenditure or reduce local taxation) and other ‘unusable reserves’. The Accumulated Absences Account relates to the value of unused annual or flexi leave at the end of the financial year. The Surplus / Deficit on the Provision of Services line shows the true economic cost of providing Policing services, more details of which are shown in the Comprehensive Income and Expenditure Statement. These are different from the statutory amounts required to be charged to the General Fund Balance for precept setting. The Net Increase / Decrease before Transfer to / from Earmarked Reserves line shows the statutory General Fund Balance before any discretionary transfers to or from earmarked reserves undertaken by the Chief Constable.

General

Fund Balance

Total Usable Reserves

Accumulated Absences

Account Pension Reserve

Total Unusable Reserves

Total Reserves

£000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000

Balance at 31 March 2018 0 0 (4,738) (7,712,875) (7,717,613) (7,717,613)

Surplus / (deficit) on provision of services (accounting basis)

(499,859) (499,859) 0 0 0 (499,859)

Other Comprehensive Income and Expenditure

0 0 0 (274,131) (274,131) (274,131)

Total Comprehensive Income and Expenditure

(499,859) (499,859) 0 (274,131) (274,131) (773,990)

Adjustments between accounting basis and funding basis under regulations (note 9)

499,859 499,859 (112) (499,747) (499,859) 0

Net Increase / (Decrease) before Transfer to / (from) Earmarked Reserves

0 0 (112) (773,878) (773,990) (773,990)

Transfer to / from Earmarked Reserves

0 0 0 0 0 0

Increase / (Decrease) in Year

0 0 (112) (773,898) (773,990) (773,990)

Balance at 31 March 2019 0 0 (4,850) (8,486,753) (8,491,604) (8,491,604)


Page 51 of 188

Page 17

2017/18 COMPARATIVE MOVEMENT IN RESERVES STATEMENT

General

Fund Balance

Total Usable Reserves

Accumulated Absences

Account Pension Reserve

Total Unusable Reserves

Total Reserves

£000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000

Balance at 8 May 2017 0 0 (4,722) (7,560,807) (7,565,529) (7,565,529)

Surplus / (deficit) on provision of services (accounting basis)

(155,575) (155,575) 0 0 0 (155,575)

Other Comprehensive Income and Expenditure

0 0 0 3,491 3,491 3,491

Total Comprehensive Income and Expenditure

(155,575) (155,575) 0 3,491 3,491 (152,084)

Adjustments between accounting basis and funding basis under regulations (note 9)

155,575 155,575 (16) (155,559) (155,575) 0

Net Increase / (Decrease) before Transfer to / (from) Earmarked Reserves

0 0 (16) (152,068) (152,084) (152,084)

Transfer to / from Earmarked Reserves

0 0 0 0 0 0

Increase / (Decrease) in Year

0 0 (16) (152,068) (152,084) (152,084)

Balance at 31 March 2018 0 0 (4,738) (7,712,875) (7,717,613) (7,717,613)

Page 52 of 188

Page 18

BALANCE SHEET The Balance Sheet shows the value as at the Balance Sheet date of the assets and liabilities recognised by the Chief Constable. The net assets of the Chief Constable (assets less liabilities) are matched by the reserves held by the Chief Constable. Reserves are reported in two categories – usable reserves and unusable reserves. The Chief Constable holds no usable reserves. Unusable reserves are not able to be used to provide services and consist of the Accumulated Absences Account and the Pension Reserve. Under the legislative framework, the Mayor is responsible for the Mayoral Police Fund and holds all assets, liabilities and usable reserves relating to policing services. These are included in the Balance Sheet of the Greater Manchester Combined Authority.

31 March 2018

Notes

31 March 2019

£000 £000

(4,738) Short-term Creditors 11 (4,850)

(4,738) Current Liabilities (4,850)

(7,712,875) Pension Liabilities 11 (8,486,753)

(7,712,875) Long Term Liabilities (8,486,753)

(7,717,613) Net Assets (8,491,604)

(7,717,613) Unusable Reserves 12 (8,491,604)

(7,717,613) Total Reserves (8,491,604)


Page 53 of 188

Page 19

CASH FLOW STATEMENT The Cash Flow Statement shows non cash movements in pension interest costs and expected return on pension assets. Under the legislative framework, all cash transactions are held and managed by the Greater Manchester Combined Authority. These are included in the Cash Flow Statement of the Greater Manchester Combined Authority.

8 May 2017 to 31 March 2018

1 April 2018 to 31 March 2019

£000 £000

155,575 Net deficit on the provision of services 499,859

(155,575) Adjustments to net deficit on the provision of services for non-cash movements (499,859)

0 Net cash flow from operating activities 0

0 Cash and cash equivalents at the beginning of the reporting period 0

0 Cash and cash equivalents at the end of the reporting period 0


Page 54 of 188

Page 20

NOTES TO THE ACCOUNTS

1. ACCOUNTING POLICIES A. General Principles The Statement of Accounts summarises the Chief Constable’s transactions for the 2018/19 financial year and the position at the year-end of 31 March 2019. The Chief Constable is required to prepare an annual Statement of Accounts by the Accounts and Audit Regulations 2015, which require the Statement of Accounts to be prepared in accordance with proper accounting practices. These practices primarily comprise the Code of Practice on Local Authority Accounting in the United Kingdom 2018/19, supported by International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS). The accounting convention adopted in the Statement of Accounts is principally historical cost, modified by the revaluation of certain categories of non-current assets and financial instruments. B. Accounting Concepts Going concern The accounts have been prepared on a going concern basis, which assumes that the Chief Constable will continue to operate and provide services in the foreseeable future. On 8 May 2017 the role of the Police and Crime Commissioner was transferred to the Greater Manchester Combined Authority, as a function to be exercised by the Elected Mayor of Greater Manchester. The Mayor is responsible for the formal oversight of GMP, including provision of all funding, and for ensuring GMP is run efficiently and effectively. The Chief Constable has remained a corporation sole and this transfer does not affect the going concern status of the Chief Constable. Qualitative characteristics The usefulness of financial statements is enhanced if they are comparable between similar organisations and between financial years. The Code of Practice promotes comparability by designating the form and content of the financial statements which includes a comparison with the previous financial period. The 2017/18 comparative information covers an adjusted financial year from 8 May 2017 to 31 March 2018, as set out in Article 9 of The Greater Manchester Combined Authority (Transfer of Police and Crime Commissioner Functions to the Mayor) Order 2017. These accounts, therefore, do not comply with the requirements of the Code of Practice in relation to the provision of comparative information. However, the Code of Practice acknowledges the primacy of legislative requirements which is that where an accounting treatment is required by law, then it must be applied, even if it contradicts any accounting concept or qualitative characteristic. C. Accruals of Income and Expenditure Activity is accounted for in the year that it takes place, not simply when cash payments are made or received. In particular:

Revenue from contracts with service recipients, whether for services or the provision of goods, is recognised when the goods or services are transferred to the service recipient in accordance with the performance obligations in the contract.

Page 55 of 188

Page 21

Supplies are recorded as expenditure when they are consumed – where there is a gap between the date supplies are received and their consumption, they are carried as inventories on the Balance Sheet.

Expenses in relation to services received (including services provided by employees) are recorded as expenditure when the services are received rather than when payments are made.

Where revenue and expenditure have been recognised but cash has not been received or paid, a debtor or creditor for the relevant amount is recorded in the Balance Sheet. Where debts may not be settled, the balance of debtors is written down and a charge made to revenue for the income that might not be collected.

D. Prior Period Adjustments, Changes in Accounting Policies and Estimates and Errors. Prior period adjustments may arise as a result of a change in accounting policies or to correct a material error. Changes in accounting estimates are accounted for prospectively, in other words, in the current and future years affected by the change and do not give rise to a prior period adjustment. Changes in accounting policies are only made when required by proper accounting practices or the change provides more reliable or relevant information about the effect of transactions, other events and conditions on the Chief Constable’s financial position or financial performance. Where a change is made, it is applied retrospectively (unless stated otherwise) by adjusting opening balances and comparative amounts for the prior period as if the new policy had always been applied. Material errors discovered in prior period figures are corrected retrospectively by amending opening balances and comparative amounts for the prior period. E. Employee Benefits Benefits Payable during Employment Short-term employee benefits are those due to be settled wholly within 12 months of the year-end. They include such benefits as wages and salaries, paid annual leave and paid sick leave, bonuses and non-monetary benefits (e.g. cars) for current employees and are recognised as an expense for services in the year in which employees render service to the Chief Constable. An accrual is made for the cost of holiday entitlements (or any form of leave, e.g. time off in lieu) earned by employees but not taken before the year-end which employees can carry forward into the next financial year. The accrual is made at the wage and salary rates applicable in the following accounting year, being the period in which the employee takes the benefit. The accrual is charged to Surplus or Deficit on the Provision of Services, but then reversed out through the Movement in Reserves Statement so that holiday entitlements are charged to revenue in the financial year in which the holiday absence occurs. Termination Benefits Termination benefits are amounts payable as a result of a decision by the Chief Constable to terminate an employee’s employment before the normal retirement date or an employee’s decision to accept voluntary redundancy in exchange for those benefits and are charged on an accruals basis to the Comprehensive Income and Expenditure Statement at the earlier of when the Chief Constable can no longer withdraw the offer of those benefits or when the Chief Constable recognises costs for a restructuring. Where termination benefits involve the enhancement of pensions, statutory provisions require the General Fund Balance to be charged with the amount payable by the Chief Constable to the pension fund or pensioner in the year, not the amount calculated according to the relevant

Page 56 of 188

Page 22

accounting standards. In the Movement in Reserves Statement, appropriations are required to and from the Pensions Reserve to remove the notional debits and credits for pension enhancement termination benefits and replace them with debits for the cash paid to the pension fund and pensioners and any such amounts payable but unpaid at the year-end. Post-employment Benefits Police officers and police staff employees are members of two separate pension schemes:

The Police Pension Scheme, administered by XPS Administration on behalf of the Chief Constable

The Local Government Pensions Scheme, administered by Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council.

Both schemes provide defined benefits to members (retirement lump sums and pensions) earned whilst a police officer or a police staff employee of the Chief Constable. The Police Pension Scheme The Police Pension Scheme is an unfunded defined benefit career average salary scheme for police officers. There are no investment assets built up to meet the pension liabilities and cash has to be generated from employee and employer contributions to meet actual pension payments as they eventually fall due. Both the Chief Constable and police officers pay pension contributions based on a percentage of pensionable pay into the Pension Fund Account. Pension payments are paid out of the Pension Fund Account. The amounts that must be paid into and out of the Pension Fund Account are specified by regulation. Any surplus or deficit on the Pension Fund Account must be transferred to or from the Greater Manchester Combined Authority, and ultimately repaid to or from the Home Office. Injury awards are not part of the Police Pensions Scheme and are charged directly to the Comprehensive Income and Expenditure Statement. However, liabilities in respect of injury awards are disclosed in the Statement of Accounts as part of the Chief Constable’s overall liability. The Local Government Pension Scheme The Local Government Pension Scheme is accounted for as a defined benefits scheme:

The liabilities of the Greater Manchester Pension Fund attributable to the Chief Constable are included in the Balance Sheet on an actuarial basis using the projected unit method – i.e. an assessment of the future payments that will be made in relation to retirement benefits earned to date by employees, based on assumptions about mortality rates, employee turnover rates, etc., and projected earnings for current employees.

Liabilities are discounted to their value at current prices, using a discount rate of the yield available on long dated, high quality corporate bonds (as measured by the yield on iBoxx Sterling Corporate Index, AA over 15 years) at the valuation date.

The assets of the Greater Manchester Pension Fund attributable to the Chief Constable are included in the Balance Sheet at their fair value: Quoted securities – current bid price Unquoted securities – professional estimate Unitised securities – current bid price Property – market value

Page 57 of 188

Page 23

The change in the net pensions liability is analysed into the following components:

Current service cost – the increase in liabilities as a result of years of service earned this year – allocated in the Comprehensive Income and Expenditure Statement to the services for which the employees worked

Past service cost – the increase in liabilities as a result of a scheme amendment or curtailment whose effect relates to years of service earned in earlier years – debited to the Surplus or Deficit on the Provision of Services in the Comprehensive Income and Expenditure Statement

Interest cost – the increase in the net present value of liabilities during the year as they move one year closer to being paid – debited to the Financing and Investment Income and Expenditure in the Comprehensive Income and Expenditure Statement

Expected return on plan assets – the annual investment return on the fund assets attributable to the Chief Constable, based on an average of the expected long-term return – credited to the Financing and Investment Income and Expenditure in the Comprehensive Income and Expenditure Statement

Gains or losses on settlements and curtailments – the result of actions to relieve the Chief Constable of liabilities or events that reduce the expected future service or accrual of benefits of employees – debited or credited to the Surplus or Deficit on the Provision of Services in the Comprehensive Income and Expenditure Statement as part of non-distributed costs

Remeasurements – changes in the net pension’s liability that arise because events have not coincided with assumptions made at the last actuarial valuation or because the actuaries have updated their assumptions – debited to the Pensions Reserve as Other Comprehensive Income and Expenditure

Contributions paid to the Greater Manchester Pension Fund – cash paid as employer’s contributions to the pension fund in settlement of liabilities; not accounted for as an expense

In relation to retirement benefits, statutory provisions require the General Fund Balance to be charged with the amount payable by the Chief Constable to the pension fund or directly to pensioners in the year, not the amount calculated according to the relevant accounting standards. In the Movement in Reserves Statement, this means that there are transfers to and from the Pensions Reserve to remove the notional debits and credits for retirement benefits and replace them with debits for the cash paid to the pension fund and pensioners and any such amounts payable but unpaid at the year-end. The negative balance that arises on the Pensions Reserve thereby measures the beneficial impact to the General Fund of being required to account for retirement benefits on the basis of cash flows rather than as benefits are earned by employees. Discretionary Benefits The Chief Constable also has restricted powers to make discretionary awards of retirement benefits in the event of early retirements. Any liabilities estimated to arise as a result of an award to any officer or police staff employee are accrued in the year of the decision to make the award and accounted for using the same policies as are applied to the Local Government Pension Scheme. F. Events After the Reporting Period Events after the Balance Sheet date are those events, both favourable and unfavourable, that occur between the end of the reporting period and the date when the Statement of Accounts is authorised for issue. Two types of events can be identified:

Those that provide evidence of conditions that existed at the end of the reporting period – the Statement of Accounts is adjusted to reflect such events

Those that are indicative of conditions that arose after the reporting period – the Statement of Accounts is not adjusted to reflect such events, but where a category of events would have a material effect, disclosure is made in the notes of the nature of the events and their estimated financial effect

Page 58 of 188

Page 24

Events taking place after the date of authorisation for issue are not reflected in the Statement of Accounts. G. Government Grants and Contributions All Government grants are received by the Mayor and are accounted for in the Statement of Accounts of the Greater Manchester Combined Authority. All third party funding is received by the Mayor and is accounted for in the Statement of Accounts of the Greater Manchester Combined Authority. Funding is transferred from the Mayor to the Chief Constable to cover liabilities as and when they arise. H. Overheads and Support Services The costs of overheads and support services are charged to service segments in accordance with the Chief Constable’s arrangements for accountability and financial performance. I. Property, Plant and Equipment All assets used by the Chief Constable are owned by the Greater Manchester Combined Authority and are accounted for in the Statement of Accounts of the Greater Manchester Combined Authority. J. Contingent Liabilities A contingent liability arises where an event has taken place that gives the Chief Constable a possible obligation whose existence will only be confirmed by the occurrence or otherwise of uncertain future events not wholly within his control. Contingent liabilities also arise in circumstances where a provision would otherwise be made, but either it is not probable that an outflow of resources will be required or the amount of the obligation cannot be measured reliably. Contingent liabilities are not recognised in the Balance Sheet but disclosed in a note to the accounts. K. Reserves Earmarked reserves and the General Fund Balance are held by the Mayor within the Mayoral Police Fund and are accounted for in the Statement of Accounts of the Greater Manchester Combined Authority. L. VAT VAT payable is included as an expense only to the extent that it is not recoverable from Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs. VAT receivable is excluded from income.

Page 59 of 188

Page 25

2. ACCOUNTING STANDARDS, NOT ADOPTED The Code of Practice requires the Chief Constable to disclose information relating to the expected impact of an accounting change that will be required by a new standard that has been issued but not yet adopted. The following standards introduced by the 2018/19 Code, which will be required from 1 April 2019 are not considered to have a significant impact on the Statement of Accounts:

Amendments to IAS 40 Investment Property: Transfers of Investment Property

Annual Improvements to IFRS Standards 2014-2016 Cycle

IFRIC 22 Foreign Currency Transactions and Advance Consideration

IFRIC 23 Uncertainty over Income Tax Treatments

Amendments to IFRS 9 Financial Instruments: Prepayment Features with Negative Compensation.

3. CRITICAL JUDGEMENTS IN APPLYING ACCOUNTING POLICIES In applying the accounting policies set out in Note 1, the Chief Constable has had to make certain judgements about complex transactions or those involving uncertainty about future events. The critical judgements made in the Statement of Accounts are:

The 2017/18 Statement of Accounts covered the period from 8 May 2017 to 31 March 2018, a period of 10 months and 24 days. As such, this is not comparable with the 2018/19 Statement of Accounts, which covers the year ended 31 March 2019.

Transfer of functions - The functions of the Police and Crime Commissioner (PCC) in Greater Manchester were transferred by Parliamentary Order to the Greater Manchester Combined Authority with effect from 8 May 2017. The PCC functions are to be exercised by the Mayor. The transfer of the PCC functions means that the legal entity known as the Police and Crime Commissioner ceased to exist as of 8 May 2017 and all staff, properties, rights and liabilities transferred to the Greater Manchester Combined Authority.

In order to apply the group accounting requirements, the relationship between the Mayor and Chief Constable has been assessed. The Greater Manchester Combined Authority, under sole instruction from the Mayor, is responsible for the finances of the Mayoral Police Fund including assets, liabilities and reserves. In compliance with legislation the Chief Constable’s accounts are consolidated into the group accounts of the Greater Manchester Combined Authority.

All contracts with Greater Manchester Police are held in the name of the Greater Manchester Combined Authority. The Greater Manchester Combined Authority pays for all expenditure including salaries of police officers, PCSOs and police staff. There is no transfer of cash between the Mayor and the Chief Constable; and the Chief Constable does not have a bank account into which monies can be paid or withdrawn.

Costs are recognised in the Chief Constable’s Statement of Accounts to reflect the resources consumed and generated in the direction and control of day to day policing at the request of the Chief Constable.

Costs of pension arrangements require estimates assessed by independent qualified actuaries regarding future cash flows that will arise under the scheme liabilities. The financial assumptions underlying the valuation used for IAS19 reporting as advised by the actuaries are largely prescribed at any point and reflect market expectations at the reporting date. Assumptions are also made around the life expectancy of the UK population. In respect of police staff pension costs, actuarial valuations have been provided to enable the accounting entries for the Chief Constable in 2018/19 and are reflected in the financial statements

Page 60 of 188

Page 26

4. ASSUMPTIONS MADE ABOUT THE FUTURE AND OTHER MAJOR SOURCES OF ESTIMATION UNCERTAINTY

The Statement of Accounts contains estimated figures that are based on assumptions made by the Chief Constable about the future or that are otherwise uncertain. Estimates are made taking into account historical experience, current trends and other relevant factors. However, because balances cannot be determined with certainty, actual results could be materially different from the assumptions and estimates. The items in the Chief Constable’s Balance Sheet at 31 March 2019 for which there is a significant risk of material adjustment in the forthcoming year are as follows: Pension Liabilities Estimation of the net liability to pay pensions depends on a number of complex judgments related to the discount rate used, the rate at which salaries are projected to increase, changes in retirement ages, mortality rates and expected returns on pension fund assets. A firm of consulting actuaries is engaged to provide expert advice about the assumptions to be applied. The effects on the net pension liability of changes in individual assumptions are shown in note 18.

5. EVENTS AFTER THE REPORTING PERIOD The Statement of Accounts was authorised for issue by the Chief Finance Officer to the Chief Constable on 31 May 2019. Events taking place after this date are not reflected in the financial statement or notes.

Page 61 of 188

Page 27

6. EXPENDITURE AND FUNDING ANALYSIS The Expenditure and Funding Analysis shows how annual expenditure is used and funded from resources by the Chief Constable in comparison with those resources consumed or earned by the Chief Constable in accordance with generally accepted accounting practices. Income and expenditure accounted for under generally accepted accounting practices is presented more fully in the Comprehensive Income and Expenditure Statement.

8 May 2017 to 31 March 2018 1 April 2018 to 31 March 2019

Net Expenditure Chargeable

to the General

Fund

Adjustments (see note

below)

Net Expenditure

in the Comprehensi

ve Income and

Expenditure Statement


to the General

Fund

Adjustments (see note

below)

Net Expenditure

in the Comprehensi

ve Income and


£000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000

536,445 (30,854) 505,591 Cost of policing services 616,902 303,340 920,242

(536,445) 0 (536,445) Funding set aside by the Mayor to fund policing services

(616,902) 0 (616,902)

0 186,429 186,429 Other income and expenditure

0 196,519 196,519

0 155,575 155,575 (Surplus) or Deficit on Provision of Services

0 499,859 499,859

0 Opening General Fund Balance

0

0 Surplus or (Deficit) on General Fund Balance in Year

0

0 Closing General Fund Balance at 31 March

0

Page 62 of 188

Page 28

NOTE TO THE EXPENDITURE AND FUNDING ANALYSIS



to the General

Fund

Adjustments for Capital Purposes

Net Change for Pensions Adjustments

Other Differences

Total Adjustment

s

Net Expenditure

in the Comprehensi

ve Income and


£000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000

Cost of policing services 616,902 0 303,228 112 303,340 920,242

Funding set aside by the Mayor to fund policing services

(616,902) 0 0 0 0 (616,902)

Other income and expenditure from the Expenditure and Funding Analysis

0 0 196,519 0 196,519 196,519

Difference between General Fund surplus or deficit and Comprehensive Income and Expenditure Statement Surplus or Deficit on the Provision of Services

0 0 499,747 112 499,859 499,859

8 May 2017 to 31 March 2018


to the General

Fund

Adjustments for Capital Purposes

Net Change for Pensions Adjustments

Other Differences

Total Adjustment

s

Net Expenditure

in the Comprehensi

ve Income and


£000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000

Cost of policing services 536,445 0 (30,870) 16 (30,854) 505,591

Funding set aside by the Mayor to fund policing services

(536,445) 0 0 0 0 (536,445)

Other income and expenditure from the Expenditure and Funding Analysis

0 0 186,429 0 186,429 186,429

Difference between General Fund surplus or deficit and Comprehensive Income and Expenditure Statement Surplus or Deficit on the Provision of Services

0 0 155,559 16 155,575 155,575

Page 63 of 188

Page 29

7. ADJUSTMENTS BETWEEN ACCOUNTING BASIS AND FUNDING BASIS UNDER REGULATIONS

This note details the adjustments that are made to the total comprehensive income and expenditure recognised by the Chief Constable in the year in accordance with proper accounting practice to arrive at the resources that are specified by statutory provisions as being available to the Chief Constable to meet future capital and revenue expenditure. The following table sets the reserves that the adjustments are made against.

8 May 2017 to 31 March 2018


£000 £000

Adjustments primarily involving the Pension Reserve:

360,779 Reversal of items relating to retirement benefits debited or credited to the Comprehensive Income and Expenditure Statement

732,490

(205,220) Employer’s pension contributions and direct payments to pensioners payable in the year (232,743)

Adjustments primarily involving the Accumulated Absences Account:

16 Amount by which officer remuneration charged to the Comprehensive Income and Expenditure Statement on an accrual basis is different from remuneration chargeable in the year in accordance with statutory requirements

112

155,575 Total Adjustments 499,859

Page 64 of 188

Page 30

8. EXPENDITURE AND INCOME ANALYSYED BY NATURE The Chief Constable’s expenditure and income is analysed as follows:

1 April 2018 to 31 March

2019

8 May 2017 to 31 March

2018

£000 £000

Expenditure

Employee costs 510,243 460,808

Premises costs 16,930 16,028

Transport costs 5,019 2,861

Supplies and services 43,915 31,035

Partnership costs 13,557 16,158

Employee benefit costs 314,678 (20,760)

Depreciation, amortisation and impairment 18,498 15,917

Intercompany adjustments (2,598) (16,457)

Pension interest costs 217,702 204,616

Total expenditure 1,137,944 710,206

Income

Income (34,391) (34,023)

Funding from the Mayor (582,511) (502,421)

Expected return on pension assets (21,183) (18,187)

Total Income (638,085) (554,631)

Surplus or Deficit on the Provision of Services 499,859 155,575

Page 65 of 188

Page 31

9. CREDITORS (Accumulated Absences) The short term creditor of £4.850m (£4.738m in 2017/18) represents the cost of untaken annual leave entitlement due to Police officers and Police staff at the end of the year.

10. UNUSABLE RESERVES The table below shows the reserves that cannot be utilised to provide services.

31 March

2019 31 March

2018

£000 £000

Accumulated Absence Account (4,850) (4,738)

Pensions Reserve (8,486,753) (7,712,875)

Total Unusable Reserves (8,491,604) (7,717,613)

Accumulated Absences Account The Accumulated Absences Account absorbs the differences that would otherwise arise on the General Fund Balance from accruing for compensated absences earned but not taken in the year, e.g. annual leave entitlement carried forward at 31 March. Statutory arrangements require that the impact on the General Fund Balance is neutralised by transfers to or from the account.

1 April 2018

to 31 March

2019

8 May 2017

to 31 March

2018

£000 £000

Opening Accumulated Absences Account Balance (4,738) (4,722)

Settlement or cancellation of accrual made at the end of the preceding year 4,738 4,722

Amount by which officer remuneration charged to the Comprehensive Income and Expenditure Statement on an accruals basis is different from remuneration chargeable in the year in accordance with statutory requirements

(4,850) (4,738)

Closing Accumulated Absences Account Balance at 31 March (4,850) (4,738)

Page 66 of 188

Page 32

Pensions Reserve The Pensions Reserve absorbs the timing differences arising from different arrangements for accounting for post-employment benefits and funding benefits in accordance with statutory provisions. The Chief Constable accounts for post-employment benefits in the Comprehensive Income and Expenditure Statement as the benefits are earned by employees accruing years of service, updating the liabilities recognised to reflect inflation, changing assumptions and investment returns on any resources set aside to meet the costs. However, statutory arrangements require benefits earned to be financed as the Chief Constable makes employer’s contributions to pension funds or eventually pays any pensions for which he is directly responsible. The debit balance on the Pensions Reserve therefore shows a substantial shortfall in the benefits earned by past and current employees and the resources the Chief Constable has set aside to meet them. The statutory arrangements will ensure that funding will have been set aside by the time the benefits come to be paid.

1 April 2018

to 31 March

2019

8 May 2017

to 31 March

2018

£000 £000

Opening Pensions Reserve Balance (7,712,875) (7,560,807)

Remeasurements of the net defined benefit liability / (asset) (274,131) 3,491

Reversal of items relating to retirement benefits debited or credited to the Surplus or Deficit on the Provision of Services in the Comprehensive Income and Expenditure Statement

(732,490) (360,779)

Employer’s pensions contributions and direct payments to pensioners payable in the year

232,743 205,220

Closing Pensions Reserve Balance at 31 March (8,486,753) (7,712,875)

Page 67 of 188

Page 33

11. OFFICERS’ REMUNERATION

Officers’ Remuneration above £50,000 The table below shows the number of all Police Officers and Police Staff who have received more than £50,000 in remuneration during the year, including the defined senior and statutory officers shown in the Senior Officers' Remuneration Note. This amount excludes any payments in relation to employee pensions.


8 May 2017 to 31 March 2018

Remuneration band Number of employees

Number of employees

£50,000 - £54,999 498 709

£55,000 - £59,999 317 340

£60,000 - £64,999 67 121

£65,000 - £69,999 31 38

£70,000 - £74,999 12 19

£75,000 - £79,999 14 9

£80,000 - £84,999 12 20

£85,000 - £89,999 9 10

£90,000 - £94,999 8 2

£95,000 - £99,999 1 2

£100,000 - £104,999 1 1

£105,000 - £109,999 3 2

£110,000 - £114,999 1 2

£115,000 - £119,999 1 2

£120,000 - £124,999 0 0

£125,000 - £129,999 0 1

£130,000 - £144,999 0 0

£145,000 - £149,999 0 1

£150,000 - £154,999 1 0

£155,000 - £194,999 0 0

£195,000 - £199,999 0 1

£200,000 - £204,999 1 0

Total 977 1,280

The Manchester Arena attack on the 22 May 2017 led to a substantial increase in overtime payments during 2017/18, due to officers and staff working additional hours to deal with the incident.

Page 68 of 188

Page 34

Senior Officers’ Remuneration The table below shows the remuneration paid to defined senior and statutory officers whose annualised salary is equal to or more than, £50,000 for the year ended 31 March 2019.

Post Title Note Salary Expenses Other

Pension Contributio

ns Total

£000 £000 £000 £000 £000

Chief Constable Ian Hopkins

203 0 1 35 239

Deputy Chief Constable Ian Pilling

150 0 0 36 186

Assistant Chief Constable a 86 0 5 15 106

Assistant Chief Constable b 77 0 0 18 95

Assistant Chief Constable c 86 0 6 21 113

Assistant Chief Constable 115 1 4 27 147

Assistant Chief Constable 106 0 25 131

Assistant Chief Constable d 93 2 3 21 119

Assistant Chief Constable e 98 2 6 23 129

Assistant Chief Constable f 90 1 2 22 115

Assistant Chief Constable g 50 1 0 12 63


16 x Chief Superintendents h 1,296 30 0 263 1,589

Assistant Chief Officer Resources 113 0 14 21 148

Assistant Head of Change and Transformation

i 0 0 0 0 0

Head of Information Services 86 2 0 16 104

Head of Legal Advisory j 64 2 0 12 78

Head of Legal Services 86 2 0 16 104

Head of Business Support Services 82 2 0 15 99

Head of External Relations and Performance

k 92 0 0 17 109

Head of Finance 74 1 0 14 89

Interim Head of Finance and Strategic Resourcing

74 0 0 14 88

Head of Corporate Communications 74 0 0 14 88

Interim Head of HR 68 0 0 12 80

16 x Chief Superintendents From

To 29 90

0 2

0 0

6 21

35 113

Note a: Assistant Chief Constable retired October 2018 Note b: Assistant Chief Constable left November 2018 Note c: Assistant Chief Constable left December 2018 Note d: Assistant Chief Constable to July 2018 (Chief Superintendent from August 2018) Note e: Assistant Chief Constable from July 2018 (Chief Superintendent until June 2018) Note f: Assistant Chief Constable from January 2019 (Chief Superintendent until December 2018) Note g: Assistant Chief Constable appointed October 2018 Note h: Chief Superintendent Posts have not been individually included due to numbers. Total costs are included within the table with salaries ranging from £29,000 to £88,000. Note i: Assistant Head of Change and Transformation left in 2017/18 and was replaced by a Chief Superintendent. Note j: Head of Legal Advisory is working reduced hours in 2018/19. Note k: Head of external Relations and Performance, London weighting removed from this post holder. In 2018/19, HMRC reclassified emergency vehicles as a “use of assets”’ rather than as a company car, which means no taxable benefit arises for Police Officers.

Page 69 of 188

Page 35

2017/18 Comparative Senior Officers’ Remuneration

Post Title Note Salary Expenses Other

Pension Contributio

ns Total

£000 £000 £000 £000 £000

Chief Constable Ian Hopkins

200 0 5 46 251

Deputy Chief Constable Ian Pilling

148 0 9 35 192

Assistant Chief Constable a 104 0 5 11 120



Assistant Chief Constable b 15 0 1 4 20

Assistant Chief Constable c 117 0 8 28 153


Assistant Chief Constable d 89 2 2 21 114

Assistant Chief Constable e 101 2 7 21 131

Assistant Chief Constable f 96 0 1 21 118

20 x Chief Superintendents g 1,392 36 4 304 1,736

Assistant Chief Officer Resources 110 0 16 21 147

Assistant Head of Change and Transformation

66 0 0 12 78

Head of Information Services 83 2 0 15 100

Head of Legal Advisory h 76 2 0 14 92

Head of Legal Services i 84 2 0 16 102

Head of Business Support Services 79 2 0 15 96

Head of External Relations and Performance

J 99 0 0 17 116

Head of Finance 74 1 0 14 89

Interim Head of Finance and Strategic Resourcing

72 0 0 14 86

Head of Corporate Communications 72 1 0 14 87

Interim Head of HR 62 1 0 11 74

Interim Director / Programme SRO k 8 0 0 0 8

20 x Chief Superintendents From

To 2

92 0 0

0 0

0 21

2 113

Note a: Assistant Chief Constable retired February 2018 Note b: Assistant Chief Constable left May 2017 Note c: Assistant Chief Constable on secondment Note d: Assistant Chief Constable from December 2017 (Chief Superintendent until December 2017) Note e: Assistant Chief Constable from May 2017 (on secondment to another police force in April 2017) Note f: Assistant Chief Constable from July 2017 (Chief Superintendent until July 2017) Note g: Chief Superintendent posts have not been individually included due to numbers. Total costs are included within the table with salaries ranging from £2,000 to £92,000. Note h: Head of Legal Services until November 2017 Note i: Acting Head of Legal Services until November 2017 Note j: Head of External Relations and Performance, London weighting removed from this post holder Note k: Interim Director / Programme SRO (temporary consultant covering long term sickness) left May 2017

Page 70 of 188

Page 36

Exit Costs and Termination Benefits The Chief Constable terminated 10 employee contracts in 2018/19, incurring liabilities of £327,000 (14 in 2017/18 costing £461,000). These amounts have arisen as a result of strategic change and improvement programmes and relate to redundancy pay, pay in lieu of notice and pension strain costs. The total cost per band and the total cost of the compulsory and other redundancies are set out in the table below.

Number of

compulsory redundancies

Number of other departures agreed

Total number of exit packages by cost

band

Total cost of exit packages in each

band

2018/19 2017/18 2018/19 2017/18 2018/19 2017/18 2018/19 2017/18

£0 - £20,000 1 3 2 3 3 6 £34,000 £85,000

£20,001 - £40,000 1 1 2 4 3 5 £88,000 £142,000

£40,001 - £60,000 1 0 2 0 3 0 £140,000 £0

£60,001 - £80,000 0 0 1 1 1 1 £65,000 £66,000

£80,001 - £100,000 0 1 0 1 0 2 £0 £168,000

£100,001 - £150,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 £0 £0

Total 3 5 7 9 10 14 £327,000 £461,000

12. EXTERNAL AUDIT COSTS The Chief Constable has incurred the following costs in relation to the audit of the Statement of Accounts. The external auditor for the Chief Constable Greater Manchester Combined Authority is Mazars LLP (Grant Thornton UK LLP for the previous financial period).

1 April 2018

to 31 March

2019

8 May 2017

to 31 March

2018

£000 000

Fees payable with for external audit services carried out by the appointed auditor for the relevant financial period

42 65

13. RELATED PARTIES The Chief Constable is required to disclose material transactions with related parties – bodies or individuals that have the potential to control or influence the Force or to be controlled or influenced by the Force. Disclosure of these transactions allows readers to assess the extent to which the Chief Constable might have been constrained in his ability to operate independently or might have secured the ability to limit another party’s ability to bargain freely with the Force. In this context related parties include:

The Elected Mayor of Greater Manchester

Greater Manchester Combined Authority

Central Government

Key management personnel including senior managers

Close family member of key management personnel

Other public bodies

Entities controlled or significantly influenced by the Chief Constable

Page 71 of 188

Page 37

The Elected Mayor of Greater Manchester The functions of the Greater Manchester Police and Crime Commissioner (PCC) were transferred by Parliamentary Order to the Elected Mayor of Greater Manchester with effect from 8 May 2017. Under Section 3 of the Order “the mayor is to be treated, in relation to the mayor’s PCC functions, as a police and crime commissioner for the purposes of all police and crime commissioner enactments, wherever passed or made, subject to schedule 1 of the Order”. The Mayor had direct control over the finances of the Greater Manchester Combined Authority and is responsible for issuing the Police and Crime Plan. The Chief Constable retains operational independence and operates within the budget set by the Mayor to deliver the aims and objectives set out in the Police and Crime Plan.

Greater Manchester Combined Authority Under the legislative framework and local arrangements, Greater Manchester Combined Authority, under sole instruction from the Mayor, is responsible for the finances of the Mayoral Police Fund including assets, liabilities and reserves. The Authority has responsibility for entering into contracts and establishing the contractual framework under which the Chief Constable’s officers and staff operate. The Authority receives all income and funding and makes all the payments for the policing activity from the Mayoral Police Fund.

Central Government Central government has significant influence over the general operations of the Chief Constable. It is responsible for providing the statutory framework within which the Chief Constable operates, provides the majority of funding in the form of grants to the Mayor and prescribes the terms of many of the transactions with other parties.

Officers and Employees Senior officers and staff were asked to declare any direct financial relationship through outside bodies or companies with the Chief Constable. No material transactions have been reported in respect of the 2018/19 financial year.

Local Government Pension Scheme (LGPS) Pension Fund Administrator The Chief Constable’s transactions with the Local Government Pension Scheme (administered by the Greater Manchester Pension Fund) are shown in the pension related disclosure note.

14. CHARGE TO THE CHIEF CONSTABLE FOR ASSETS CONSUMED IN THE YEAR The Mayor charges the Chief Constable for operational assets consumed in the year. This charge is made at a fair value. The annual depreciation charge, impairments and revaluations chargeable to the Comprehensive Income and Expenditure Statement of the Greater Manchester Combined Authority are considered to be reasonable proxy for fair value.

Page 72 of 188

Page 38

15. REGIONAL COLLABORATION ARRANGEMENTS The Chief Constable works in collaboration with other police forces in order to increase business resilience, efficiency and flexibility to make budget savings. Collaboration between police forces is not new and has generally been defined as “all activity where two or more parties work together to achieve a common goal, which includes inter-force activity and collaboration with the public and private sectors, including outsourcing and business partnering.” Service level agreements exist to define the role of each of the bodies involved. In all of these agreements each party is responsible for their own liabilities and these cannot be passed or transferred to the other parties involved. For the preparation of the 2018/19 financial statements all joint arrangements have been reviewed to ensure that the accounting treatment is in accordance with IFRS 11. In 2018/19 the arrangements detailed in the table below have been accounted for as joint operations. Joint operations are arrangements where the parties that have joint control of the arrangement have rights to the assets and obligations for the liabilities relating to the arrangement. The activities undertaken by the Mayor and/or the Chief Constable in conjunction with other joint operators involve the use of the assets and resources of those joint operators. In relation to its interest in a joint operation, the Mayor and/or the Chief Constable as a joint operator recognises, if material:

Its assets, includes its share of any asset held jointly

Its liabilities, including its share of any liabilities incurred jointly

Its revenue from the sale of its share of the output arising from the joint operation

Its share of the revenue from the sale of the output by the joint operations

Its expenses, including its share of any expenses incurred jointly

Collaboration Lead Force

1 April 2018

to 31 March

2019

8 May 2017

to 31 March

2018

£000 £000

TITAN

Partners are Greater Manchester, Cheshire, Merseyside, Lancashire, Cumbria and North Wales. Staff are drawn from these forces with net costs apportioned between partners based on government grant allocations.

Merseyside 6,775 6,225

UNDERWATER SEARCH

Partners are Greater Manchester, Cheshire, Merseyside, Lancashire, Cumbria and North Wales. Net costs are apportioned between partners based on government grant allocations.

Cheshire 342 345

NORTH WEST MOTORWAY POLICE GROUP

Partners are Greater Manchester, Cheshire, Merseyside and Lancashire. Costs are apportioned based on a Service Level Agreement.

Cheshire 304 308

Page 73 of 188

Page 39

16. DEFINED BENEFIT PENSION SCHEMES

Participation in Pension Schemes As part of the terms and conditions of employment of his officers and employees, the Chief Constable makes contributions towards the cost of post-employment benefits. Although these benefits will not actually be payable until the officers and employees retire, the Chief Constable has a commitment to make the payments (for those benefits) and to disclose them at the time that officers and employees earn their future entitlement. The Chief Constable participates in two pension schemes providing post-employment benefits: All police officers, unless they have opted out, are members of the Police Pension Scheme. This is an unfunded defined benefit career average salary scheme, meaning that there are no investment assets built up to meet these pensions liabilities, and cash has to be generated to meet actual pensions payments as they eventually fall due. The scheme can be split into four components, Old, Injury, New 2006 and New 2015 (see note E of the accounting policies). The scheme is contracted out of the State Second Pension scheme. The Police Pension Fund Account is disclosed after the notes to the Accounts. All police staff employees, unless they have opted out, are members of the Greater Manchester Pension Fund. This is a funded defined benefit career average salary scheme, meaning that the Chief Constable and employees pay contributions into a fund, calculated at a level intended to balance the pension liabilities with investment assets. The Greater Manchester Pension Fund is operated under the regulatory framework for the Local Government Pension Scheme and the governance of the scheme is the responsibility of the pensions committee of Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council. Policy is determined in accordance with the Pensions Fund Regulations. The investment managers of the fund are appointed by the committee and consist of the Director of Finance and Resources of Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council and Hymans Robertson LLP. The principal risks to the Chief Constable of the scheme are the longevity assumptions, statutory changes to the scheme, structural changes to the scheme (i.e. large-scale withdrawals from the scheme), changes to inflation, bond yields and the performance of the equity investments held by the scheme. These are mitigated to a certain extent by the statutory requirements to charge to the General Fund the amounts required by statute as described in the accounting policies note. Discretionary Post-retirement Benefits Discretionary post-retirement benefits on early retirement are an unfunded defined benefit arrangement, under which liabilities are recognised when awards are made. There are no plan assets built up to meet these pension liabilities.

Transactions Relating to Post-employment Benefits The cost of retirement benefits in the reported cost of services is recognised when they are earned by officers and employees, rather than when the benefits are eventually paid as pensions. However, the charge that the Greater Manchester Combined Authority is required to make against the council tax precept is based on the cash payable in the year, so the real cost of post-employment / retirement benefits is reversed out of the General Fund via the Movement in Reserves Statement. The following transactions have been made in the Comprehensive Income and Expenditure Statement and the General Fund Balance via the Movement in Reserves Statement during the year.

Page 74 of 188

Page 40

McCloud / Sargeant Judgement The Chief Constable of Greater Manchester Police, along with other Chief Constables and the Home Office, currently has 1,329 claims lodged against them with the Central London Employment Tribunal. The claims are in respect of alleged unlawful discrimination arising from the Transitional Provisions in the Police Pension Regulations 2015. Claims of unlawful discrimination have also been made in relation to the changes to the Judiciary and Firefighters Pension regulations and in December 2018 the Court of Appeal (McCloud / Sargeant) ruled that the ‘transitional protection’ offered to some members as part of the reform to public sector pensions amounts to unlawful discrimination. On 27 June the Supreme Court refused leave to appeal on the McCloud case. In light of this it is envisaged that the Court will require changes to arrangements for employees who were transferred to the new schemes potentially including Police Pension Scheme members. This would to lead to an increase in Police Pension Scheme liabilities and our actuaries (The Government Actuary Department ) using specific assumptions and applying these across the Police scheme as a whole have estimated the potential increase in scheme liabilities for Greater Manchester Police to be approximately 4.4% or £343.9 million of pension scheme liabilities. This increase is reflected in the IAS19 Disclosure as a Past Service Cost. The actuaries have highlighted that this estimate is based on one potential remedy, the potential impact of any difference in the profile of the force’s membership compared with the scheme as a whole and that the figures are highly sensitive to assumptions around short term earnings growth. The impact of an increase in scheme liabilities arising from McCloud / Sargeant judgment will be measured through the pension valuation process, which determines employer and employee contribution rates. The next Police Pension valuation is due to take place in 2020 with implementation of the results planned for 2023/24 and forces will need to plan for the impact of this on employer contribution rates alongside other changes identified through the valuation process. The impact of an increase in annual pension payments arising from McCloud / Sargeant is determined through The Police Pension Fund Regulations 2007. These require a police authority to maintain a police pension fund into which officer and employer contributions are paid and out of which pension payments to retired officers are made. If the police pension fund does not have enough funds to meet the cost of pensions in year the amount required to meet the deficit is then paid by the Secretary of State to the police authority in the form of a central government top-up grant. With regard to the LGPS a similar adjustment to past service costs within the IAS19 Disclosure has been made for the McCloud judgment and the impact of the GMP equalisation changes. This corresponds to a 0.17% or £1.948 million increase in liabilities. The impact of an increase in scheme liabilities arising from McCloud / Sargeant judgment will be measured through the pension valuation process, which determines employer and employee contribution rates.

Page 75 of 188

Page 41

Transactions Relating to Post-employment Benefits Included in Financial Statements


LGPS

Old Police

Pension Scheme

Injury Police

Pension Scheme

2006 Police

Pension Scheme

2015 Police

Pension Scheme Total

£000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000

Comprehensive Income and Expenditure Statement (CIES)

Cost of Services comprising:

- Current service cost 36,786 48,540 5,190 1,770 97,530 189,816

- Past service costs 2,295 315,920 0 27,940 0 346,155

- (Gain) / loss from settlements 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total Cost of Services 39,081 364,460 5,190 29,710 97,530 535,971

Financing and Investment Income and Expenditure

Interest income of plan assets (21,183) 0 0 0 0 (21,183)

Interest cost on defined benefit obligation

27,822 171,140 4,280 7,260 7,200 217,702

Net interest expense 6,639 171,140 4,280 7,260 7,200 196,519

Total Post-employment Benefits charged to the Surplus of Deficit on the Provision of Services

45,720 535,600 9,470 36,970 104,730 732,490

Other Post-employment Benefits charged to the CIES

Remeasurement of the net defined benefit liability comprising:

- Return on plan assets (excluding the amount included in the net interest expense)

37,152 0 0 0 0 37,152

- Actuarial gains and losses arising on changes in demographic assumptions

0 0 0 0 0 0

- Actuarial gains and losses arising on changes in financial assumptions

(102,104) (192,500) (3,300) (15,280) (17,600) (330,784)

- Other experience (159) 23,280 (1,930) 5,830 (7,520) 19,501

Total Post-employment Benefits charged to the CIES

(19,391) 366,380 4,240 27,520 79,610 458,359

Movement in Reserves Statement

- Reversal of net charges made to the Surplus or Deficit on the Provision of Services for post-employment benefits in accordance with the Code of Practice

(45,720) (535,600) (9,470) (36,970) (104,730) (732,490)

Actual amount charged against the General Fund Balance for pensions in the year:

Employers’ contributions payable to scheme

18,693 14,382 0 651 39,196 72,923

Retirement benefits payable to pensioners

420 0 0 0 0 420

Page 76 of 188

Page 42

2017/18 Comparative Transactions Relating to Post-employment Benefits Included in Financial Statements

8 May 2017 to 31 March 2018

LGPS

Old Police

Pension Scheme

Injury Police

Pension Scheme

2006 Police

Pension Scheme

2015 Police


£000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000

Comprehensive Income and Expenditure Statement (CIES)

Cost of Services comprising:

- Current service cost 34,615 51,810 2,110 1,570 78,950 169,055

- Past service costs 525 4,720 50 0 0 5,295

- (Gain) / loss from settlements 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total Cost of Services 35,140 56,530 2,160 1,570 78,950 174,350

Financing and Investment Income and Expenditure

Interest income of plan assets (18,187) 0 0 0 0 (18,187)

Interest cost on defined benefit obligation

23,766 165,090 4,250 6,570 4,940 204,616

Net interest expense 5,579 165,090 4,250 6,570 4,940 186,429

Total Post-employment Benefits charged to the Surplus of Deficit on the Provision of Services

40,719 221,620 6,410 8,140 83,890 360,779

Other Post-employment Benefits charged to the CIES

Remeasurement of the net defined benefit liability comprising:

- Return on plan assets (excluding the amount included in the net interest expense)

8,043 0 0 0 0 8,043

- Actuarial gains and losses arising on changes in demographic assumptions

0 221,740 4,760 9,220 15,690 251,410

- Actuarial gains and losses arising on changes in financial assumptions

0 (213,330) (1,360) (21,060) (5,480) (241,230)

- Other experience (52) (17,400) 1,960 950 (190) (14,732)

Total Post-employment Benefits charged to the CIES

48,710 212,630 11,770 (2,750) 93,910 364,270

Movement in Reserves Statement

- Reversal of net charges made to the Surplus or Deficit on the Provision of Services for post-employment benefits in accordance with the Code of Practice

(40,719) (221,620) (6,410) (8,140) (83,890) (360,779)

Actual amount charged against the General Fund Balance for pensions in the year:

Employers’ contributions payable to scheme

17,590 16,199 0 600 31,199 65,588

Retirement benefits payable to pensioners

380 0 0 0 0 380

Page 77 of 188

Page 43

Pensions Assets and Liabilities Recognised in the Balance Sheet The amount included in the Balance Sheet arising from the Chief Constable’s obligation in respect of his defined benefit plans are:

31 March 2019 31 March 2018

LGPS

Police Pension Scheme Total LGPS

Police Pension Scheme Total

£000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000

Present value of the defined benefit obligation

(1,175,779) (8,158,900) (9,334,679) (1,016,809) (7,476,740) (8,493,549)

Fair value of plan assets 847,926 0 847,926 780,674 0 780,674

Sub-total (327,853) (8,158,900) (8,486,753) (236,135) (7,476,740) (7,712,875)

Other movements in the liability

0 0 0 0 0 0

Net liability arising from defined benefit obligation

(327,853) (8,158,900) (8,486,753) (236,135) (7,476,740) (7,712,875)

Reconciliation of Movements in the Fair Value of the Scheme (Plan) Assets:

LGPS

1 April 2018

to 31 March

2019

8 May 2017

to 31 March

2018

£000 £000

Opening fair value of scheme assets 780,674 744,501

Interest income 21,183 18,187

Remeasurement gain / (loss)

- The return of plan assets, excluding the amount included in the net interest expense 37,152 8,043

Contributions from employer 18,693 17,590

Contributions from employees into the scheme 6,758 6,014

Benefits paid (16,534) (13,661)

Contribution in respect of unfunded benefits 420 380

Unfunded benefits paid (420) (380)

Closing fair value of scheme assets 847,926 780,674

Page 78 of 188

Page 44

Reconciliation of Present Value of Scheme Liabilities

LGPS

Old Police

Pension Scheme

Injury Police

Pension Scheme

2006 Police

Pension Scheme

2015 Police


£000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000

Opening balance at 1 April 1,016,809 6,789,300 168,960 283,880 234,600 8,493,549

Current service cost 36,786 40,020 5,190 1,420 76,130 159,546

Interest cost 27,822 171,140 4,280 7,260 7,200 217,702

Contributions from scheme participants 6,758 8,520 0 350 21,400 37,028

Remeasurement (gains) and losses:

- Actuarial gains / losses arising from changes in demographic assumptions

0 0 0 0 0 0

- Actuarial gains / losses arising from changes in financial assumptions

102,104 192,500 3,300 15,280 17,600 330,784

- Other experience 159 (23,280) 1,930 (5,830) 7,520 (19,501)

Past service cost 2,295 315,920 0 27,940 0 346,155

Benefits paid (16,534) (205,620) (7,150) (220) (1,720) (231,244)

Transfers in 0 210 0 340 530 1,080

Unfunded benefits paid (420) 0 0 0 0 (420)

Closing balance at 31 March 1,175,779 7,288,710 176,510 330,420 363,260 9,334,679

2017/18 Comparative Information Reconciliation of Present Value of Scheme Liabilities

LGPS

Old Police

Pension Scheme

Injury Police

Pension Scheme

2006 Police

Pension Scheme

2015 Police


£000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000

Opening balance at 8 May 965,878 6,739,670 173,990 264,970 160,800 8,305,308

Current service cost 34,615 42,230 2,110 1,260 61,810 142,025

Interest cost 23,766 165,090 4,250 6,570 4,940 204,616

Contributions from scheme participants 6,014 9,580 0 310 17,140 33,044

Remeasurement (gains) and losses:

- Actuarial gains / losses arising from changes in demographic assumptions

0 (221,740) (4,760) (9,220) (15,690) (251,410)

- Actuarial gains / losses arising from changes in financial assumptions

0 213,330 1,360 21,060 5,480 241,230

- Other experience 52 17,400 (1,960) (950) 190 14,732

Past service cost 525 4,720 50 0 0 5,295

Benefits paid (13,661) (181,030) (6,080) (310) (530) (201,611)

Transfers in 0 50 0 190 460 700

Unfunded benefits paid (380) 0 0 0 0 (380)

Closing balance at 31 March 1,016,809 6,789,300 168,960 283,880 234,600 8,493,549

Page 79 of 188

Page 45

Local Government Pension Scheme assets comprise:

31 March 2019

Quoted prices in

active markets

Prices not quoted in

active markets Total

Percentage of total assets

£000 £000 £000 %

Cash and cash equivalents 21,179 0 21,179 2%

Equity instruments by industry type:

Consumer 46,834 0 46,834 6%

Manufacturing 49,001 0 49,001 6%

Energy and utilities 47,650 0 47,650 6%

Financial institutions 67,105 0 67,105 8%

Health and care 25,039 0 25,039 3%

Information technology 15,138 0 15,138 2%

Other 9,291 0 9,921 1%

Sub-total equity 260,057 0 260,057 32%

Bonds by sector:

Corporate bonds (investment grade) 31,716 0 31,716 4%

UK Government bonds 5,584 0 5,584 1%

Other 21,506 0 21,506 3%

Sub-total bonds 58,806 0 58,806 8%

Property:

UK 0 40,274 40,274 5%

Sub-total Property 0 40,274 40,274 5%

Private equity:

All 0 39,711 39,711 5%

Sub-total private equity 0 39,711 39,711 5%

Other investment funds:

Equities 191,682 0 191,682 23%

Bonds 105,474 0 105,474 12%

Infrastructure 0 40,651 40,651 5%

Other 16,523 73,139 89,662 11%

Sub-total other investment funds 313,680 113,790 427,470 51%

Derivatives:

Other 430 0 430 0%

Sub-total derivatives 430 0 430 0%

Total assets 654,151 193,775 847,926 100%

Page 80 of 188

Page 46

2017/18 Comparative Information Local Government Pension Scheme assets comprise

31 March 2018

Quoted prices in

active markets

Prices not quoted in

active markets Total

Percentage of total assets

£000 £000 £000 %

Cash and cash equivalents 28,554 0 28,554 4%

Equity instruments by industry type:

Consumer 44,546 0 44,546 6%

Manufacturing 53,439 0 53,439 7%

Energy and utilities 42,315 0 42,315 5%

Financial institutions 64,297 0 64,297 8%

Health and care 19,953 0 19,953 3%

Information technology 12,513 0 12,513 2%

Other 7,636 0 7,636 1%

Sub-total equity 244,699 0 244,699 32%

Bonds by sector:

Corporate bonds (investment grade) 28,938 0 28,938 4%

UK Government bonds 6,765 0 6,765 1%

Other 21,724 0 21,724 3%

Sub-total bonds 57,427 0 57,427 8%

Property:

UK 0 26,728 26,728 3%

Sub-total Property 0 26,728 26,728 3%

Private equity:

All 0 26,124 26,124 3%

Sub-total private equity 0 26,124 26,124 3%

Other investment funds:

Equities 211,244 0 211,244 27%

Bonds 101,223 0 101,223 13%

Infrastructure 0 20,213 20,213 3%

Other 20,558 43,903 64,461 8%

Sub-total other investment funds 333,026 64,116 397,141 51%

Derivatives:

Other 0 0 0 0%

Sub-total derivatives 0 0 0 0%

Total assets 663,706 116,968 780,674 100%

Page 81 of 188

Page 47

Basis for Estimating Assets and Liabilities Liabilities have been assessed on an actuarial basis using the projected unit credit method, an estimate of the pensions that will be payable in future years dependent on assumptions about mortality rates, salary levels, etc. The Local Government Pension Scheme liabilities have been assessed by Hymans Robertson, an independent firm of actuaries. Estimates have been made based on the latest full valuation of the scheme as at 31 March 2016. The Police Pension Scheme liabilities have been assessed by the Government Actuary’s Department. Estimates have been made based on the full valuation of the scheme as at 31 March 2012. The latest full valuation of the scheme as at 31 March 2016 was published on 3 July 2019; after the Government Actuary’s Department’s review was completed. The significant assumptions used by the actuaries have been:

Local Government Pension Scheme

Police Pension Scheme

31 March 2019

31 March 2018

31 March 2019

31 March 2018

Mortality assumptions:

Longevity at 65 for current pensioners:

- Men 21.5 21.5 22.7 22.6

- Women 24.1 24.1 24.3 24.2

Longevity at 65 for future pensioners:

- Men 23.7 23.7 24.6 24.5

- Women 26.2 26.2 26.2 26.1

Inflation assumptions:

Rate of inflation 3.40% 3.40% 2.35% 2.30%

Rate of increase in salaries 2.60% 2.50% 4.35% 4.30%

Rate of increase in pensions 2.50% 2.40% 2.35% 2.30%

Rate for discounting scheme liabilities 2.40% 2.70% 2.45% 2.55%

The estimation of the defined benefit obligations is sensitive to the actuarial assumptions set out in the table above. The sensitivity analyses below have been determined based on reasonably possible changes of the assumptions occurring at the end of the reporting period and assumes for each change that the assumption analysed changes while all the other assumptions remain constant. The assumptions in longevity, for example, assume that life expectancy increases or decreases for men and women. In practice, this is unlikely to occur, and changes in some of the assumptions may be interrelated. The estimations in the sensitivity analysis have followed the accounting policies for the schemes, i.e. on an actuarial basis using the projected unit credit method. The methods and types of assumptions used in preparing the sensitivity analysis below did not change from those used in the previous period.

Page 82 of 188

Page 48

Sensitivity Analysis

Increase to Employer

Liability

% £000

Local Government Pension Scheme:

Longevity increase in 1 year 3% to

5% 35,248 to

58,746

0.5% increase in rate of increase in salaries 2% 26,139

0.5% increase in rate of increase in pensions 10% 117,492

0.5% decrease in rate for discounting scheme liabilities 12% 146,361

Old Police Pension Scheme:

Longevity increase in 1 year 2.5% 192,000

0.5% increase in rate of increase in salaries 1.0% 72,000

0.5% increase in rate of increase in pensions 8.0% 602,000

0.5% decrease in rate for discounting scheme liabilities -10.0% (734,000)

2006 Police Pension Scheme:


0.5% increase in rate of increase in salaries 8.5% 28,000





0.5% increase in rate of increase in salaries 0.0% 0



Page 83 of 188

Page 49

Impact on the Chief Constable’s Cash Flows Local Government Pension Scheme One of the key objectives of the scheme is to deliver a low, stable employer contribution rate whilst maintaining the solvency of the scheme. Funding levels are monitored and contribution rates set following triennial valuations. The 31st March 2016 valuation disclosed that the fund was in deficit and that the fund’s assets were equal to 93% of the value of its liabilities. Contribution rates have been set to cover the cost of the future benefits earned by employees and to make good the deficit over a period of time. The effective date of the next triennial valuation is 31st March 2019 and this is required to be completed by 31st March 2020. The total contribution expected to be made to the Local Government Pension Scheme by the Chief Constable in the year to 31st March 2020 is £18.693m. Police Pension Scheme At the request of the Home Office the Government Actuary’s Department carried out an actuarial valuation of the police pension scheme as at 31st March 2012. The latest full valuation of the scheme as at 31 March 2016 was published on 3 July 2019; after the Government Actuary’s Department’s review was completed. The valuation was undertaken in accordance with the Public Service Pensions (Valuations and Employer Cost Cap) Directions 2014. The valuation results specify the rate of employer contributions payable for the four year period from 1st April 2015. The employer contribution rate was reassessed at the actuarial valuation as at 31st March 2016, with the next revision to the employer contribution rate due to take effect from 1st April 2019. The total contribution expected to be made to the Police Pension Scheme by the Chief Constable in the year to 31st March 2020 is £70.126m.

Page 84 of 188

Page 50

Analysis of Present Value of Scheme Liabilities by Members The weighted average duration of the defined benefit obligation for scheme members are:

31 March 2019 31 March 2018

Liability

Weighted Average Duration Liability

Weighted Average Duration

% £000 Years % £000 Years

Local Government Pension Scheme:

Active members 61.60% 719,859 24.9 59.00% 592,046 24.9

Deferred members 18.28% 213,602 25.1 19.00% 187,627 25.1

Pensioner members 20.12% 235,091 12.0 22.00% 229,985 12.0

Total 100.00% 1,168,552 20.8 100.00% 1,009,658 20.7

The figures above are for the funded obligations only and do not include unfunded pensioner liabilities of £7,227,000 (2017/18 £7,151,000).

Old Police Pension Scheme:

Active members 48.10% 3,505,850 47.52% 3,226,300

Deferred members 3.76% 273,820 4.01% 272,560

Pensioner members 48.14% 3,509,040 48.46% 3,290,350

Total 100.00% 7,288,710 21 100.00% 6,789,300 20

Injury Police Pension Scheme:

Active members 21.73% 38,350 22.05% 37,250

Deferred members 0.00% 0 0.00% 0

Pensioner members 78.27% 138,160 77.95% 131,710

Total 100.00% 176,510 n/a 100.00% 168,960 n/a


Active members 93.84% 310,060 93.23% 264,660

Deferred members 5.68% 18,780 6.07% 17,220

Pensioner members 0.48% 1,580 0.70% 2,000

Total 100.00% 330,420 40 100.00% 283,880 33


Active members 99.86% 362,740 99.80% 234,120

Deferred members 0.14% 520 0.20% 480

Pensioner members 0.00% 0 0.00% 0

Total 100.00 363,260 38 100.00% 234,600 32

Page 85 of 188

Page 51

17. CONTINGENT LIABILITIES and ASSETS Unpaid Overtime Following successful claims in Allard v Devon and Cornwall Police for unpaid overtime following recalls to duty, in excess of 1500 claims have been made nationally. Further unpaid overtime claims from police officers in specific roles are still being investigated at a national level. Contingent Assets As the Mayor holds all assets and liabilities, any contingent assets are shown in the Greater Manchester Combined Authority’s accounts and the associated policy is included in the Consolidated Statement of Accounts.

THE POLICE PENSION FUND ACCOUNT The Police Pension Scheme is an unfunded pension scheme. Both employer and employee pension contributions are based on a percentage of pay, which is paid into the Pension Fund. The amounts that must be paid into and out of the Pension Fund are specified by the Police Pension Fund Regulations 2007 and do not include injury awards.

1 April 2018

to 31 March

2019

8 May 2017

to 31 March

2018

£000 £000

Opening balance 0 0

Contributions receivable

- Contributions at 21.3% of pensionable pay from employer (47,700) (42,271)

- Early Retirements (3,417) (3,084)

- Other (contributions from the Territorial Army) 0 (6)

Officers’ contributions (30,246) (27,054)

Transfers in

- Transfers in from other Police and Crime Commissioners and other schemes (1,094) (844)

Benefits payable

- Pensions 163,764 139,803

- Commutations and lump sum retirement benefits 41,567 40,522

Payments to and on account of leavers

- Individual transfers out to other Police and Crime Commissioners and other schemes

442 360

- Refunds of contributions 123 39

- Other (tax and interest) 204 249

Net amount payable for the year 123,643 107,714

Additional 2.9% funding payable by the Mayor to meet the deficit for the year (6,495) (5,755)

Additional contribution from the Mayor (117,148) (101,959)

Closing balance at 31 March 0 0

Page 86 of 188

Page 52

Net asset statement

31 March

2019 31 March

2018

£000 £000

Unpaid pensions due 0 0

Amount owing to General Fund Balance 0 0

Net Assets 0 0

Contribution rates

1 April 2018

to 31 March

2019

8 May 2017

to 31 March

2018

Employer 24.20% 24.20%

Employee:

- Old Scheme 14.25% to 15.05% 14.25% to 15.05%

- 2006 Scheme 11.00% to 12.75% 11.00% to 12.75%

- 2015 Scheme 12.44% to 13.78% 12.44% to 13.78%

Notes to the Police Pension Fund Account and Net Assets Statement 1. The Fund was established under the Police Pension Fund Regulations 2007 (SI 2007 no.

1932) and is administered and managed by the Chief Constable.

2. The Police Pension Scheme is an unfunded, defined benefit scheme. There are no investment assets. The fund is balanced to nil each year by a transfer from Greater Manchester Combined Authority, which is reclaimed from Central Government.

3. The Fund receives contributions from the Chief Constable as the employer and from scheme

members based on a percentage of pensionable pay set nationally by the Home Office and subject to triennial revaluation by the Government Actuary’s Department. (See the contribution rates table above). At the last revaluation the employer’s contribution was reduced by 2.9% from 24.2% to 21.3%. However, the effective rate remains at 24.2% as the saving has been recovered by central government.

4. Benefits payable to scheme members are made from the Fund with the exception of injury

awards, which are payable by the Chief Constable. Administrative costs are met by the Chief Constable. Inward transfer values are paid into the Fund and outward transfer values are paid from the Fund.

5. The fund is balanced to zero each year. If income to the fund exceeds expenditure then the

excess is paid to Greater Manchester Combined Authority. If expenditure exceeds income then Greater Manchester Combined Authority must fund the deficit. Greater Manchester Combined Authority pays any excess income to the Home Office and receives the Police Pension Fund top up grant from the Home Office to fund any deficit.

Page 87 of 188

Page 53

6. The contributions receivable from Greater Manchester Combined Authority shown in the account are debited to the Comprehensive Income and Expenditure Statement. The additional contribution from Greater Manchester Combined Authority is debited in its accounts together with a matching grant from the Home Office.

7. The amount of Home Office grant outstanding at 31st March 2019 has been accrued and is

included in the group Balance Sheet of the Greater Manchester Combined Authority. 8. The Fund’s financial statements do not take into account liabilities to pay pensions after 31

March 2019. Liabilities to pay future payments are included in the IAS19 charges and notes to the Chief Constable's Financial Statements.

9. The Fund’s Accounting Policies are set out in Note 1 to the Chief Constable's Financial

Statement

Page 88 of 188

Page 54

GLOSSARY Accounting Policies Within the range of possible methods of accounting, a statement of the actual methods chosen locally and used to prepare these accounts. Accruals The method of including amounts in accounts to cover income or expenditure attributable to an accounting period but for which payment has not been received or made by the end of the accounting period. This is based on the concept that income and expenditure are recognised as they are earned or incurred, not as money is received or paid. Actuarial Remeasurements Actuaries assess financial and non-financial information provided by The Chief Constable to project levels of future pension fund requirements. Changes in actuarial deficits or surpluses can arise, leading to a loss or gain because:- events have not coincided with the actuarial assumptions made for the last valuation the actuarial assumptions have changed Adjustment between accounting basis and funding basis These are adjustments that are made to the total comprehensive income and expenditure recognised by The Chief Constable in the year in accordance with proper accounting practice to the resources that are specified by statutory provisions as being available to The Chief Constable to meet future capital and revenue expenditure. Balances The reserves of the Greater Manchester Police, both revenue and capital, which represent the accumulated surplus of income over expenditure on any of the funds Balance sheet A statement of the recorded assets, liabilities and other balances at the end of an accounting period. Cash Flow Movement in money received and paid by Greater Manchester Police in the accounting period.

CIPFA (The Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy) CIPFA is the leading professional accountancy body for public services. Comprehensive Income and Expenditure Statement This statement details income and expenditure relating to policing services. Contingent Liabilities Potential liabilities at the balance sheet date which depend on the occurrence or non-occurrence of one or more uncertain future events. The liabilities should be included in the balance sheet where it is probable that a loss will be incurred, which can be estimated reasonably accurately at the time the accounts are prepared. Otherwise, where the contingencies are likely to be material, the fact that they exist are disclosed as a note to the accounts. Creditors Amounts owed by the Chief Constable where payment has not been made by the balance sheet date. Current Assets An asset where the value changes, because the volume held varies from day to day, for example, stock. It is reasonable to expect that these assets will either be consumed or realised during the next accounting period. Current Liabilities An amount which will become payable or could be called in within the next accounting period. Current Service Cost The increase in the present value of a defined benefit pension scheme’s liabilities, expected to arise from employee service in the current financial year. It is the ultimate pension benefits “earned” by employees in the current year’s employment which will eventually entitle them to receive pension benefits when they arise. Curtailment For a defined benefit pension scheme, an event that reduces the expected years of future service of present employees or reduces the accrual of defined benefits for a number of employees, for some or all of their future service.

Page 89 of 188

Page 55

Debtors Amounts due to Greater Manchester Police that relate to the accounting period and have not been received by the balance sheet date. Defined Benefit Scheme This is a pension or other retirement benefit scheme other than a defined contribution scheme. Usually, the scheme rules define the benefits independently of the contributions payable and the benefits are not directly related to the investment of the scheme. The scheme may be funded or unfunded (including notionally funded). Earmarked Reserves These reserves represent the monies set aside that can only be used for a specific usage or purpose. Exceptional Items Material items deriving from events or transactions that fall within the ordinary activities of The Chief Constable, but which need to be separately disclosed by virtue of their size and/ or incidence to give a fair presentation of the accounts. Expenditure Costs incurred by the Chief Constable for goods received, services rendered or other value consumed during the accounting period, irrespective of whether or not any movement of cash has taken place. External Audit The independent examination of the activities and accounts of local authorities, to ensure the accounts have been prepared in accordance with legislative requirements and proper practices and to ensure The Chief Constable has made proper arrangements to secure value for money in his use of resources. GMCA (Greater Manchester Combined Authority) The GMCA assumed its powers on 1st April 2011 and took over functions which were previously the responsibility of the Greater Manchester Integrated Transport Authority (GMITA).

Income Amounts due to the Elected Mayor of Greater Manchester in respect of services performed, or grants receivable, during the accounting period, irrespective of whether or not any movement of cash has taken place. International Accounting Standard 19 (IAS 19) IAS 19 sets out the treatment of pensions and other forms of retirement benefits in an organisation’s statutory accounts. International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) A set of international financial accounting standards stating how particular types of transactions and other events should be reported in financial statements. IFRS are issued by the International Accounting Standards Board to make international comparisons as easy as possible. Inventories Raw materials and consumable items which have been procured in the name of the Elected Mayor of Greater Manchester to use on a continuing basis and have not been used by the end of the accounting period. Liabilities Amounts due to individuals or organisations, which will have to be paid at some time in the future. Material The concept that any omission from or inaccuracy in the statements of account should not be large enough to affect the understanding of those statements by a reader. Movement in Reserves Statement The movement in the year on the different reserves held by The Chief Constable, analysed into ‘usable reserves’ (i.e. those that can be applied to fund expenditure or reduce local taxation) and other reserves. Payments in Advance Amounts actually paid in an accounting period prior to the period in which they are due

Page 90 of 188

Page 56

Pension Strain Pension strain arises when an employee retires early without actuarial reduction of pension. Post Balance Sheet Event Events both favourable and unfavourable which occur between the balance sheet date and the date on which the financial statements are approved Prior Year Adjustments Material adjustments to the accounts of earlier years arising from changes in accounting policies or from the correction of fundamental errors. They do not include normal recurring corrections or adjustments of accounting estimates made in prior years. Provisions Amounts set aside in the accounts for liabilities or losses which are certain or very likely to occur, but where there is uncertainty as to the amounts involved or the dates on which they will arise. Receipts in Advance Amounts actually received in an accounting period prior to the period in which they are due. Reporting Standards The Code of Practice prescribes the accounting treatment and disclosures for all normal transactions of a Local Commissioner (For GMP, this is the Mayor). It is based on International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS), International Standards (IAS) and International Financial Reporting Interpretations Committee (IFRIC) plus UK Generally Accepted Accounting Practice (GAAP) and Financial Reporting Standards (FRS). Reserves Amounts set aside in the accounts to meet expenditure which the Mayor may decide to incur in future periods, but not allocated to specific liabilities which are certain or very likely to occur. Earmarked reserves are allocated to a specific purpose or area of spending. Revenue Contributions The method of financing capital expenditure directly from revenue.

Revenue Expenditure Day to day expenses, mainly salaries and wages, and general running costs. Service Reporting Code of Practice (SeRCOP) Prepared and published by CIPFA, the Service Reporting Code of Practice (SeRCOP) replaced the previous Best Value Accounting Code of Practice (BVACOP). It is reviewed annually to ensure that it develops in line with the needs of modern Local Government, Transparency, Best Value and public services reform. SeRCOP establishes proper practices with regard to consistent financial reporting for services and in England and Wales. It is given legislative backing by regulations which identify the accounting practices it propounds as proper practices under the Local Government Act 200

Page 91 of 188

Page 57

CHIEF CONSTABLE OF GREATER MANCHESTER POLICE ANNUAL GOVERNANCE STATEMENT 2018/19 1. Scope of Responsibilities 1.1 The Chief Constable holds office under the Crown, and is appointed by the Mayor. The Chief

Constable is accountable in law for the exercise of police powers and to the Mayor, during his term of office, for the delivery of efficient and effective policing, management of resources and expenditure by Greater Manchester Police (GMP). He is accountable for the functions of officers and staff under his or her employment, direction and control, and is held to account for specific matters set out in the Police and Social Responsibility Act 2011.

1.2 This statement has been prepared for the 2018-2019 financial year. The Elected Mayor of

Greater Manchester has responsibility for the totality of policing in Greater Manchester and is held to account by the Greater Manchester Police and Crime Panel, which consists of representatives from each district with crime and anti-social behaviour responsibilities. On 6 May 2017 the Mayor appointed a Deputy Mayor for Policing, Crime, Criminal Justice and Fire, to whom he has devolved certain responsibilities in respect of the police, with the exception of the duty to set a budget, the duty to prepare a Police and Crime Plan, and the appointment and removal of a Chief Constable. The purpose of the statement is to outline current governance arrangements, to report on their effectiveness during the year, and to outline future actions planned to further enhance the arrangements.

1.3 Ian Hopkins has held the office of Chief Constable since 30 October 2015. The

responsibilities and duties of a Chief Constable as a corporation sole are in accordance with the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011.

1.4 While the Chief Constable discharges his responsibilities in such a way as to assist the

Mayor with his functions, he remains at all times operationally independent in the service of the public.

1.5 In discharging their overall responsibilities, the Mayor and Chief Constable are responsible

for maintaining appropriate risk management processes, governance arrangements and ensuring there is a reliable system of internal control which supports those functions.

1.6 The Assistant Chief Officer (Resources) is the Chief Constable’s professionally qualified

Chief Finance Officer (CFO), as required by the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011. The role of the Chief Constable’s CFO is carried out in accordance with the CIPFA Statement on the Role of the Chief Finance Officer of the Chief Constable (July 2012).

1.7 Production of an Annual Governance Statement by the Chief Constable is a requirement

under the Accounts and Audit Regulations 2015 and ensures that a reliable system of internal controls can be demonstrated. The statement helps the Mayor to hold the Chief Constable to account. The statement forms part of the statutory accounts and provides assurance about GMP’s governance arrangements, approaches and controls.

1.8 A Statement of Assurance supports this Annual Governance Statement and has been signed

by the Chief Constable and the CFO (see Appendix 1).

Page 92 of 188

Page 58

2. The Governance Framework 2.1 This Annual Governance Statement has been prepared for the 2018-19 financial year and is

intended to state the governance arrangements of GMP, to report on the effectiveness of such arrangements, and to highlight key areas to be developed during the coming year (2019/20).

2.2 The governance framework comprises the systems, processes, culture and values by which

the Chief Constable directs and controls the conduct of business and the activities through which the organisations account to and engage with the community in relation to policing and crime. It enables the Chief Constable to monitor the achievements of their strategic objectives and to consider whether those objectives have led to the delivery of appropriate, cost-effective services, including achieving value for money.

2.3 GMP’s principal governance meetings and decision making structure are, in summary:

The Executive Committee (ExecCo) is the Chief Constable’s executive board. It is the senior decision-making board in GMP and is responsible for ensuring the Chief Constable’s responsibilities for the governance of the Force, responsibilities to the Mayor and other responsibilities under legislation are effectively discharged. The members of ExecCo are the Chief Constable (Chair), Deputy Chief Constable, Assistant Chief Constables, the Assistance Chief Officer (ACO) (Resources) or any officer acting as CFO in the absence of the ACO (Resources). The Chief Constable and his CFO discharge their statutory responsibilities in consultation with the board.

An Investment Committee, Revenue Review Group, Capital Review Group, Resources Board, Finance Governance Group, Human Resources (HR) Governance Group and Procurement Governance Group manage key financial, HR and procurement decisions. These bodies have decision-making and/or monitoring functions and representatives in accordance with the approved scheme of consent. They are chaired by the Assistant Chief Officer (Resources), or a person delegated under the Chief Constable’s Scheme of Delegation, with sub-groups and processes in place to support them.

GMP has an extensive Transformation and Change portfolio. The portfolio is managed and monitored by a Change Committee meeting chaired by the Chief Constable. There are subsidiary Programme and Project Boards to monitor and manage the progress of individual change programmes. The commissioning of new change projects and alignment of proposed change with GMP’s strategies and operating model is overseen by a Strategic Design Authority (SDA) meeting. A Business and Technical Advisory Group (BTAG) makes recommendations to these Boards and other meetings in respect of technical, financial and other implications of proposed change.

A Greater Manchester Joint Audit Panel and joint internal audit arrangements support the Chief Constable and the Mayor. The Greater Manchester Joint Audit Panel is chaired by an independent member, alongside four other independent members and representatives from the Force, Greater Manchester Combined Authority (GMCA), and Mazars (external audit to the Force).

2.4 As a member of the ExecCo and other decision-making committees, the Chief Constable’s

CFO is actively involved in, and able to bring influence to bear on, all strategic corporate decisions of GMP. The CFO leads the promotion and delivery of good financial management so that public money is safeguarded at all times and used appropriately, economically, efficiently and effectively. The CFO ensures the finance function is resourced to be fit for purpose and the management accounting systems, functions and internal controls are in place to ensure finances are kept under review on a regular basis.

2.5 A Scheme of Consent provides authority, within delegated limits, for the Chief Constable to

enter into contracts and make financial decisions on behalf of the Mayor. Authority to make

Page 93 of 188

Page 59

decisions is further delegated to committees or posts within the Chief Constable’s delegations. The Chief Constable’s CFO holds responsibilities for good financial management and decision making as set out in paragraphs 1.6 and 2.4 above.

3. Internal Financial Controls 3.1 Internal financial control systems are in place to minimise the risk of loss and unlawful

expenditure and to help deliver value for money. 3.2 The Chief Constable’s financial management framework, in conjunction with that of the

Mayor, is consistent with statutory, national and/or professional best practice and its key elements are set out below:

Financial Regulations are a documented set of procedures to secure the proper administration of the Chief Constable’s financial affairs. They are designed to ensure financial controls are conducted in a way which complies with statutory provision and reflects best professional practice.

Contract Standing Orders are a documented set of procedures relating to procurement, tenders and contracts to be followed in respect of contracts for the supply of goods and services.

The Chief Constable’s Scheme of Financial Delegation is a document from the Chief Constable assigning authority and responsibility to officers and staff to carry out specific activities or functions.

The Chief Constable's Financial Instructions provide detailed guidance on the operation of specific financial processes controlled by GMP.

4. Good Governance in the Police Service 4.1 In 2016 CIPFA, in association with the National Police Chiefs’ Council (NPCC) and other

bodies, issued best practice guidance on Delivering Good Governance in the Police Service. It sets out seven principles of good governance which are illustrated below.

Page 94 of 188

Page 60

Principles A and B permeate implementation of principles C to G. The diagram also illustrates that good governance is dynamic, and that an entity as a whole should be committed to improving on a continuing basis through a process of evaluation and review. 5. Implementing the Principles of Good Governance

Principle A Behaving with integrity, demonstrating strong commitment

to ethical values, and respecting the rule of law

5.1 The Chief Constable and Chief Officers individually and collectively apply the Principles of

Public Life (The Nolan Principles) in the discharge of their functions and seek to ensure their application by officers and staff across the Force as a whole.

5.2 The National Code of Ethics, as developed by the College of Policing, is a golden thread

throughout training, in particular around decision making and the use of the National Decision Model. GMP’s Organisational Learning and Workforce Development (OLWD) Branch are working closely with the Professional Standards Branch (PSB) to ensure that training to student officers includes standards of professional behaviour, as well as the more widely understood policing principles.

5.3 Furthermore, the Force continues to utilise the College of Policing’s Competency and Values

Framework, against which performance is assessed at promotion processes. The Competency and Values Framework also remains integral to the Personal Development Review (PDR) process for all officers and staff.

5.4 The Independent Ethics Committee continues to consider ethical issues within the policing

context, providing advice and challenge to GMP around ethical issues. The Independent Ethics Committee has revised the work plan for 2018/19 to cover, amongst other themes, use of spit hoods, stop and search, human tissue retention and a communications strategy. GMP has recently become a member of the newly established Northern Region Ethics Group, which feeds into the UK Police Ethics Governance Group.

5.5 All police officers and staff under the employment, direction and control of the Chief

Constable are subject to policies and procedures covering discipline, grievance, standards of conduct and professional behaviour. GMP’s PSB, under the direction of the Deputy Chief Constable, provides clear guidance on what GMP expects from all staff and, in particular, those in a leadership position.

5.6 GMP has adopted a number of policies to maintain professional standards and these policies

are up-to-date and working effectively. They include:

Gifts Hospitality and Discount Policy.

Lawful Business Monitoring (3ami Monitoring and Auditing System Policy) which assists with intelligence gathering and ensuring the right level of authority is applied to intrusive examination of GMP systems.

The Notifiable Associations Policy which allows officers and staff to declare associations where they suspect the associate is connected to criminality.

Business Interests’ Policy. 5.7 GMP has an established Reporting Concerns Policy and arrangements for confidential

integrity reporting (formerly whistleblowing) are in place. The policy sets out clear standards of professional behaviour expected of police officers and staff, together with the duty of the Force to ensure that reported concerns about improper or illegal behaviour are properly considered and responded to. GMP’s complaints processes and the operations of the PSB

Page 95 of 188

Page 61

are regularly reported to the Deputy Mayor, enabling oversight and scrutiny of GMP’s complaints process and to ensure issues of conduct are dealt with appropriately.

5.8 The Chief Constable and the Deputy Mayor’s Office have also agreed an Anti-Fraud and

Corruption Policy, in conjunction with staff associations and unions, the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) and Crimestoppers. GMP also participates in the National Fraud Initiative.

5.9 The Force has an established Organisational Learning Board (OLB) which gathers learning

from different sources including complaints and misconduct investigations both within the Force and nationally. Learning from Employment Tribunals is being monitored by the board.

5.10 GMP’s Human Resources policies include provision for staff to appeal against a range of

management decisions. These include appeals against decisions about grievances, discipline, flexible working, career breaks, officer postings, ill-health retirement, police staff early and flexible retirements, police staff redundancy, unsatisfactory performance, and attendance.

5.11 Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire and Rescue Services (HMICFRS)

conducted an inspection of GMP’s complaints handling and disciplinary arrangements, and other matters of organisational justice and procedural justice during the year. HMICFRS found GMP understood the importance of treating people fairly, behaving ethically and lawfully. HMICFRS also set out some areas for improvement which are being addressed. HMICFR’s findings are published in their report on GMP’s Legitimacy, as part of the Police Effectiveness, Efficiency and Legitimacy (PEEL) inspection programme of GMP.

Principle B Ensuring openness and comprehensive stakeholder engagement

5.12 The Chief Constable has specific responsibilities for ensuring GMP engages with local

people, under the terms of the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011. In summary, the Chief Constable must ensure GMP obtains the views of people in each neighbourhood; that information is provided to people about policing in their neighbourhood; and that there are regular meetings with local people in each neighbourhood.

5.13 GMP measures levels of customer satisfaction with a random selection of around 8000

victims of burglary, vehicle and violent crime. GMP also surveys victims of hate crime (450) and anti-social behaviour (ASB) (600). GMP takes service recovery action with people who report their experience of GMP’s services as being unsatisfactory. GMP also provides feedback to its branches and districts about survey results to help inform service improvement and acknowledges the good work of officers and staff who have been praised by respondents. GMP has recently invested in the commissioning of a new user friendly live dashboard and quarterly reporting mechanism, allowing GMP to be more visual and active with its performance data. GMP is introducing a new domestic abuse survey, accompanied by new focus groups, reports and videos to better develop the service provided.

5.14 GMP has a refreshed Equality, Diversity and Human Rights Strategy for 2018-21 and

delivery plan which embeds the Force’s equality objectives that focus on activity aligned to ‘Serving our Communities’, ‘Our People’ and ‘Organisational Processes’. This document sets out how the Chief Constable meets the requirements of the Public Sector Equality Duty and how GMP will deliver policing services, and manage the organisation, in ways that respect equality, diversity, and human rights. The Force has established governance arrangements to oversee and drive improvement in these respects, through a Confidence and Equality Board which is chaired by an Assistant Chief Constable for the service delivery activity and an Assistant Chief Officer for those focusing on our workforce.

Page 96 of 188

Page 62

5.15 GMP is developing a new Force Engagement Strategy which aims to provide a strategic

approach to enable and encourage the active participation of citizens and communities in policing. Through the Citizens in Policing Programme, GMP provides opportunities for members of the public to become Special Constables, Police Support Volunteers, Volunteer Police Cadet Leaders, or Police Cadets. This is integral to engagement and supports GMP in making communities safer, improving links in the community and reducing demand on policing.

5.16 GMP is committed to engagement and two-way communication with the people and

communities it serves, based on principles of openness and transparency. This focuses on keeping people informed, promoting security, listening to people and making improvements, and encouraging citizen involvement in policing. Examples include consultation on GMP’s first Citizen Contract which engaged over 2,500 people in an online survey and included more than 40 meetings taking place across Greater Manchester and also consultation on the Police and Crime Plan. A wide range of channels are used for these purposes, including digital channels, such as:

Neighbourhood meetings.

Local independent advisory groups.

Social media at neighbourhood level – Twitter and Facebook.

Social media at a corporate level – Twitter, Facebook, Flickr, YouTube, Instagram, Pinterest, and additional platforms are used as required for example, Kik, Periscope, and Storify.

Regular social media and web based chats to make the public aware of significant police operations and the reasons for them, as well as other policing matters of importance to the public.

Other online developments include the new GMP website, which allows the public to access information and online services. The “Your area” service provides an opportunity for the public to have their say on what policing issues matter to them.

Media liaison takes place to support policing priorities and includes regular opportunities to directly question the Chief Constable including through Radio Manchester phone-ins.

The Force continues to work with documentary makers to provide behind-the-scenes insight into areas of policing, operations, and campaigns.

5.17 The Force has a Transparency Scheme which means that it routinely publishes information

in accordance with the Information Commissioner’s Publication Scheme for the police service.

Principle C Defining outcomes in terms of sustainable

economic, social, and environmental benefits

5.18 The Mayor is required to publish a Police and Crime Plan, which sets out his local policing

priorities in the form of police and crime priorities, and specifies the resources the Mayor will provide to the Chief Constable. The Police and Crime Plan is produced in consultation with GMP taking into consideration any objectives set by the Government, including the Strategic Policing Requirement, and the views of the public and partners. The new Police and Crime Plan, ‘Standing Together’ was launched in March 2018 covering the period to 2021.

5.19 The priorities for GMP in the Police and Crime Plan for 2018-2021 are to:

Keeping people safe - Protecting and caring for people who live, work, socialise and travel in Greater Manchester. Protecting those who are vulnerable and those who are

Page 97 of 188

Page 63

victims of crime or at risk of being victimised. Building resilience, feelings of safety and confidence in policing and community safety.

Reducing harm and offending - Preventing anti-social and criminal behaviour including the most serious offending by solving problems, intervening early and rehabilitating offenders to build confidence in criminal justice.

Strengthening communities and places - Helping to build resilient and resourceful communities including online communities and protecting the places where people live, work, socialise or travel. Supporting the delivery of the Information Technology (IT) systems, buildings, roads, street lighting and other public assets needed to solve problems in a 21st century society.

5.20 The budget for GMP, as set by the Mayor, reflects the above and outlines the vision for

neighbourhood based policing which works in partnership with other agencies to improve access to services for the communities across Greater Manchester that are in greatest need.

5.21 The Chief Constable and ExecCo have determined a Target Operating Model (TOM) for the

future delivery of policing services. It sets out a vision, operating model, and key principles to guide the transformation and development of GMP over the period to 2022 to ensure GMP has the capacity and capabilities required to meet future policing demand. The TOM has mapped National Transformation programmes to maximise funding opportunities and sustainability of policing services, with recent work developing the environmental benefits and contribution to the Greater Manchester wide plan.

Principle D Defining the interventions necessary to optimise

the achievement of the intended outcomes

5.22 The purpose of Greater Manchester Police (GMP) is to protect society and help keep people

safe. This statement of purpose was adopted by the Chief Constable following consultation. 5.23 GMP's TOM Change Portfolio has five programmes, all of which support the delivery of the

TOM. The Force is supported in designing and delivering change through the recruitment of benefits realisation roles to ensure outcomes associated with the change are optimised, tracked and reported.

5.24 A number of operational structural changes have been designed within GMP's portfolio of

transformation and change, and are currently in delivery and implementation. The Investigation and Safeguarding Review (ISR) and operation ERGO ensure changes to District and place based resources are better aligned to service demand and provide effective leadership. GMP's portfolio of transformation and change is currently supporting delivery of the Force’s work to replace its core (IT) systems.

5.25 GMP have been actively contributing to a programme of public service reform in Greater

Manchester in partnership with the Greater Manchester Combined Authority (GMCA) and other partners, to make best use of joint resources and to deliver better outcomes for citizens and service users. The GMCA approach is set out in Greater Manchester’s Growth and Reform Plan, which underpins the overarching Greater Manchester Strategy. GMP’s TOM transformation programmes are aligned with the principles of public service reform.

Page 98 of 188

Page 64

Principle E Developing the entity’s capacity, including the capability

of its leadership and the individuals within it

5.26 The common purpose of the Chief Constable, the Mayor, and their respective roles, is

defined by legislation, in particular the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011. This, amongst other things, requires the Chief Constable to have regard to the Mayor’s Police and Crime Plan as well as the Policing Protocol 2011, which sets out the respective roles of the Chief Constable and Mayor in relation to each other.

5.27 The principle of good governance is also underpinned by:

The accountability of the Chief Constable to the Deputy Mayor for the performance of the Force and progress in meeting GMP’s contributions to the objectives and commitments made by the Mayor and Deputy Mayor in the Police and Crime Plan, Standing Together.

Statements setting out the portfolio held by each Chief Officer of GMP;

The appointment by the Chief Constable of a professionally qualified CFO;

A Scheme of Governance and Scheme of Consent set by the Commissioner, which sets out decisions that may be made by statutory officers within GMP and the Greater Manchester Combined Authority (GMCA), respectively. The Scheme of Consent provides authority for the Chief Constable, or others holding delegations from the Chief Constable, to make financial, HR, and certain other decisions on behalf of the Mayor, subject to limits defined in the scheme;

Contractual Standing Orders and Financial Instructions. 5.28 The Chief Constable’s Order (CCO) is the principal means by which GMP publishes Force

policy and has the status of a lawful order. Items published in the Order are effective from the publication date, or from a date specified in the item. Police officers are expected to read each weekly issue of the CCO to keep abreast of current policy/legislation, to keep themselves aware of any items relevant to their duties and to ensure they are acting lawfully at all times. Police staff are also encouraged to read the Orders and managers of police staff are expected to advise their teams of anything relevant within the Order that is applicable to them.

5.29 The Chief Constable has a statutory duty under the Police Reform and Social Responsibility

Act 2011 to keep opportunities for collaboration with other bodies (whether other Chief Constables or non-police bodies) under review. The Mayor has a parallel responsibility under the 2011 Act. The Chief Constable has entered into a number of collaborative and partnership developments, where the collaboration is in the interests of the efficiency or effectiveness of GMP and others. In particular there are collaborative arrangements with other police forces in the north-west, with the Greater Manchester Combined Authority (GMCA), Manchester City Council and with Trafford Borough Council from spring 2017. Each of these collaborations has joint governance arrangements in place.

5.30 The Chief Constable also has a statutory duty to co-operate with other bodies, such as local

authorities and criminal justice agencies, under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 and other legislation. The Chief Constable and the Force participates in a number of statutory and voluntary partnership arrangements, at Greater Manchester, district and neighbourhood levels, to reduce crime, promote effective criminal justice arrangements and make best use of joint partnership arrangements.

5.31 GMP has completed a number of reviews of its current operating arrangements during the

year and developed more effective arrangements, making better use of public money. There is work ongoing within GMP's change and transformation portfolio enabling the Force to focus on the development of GMP's people strategy, including personal development at all

Page 99 of 188

Page 65

levels and leadership support. The Force has begun a command and control review, which will provide greater ownership in responsibilities for incoming demand and release capacity of front line supervisors.

5.32 As GMP implements changes to processes and infrastructure, it is accompanied by

consultation with staff and with the public or other organisations, as appropriate, and by staff training and communications.

5.33 The Force undertakes regular Staff Engagement Surveys and widely publicises the work it

has undertaken and delivered in response to the issues raised through the survey, thereby demonstrating to its people how their voice has been valued. The survey also helped GMP articulate the leadership behaviours valued by the workforce and which will enable the Force to deliver its future operating model. The results of the 2018 survey show improvements in all areas of perceptions to differing levels since 2016.

5.34 GMP's Wellbeing Board, chaired by an Assistant Chief Officer, continues to oversee the wellbeing work of the Force. A force wellbeing ambition has been agreed together with four priority areas. A communications strategy is being developed to ensure the wider workforce are aware of what is available.

5.35 Leadership training has continued to develop across all ranks from sergeants to

superintendents. The Leadership Development Programme for superintendents is now inclusive of a one week technical skills course, together with four Continuous Professional Development (CPD) days per annum. This has enabled the leadership development to get up front for officers applying for promotion to superintendent.

5.36 GMP has worked with other organisations in the criminal justice system and with local

authorities to determine how public money can be better used across organisations to deliver efficiencies and improved outcomes for the public. In particular, a joint Transforming Justice Programme aims to reduce cost, enable justice (including community and restorative justice) to better serve the victims of crime, and reduce reoffending. Joint work with local authorities and other agencies also aims to reduce the demands placed on public services by troubled families and secure better prospects for these families and their children. Joint work with other law enforcement agencies, as well as local authorities and others, is also helping safeguard vulnerable people and helping the fight against organised crime. Integrated place-based working between the Force and other local agencies will continue to be rolled out further across Greater Manchester in the year ahead, together with the development of borough-based Public Service Hubs.

5.37 HMICFRS undertook an inspection of GMP’s efficiency and legitimacy in 2018 and observed

that GMP collaborates with other forces and agencies to improve its services and is good at treating the public and its workforce fairly. HMICFRS also continues to regard GMP’s effectiveness in tackling serious and organised crime as outstanding and that GMP has the capacity and capability to meet the strategic policing requirement in respect of armed policing. HMICFRS assessed, however, that a number of other aspects of GMP’s effectiveness requires improvement. HMICFRS has made recommendations and identified areas for improvement and these are being addressed by the Force.

Principle F Managing risks and performance through robust internal

control and strong public financial management

5.38 The Chief Constable has established a decision-making structure, summarised in 2.3 above,

for making key financial and corporate decisions. It is underpinned by arrangements which require the identification and management of risks, and the submission of business cases, for all significant decisions, under which all procurement decisions and expenditure are

Page 100 of 188

Page 66

subject to scrutiny by groups or boards established for the purpose. Their decisions and reports are reported for scrutiny and decision by, as appropriate, GMP’s Investment Committee, Resources Board, Change Committee, the Executive Committee and the Deputy Mayor.

5.39 Agendas and minutes from the Executive Committee are published on the GMP internet for

the information of the public, subject to confidentiality tests. 5.40 Major spending and other key decisions are referred by GMP to the Deputy Mayor for

decision in accordance with the terms of the Scheme of Consent. 5.41 The Chief Constable has delegated responsibility for the overall maintenance of effective risk

management arrangements to the Deputy Chief Constable who is the Senior Information Risk Owner.

5.42 Risk is managed within GMP through various means (including the maintenance of risk

registers or threat assessments with corresponding mitigation) by parts of the Force that manage key internal controls. An example of such controls are assessments that capture threats to business continuity; threats such as penetration of GMP’s computer systems; and financial, insurance and health and safety risks. GMP have a risk management policy and procedure, which is currently being updated to reflect the new work-in-progress extension to risk management procedures.

5.43 Risk and threat is routinely considered by senior leadership teams. Any risks that cannot be

managed locally as part of business-as-usual activities, due to interdependencies for example, are brought to the attention of Chief Officers and if appropriate, escalated for consideration at the Executive Committee (Exec Co) meetings. The Exec Co considers a Strategic Risk Register periodically during the year. The assessment and control of risk is also supported by the GMCA Internal Audit service which serves the Chief Constable and GMCA.

5.44 The Information Services Branch and the Information Security function continue to manage

information security requirements through many administrative, technical and physical controls. They are required to submit annual submissions to external bodies, including the National Police Information Risk Management Team (NPIRMT) and the Government Digital Services (GDS), for explicit approval to connect to national systems. This mechanism also provides internal assurance of risk management.

5.45 The performance of the Force is monitored and managed by an Operational Committee

which meets monthly and is chaired by the Deputy Chief Constable. This Committee was established during 2017/18 and provides scrutiny of Force performance and of progress against strategic priorities determined by a Force Control Strategy. As part of the control strategy there is daily and weekly governance to ensure any immediate threats are actioned promptly, whilst also working towards the bigger strategy. In addition, aspects of performance are monitored and managed by Monthly Force Performance and Vulnerability performance meetings, each chaired by an Assistant Chief Constable. Other performance management arrangements, specific to the portfolios held by each Chief Officer, are also in place within their individual management arrangements.

5.46 GMP’s work is periodically inspected by Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire

and Rescue Services (HMICFRS), whose purpose is to monitor and report on police forces and policing activity with the aim of encouraging improvement and providing public transparency. HMICFRS’s reports on GMP in 2018 can be found on their website. The Chief Constable is accountable to the Deputy Mayor for GMP’s response and actions in respect of the findings and recommendations of HMICFRS reports. The Mayor and Deputy Mayor have a statutory responsibility to publish a response to every HMICFRS report about GMP and policing nationally and they are published on the GMCA website.

Page 101 of 188

Page 67

5.47 The Chief Constable is held to account by the Deputy Mayor at monthly Executive Meetings.

The general arrangements, through which the Chief Constable is held to account, are set out in the Police and Crime Plan - ‘Standing Together’.

Principle G Implementing good practices in transparency, reporting,

and audit to deliver effective accountability

5.48 GMP conducts formal business at a number of meetings and, in the interests of openness

and transparency, board papers are made publicly available where possible subject to confidentiality tests.

5.49 The Force maintains a single Transparency Scheme that complies with the Freedom of

Information Act and the Information Commissioner’s Public Scheme for Police which is derived from the Act, alongside the requirements from the Equality Act 2010, the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011, the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and associated secondary legislation and good practice guidance. The scheme ensures that GMP satisfies the transparency requirements of these Acts and enhances public scrutiny by making a wide range of information publicly available.

5.50 The Chief Constable’s financial reporting, and audit arrangements are described earlier in

this Statement. Review of Effectiveness 5.51 Greater Manchester Police continually reviews the effectiveness of its system of internal

controls. Actions were identified for development in last year’s Annual Governance Statement and progress was made against these over the course of the year. It is summarised in the table below:

Governance Area

Action for 2019/20

Governance GMP’s governance arrangements continue to be refreshed and reviewed as part of the work to deliver the Target Operating Model. Please see below for Actions for 19/20.

Risk Management

GMP continues to strengthen its risk management and has provided tailored inputs to Chief Officers and other senior members of the organisation. The Force has also delivered training inputs to members of the Greater Manchester Joint Audit Panel on its risk management procedure.

5.52 There is more to be done in the year ahead to further develop the effectiveness of GMP’s

governance. These areas for development will form the basis for a governance action plan over the coming year. They are summarised in the table below:

Governance Area

Action for 2019/20

Governance and accountability

The Force will continue to review its governance arrangements in 2019/20. The principle aims are to increase efficiency and capacity of the Force through a redesigned meeting schedule with clear governance and to improve effectiveness through consistency and connectivity of decision making whilst operating with integrity and in accordance with the Code of Ethics.

Page 102 of 188

Page 68

APPENDIX 1 - CHIEF CONSTABLE ASSURANCE STATEMENT GMP is responsible for ensuring that its business is conducted in accordance with the law and proper standards, and that public money is safeguarded, properly accounted for, and used economically, efficiently and effectively. In discharging this overall responsibility, GMP is responsible for putting in place proper arrangements for the governance of its affairs, facilitating the effective exercise of its functions, which includes arrangements for the management of risk. The GMP Annual Governance Statement is designed to manage rather than eliminate the risk of failure to achieve these objectives; it can therefore only provide reasonable and not absolute assurance of effectiveness. We propose over the coming year to take steps to address the governance actions as outlined above to ensure governance arrangements within the Force continue to be enhanced. We are satisfied that these steps will address the need for improvements that were identified in our review of effectiveness and will monitor their implementation and operation as part of our next annual review. Ian Hopkins, Chief Constable of Greater Manchester Police 30 July 2019 Lynne Potts, Chief Finance Officer 30 July 2019

Page 103 of 188


Page 104 of 188

PEELPolice effectiveness, efficiency andlegitimacy 2018/19

An inspection of Greater Manchester Police

Page 105 of 188

Contents

What this report contains 1

Force in context 3

Overall summary 4

Effectiveness 7

Force in context 8

How effectively does the force reduce crime and keep people safe? 10

Summary 10

Preventing crime and tackling anti-social behaviour 11

Investigating crime 14

Protecting vulnerable people 17

Tackling serious and organised crime 23

Armed policing 23

Efficiency 25

Force in context 26

How efficiently does the force operate and how sustainable are its services? 27

Summary 27

Meeting current demands and using resources 27

Planning for the future 35

Legitimacy 42

Force in context 43

How legitimately does the force treat the public and its workforce? 45

Summary 45

Treating the public fairly 46

Ethical and lawful workforce behaviour 47

Treating the workforce fairly 50

Annex A – About the data 56

Page 106 of 188

What this report contains

This report is structured in four parts: 1. Our overall assessment of the force’s 2018/19 performance. 2. Our judgments and summaries of how effectively, efficiently and legitimately the

force keeps people safe and reduces crime. 3. Our judgments and any areas for improvement and causes of concern for each

component of our inspection. 4. Our detailed findings for each component.

Our inspection approach

In 2018/19, we adopted an integrated PEEL assessment (IPA) approach to our existing PEEL (police effectiveness, efficiency and legitimacy) inspections. IPA combines into a single inspection the effectiveness, efficiency and legitimacy areas of PEEL. These areas had previously been inspected separately each year.

As well as our inspection findings, our assessment is informed by our analysis of: • force data and management statements; • risks to the public; • progress since previous inspections; • findings from our non-PEEL inspections; • how forces tackle serious and organised crime locally and regionally; and • our regular monitoring work.

We inspected all forces in four areas: • protecting vulnerable people; • firearms capability; • planning for the future; and • ethical and lawful workforce behaviour.

We consider the risk to the public in these areas important enough to inspect all forces every year.

We extended the risk-based approach that we used in our 2017 effectiveness inspection to the efficiency and legitimacy parts of our IPA inspections. This means that in 2018/19 we didn’t inspect all forces against all areas. The table below shows the areas we inspected Greater Manchester Police against.

Page 107 of 188

https://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmicfrs/police-forces/integrated-peel-assessments/

Our 2017 judgments are still in place for the areas we didn’t inspect in 2018/19.

IPA area Inspected in 2018/19? Preventing crime and anti-social behaviour Yes Investigating crime Yes Protecting vulnerable people Yes Tackling serious and organised crime No Firearms capability Yes Meeting current demands Yes Planning for the future Yes Treating the public fairly No Ethical and lawful workforce behaviour Yes Treating the workforce fairly Yes

Page 108 of 188

Force in context

Page 109 of 188

Overall summary

Effectiveness Requires improvement

Last inspected

Preventing crime and tackling anti-social behaviour

Requires improvement 2018/19

Investigating crime Requires improvement

2018/19

Protecting vulnerable people Requires improvement

2018/19

Tackling serious and organised crime

Outstanding 2016/17

Armed response capability Ungraded 2018/19

Efficiency Requires improvement

Last inspected

Meeting current demands and using resources

Requires improvement 2018/19

Planning for the future Requires improvement

2018/19

Page 110 of 188

Legitimacy Good

Last inspected

Fair treatment of the public Good

2016/17

Ethical and lawful workforce behaviour

Good 2018/19

Fair treatment of the workforce Good

2018/19

Page 111 of 188

HM Inspector’s observations

I am satisfied with some of Greater Manchester Police’s performance. But in some areas the force needs to make improvements.

The force needs to improve how it prevents crime and anti-social behaviour. It needs to assure itself it has the capability and capacity to provide a consistent, effective neighbourhood policing service.

The force is very good at dealing with serious and organised crime. But it needs to improve the quality and supervision of investigations into less serious crime.

Following our last inspection, I was concerned that the force was inconsistent in how it responded to vulnerable people. I am disappointed that it hasn’t fully addressed this. I remain concerned that the force may not be adequately protecting people at risk.

The force needs to improve how it understands current and future demand. This should help it develop clear plans to make sure it uses its resources effectively.

I am reassured that the force continues to uphold an ethical culture and promote standards of professional behaviour well.

My overall assessment is that Greater Manchester Police’s performance has declined since our last inspection.

Phil Gormley

HM Inspector of Constabulary

Page 112 of 188

https://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmicfrs/glossary/anti-social-behaviour/

https://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmicfrs/glossary/serious-organised-crime/

https://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmicfrs/glossary/vulnerable-people/

Effectiveness

Page 113 of 188

Force in context

Page 114 of 188

Page 115 of 188

How effectively does the force reduce crime and keep people safe?

Requires improvement

Summary

Greater Manchester Police requires improvement in the way it reduces crime and keeps people safe.

The force should improve how it tackles crime and anti-social behaviour. It doesn’t have enough officers to carry out preventative activity, but is working to address this. The force should monitor how often it uses neighbourhood officers on other duties. This would ensure they have enough time to solve problems in their own wards.

The force should also improve how it investigates crime. It doesn’t always supervise investigations well enough. The force sometimes responds to high demand by downgrading incidents, resulting in delays. These delays can cause victims to disengage from the investigation, resulting in fewer positive outcomes.

Greater Manchester Police requires improvement in the way it protects vulnerable people. The force doesn’t have a clear process for deploying specialist investigators when interviewing vulnerable victims. This means vulnerable victims don’t always get support right away. In our 2017 effectiveness inspection, we were concerned about the way the force responds to vulnerable people at risk. This meant that evidence might be lost and victims put at risk.

In 2017 we also recommended the force ask victims of domestic abuse about their experience. It hasn’t done this yet. We recommend the force extends how it assesses vulnerable people at first point of contact. It always assesses people who call about sexual offences and hate crime. But it may not assess the vulnerability of other callers, particularly when its control room is dealing with high demand for service.

In 2016, we judged Greater Manchester Police outstanding at tackling serious and organised crime.

Page 116 of 188

https://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmicfrs/peel-assessments/peel-2017/greater-manchester/effectiveness/

Preventing crime and tackling anti-social behaviour


Greater Manchester Police requires improvement in the way it tackles crime and anti-social behaviour.

The force doesn’t have enough officers to do prevention work. It is seeking to address this by introducing a new neighbourhood policing model. It wasn’t clear to us that neighbourhood officers understood the force’s vision for neighbourhood policing. The force has a draft strategy, but should ensure the workforce puts this into practice.

Neighbourhood officers stated they were frequently abstracted from their duties onto other jobs, resulting in less time problem solving in their wards. The force should monitor the impact of this.

The force recruited 50 more neighbourhood officers this year. This is a positive step.

Greater Manchester Police has place-based teams that collaborate with other organisations to address crime and anti-social behaviour. Less positively, most neighbourhood officers have not been trained recently in problem solving.

We saw good practice in the way the force uses evidence-based practice to tackle crime and anti-social behaviour. In particular, its ‘hotspot pulse policing’ operation led to a reduction in crime and incidents.

We set out our detailed findings below. These are the basis for our judgment of the force’s performance in this area.

Areas for improvement • The force should ensure its engagement and prevention strategy is part of

routine workforce activity to provide consistent neighbourhood policing. • The force should ensure that it monitors abstractions for neighbourhood beat

officers to enable problem-solving activity. • The force should give neighbourhood beat officers the training and skills for

their role.

Page 117 of 188

Prioritising crime prevention

We last inspected preventing crime and tackling anti-social behaviour in 2016 and assessed the force as good at keeping people safe and reducing crime. In 2016, the force introduced a new local policing model to attempt to strengthen neighbourhood policing. The force recognises that this model did not fully meet its needs. In response to this, it is looking again at its local policing structures to build greater capacity within its neighbourhood patrol function. The aim is to ensure that neighbourhood patrol officers can respond to calls for service more effectively. Once this is achieved, it should mean that dedicated neighbourhood beat officers are not taken away from their main role. They should then be able to focus on crime prevention, problem solving and tackling anti-social behaviour. However, these changes are not yet fully in place across the force. This has an adverse effect on the current capacity to prevent crime and tackle anti-social behaviour.

We found that the force has no overall neighbourhood policing strategy in place. It is perhaps because of this that most of the neighbourhood staff we spoke to did not have a clear understanding of the force’s vision for neighbourhood policing. There is, however, the draft engagement and prevention strategy and a defined model for operational policing delivery, known as the target operating model (TOM). This document defines the force’s purpose and commitments to the community, and includes an overarching strategy for organisational change. Neighbourhood managers told us that this provides sufficient guidance for them to direct neighbourhood activity. The force should satisfy itself that this guidance is being communicated effectively to frontline officers and staff.

The force has completed a self-assessment against the College of Policing’s Guidelines for Neighbourhood Policing. From this, it understands some of the gaps in its provision. It recognises that the marked increase in the rate of recorded crime and the consequent pressure to deal with calls for service from the public have affected its ability to resource and prioritise crime prevention and problem solving.

The majority of neighbourhood beat officers we spoke to told us that they were regularly taken away from their neighbourhood beat role to support neighbourhood patrol officers in dealing with calls for service. This reduced their ability to concentrate on problem-solving activity in their wards. We found that the force has no policy or measures in place to monitor the impact of this. This means it doesn’t fully understand the frequency of the removal of officers or the effect on problem-solving, engagement and prevention activity. By contrast, we found that in Oldham and Tameside, where the force’s new operating model is fully in place, neighbourhood beat officers felt more able to focus on ward activity, even though they were still providing some support to neighbourhood patrol. The force intends to implement the new model across all areas by May 2019, to improve capacity to respond and support prevention activity.

During our inspection, we viewed the force’s public-facing website. We found that it displayed out-of-date information about neighbourhood surgeries and meetings for some areas. This impedes the public’s ability to inform the force of community concerns and agree local priorities. To build community confidence, the force should address this and ensure that the information displayed is up to date.

Page 118 of 188

https://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmicfrs/glossary/police-staff/

https://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmicfrs/glossary/college-of-policing/

This year, the force has provided an additional 50 neighbourhood beat officers. It intends to add a further 50 officers at the beginning of the next financial year. This is a positive step towards rebuilding problem-solving capacity.

Protecting the public from crime

Greater Manchester Police now has place-based teams in some locations. We are pleased that the force is adopting a partnership approach to problem solving and demand reduction. These teams, either virtually or physically co-located, work collaboratively to address crime and anti-social behaviour. During our inspection, we found some officers who were able to clearly articulate the threats facing their communities. We found that understanding was generally better within place-based teams, where there is clear involvement with other partner organisations to identify concerns and tackle them together.

The force has good relationships with the ten local authority areas. There are regular meetings with partner agencies to share information on both a strategic and tactical level, and to identify priorities. Across Greater Manchester, 23,000 families have engaged with the Troubled Families programme, a government scheme to offer support to disadvantaged families. The Greater Manchester Combined Authority has a target to increase this to 27,300 families by 2020. The force makes effective use of crime prevention campaigns at peak times throughout the year – for example, Christmas and Halloween – and tackles identified crime and anti-social behaviour trends in partnership. Neighbourhood beat officers we spoke with understood the range of powers available to them for tackling crime and anti-social behaviour. Stockport’s Operation Barometer is an example of a positive response to rising levels of youth anti-social behaviour. Working together with partners, a dispersal order was put in place and 15 young people then became the subject of criminal behaviour orders, resulting in reduced anti-social behaviour. The force also uses other tactics, for example its targeted activity in specific locations with high rates of crime – a ‘hotspot pulse policing’ operation in Stretford Mill and Eden Square led to reductions in crime and incidents.

Most of the officers we spoke to had no or limited knowledge of community or ward profiles and were not able to demonstrate how to access them on force systems. Some referred to the ‘Know Your Community Report’ but it was not clear whether this is still in use with the pending implementation of a new computer system – the integrated operational policing system (iOPS). This means that neighbourhood beat officers and police community support officers (PCSOs) currently may have limited access to information that would support a broader understanding of their communities.

We found that few neighbourhood staff had received any recent formal training in problem solving. As a consequence, many staff did not appear to use a structured problem-solving model for crime reduction and prevention activity. While there are plans for iOPS to include a problem-solving template for officers and staff, we understand that this won’t be ready for release when the system goes live early in 2019. The force should ensure that all neighbourhood beat officers and PCSOs receive problem-solving training to build their capabilities, so they can undertake effective activity.

Page 119 of 188

https://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmicfrs/glossary/criminal-behaviour-order/

https://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmicfrs/glossary/criminal-behaviour-order/

Greater Manchester Police is developing its approach to evidence-based practice (EBP) to tackle crime and anti-social behaviour. A strategic board directs a range of research activity with academic partners and manages a programme of testing and evaluating tactics to improve its effectiveness in preventing and reducing crime. Across the force there are 81 EBP-trained ‘champions’ who use the OSARA (objective, scanning, analysis, response, assessment) problem-solving methodology to develop problem-oriented policing plans. Examples include reducing demand in Stockport through ‘hotspot pulse policing’; reducing firework-related criminality within Tameside; and reducing commercial burglaries in targeted locations under Operation Guard. The force intends to hold an event in early 2019 to share learning from these EBP approaches. This should help the force to improve its ability to manage and reduce demand in local policing.

We found that officers and staff trained as EBP champions are using OSARA methodology. The force may wish to consider how this learning can be further developed across the whole organisation to improve crime prevention.

Investigating crime


Greater Manchester Police requires improvement in the way it investigates crime.

The force doesn’t have enough accredited detectives, but plans to address this through recruitment.

The force’s crime management policy means that it finalises some solvable crimes without further investigation. We saw some incidents were downgraded because of delays caused by high demand. Not all callers were told about delays. Some victims distanced themselves from the investigation as a result. This makes positive outcomes less likely. The force should improve its regular and active supervision of investigations.

We found that the force had inappropriately assigned some investigations to neighbourhood officers. We referred these to supervisors.

The force has no clear process for allocating specialist investigators to interview vulnerable victims. It relies on officers volunteering their skills, and staff felt there were not enough of these trained officers. This means that vulnerable victims may not get prompt support. This is an area for improvement.

Areas for improvement • The force should ensure the availability of Achieving Best Evidence-trained

staff provides vulnerable victims with the necessary support. • The force should ensure regular and active supervision of the quality and

progress of investigations. This supervision should be properly recorded.

Page 120 of 188

https://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmicfrs/glossary/scanning-analysis-response-assessment/


Investigation quality

Greater Manchester Police recognises that it doesn’t currently have enough trained and accredited detectives to meet its demand. The force has plans in place to address this and has introduced an investigative capacity and capability board that will prioritise the filling of detective vacancies. In June 2018, there were 260 vacancies, but the figure had reduced to 150 at the time of our inspection. The force intends to put 141 officers through the Initial Crime Investigators Development Programme during the 2019/20 financial year.

The force is improving how it investigates crime. It has a crime standards improvement plan. This incorporates actions to address the areas for improvement we identified during our 2017 effectiveness inspection, including the effectiveness of evidence recovery at crime scenes. The detective chief inspector within each division chairs a local governance meeting to improve the standard of supervision of investigations. In addition, the force has taken steps to improve its approach to the national crime recording standard (NCRS), compliance with the Code of Practice for Victims of Crime, rape investigation standards and compliance with the Professionalising Investigations Programme (PIP), the structured development programme for investigative skills for police officers and police staff.

The force also has a crime management policy which provides guidance on the allocation and investigation of crimes. The force operates a crime screening policy which considers viable lines of enquiry and public interest factors in determining whether a crime is investigated or screened out (that is, filed without further action). The decision on how to make progress with an investigation is taken by the force’s crime progression teams. During our inspection, we found examples of crimes that were finalised without investigation even though there were clear lines of enquiry that could have been followed up. Some of these included offences of domestic burglary. This means that victims of crime are potentially not receiving a satisfactory level of service.

During our fieldwork, we found some examples of crime-related incidents where due to other competing priorities the response had been delayed and resources had not been deployed to the scene. It was a common feature within these examples that opportunities for effective evidence gathering during the ‘golden-hour’ period were hampered or lost altogether. Prior to our fieldwork, we carried out a crime file review of 89 investigations that were randomly selected from a three-month period and found that some victims had disengaged from the police because of what were, in some cases, long delays in attending the original incident. It was also the case that some callers were not kept sufficiently informed or notified about the delays in response. Of these 89 investigations, we found that effective or appropriate supervision was evident in 60 of them. We identified this as an area for improvement following our 2017 effectiveness inspection. This year, while there was evidence of directed supervision and review of ongoing investigations for more serious offences, we found that some lower-level offences had not had the same level of scrutiny. Despite this, in most cases that we examined we found that the investigation was effective and 71 out

Page 121 of 188


https://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmicfrs/glossary/professionalising-investigations-programme/


of 89 demonstrated good victim care. In three quarters of the investigations, 67 out of 89, all appropriate lines of enquiry were completed.

However, we did find some examples of investigations that had been inappropriately allocated to neighbourhood beat and patrol officers. Examples included serious assault offences within a prison, and an investigation relating to an organised crime group.

Achieving Best Evidence (ABE) investigators are trained specifically to support vulnerable victims and witnesses. The force doesn’t have a clear process for assigning these trained staff to investigations where vulnerability is a factor. Rather, there is an informal arrangement in which officers send an email to find a volunteer to assist. The force needs to ensure that the availability of ABE-trained staff is appropriate to meet demand. It should also put in place a clear process so that vulnerable victims needing services receive crucial and prompt support. The force does pursue justice even when victims don’t support action. We found some examples where the use of body-worn video cameras meant that such cases resulted in a positive outcome.

Catching criminals

The force needs to improve how it catches criminals and resolves investigations. Through its local and force daily management meetings (known as Pacesetter), it keeps an overview of the pursuit of wanted persons, focusing on risk and vulnerability. Officers are aware of the police national computer (PNC) circulation processes, and responsibility for investigating the crime stays with the officer. Officers can identify wanted persons within their area via the menu on the force’s computer system.

In the force’s local crime governance meetings, officers discuss suspects who are named as wanted on the PNC. These meetings provide scrutiny to ensure that such cases are promptly resolved by officers.

We found positive use of foreign national referrals processes to ACRO, with 2,784 referrals made in the last financial year. However, the force acknowledges that it doesn’t have a force-wide monitoring system to review the results of referrals made. This information is held within districts and there is no central overview of foreign-national offending.

When we spoke with agencies dealing with mental health, concerns were raised about the lack of police prosecutions where service users had assaulted the staff. The force may wish to review such cases and build understanding to ensure that officers are taking forward investigations appropriately.

The force’s use of pre-charge and post-charge bail, as well as released under investigation (RUI), are discussed at force level. We found that both pre-charge and post-charge bail, as well as RUI rates, remain relatively consistent with 2017. The criminal justice team provides some dip sampling of bail timeliness on a risk basis. The force is currently revising its bail policy to include RUI and intends to take steps to ensure that records are closed promptly. Numbers of open RUI records on the force’s custody and case management system that indicate a disposal decision – that is, an alternative to prosecution – are monitored and being addressed.

Page 122 of 188

https://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmicfrs/glossary/body-worn-video/

https://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmicfrs/glossary/acro/

https://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmicfrs/glossary/bail/

https://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmicfrs/glossary/released-under-investigation/

https://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmicfrs/glossary/released-under-investigation/

The criminal justice team also provides scrutiny of file quality, with data showing the number of satisfactory files and those where interventions have been needed to improve quality, this is being used to guide learning and improvement. The force also monitors and acts to reduce open crime records. We found that the number of open records has reduced from 28,000 in June 2018 to 22,500 at the time of inspection.

The force is aware of its responsibilities for disclosure and has trained 60 subject-matter experts to give basic training to officers and advanced disclosure training to detectives. We found some supervisors, both in uniform and in detective roles, had received disclosure training in the last 12 months, and there is an e-learning package which all officers must complete. There are plans to give additional training to the workforce before the end of this financial year, which is a positive step.

Outcome data for Greater Manchester Police shows that for 2017/18, action was taken in 8.5 percent of crimes – for example, a caution or charge. This is lower than the national rate of 14.6 percent, and lower than the rate observed in the force in 2017: 13.8 percent. But set against this is the fact that the force has made some progress in the accuracy of its crime recording and last year recorded an extra 70,000 crimes. This may in part explain the drop in positive action, but the force should ensure that it fully understands the reasons for the reduction in action taken for recorded crime and address any emerging issues.

Protecting vulnerable people


Greater Manchester Police requires improvement in how it protects vulnerable people. It is still not responding appropriately to some vulnerable people when they are at risk. This means it is missing chances to safeguard victims and secure evidence. We made recommendations to help it improve in this area.

The force needs to improve some aspects of its understanding of vulnerability. Staff assess callers’ vulnerability with a commonly used model, STRIVE (safeguarding, threat, risk, investigation, victim and engagement). But the force only requires the use of this model in sexual offences and hate crime. For other crime types, call handlers are not required to use STRIVE at times of high demand. Consequently the force may not always identify vulnerability immediately.

The force doesn’t always respond quickly enough to incidents involving vulnerable people. We saw evidence of delays caused by high demand. And we saw that incidents were downgraded without a recorded reason.

In our 2017 effectiveness report, we found an area for improvement and recommended the force survey domestic abuse victims. The force hasn’t yet done this. But it does get feedback from victims of child sexual exploitation and victims of hate crime.

We found the force’s scrutiny of registered sex offenders to be robust and its management of them proactive.

Page 123 of 188

https://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmicfrs/glossary/disclosure/

https://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmicfrs/glossary/safeguarding/



Understanding and identifying vulnerability

Greater Manchester Police needs to improve some aspects of how it understands and identifies vulnerability. The force has a vulnerability board that oversees progress against its vulnerability action plans. These are linked to the seven strands of the national vulnerability plan, but we found that some, including the child sexual exploitation and human trafficking action plans, were only in draft form at the time of our inspection. The force uses a clear definition of vulnerability:

A person may be vulnerable by reason of age and/or their circumstances, or who suffers from mental or physical disabilities, illness or other such special feature which renders them either permanently or temporarily unable to care for or protect themselves against harm or exploitation.

During fieldwork, we found that officers and staff understood vulnerability and could describe it in their own words. There was some evidence that officers understood hidden harm and considered it when responding to incidents.

We visited each control room during our fieldwork. Staff use the STRIVE risk assessment model to identify vulnerability and prioritise responses to calls from the public. However, we found that use of this risk assessment model is only required for rape, other sexual offences and hate crime. It is left to the discretion of the call handler to use STRIVE for other calls, depending on the volume coming into the control room and gaps in staffing. This impairs the ability of call handlers to correctly identify all vulnerability at the first point of contact, to assess and record risk, and manage priorities effectively. We consider this to be a risk for the force. It should satisfy itself that it understands at first point of contact all aspects of a person’s potential vulnerability, so the risk is understood and managed effectively.

Cause of concern

Greater Manchester Police is failing to respond appropriately to some people who are vulnerable and at risk. This means that it is missing some opportunities to safeguard victims and secure evidence at the scene and victims are being put at risk.

Recommendations • The force should increase its use of STRIVE within the control room (OCB) to

ensure that it appropriately identifies and responds to all vulnerability. • The force should improve its response to calls for service and its initial

investigation for all vulnerable victims.

Area for improvement • The force should implement its domestic abuse survey process without

further delay.

Page 124 of 188

The force has recently introduced a vulnerability support unit into the operational communications branch at Claytonbrook, but this hasn’t yet been evaluated. The unit provides supporting activity for incidents relating to missing people and mental health. The force is planning to expand the role of the unit to include all incidents that have a vulnerability, domestic abuse or child abuse marker, irrespective of the nature of the incident. We believe this is a positive step that will help the force to understand any vulnerability that is not evident at first contact, and to support better management of demand. Staff we spoke to were not aware of the unit’s role. The force may wish to consider how it can more effectively promote the vulnerability support unit to its officers and staff, to build strength in the assessment of and response to, vulnerability.

Greater Manchester Police has a grading system to prioritise response to incoming calls, each with its own target time. Grade 1 emergency calls should be attended within 15 minutes, Grade 2 priority calls within 1 hour, Grade 3 routine responses within 4 hours, Grade 4 scheduled calls within 48 hours and Grade 5 calls resolved at first point of contact by telephone. We found that supervisors use STRIVE to downgrade some incidents initially graded as emergency and priority calls that are not responded to within the required response times. Some STRIVE assessments were found to be lacking in detail. There was also evidence that some re-assessments had been made without additional background information. During October 2018, a total of 2,090 Grade 2 priority calls and 3,109 Grade 3 routine calls were downgraded to Grade 4. We found that there was no clear governance, audit or rational for these decisions. The force needs to be satisfied that when incidents are downgraded, the decision to do so is based on thorough risk assessment.

Responding to incidents

Greater Manchester Police doesn’t respond quickly enough to all incidents involving vulnerable people to keep them safe. We conducted fieldwork within the force control rooms and found that many logs showed a delayed response, due to the level of demand and resources available to attend.

Data we examined for September 2018 showed that for Grade 1 incidents, all but one district met the 15-minute target response time. However, the average response time for Grade 2 incidents exceeded the target, with attendance times ranging from four hours and 36 minutes in Bolton to eight hours 58 minutes for Tameside. These incidents should be responded to within one hour.

Our snapshot of open incidents for one day showed 282 out of 811 had vulnerability markers. Of these, 98 had been graded as Grade 4 scheduled calls. There were 42 domestic abuse calls designated as Grade 4 even though it is force policy to grade response to domestic abuse calls no lower than Grade 2. The force can upgrade or downgrade incidents depending on any risk posed to the victim. However, it has limited data, and without context, it is difficult to identify the number of domestic abuse calls that were either escalated or downgraded. This raises concern about how effectively the force is responding to calls involving vulnerable people, the impact upon safeguarding and preventing further harm, as well as ‘golden-hour’ investigations. Our crime file review found similar issues with some incidents involving vulnerability being downgraded to be resolved without deployment of a resource.

Page 125 of 188

Domestic abuse, stalking and harassment, and honour-based violence (DASH) risk assessments are not completed until an officer attends a call for service. This means that for some calls, there is a delay in providing detailed understanding of the risk posed to a victim and there is potential for safeguarding to be missed.

The problem of delay is compounded by the practice of keeping some incidents open for supervisor administrative purposes after they have been attended. The limitations of the force command and control system create difficulties for dispatchers in understanding what is a ‘live’ call for response and what is an open incident that has been attended. We saw that each incident must be opened in turn to determine whether action has been taken and if the incident needs resourcing. This means that victims may be being put at risk through unnecessary and avoidable delays in attending some calls. The force needs to review its processes to ensure that it manages open incidents appropriately.

Officers and staff can show whether they’re committed, or free for deployment to incidents, using status codes which are visible to operational communications branch operators. We found that some officers and staff may be using the ‘State 8’ code (unavailable to be deployed to incidents) inappropriately. This means that fewer resources can be deployed, delaying the response to incidents in these cases. The force is aware of these issues and is taking steps to address and improve resource management.

We found that when officers attend incidents they mostly identify vulnerability, where present, and it features within the standardised investigation plan template for crime investigations. We found positive evidence that DASH and vulnerability risk assessments were completed where required. During our inspection, we examined several DASH risk assessments completed by officers. We established that these were thorough, and they contained relevant information and initial safeguarding actions, including the ‘voice of the child’.

Our contact with public protection investigation units and multi-agency safeguarding hubs (MASH) showed they had confidence in the ability of officers to complete thorough risk assessments for domestic abuse and other referrals. Greater Manchester Police is reviewing the DASH process to further improve its service to vulnerable victims and will be trialling alternative approaches during this year. There should be governance control for these pilots through the force’s overarching vulnerability board, but the force will need to provide clear messages to staff to ensure that the differing approaches are understood.

The force introduced mental health practitioners into the operational communications branch in August 2018. These are based within the vulnerability support unit. The team has access to NHS computer systems across the three Greater Manchester mental health trusts and now provides a 24-hour triage service of mental health incidents across the force area for officers. This should mean the force is better placed to prioritise vulnerability and respond to calls for service in the future. Early indications are that this approach is reducing demands on patrol officers.

Officers and supervisors told us that positive action is expected when dealing with domestic abuse cases, but currently the arrest rate doesn’t reflect this. The force has also engaged with partner organisations to introduce Operation Encompass,

Page 126 of 188

https://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmicfrs/glossary/dash/

https://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmicfrs/glossary/multi-agency-safeguarding-hub-mash/

https://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmicfrs/glossary/multi-agency-safeguarding-hub-mash/

https://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmicfrs/glossary/street-triage/

https://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmicfrs/glossary/op-encompass/

enabling the sharing of information about domestic abuse cases with schools and support for safeguarding.

Supporting vulnerable victims

The force supports vulnerable victims well. It uses some neighbourhood resources, particularly PCSOs who conduct follow-up reassurance visits, to ensure the continued safeguarding of vulnerable and repeat victims. We found a good understanding of continued safeguarding responsibilities in domestic abuse cases. Officers showed us a booklet that they use to provide victims with useful contact details for partner support agencies.

We found that officers were aware of and considered using domestic violence protection orders (DVPOs) and domestic violence protection notices (DVPNs) while investigating domestic abuse, particularly where the victim was not supporting a prosecution. We found that these orders are recorded locally, but it was not clear how this process supported or directed active monitoring of breaches. The force has data for the number of breaches for DVPOs and DVPNs. There were 126 breaches from 594 DVPOs and 18 breaches from 629 DVPNs in the 12 months to 31 March 2018. Overall, Greater Manchester shows good use of DVPOs, with an increase in numbers obtained compared to last year. Breach rates remain consistent with the levels we found in our 2017 effectiveness inspection.

The force also responds effectively to requests for disclosure under Clare’s Law, and we found evidence of it proactively seeking opportunities within the early help and safeguarding hub (EHASH) and MASH arrangements to disclose.

MASH arrangements don’t follow a consistent model across the ten districts in the force, due to differing levels of engagement from partner agencies. The force may benefit from sharing the learning from the practice seen by inspectors within the EHASH at Rochdale. This appeared to be an effective arrangement for managing risk both within and outside core hours, and for engagement with partners. We are aware that, following implementation of the investigation safeguarding review, police safeguarding resources for Manchester City District will be based in three MASHs rather than one. This will mean that adult social care will no longer be co-located in each of the three multi-agency teams within that district.

In all but one district, Greater Manchester Police has clear processes in place to refer all high-risk domestic abuse cases to a multi-agency risk assessment conference (MARAC). We found a local process had been introduced in the MASH at Wigan which means not all high-risk cases were referred to a MARAC, other than new or externally referred cases. We highlighted this to the force during our inspection and we are pleased to learn that the force has already made a local change to address this issue. We found that there are some backlogs in medium-risk domestic abuse queues within MASH arrangements. The force needs to assure itself that referrals are not being missed through these delays.

Officers within the public protection investigation units have processes to refer cases that are considered ‘away from home’ to the relevant outside police force and to children’s services to ensure continued safeguarding. The force participates in Operation Encompass and we found that some neighbourhood beat officers we spoke

Page 127 of 188

https://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmicfrs/glossary/domestic-violence-protection-notice-or-order/

https://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmicfrs/glossary/domestic-violence-protection-notice-or-order/


https://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmicfrs/glossary/domestic-violence-disclosure-scheme/

https://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmicfrs/glossary/early-help-and-safeguarding-hub/

https://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmicfrs/glossary/early-help-and-safeguarding-hub/

https://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmicfrs/glossary/multi-agency-risk-assessment-conference/

https://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmicfrs/glossary/multi-agency-risk-assessment-conference/

to were aware of their role and responsibilities in relation to this. We found a positive and recent example of how this had been used to safeguard a child in a domestic abuse situation.

The force works well with partner organisations. It is working with agencies and volunteers to safeguard vulnerable people and prevent fraud through ‘Scam Busters’. We found several examples where multi-agency operations had been effective in safeguarding people at risk of criminal exploitation. Project Challenger, a multi-agency programme tackling serious and organised crime, has put in place a campaign called ‘Trapped’, using social media to raise awareness of the criminal exploitation of young and vulnerable people.

The force has plans for a domestic abuse victim feedback survey. This was identified as an area for improvement in our 2017 effectiveness report, but hasn’t yet been implemented. We found local arrangements for victims of child sexual exploitation to provide feedback via the Sunrise team in Rochdale, as well as for victims of hate crime. The force needs to consider how it can gather feedback from other vulnerable victims to help shape its future response to all victims.

The force uses the active risk management system and Risk Matrix 2000 for the management of registered sex offenders. We found the force applies robust scrutiny to registered sex offenders. At the time of inspection, there were 1,348 registered sex offenders awaiting assessment within Greater Manchester. The force had clear data to show the current position with completion of assessments. We found that 796 of these offenders were in prison, with a number either living abroad or in psychiatric units. In total, 200 people are awaiting assessment while living in the community, with Greater Manchester Police being the lead agency in 30 of these cases. Staff consider additional or ancillary orders for offender management and reported positive relationships with the force’s legal services in applying for orders.

The force is proactive in managing its registered sex offenders, has support for surveillance, where appropriate, and uses the expertise of its digital investigation team to enhance visits. It is also piloting polygraph testing, which has given positive intelligence to inform risk. The force has judged 650 registered sex offenders suitable for reactive management. There is monthly dip sampling of these offenders, with unannounced visits and polygraph testing in these cases. We found that there is effective management and scrutiny applied to high-risk offenders.

The force uses specialised software to identify peer-to-peer sharing of indecent images of children. It has processes in place to review the system on a weekly basis. We found there is oversight of the triaging and allocation of intelligence and investigations, and a review process to ensure that where risk factors change, prioritisation is further considered. At the time of our visit, there were only six unallocated cases, all of which had been triage-assessed as low-risk.

Most neighbourhood patrol and beat officers could find information relating to registered sex offenders on computer systems. But we found that they were not necessarily aware of those people being within their area, unless briefing information was shared.

Page 128 of 188


https://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmicfrs/glossary/active-risk-management/

https://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmicfrs/glossary/risk-matrix-2000/

Tackling serious and organised crime

Outstanding

This question was not subject to detailed inspection in 2018/19 and our judgment from the 2016 effectiveness inspection has been carried over.

Armed policing

We have previously inspected how well forces provide armed policing. This formed part of our 2016 and 2017 effectiveness inspections. Subsequent terrorist attacks in the UK and Europe have meant that the police service maintains a focus on armed capability in England and Wales.

It is not just terrorist attacks that place operational demands on armed officers. The threat can include the activity of organised crime groups or armed street gangs and all other crime involving guns. The Code of Practice on the Police Use of Firearms and Less Lethal Weapons makes forces responsible for implementing national standards of armed policing. The code stipulates that a chief officer be designated to oversee these standards. This requires the chief officer to set out the firearms threat in an armed policing strategic threat and risk assessment (APSTRA). The chief officer must also set out clear rationales for the number of armed officers (armed capacity) and the level to which they are trained (armed capability).

Some forces in England and Wales have joint arrangements in place to provide armed policing. Greater Manchester Police is a force of such stature that it can provide its own armed capability. However, it shares training facilities with other forces in the North West of England and North Wales.

Understanding the threat and responding to it

Greater Manchester Police has an adequate understanding of the potential harm facing the public. Its APSTRA conforms to the requirements of the code and the College of Policing guidance. The APSTRA is published annually and is accompanied by a register of risks and other observations. The designated chief officer reviews the register frequently to maintain the right levels of armed capability and capacity.

All armed officers in England and Wales are trained to national standards. There are different standards for each role that armed officers perform. The majority of armed incidents in Greater Manchester Police are attended by officers trained to an armed response vehicle (ARV) standard. However, incidents sometimes occur that require the skills and specialist capabilities of more highly trained officers.

We found that Greater Manchester Police has good arrangements in place to mobilise specialist officers should their skills be required. The force has sufficient specialist capabilities in line with the threats and risks identified in its APSTRA.

As a consequence of the terrorist threat, Greater Manchester Police has received Home Office funding as part of a programme to boost armed policing in certain parts

Page 129 of 188

http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20081023095807/http:/police.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/operational-policing/useoffirearms.pdf

http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20081023095807/http:/police.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/operational-policing/useoffirearms.pdf

https://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmicfrs/glossary/chief-officer/

https://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmicfrs/glossary/armed-policing-strategic-threat-and-risk-assessment/

http://www.app.college.police.uk/app-content/armed-policing/?s

https://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmicfrs/glossary/designated-chief-officer/

https://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmicfrs/glossary/armed-response-vehicle/

https://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmicfrs/glossary/armed-response-vehicle/

of England and Wales. We established that the force has fulfilled its commitment to the programme by increasing the availability of ARVs.

One area where the force could improve is the briefing of ARV officers when they report for duty. It is important that, at the start of each shift, they are provided with up-to-date information that is relevant to their role. They can have a positive effect in disrupting the activity of organised crime groups and other armed criminals. At present, opportunities are being missed to provide this information to ARV officers and use their patrols to good effect. However, we recognise that action is being taken to address this.

Working with others

It is important that effective joint working arrangements are in place between neighbouring forces. Armed criminals and terrorists have no respect for county boundaries. As a consequence, armed officers must be prepared to deploy flexibly in the knowledge that they can work seamlessly with officers in other forces. It is also important that any one force can call on support from surrounding forces in times of heightened threat.

This is an area where Greater Manchester Police performs well. It has sufficient ARV officers and specialist capabilities in line with the threats set out in the APSTRA. It also has tried and tested procedures to work with neighbouring forces on joint armed operations.

We also examined how well prepared forces are to respond to threats and risks. Armed officers in Greater Manchester Police are trained in tactics that take account of the types of recent terrorist attacks. Also, the force has an important role in designing training exercises with other organisations that simulate these types of attack. We found that these training exercises are reviewed carefully so that learning points are recorded and improvements made for the future.

In addition to debriefing training exercises, we also found that Greater Manchester Police reviews the outcome of all firearms incidents that officers attend. This helps ensure that best practice or areas for improvement are identified. We also found that this knowledge is used to improve training and operational procedures.

Page 130 of 188

Efficiency

Page 131 of 188

Force in context

Page 132 of 188

How efficiently does the force operate and how sustainable are its services?


Summary

Greater Manchester Police requires improvement in the efficiency of its operation and the sustainability of its services.

It should improve how it analyses data about the demand for its services. This would help it to meet demand now and in future. It should also be better at sharing data with other agencies. Sharing data in a more strategic way would help the force to better analyse demand.

When the force regrades an incident, it doesn’t collect data about the context. Contextual information would help the force know if it is suppressing demand by downgrading incidents.

The force requires improvement in the way it plans for the future. It has a limited understanding of how demand for its services will change and of the skills its workforce will need to meet that future demand.

The force has lots of change programmes to improve its service, and it challenges and audits these. It also collaborates with other forces and agencies to improve service.

Meeting current demands and using resources


Greater Manchester Police should improve how it meets demand and uses resources. It understands demand for its services and strives to improve this understanding. But the way it analyses the data it collects doesn’t help it to meet demand. It shares data with other agencies on a case-by-case basis, but not on a strategic basis.

The force collects data about the regrading of incidents, but not their context. We found evidence of incidents being downgraded inappropriately. Without this context, the force cannot tell if it is suppressing demand by downgrading incidents.

Page 133 of 188

The force experienced an increase in recorded crime since 2017. It told us this was caused by changes to how it records crime. It has now determined baseline figures for five threat areas. It has plans to ensure it attends all these crime types.

The force agreed with the mayor extra funding to tackle and prevent crime and anti-social behaviour. It plans to use this to recruit 50 more neighbourhood officers. It uses a citizens’ contract to explain how it will work with the public and other agencies to manage its resources and demand.

Greater Manchester Police has invested to help it manage demand. It has processes to support meeting short-term future demand and moves resources accordingly. This has resulted in a more consistent and proactive service.

But the force doesn’t have processes for understanding the financial impact of varying service provision. Poor IT infrastructure and the present level of demand hamper its ability to plan for meeting demand beyond the short term.

The force recognises rising threat levels from criminal use of technology. It has reviewed its digital investigation unit, and understands its IT infrastructure is not fit for purpose. The force’s improvements to this infrastructure should give it access to accurate data, to help it decide how to allocate resources and analyse what future skills it needs.

Greater Manchester Police doesn’t fully understand what skills and capabilities it will need in future. It is working to increase staffing in some areas, but its plans are undeveloped in others.

Positively, the force has a clear rationale for its work with other agencies. The force understands the benefits it gets and the contributions of others. It has strong links with other agencies and works with them to manage demand better. Though many of these collaborations are in preliminary stages, some are very promising.


Areas for improvement • The force should further improve its analysis and understanding of

crime-related demand. • The force should improve data sharing arrangements with partner

organisations. • The force should ensure that changes to the grade of responses within

its operational communications branch are appropriate and do not suppress demand.

Page 134 of 188

Assessing current demand

Greater Manchester Police hasn’t comprehensively analysed demand across all elements of police operations, but has undertaken some work to build understanding. It has a good understanding of the current demand relating to 999 and 101 calls coming into the operational communications branch. A review of digital investigations has also improved force understanding in that area. Following the investigation and safeguarding review, the force has enhanced its knowledge of demand in relation to investigations and safeguarding vulnerable people, but we found this review is yet to be fully implemented. It is also improving its understanding of local demand through its work towards place-based policing.

Since 2017, the force has experienced an increase in recorded crime, much of which it believes is due to action taken to improve its compliance with the NCRS. It has now determined baseline figures for five strategic threat areas: violent crime, serious violent crime, personal robbery, homicide and firearms-related crimes. The force is formulating plans to mitigate increases in these crime types, although these are in the early stages of development. We also found that data sharing with partner organisations – an important part of understanding demand – is done on a case-by-case basis rather than as part of an overall process for the strategic analysis of demand.

The force has completed some limited analysis of demand that is hidden or less likely to be reported, including the development of child sexual exploitation profiles. Undertaken for each district in late 2017, the analysis looked at likely or possible locations, vulnerable people and potential offenders. A previous profile for modern slavery has also not been updated since 2017. Within the last 12 months, officers have received a full-day of training in relation to human trafficking and modern slavery, to improve understanding. The force is making efforts to identify cases of female genital mutilation, which it considers to be widely under-reported. It has recorded one crime relating to female genital mutilation and is developing its approach through the tracking of imported surgical instruments. However, analysis and training in relation to female genital mutilation is limited.

A precept increase for 2018/19 was agreed by the mayor to enhance the neighbourhood policing provision in support of the police and crime plan commitment to tackle and prevent crime and anti-social behaviour. It is being used to recruit 50 more officers for neighbourhood policing teams and the force is working to ensure that every area receives more resourcing to support local policing and meet demand. Additionally, the recently introduced citizens’ contract was developed after wide consultation with the public. This contract states the seven ways in which the force will work with the public and partner agencies to build strong communities, and includes the responsible use of its resources to manage demand.

Page 135 of 188

Understanding factors that influence demand

Each of the force’s change programmes includes processes to evaluate the impact of change on demand. Operation Ergo is an example of its initiatives to improve its internal processes. This programme aims to align supervision with a revised shift pattern for patrol officers, using new IT (iOPS) within the operational communications branch. The purpose is to reduce duplication within call handling and the demand on district supervisors. We found that individual departments also undertake activity to identify more efficient processes. For example, the finance department introduced streamlined forecasting processes and reports to budget holders. The force intends to support the implementation of the TOM with the development of an analytical hub to deliver operational analytics. This forms part of the introduction of iOPS and is being developed through a strategic partnership with an academic organisation.

The force uses the staff survey to identify a wide range of issues, and although it is not specifically aimed at identifying inefficient processes, the force does record these when they arise. Operation Ergo was a direct response to issues raised in the survey. Individual departments and districts also employ processes to identify inefficient working, but the force doesn’t record the full extent of this activity. This means it has only a partial picture of where inefficiency is identified and a reduced ability to remove waste.

The force reviews the grading of incidents recorded within the operational communications branch for allocation to its resources. While this process supports prioritisation of the response to incidents, we found some evidence of incidents being downgraded inappropriately. The force has data showing the number of incidents that are regraded, but we found that this is without context or rationale. As a result, the force can’t fully understand if true demand is being suppressed through this activity. It will need to make sure it has effective processes in place so that incidents are correctly regraded.

Working with others to meet demand

Greater Manchester Police is committed to collective working to improve demand management and works well with its partners. The force plays an important role as a member of the Greater Manchester Combined Authority and has strong links with each of the ten local authorities in Manchester. The TOM has a clear focus on providing better outcomes for residents by working in partnership. Further examples of the strong commitment to collaborative working include Operation Challenger, the multi-agency programme tackling serious and organised crime; the co-location of police and public sector staff across most districts to identify and tackle safeguarding, child sexual exploitation and modern slavery; and the contribution of staff from the three mental health authorities across Greater Manchester to the vulnerability support unit. The team provides medical information and advice to achieve better outcomes for vulnerable people affected by poor mental health. Early indications are that the unit is effective. A full evaluation is being undertaken by the NHS, although this work is not yet complete.

Page 136 of 188

The implementation of place-based working with police and public sector partners identifying and tackling local issues is a foundation of the TOM. The force is testing this concept at several sites and reported that both 101 calls and repeat demand were being reduced. During our fieldwork, we also identified anecdotal evidence of reduced demand due to place-based working. However, the force is limited in the data that it gathers. It is therefore not clear how it will identify the impact of place-based working on future demand.

The force has a good understanding of the impact of reduced partnership resources on demand through its work with the Greater Manchester Combined Authority. The place-based working approach is designed to address this, with shared resources and responsibilities to tackle local demand. The approach of Operation Challenger replicates this in how it is responding to safeguarding concerns for child sexual exploitation and modern slavery. We found that the structure of place-based working and Operation Challenger varies across the ten districts. This is indicative of the challenges that local authorities face in providing the appropriate resources to support these initiatives. The impetus is there for a combined approach to tackle demand, but it remains to be seen how the force will overcome the variety of approaches and the reduced resources in the future.

Innovation and new opportunities

The force is prepared to look outside the police service for new ideas, and to partner with other organisations to develop and implement new initiatives. It is working with academia to assist its understanding of demand through demographics. The ‘big data’ programme sees the force working with Manchester Metropolitan University (MMU) to better understand policing demands now and for the future. MMU has produced academic reports on understanding early indicators of vulnerability in cases of domestic abuse, mental health and people missing from home. The research has been reported back to the project board and MMU is now working with the iOPS team to ‘operationalise’ the results in the form of analytics and mobile device support. The force is also looking to academia to help it deal with developing and increasing crime types such as cyber-crime, through the development of a programme to increase access to digital investigation skills. It is also having initial discussions with Manchester University to develop a means of tracking crypto-currency movement.

The force has started conversations with HSBC and Barclays banks, seeking to use their expertise to track the movement of money in offences such as fraud. It is also looking to introduce an appointment system to manage demand and has visited Wigan Council and British Gas to review their approaches. This means that the force will be able to identify and learn from good practice outside policing. Although there can be no doubting its ambition to work with others to develop new ideas, much of the work we saw was in the preliminary stages of development.

Page 137 of 188

Investment and benefits

The force benefits from some investments. When mobile data technology was provided to officers and staff, system developers were required to demonstrate value achieved from the change, either through savings in officer time or improved data standards. Specific savings were also achieved through the reduction in resources for recording crime data. The iOPS business case was scrutinised by the mayor’s office, and the implementation plan includes a review of business benefits realisation. The force has also refreshed its investment governance structure. The benefits of planned changes are considered by subject-matter experts prior to final agreement, and approval by the chief constable is completed through submission of the business case, with the expectation that benefits are recognised. The force intends to improve benefits realisation and is due to host a National Police Chiefs’ Council workshop. This means that it can demonstrate how change will benefit its future planning.

The force considers that providing mobile devices to all officers brings efficiencies in terms of service and time saved. The force monitors officers’ use of these applications, sharing the data with district commanders. This has identified those officers who are low users of mobile solutions, who then receive tutoring to build their confidence. While there are clear processes for making investments, the force needs to do more to enhance benefits realisation.

Prioritising different types of demand

The force has some processes in place to identify and move resources to meet immediate fluctuations in demand and to meet short-term future demand requirements. Daily management meetings are held at district and force level to prioritise demand and move resources to deal with emerging immediate needs. These are known as Pacesetter meetings. One of the data sets considered at Pacesetter and produced daily by the operational communications branch is the total number of open incident logs. The data sets only provide numerical totals and are not sufficiently sophisticated to describe the type and complexity of the demand that sits behind the number of open incidents. Incidents that are over 72 hours old and involve vulnerability are subject to review at the Pacesetter meeting for prioritisation. The lack of detail could potentially lead to poorly informed decision making around the movement of resources to meet demand.

Greater Manchester Police holds a weekly force operational resource meeting, chaired by an assistant chief constable, with departmental and district representation from across the force. The intention of the meeting is to ensure that force-level resources have been deployed in accordance with the agreed force tasking priorities over the last seven days and to plan for changing needs. However, overall understanding of future demand is limited to forecasting three months ahead and, in the main, is limited to significant force events.

We found some good examples of the force reprioritising to deal with demand. The introduction of the Operation Ergo shift pattern has freed up resources. Fieldwork confirmed that, in areas where it has been introduced (Oldham, Rochdale and Tameside division), there has been consistent staffing over a 24-hour period. It has assisted in managing demand and has allowed a more proactive approach to

Page 138 of 188

https://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmicfrs/glossary/national-police-chiefs-council/

https://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmicfrs/glossary/national-police-chiefs-council/

policing and even the deployment of foot patrols. Following a review of demand within the digital investigations unit, a robust outsourcing policy has been put in place to manage standards for the outsourcing of low-level digital investigations. This is supported with a capital investment of £700,000.

Assigning resources to demand and understanding their costs

The force is managing a series of specific change programmes. Within them, it has clear processes to consider end-to-end processes and associated costs. The impact of these programmes is assessed through test activity prior to full implementation. By contrast, however, there is limited understanding of the varying costs of its overall service delivery and therefore the potential to make effective savings.

The ability of the force to reallocate resources to meet demand in the mid to longer term is hampered by its poor IT infrastructure and the current challenges that it faces in meeting day-to-day demand. Our inspection fieldwork found evidence that suggests the force faces challenges in meeting existing demand. With the future implementation of iOPS, the force plans to make data far more accessible and accurate, enabling informed decisions to be made regarding the reallocation of resources. This means it should be better placed to manage demand once iOPS is implemented.

Workforce capabilities

The force has done some work to understand what skills and capabilities it will need in the future, but this doesn’t amount to a comprehensive review of future requirements. And no comprehensive gap analysis or skills audit has been undertaken. This was identified as an area for improvement in our 2017 efficiency inspection and is further discussed in the future planning section of this report.

Greater Manchester Police has carried out a review of the digital investigation unit and is committed to increasing the staff from 35 to 72 by September 2019, investing £6.7m over four years. The force also carried out an investigation and safeguarding review which identified a shortfall of 150 detective officers and plans to invest £3.2m over four years to address the gap. It has a backlog in driver training, and this is having an impact on its ability to attend calls for service. It acknowledges that current staffing levels within driver training don’t meet the requirement of initial and refresher driver training across most levels of driver authority. The force has very recently agreed to fund an additional 11 driver trainers, which should begin to address the backlog. We found no confirmation of when the new staff will be in post, nor any projection as to when the backlog will be cleared. As such, the force cannot be confident that the impact of driver shortages and consequent difficulties in meeting incident-related demand will be only short term.

Page 139 of 188

https://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmicfrs/publications/peel-police-efficiency-2017-greater-manchester/

https://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmicfrs/publications/peel-police-efficiency-2017-greater-manchester/

More efficient ways of working

The force actively monitors and evaluates the benefits expected from its change programmes. For example, the mobile data project made officer time efficiencies, altered practices and achieved savings within the crime recording units. The programme included incentivised budgets for the system developer company, where efficiencies had to be demonstrated prior to the release of payment. The force has also brought in external expertise to assist with benefits realisation from its significant investment in the iOPS programme.

Post-implementation reviews are incorporated into the force’s methodology. One example was the introduction of a new local policing model two years ago which was found to have unintended consequences in relation to shift systems and supervisory coverage. The post-implementation review led to the design of Operation Ergo which is now changing these patterns to meet demand more effectively.

The force has a good record for achieving savings. It has chosen to invest those savings in significant change to prepare for the future – for example, implementing the TOM, improving IT infrastructure and developing new ways for the public to make contact.

Working with others

The force has a clear rationale for partnership working as part of the Greater Manchester Combined Authority. The priorities in the police and crime plan ‘Standing Together’, published in March 2018, are clear: keeping people safe, reducing harm and offending, and strengthening communities and places. It is not a plan for the police alone, but recognises the contribution that Greater Manchester Police, other statutory agencies, the private sector, voluntary and community groups, and citizens can make.

The force is strongly committed to place-based working with public sector partners to improve demand management. While all districts have good tactical engagement with partners, they are at different stages of implementing place-based working. We heard anecdotal evidence that the place-based pilots in Wigan are having a positive impact on demand, but this evaluation is ongoing. The force plans to use the evaluation data to feed into post-implementation reviews, a finalisation report, and then into the understanding demand element of the next force management statement (FMS).

Using technology

The force recognises the threats from the increased criminal use of technology and is taking steps to address this. It carried out a review of its digital investigation unit, and is committed to increase the establishment by September 2019, making a significant investment of £6.7m over four years. It has also carried out a review of its investigation and safeguarding arrangements. Proposals for improvement include steps to address a shortfall of 150 detective officers, and a commitment to invest £3.2m over the next four years.

The force recognises that its current IT infrastructure is not fit for purpose and has embarked on an extensive IT transformation programme with iOPS and an investment of £71m. We recognise that implementing iOPS should bring benefits through

Page 140 of 188

https://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmicfrs/glossary/force-management-statement/

accessible and accurate data, enabling the force to make informed decisions about resource allocation. Technology has also hampered its ability to undertake a comprehensive gap analysis and skills audit across the workforce.

The force invested £10m in mobile technology in 2016 and this is due to be renewed in 2019. It has good data in relation to the use of mobile technology and believes that officer visibility has increased and services have been enhanced, although this has yet to be quantified. The implementation of iOPS is due to start early in 2019. The force also plans to align its website to a national portal (the single online home), in spring 2019, to improve public access to services through online reporting.

Planning for the future


Greater Manchester Police should improve its future planning. Its understanding of how demand for its services will change is limited, which hinders its planning. The force is working to better understand changing demand, though all its programmes are at an early stage.

The force strives to understand what the public expects from it. It has consulted the public and has plans to get views from groups which don’t normally engage with the police. The force is working on various projects to give the public easier access to police services, while reducing demand on call handlers. Examples include online crime recording and self-service schemes.

The force is clear about its priorities: • keeping people safe; • reducing harm and offending; and • strengthening communities and places.

It developed these priorities with other agencies in Greater Manchester. It also collaborates with other forces and the Greater Manchester Combined Authority to improve its services in line with these priorities.

Greater Manchester Police has a limited understanding of what skills it needs to meet future demand. It bases training requirements on predictable gaps in the current skills – for example, staff leaving. It doesn’t take into account demand for new skills. It has a programme to better identify skills gaps, but this is at an early stage. Improving its understanding of this will help the force meet current and future demand. Many of its senior leaders are due to retire at the same time. The force needs to address this so it can plan for the future. It has reviewed its promotion process, but the new process only applies to officers, not staff. The force has a new performance review process, but senior leaders describe it as ‘clunky’. Without an effective personal development process, the force can’t properly manage performance and development, and staff may feel undervalued.

Page 141 of 188


Assessing future demand for services

Greater Manchester Police has a limited understanding of how demand will change in the future. The force has an overarching demand strategy, led by the deputy chief constable, which takes account of the TOM programmes and other developments within the force. The main elements of the strategy include understanding, reducing and managing demand, which all have significant programmes of work. This involves understanding current demand as well as predicting future demand. Much of this work is at an early stage of development – for example, the recently introduced ‘predict demand’ scanning bulletin. This identifies a range of local and national issues that may affect future demand, such as the planned expansion of Manchester Airport.

The force hasn’t forecast future trends for all crime types. It has worked to improve its NCRS compliance, following our crime data integrity inspection, and has seen an increase in the number of reported incidents that are recorded as crimes. It has identified that improved application of the NCRS led to an increase in recorded domestic abuse crime. The introduction of an electronic flag on its systems has also enabled the force to calculate levels of knife-related crime. However, its current understanding of crime trends doesn’t enable it to understand what elements reflect true demand increases.

The force has recently determined baseline figures for five strategic threats: violent crime, serious violent crime, personal robbery, homicide and firearms-related crimes. It is now putting plans in place to mitigate these, although they are in the early stages of development. Overall, this means that Greater Manchester Police can’t plan effectively for the future unless it further develops its understanding of likely future demand.

The force is using improved technology to deal with future demand. It is due to launch iOPS in early 2019. This £71m programme has been developed to integrate several force IT systems: its command and control, crime, and intelligence platforms. iOPS will allow all records to be linked and searched for in one location, reducing duplication and improving efficiency. The force issued 6,000 mobile devices to officers and staff in 2016 and it is planning to upgrade these devices in 2019. It anticipates this will mean officers and staff can work smarter and faster, and will increase the visible policing presence in neighbourhoods.

Area for improvement • The force should work to fully understand its workforce capabilities, and put

plans in place to address gaps.

Page 142 of 188

Understanding public expectations

Greater Manchester Police uses several methods to understand public expectations,including annual surveys, force priority-setting arrangements and local neighbourhoodengagement processes. It has a dedicated neighbourhoods, confidence and equalities(NCE) team which co-ordinates the force’s approach to involve citizens in policing,community engagement, and equality and diversity The NCE team is developing aforce engagement strategy to include guidance and toolkits for local communityengagement plans and the further development of communities and citizens inpolicing and problem solving. The TOM, which includes the citizens’ contract, wasdeveloped after wide consultation with the public and is a positive development.The consultation spanned an18-month period, included public meetings and engagedapproximately 3,500 residents across Manchester seeking their views. The force hassince identified communities that did not engage in the public consultation as widelyas others and plans to adapt its consultation to gather their views in the future.

The public contact programme has an ‘enabling channel shift’ project. It aims to makethe force more accessible and reduce demand on call handlers by providing differentmethods for the public to make contact. Through its engagement, the force foundthat the public would prefer to record crime online and through self-service channels.The project will focus on the provision of new technology to support this, and theintroduction of the ‘Live Chat’ web facility resulted from the consultation. The force is also creating a single online home in April 2019 for reporting road traffic collisions andother incidents.

Prioritising

The priorities in the police and crime plan ‘Standing Together’, published in March2018, are clear: keeping people safe, reducing harm and offending, and strengtheningcommunities and places. It is not a plan for the police alone, but recognises thecontribution that Greater Manchester Police, other statutory agencies, the privatesector, voluntary and community groups, and citizens can make. The concept ofplace-based working, already being tried out in some districts, has at its heartpartnership and collaboration with statutory agencies and communities. The force isalso investing £6.6m in digital investigation over the next four years. This clearly linksto the police and crime plan commitments to keep children safe from sexualexploitation, increase understanding of online vulnerability and improve online safety.The recent recruitment of 50 officers to support neighbourhood policing teams andtackle crime and anti-social behaviour demonstrates how the force allocates resourcesto improve services that matter to the public. This means that while not all prioritiesare explicit within the force’s change programme, important elements are incorporatedto enhance its response to threats in the future.

Page 143 of 188

Future workforce

Greater Manchester Police has a limited understanding of the skills it requires to meet future demand. The force aspires to evaluate future skill requirements of the TOM and has a project bringing workforce planning, HR and financial planning together, which were previously distinct functions. The intention is to develop an integrated approach and apply this broader thinking to projects in the future. Training requirements are based on existing and predicted gaps (for example leavers), rather than the skills identified as necessary to meet anticipated future demand. In some areas, such as public order, the force is confident that it has a good understanding of demand and skills requirements. However, it was reported that this involved a manual, labour-intensive process to identify gaps across all disciplines. The force has identified the top five detective training requirements and produced a delivery plan through to 2020. These were identified following consultation with senior leaders within investigative departments, rather than through the functionality of force IT systems. The force has a project underway to provide a technical solution to improve skills gaps identification, but initial improvements will take at least six months. The force has reviewed the capacity and capability of its digital investigations unit against current and future demand and is investing £6.6m over the next four years. This has included the appointment of a superintendent for cyber-crime to lead this work.

The force’s investigation and safeguarding review merged the crime investigation and public protection investigation teams across the force. Where currently implemented, this has resulted in greater resilience to deal with crime that causes serious harm. However, the force has identified a shortage of detective officers. At the time of inspection, this amounted to some 150 vacancies and the force is taking steps to reduce that number. It is making use of Police Now and, in the first year, recruited nine police officers using this process. In the second year, this increased to 25, with a target of 50 for the next financial year. It will also become a northern academy for Police Now from 2019. The force makes use of the direct entry scheme, recruiting three superintendents and four inspectors using this process. It also uses external recruitment for transferees, successfully recruiting firearms officers. It is exploring professional apprenticeships to bring young people through and has had some success with recruiting officers and staff from those apprentices. But the force also recognises that recruiting into specialist areas such as IT and finance is challenging, as it can’t compete in terms of salary with private sector organisations.

Page 144 of 188

https://www.policenow.org.uk/

https://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmicfrs/glossary/direct-entry-scheme/

Finance plans

Following its 2010 consultation revaluing public sector pensions, the government announced, in 2016 and 2018, reductions in the discount rate it uses to set contribution rates for the unfunded public service pension schemes. These include the police service pension scheme. A lower discount rate will result in higher contribution rates for the employer. The official notification of a lower rate in September 2018 did not allow police and crime commissioners (PCCs) and mayors time to include the impact in their financial planning. In December 2018, the government announced a pension grant for 2019/20 for each PCC and mayor. It allocated funding to each force to specifically help the police pay for these increased costs in the next year. PCCs and mayors must now plan for how they will finance the increased costs in the following years, assessing the impact on their officer numbers and their ability to provide effective and efficient services.

Greater Manchester Police has considered the impact of proposed changes in employer pension contributions and has calculated that the potential pension liability would amount to an additional £7.9m in 2019/20, and £19.7m the year after. The force has recently started modelling scenarios to determine what it will mean if it receives a reduced precept increase, pension deficit or both. Should both of these scenarios arise at once, the force would face a £16m shortfall for 2019/20. Such changes may lead to a further reduction in resources. Any requirement to reduce workforce numbers will have a significant impact on force planning and the ability to meet future demand within Greater Manchester.

The Greater Manchester Police change portfolio is closely aligned with its financial planning. This is particularly evident in its capital investment in areas such as iOPS and transforming the operational communications branch through the enabling channel shift project – all integral elements of plans to deal with future demand through its TOM.

The force has a good record of achieving savings and has plans to make £37.9m of savings over the four years of the medium-term financial strategy (MTFS), with a deficit of £1.5m remaining by 2021/22. The precept increase for 2018/19 was invested in 50 additional officers for neighbourhood policing and this was supported by the public. The MTFS includes assumptions of a further precept increase for 2019/20, and the force plans to add a further 50 officers for neighbourhood policing.

The Mayor of Greater Manchester maintains a police fund reserves strategy that covers the period 2018/19 through to 2020/21. These reserves are clearly identified and, as well as general reserves, there are funds earmarked to support insurance requirements, private-finance initiative needs, budgetary risks, the police and crime plan, and capital expenditure.

Page 145 of 188

https://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmicfrs/glossary/police-and-crime-commissioner/

https://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmicfrs/glossary/reserves/

Leadership and workforce development

Succession planning for senior leaders within Greater Manchester Police is unclear and the force has identified a risk in relation to the demographic of its senior leaders, with potential for people in crucial posts to leave or retire at a similar time. To plan effectively for the future, it needs to address this soon. The force has undertaken a promotion process review and made changes that incorporated feedback received from staff. Promotion processes are now broadly the same for every rank, including an assessment centre and incorporating members of the community in interviews to give an independent perspective. These revised processes are currently applied only to officers, and the force recognises this as a gap.

The force has introduced new performance development reviews (PDRs) for all officers, but it has no co-ordinated means to determine how many have been completed. Senior leaders described performance review processes as ‘clunky’, and the force is still in negotiation with unions to introduce new PDRs for staff. There is a risk that, in addition to the force being unable to understand and manage performance and development, staff won’t feel valued if an effective personal development process is not in place. The force has recently developed a detailed plan for introducing a talent management framework and has taken initial steps by advertising the process on the intranet and through chief officer team messages. Previously, talent management processes were managed locally within districts and departments, but the force now plans to manage these centrally, to provide greater transparency and ensure fairness. It recognises that this is easier to arrange for police officers than for police staff. It is working to identify and bring together a small group of high-potential individuals from among its police staff, support them to work within various departments across the force and increase the breadth of their experience.

Ambition to improve

Greater Manchester Police has a comprehensive change portfolio, which is directly linked to the MTFS and supports the implementation of the TOM. The change portfolio has several programmes, each with clear governance and an identified chief officer responsible for leading developments. The programmes are: transforming public contact, improving operational policing, building better outcomes, building a better organisation, and transforming information systems. The change portfolio brings together several work programmes already underway and others to prepare the force for future demand, including iOPS – a significant investment to improve the force IT infrastructure. The programme has already provided mobile data to equip the workforce to be more agile and responsive, and is due for additional investment in 2019. We found that other elements of the change portfolio are less well developed – for example, ‘project 11’ within the building a better organisation programme, which considers the understanding of future skills requirements and skills gaps, as well as the development of career pathways.

The force’s approach to change is to undertake reviews and pilot options. The review of neighbourhood policing led to the development of the TOM, and implementation began after trials of the concept. The force continues to test the concept of place-based working and every district has a place-based integration pilot. The force aims to continually review, refine and improve ideas as they are implemented. An example is Operation Ergo, part of its ongoing work to review and improve

Page 146 of 188

https://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmicfrs/glossary/performance-development-review/

local policing. This leadership and culture change programme incorporates the trial of a new shift pattern at the Oldham and Tameside divisions. The intention is to improve resilience and morale, and provide more deployable officers on each patrol shift, enabling neighbourhood beat officers to focus on crime prevention and anti-social behaviour.

The force employs various methods to audit and challenge its plans. These include the audit of accounts by an external independent auditor, specific audits undertaken by the Greater Manchester Combined Authority, contracting independent reviews and engagement with other forces to conduct reviews. The force is currently engaging the Metropolitan Police Service to review plans for a single online home, due to be launched in spring 2019.

The force has established collaborations with local authorities as part of the Greater Manchester Combined Authority, and future policing through the TOM relies on this collaborative approach. The force believes that collaboration with other forces in the counter-terrorism unit has worked well, including developments to improve regional recruitment into the unit. The force also intends working with higher education institutions locally to implement the Police Education Qualifications Framework. It also aspires to work with other blue light services. It has some co-location for mental health triage in place and early figures show the benefits.

A significant proportion of savings over the next four years depends on leavers finishing on a high pay point and starters beginning on a lower salary point. Some 1,800 officers (33 percent of the workforce) are expected to leave during this period. While this has implications for the force in terms of loss of experience and training requirements, it also presents it with substantial savings. The force has chosen to invest those savings in significant change to prepare for the future, including the TOM, improving IT infrastructure and developing ways to improve public contact. It also plans to make some use of national police transformation fund resources in relation to the digital public contact programme for its single online home project.

Page 147 of 188

https://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmicfrs/glossary/police-transformation-fund/

Legitimacy

Page 148 of 188

Force in context

Page 149 of 188

Page 150 of 188

How legitimately does the force treat the public and its workforce?

Good

Summary

Greater Manchester Police is good at treating the public and its workforce legitimately.

In our previous inspection, we judged Greater Manchester Police as good at treating the public fairly and this grading is carried forward.

Greater Manchester Police is good at behaving ethically and lawfully, but we found some areas for improvement. It should ensure it has an official process for staff to raise ethical questions.

It should make full use of the software it has to monitor IT systems to protect its data and prevent computer misuse.

It should ensure its wider workforce is trained in awareness of abuse of position for a sexual purpose and its impact on the public.

The force is good at treating its workforce fairly, but we found some areas for improvement. The workforce is confident in the grievance process. But the force doesn’t deal with grievances in a timely manner. It has improved in this since 2017, and improvement must continue.

We saw that the force was working to improve its personal development review (PDR) process. This was an area for improvement in 2017, and the process still has gaps. We look forward to seeing the process fully implemented, used effectively and monitored force-wide.

In 2017, we also recommended improvements to the talent management system. The force has reviewed it, but it relies on the PDR process mentioned above. So, the force may not be providing fair opportunities for its entire workforce. This is an area for improvement.

Page 151 of 188

https://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmicfrs/glossary/abuse-of-position-for-a-sexual-purpose/


Treating the public fairly

Good

This question was not subject to inspection in 2018/19, and our judgment from our 2017 legitimacy inspection has been carried over. However, we reviewed a representative sample of 297 stop and search records to assess the reasonableness of the recorded grounds. We found that 86 percent had reasonable grounds recorded. Therefore, about six in seven stop and search encounters have reasonable grounds recorded. Our assessment is based on the grounds recorded by the searching officer and not the grounds that existed at the time of the search.

In our 2017 legitimacy report, we recommended that all forces should: • monitor and analyse comprehensive stop and search data to understand reasons

for disparities; • take action on those; and • publish the analysis and the action by July 2018.

We found that the force has complied with some of this recommendation. But it doesn’t identify the extent to which find rates differ between people from different ethnicities and across different types of searches (including separate identification of find rates for drug possession and supply-type offences). It also isn’t clear that the force monitors enough data to identify the prevalence of possession-only drug searches or the extent to which these align with local or force-level priorities.

We reviewed the force’s website and found no mention of analysis the force had carried out to understand reasons for disparities or explain subsequent action taken.

Page 152 of 188

https://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmicfrs/publications/peel-police-legitimacy-2017-greater-manchester/


https://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmicfrs/glossary/find-rate/

Ethical and lawful workforce behaviour

Good

Greater Manchester Police is good at behaving ethically and lawfully, but we found some areas for improvement.

The force is good at maintaining an ethical culture. Officers and staff feel they can raise ethical questions with supervisors. But they weren’t aware of an official process for doing this.

The force has no backlogs in the vetting of staff and officers. We were pleased to see this improvement since our 2017 legitimacy inspection.

The force is good at managing corruption risk. However, we found it had a very low number of entries in the gifts and hospitality register. The force told us that, with the overwhelming public response to the Manchester Arena attack in 2017, it decided to stop requiring staff to report gifts from the public. Staff we spoke to described some confusion about the policy, but knew where to get advice. We recommend the force explains clearly to staff what they need to do if they are offered gifts.

The force has software to monitor its computer systems, but wasn’t using it fully to proactively seek out data breaches. The force could use this software to protect its data and identify computer misuse.

Greater Manchester Police recognises the seriousness of abuse of position for sexual purpose. Despite its efforts to address this issue. we found that many members of the wider workforce had not been trained in awareness of abuse of position for sexual purpose and its impact on the public.


Areas for improvement • The force should ensure it has a process for the workforce to refer and discuss

ethical concerns. • The force should ensure its anti-corruption unit can fully monitor all of its

computer systems, including mobile data, to proactively identify data breaches, protect the force’s data and identify computer misuse.

• The force should improve its workforce’s knowledge and understanding of the abuse of position for a sexual purpose.

Page 153 of 188




Maintaining an ethical culture

The force is good at developing and maintaining an ethical culture. It has senior representation on the Greater Manchester Combined Authority ethics committee, independently chaired by the Bishop of Manchester. This operates at a strategic level and provides advice on ethical considerations and policy to the force – for example, the use of body-worn video. On inspection, we found that officers and staff feel comfortable raising matters with their supervisors, but most did not have regular discussions with their line managers about ethical dilemmas. Officers and staff were not aware of how they could raise ethical concerns internally. The force may wish to consider the development of an internal mechanism for reporting ethical dilemmas affecting the workforce.

In 2017, we found that Greater Manchester Police had backlogs in the vetting of officers and staff to national required standards. This year, we were pleased to find that all officers and staff had been vetted, and there was no backlog at the time of inspection. This means the force has fully addressed our national recommendation from 2016 and has robust systems in place to manage its vetting requirements for the future, broadly consistent with authorised professional practice (APP) guidelines. It is proactive in managing forthcoming vetting renewals, with a four-week lead period for completion, to minimise future lapses in vetting status.

The force considers disproportionality in its vetting arrangements and advises the College of Policing as required through barred and advisory lists, to ensure that corrupt staff don’t re-enter policing. However, during pre-inspection fieldwork we identified six cases of vetting failures for staff members. Four of these six were individuals from under-represented groups. This means that the force may not be acting in line with vetting decisions in some circumstances. It should satisfy itself that, in future, all appointments are made based on valid decision making and vetting outcomes.

We found that the force has established an organisational learning board, so it can learn from serious case reviews, coronial findings and reported misconduct. We were pleased to see that officers and staff felt there was a shift towards a learning culture rather than a blame culture within the force.

The force uses a variety of methods to reinforce standards of behaviour and share misconduct outcomes. These include senior leader road shows and publication through internal intranet and local bulletins. The officers and staff we spoke to were aware of outcomes and behaviour being reinforced in this way. This means the force can be confident that officers and staff understand the sanctions for poor behaviour.

Tackling corruption

Greater Manchester Police is good at managing organisational corruption risks. The force has a local strategic counter-corruption threat assessment and control strategy. However, during our inspection we found that the force doesn’t make full use of the information it holds on employees to identify those in danger of becoming a corruption risk and doesn’t hold meetings to discuss intelligence received about its workforce. Using this information would make the force better able to put in place interventions to support its people.

Page 154 of 188

https://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmicfrs/glossary/ethics-committee/

https://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmicfrs/glossary/authorised-professional-practice/

The force has a well-developed database where business interests are recorded, including those that have been refused and those that have ceased. Notifiable associations and inappropriate associations are combined under one category within the force’s iBase database. This makes it difficult to determine whether inappropriate associations are an issue for the force, and we raised a concern about some corruption intelligence recording criteria. We found that the force does use a matrix to evaluate the risk from notifiable associations which is effective, and the policy itself appears to be well used by the workforce. We found that high-risk and critical notifiable associations are revisited by the anti-corruption unit (ACU), but business interests that have been refused on the grounds of force integrity are not routinely reviewed. This means that the force may not understand the wider impact, and it may wish to consider the benefits of regular reviews of business interests.

At the time of our inspection, we found 28 entries on the gifts and hospitality register for the previous five-month period, which appeared low for a large force. We were able to clarify that, due to the overwhelming public response to the Manchester Arena attack in 2017, a decision had been taken to cease the requirement to report gifts offered by the public. When speaking with the workforce, we found there was some confusion about the current policy and reporting requirements, but staff would seek advice. The force may wish to provide clarity to officers and staff about the current policy and action they need to take when offered gifts or hospitality.

Although the force has invested in software which can be used to fully monitor all its IT systems, at the time of the inspection this was not being fully used. The force has assured us that, with the implementation of iOPS in early 2019, this issue will be resolved. But it remains a risk. The force currently uses its IT monitoring capability in criminal cases on the authorisation of a senior officer, rather than proactively looking for such data breaches. It makes decisions on the proportionality of monitoring in relation to any investigation and is not looking to change its approach. With full use of this technology, it could protect the data held within its systems and identify computer misuse.

Greater Manchester Police has a confidential reporting system provided through Crimestoppers. Staff can also report concerns by telephone, using a confidential recording facility within the ACU. We found there was some uncertainty as to the availability of these reporting mechanisms among some of the workforce. This means that not all staff may be raising concerns about standards of behaviour. The force may wish to consider how the workforce’s understanding of these systems is reinforced, to be confident that any concerns are fully reported.

The force has a well-resourced ACU with dedicated intelligence and investigative resources and equipment. During our ACU file review, we found there were only six out of 60 examined cases in which we considered other tactics might have been used to undertake more effective investigations. Initial grading and assessment of intelligence follows APP guidance and is categorised in accordance with national corruption categories. Corruption intelligence is only accessible on computers within the ACU. We found the system to be up to date and well managed, and data fully searchable. For those cases we examined in the ACU file review, all that should have been referred to the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC), due to the nature of the investigations, had been correctly referred. This means there is every likelihood that corrupt activities within the force will be identified and fully investigated.

Page 155 of 188

https://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmicfrs/glossary/ibase/

https://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmicfrs/glossary/anti-corruption-unit/

https://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmicfrs/glossary/senior-officer/

https://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmicfrs/glossary/independent-office-for-police-conduct/

The force recognises the abuse of position for a sexual purpose as serious corruption, and this is reflected in the force’s local counter-corruption strategic threat assessment. We found during our file review that all relevant cases were appropriately referred to the IOPC. The force is taking steps to address this area by providing briefings to its employees and has adopted the National Police Counter-Corruption Advisory Group strategy. This has also been addressed through the deputy chief constable’s leadership visits to districts, and professional standards branch road shows which have taken place across the force. The force has also provided awareness to its partners involved in dealing with vulnerable members of the public, to enable recognition within the community.

During our inspection, we found some staff were aware of recent cases publicised in the media and through the force’s intranet. Some supervisors we spoke with had also received briefings to assist in identifying the warning signs. However, we found little evidence to show that the wider workforce had received awareness training, and officers and staff had limited knowledge of this concern. The force needs to consider how it can improve staff understanding of the importance of abuse of position for a sexual purpose and its impact on the public.

Treating the workforce fairly

Good

Greater Manchester Police is good at treating its workforce fairly, but we found some areas for improvement.

The force is improving fairness at work. Its staff survey participation levels have increased from 34 percent in 2016 to 51 percent. But we found that the force did not deal with grievances promptly and some files were incomplete. Consequently, the force can’t be confident that it deals effectively with grievances. However, staff and officers told us they were confident about using the procedure and the force has improved its processes since our inspection in 2017.

The force is striving to enhance the diversity of its workforce and make it more representative of the people it serves. It analyses selection processes and misconduct investigations. It uses this analysis to identify and address disproportionality.

Greater Manchester Police supports wellbeing through preventative measures and by managing trauma risk. The force’s wellbeing panel reviews referrals to occupational health and manages medical assessments of new recruits. The force has ambitious recruitment plans for the next two years, which may affect the panel’s ability to meet demand. Staff and officers told us it was hard to access occupational health services, so people may remain away from work longer than they need to. The force may wish to consider giving clearer guidance on this.

In our 2017 legitimacy report, we gave Greater Manchester Police an area for improvement in its implementing and monitoring of a new personal development review (PDR) process. The process is now in place for officers, and the force plans to implement it for staff in 2019. But we found some gaps that mean the force can’t

Page 156 of 188

https://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmicfrs/glossary/national-police-counter-corruption-advisory-group/

https://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmicfrs/glossary/national-police-counter-corruption-advisory-group/

https://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmicfrs/glossary/professional-standards-department/

https://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmicfrs/glossary/occupational-health-services/

https://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmicfrs/glossary/occupational-health-services/


formally support performance development. The force should ensure it fully implements the process, and that it is used effectively and monitored force-wide.

Another area for improvement in 2017 was awareness of the talent management system. The force has reviewed its talent management. But it relies on the PDR process, which, as mentioned above, we found to have gaps. Presently, it applies only to officers, not staff. So the force can’t be confident that it is providing fair opportunities for all.


Improving fairness at work

The force is working well to improve fairness at work. It uses a range of methods to engage the workforce and seek feedback. These include senior leadership meetings and station visits, one-to-one appointments, staff forums, focus groups and the staff survey. The force also takes a ‘you said, we did’ approach to inform its workforce of action that has been taken. Since 2016, as a result of staff feedback it has taken steps to improve, with software technology and the consideration of the criteria requiring sergeant attendance at sudden deaths as examples. It has also undertaken consultation with staff about the pending merger of crime investigation and public protection investigation units across the force.

This year, the force has seen an increase in participation in the staff survey to approximately 51 percent of the organisation, compared to 34 percent in 2016. This was balanced across police officer, staff and PCSO roles. We also received positive feedback that the special constabulary feels engaged by the force, and special constables were also encouraged to participate in the staff survey, enabling them to raise their specific concerns.

The force conducted 170 feedback sessions with staff between August and October 2018 to share the survey results. These sessions also enabled it to identify from the workforce other reasons for stress. Further engagement with the workforce has taken place through the development of a video presentation, local communication and engagement information packs for branches and districts, and the development of plans to support implementation of changes. The force plans to focus on the workplace stresses it has identified. It has also recognised the sergeant rank as a priority, as these are important leaders within the force. This approach means that it can show it responds to the concerns raised by its workforce.

Areas for improvement • The force should improve how it manages grievances, so that it provides

timely outcomes for officers and staff. • The force should ensure its process for assessment and development of

officer and staff performance is fully implemented, used effectively and monitored force-wide.

• The force should have a talent management system that is consistent, fair and accessible to all the workforce.

Page 157 of 188

We examined a sample of grievance files during pre-inspection fieldwork. We found that, although the grievance policy and procedure reflected Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service (Acas) guidance and codes of practice, grievances were not always being dealt with in a timely fashion. Of the ten files examined, eight had encountered unacceptable delays, including allocation to a grievance manager for investigation, and delays in reports being sent from Greater Manchester Shared Services to HR. Six of the ten files took up to 14 months to complete, for cases that were not considered complex. Some files also had closure reports missing. This means that, although officers and staff we spoke to during our inspection were aware of the grievance procedure or knew where to find it and would feel confident to use it if they needed to, the force can’t be confident that grievances are dealt with effectively.

The force recognises these issues and reviewed the grievance process in 2017 and again in early 2018. As a result, it has made changes to its processes. We examined four additional files during our inspection fieldwork and found the force now provides central oversight of grievances, and advice is given by HR managers. We also found evidence of chase-up emails to staff to support timeliness and consistency in process, with improved completion of closure forms. However, we also found some cases still showed a delay in identifying managers to deal with grievances, contacting the complainants and completing investigations. Overall, the force needs to continue its efforts to improve the management of grievances.

We found that the force analyses its data to identify and address any adverse impact and disproportionality in selection processes and misconduct investigations. It understands the number of applicants for selection with protected characteristics and the respective pass rates in those processes. It gathers data on the potential for any adverse impact in misconduct investigations and has found little disproportionality. It also takes steps to raise awareness within the organisation. We found some staff were aware of road shows and emails to encourage applications from under-represented groups for specialist roles such as firearms, as well as the personal development action learning sets (PeDALS) programme. The PeDALS programme provides professional development for black, Asian and minority ethnic (BAME) staff seeking promotion. The force has updated its promotion processes and removed the need for supervisor support. Staff we spoke to believe the new processes to be fair and open. The force is exploring the potential to work with the Metropolitan Police Service to attract further BAME candidates as direct entry recruits. This shows that it is taking some steps to make the workforce more diverse and representative of the people it serves.

Supporting workforce wellbeing

The force has a wellbeing board chaired by the assistant anti, and a strategy that supports force activity. It has allocated an additional £1m over a three-year period to provide a centrally co-ordinated wellbeing service to enhance capacity, with an established project overseen by the wellbeing board. We noted within the FMS that since 2017, Greater Manchester Police has made progress with the establishment of the wellbeing services unit. We were pleased to find that six of the seven wellbeing liaison officers are now in post, as well as 60 volunteer wellbeing single points of contact across the force.

Page 158 of 188

https://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmicfrs/glossary/advisory-conciliation-and-arbitration-service/

https://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmicfrs/glossary/advisory-conciliation-and-arbitration-service/

https://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmicfrs/glossary/protected-characteristics/

The force uses a range of preventative measures to support wellbeing. It subscribes to a 24-hour employee assistance programme, which offers advice and access to counselling and support to the workforce. The force’s occupational health provision includes a registered mental health nurse and offers support for cognitive behavioural therapy and psychiatric services, which means that it can prioritise mental as well as physical health. The force is aware that the demand for wellbeing services has increased and has looked to other forces and agencies to understand what works. It is a member of the Blue Light Framework and Oscar Kilo, the wellbeing website for emergency services.

The trauma risk management (TRiM) process is well established and has given valuable support to those staff affected by the Manchester Arena attack and other incidents. The force has increased the number of TRiM practitioners from 16 to 31, with budget provision to train an additional 16 people across the organisation. The force offers access to a range of wellbeing workshops and therapies for staff. However, we found that the pressures on neighbourhood patrols to meet demand may limit access for some staff. Within the control room, we found there is a clear strategy to address wellbeing improvement with a focus on physical, social, psychological and environmental wellbeing. The control room has an identified lead and a volunteer wellbeing team to support activity.

As part of the newly promoted sergeants’ training course, first-line managers are given a half-day session on managing attendance and wellbeing, and have been issued with a guide to support them. The force should ensure training is provided to existing managers.

The force has a wellbeing panel which meets regularly to review referrals made to occupational health, including those referred for support because of complaints and misconduct. However, we found that the department may not be meeting all demands consistently, as currently it also manages medical assessments for new starters. This means those staff needing access to occupational health assessment and support may not be seen swiftly when recruitment is taking place. With the ambitious plans to recruit officers over the next few years, this may become even more acute. We are aware that further funding has been requested to help build capacity for planned recruitment numbers and the force is looking to outsource the recruitment requirements to address this. At the time of inspection there were no backlogs in referrals, but demands were not being met consistently, and confusion over accessing services may be resulting in reduced demand. The average waiting time from referral to appointment was several days to see a nurse, one to two weeks for physiotherapy, and approximately three weeks to see a doctor.

We also found the number of occupational health referrals to be among the lowest per headcount of forces across England and Wales. We received some feedback that officers and staff felt accessing occupational health support was difficult, and there was confusion among staff about whether they could self-refer. This means that staff who require support from the force to return to work may not receive it when it is needed most and may be absent from work for longer. The force told us that staff can self-refer for occupational health support. There are defined criteria to enable those people who have been involved in a traumatic incident, are the subject of misconduct, or are believed to be a victim or perpetrator in domestic abuse incidents to self-refer. The force should consider providing clear guidance to staff and supervisors about

Page 159 of 188

https://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmicfrs/glossary/blue-light-wellbeing-framework/

https://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmicfrs/glossary/oscar-kilo/

https://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmicfrs/glossary/trauma-risk-management-trim/

accessing occupational health services and the support available through other means – for example, the employee assistance programme. Officers and staff in high-risk roles don’t currently receive mandated appointments with the welfare team. The force has acknowledged this and is putting annual one-to-one meetings in place to address this.

Greater Manchester Police has a sickness rate in line with the rate experienced by forces across England and Wales, with approximately 2.7 percent of police officers absent at any one time. The force is taking steps to address sickness absence with a project that has seven themes for improvement: leadership culture and behaviour, communication and raising awareness, prevention, education and training, learning from others, force data, and performance management and reporting. The force monitors absence data and produces reports which line managers can access online.

One area in which the force has acted to improve sickness involves the implementation of Operation Ergo, which includes a shift pattern change for neighbourhood patrol officers. The shift pattern allows for a regular team meeting to discuss performance and wellbeing. It also builds capacity for training days to reduce the need to take shift staff away from responding to calls for service. It is anticipated that these will help reduce sickness absence. Operation Ergo is currently in place within Oldham, Tameside and Rochdale, with other force areas due to be working the new pattern by May 2019. We understand that the force has implemented the new working pattern in March 2019, ahead of expectations.

Managing performance and development of officers and staff

In our 2017 legitimacy report, we identified an area for improvement which centred on the implementation and monitoring of the effectiveness of the revised PDR process. The force has introduced the new PDR for police officers. It intends to improve on the current police staff assessment process by rolling out a comparable process for staff in 2019, but its format is not yet agreed. We found there is limited oversight of the PDR process and no central monitoring of uptake of PDRs and the quality of their completion. During reality testing, we found that many officers we spoke with did not have a current PDR with identifiable objectives. Some were not having formal monthly one-to-one conversations with their line managers about performance. Most staff we spoke to felt able to raise issues directly with their supervisors outside a one-to-one meeting, but recognised that these conversations were unlikely to be documented. Supervisors commented on the lack of training and understanding about how to complete PDRs for staff, and not having time to do them. We also found little evidence to show that the force was addressing under-performance. This means that it is unable to formally support the performance and development of all staff or make the most of their contribution.

The force needs to take steps to provide further PDR training to supervisors, ensure PDRs are being completed, and monitor the effectiveness of the process. This should help ensure that all individuals are provided with support and development in the workplace, and under-performance is identified and appropriately tackled.

We identified a second area for improvement in 2017, relating to improving awareness of the talent management process and increasing confidence and participation in the scheme. We found that the force has reviewed the talent management process

Page 160 of 188


and there is a structure in place. However, this is accessed through completion of a PDR, and is only for officers rather than all staff. With the inconsistencies in the take-up of the PDR process across the force, Greater Manchester Police can’t be confident that it supports the talent management process and provides fair opportunities to all.

We were pleased to receive positive feedback about the changes to the promotion process. The force now produces a four-year timetable for promotion boards. All boards are staffed by independent assessors, and applications are anonymised throughout selection. Most officers stated that perceived barriers, such as supervisor support, had been removed. Mentors are available for those seeking promotion, and we found processes are now based around the national competency and values framework. Staff believed them to be fair and transparent. They now receive an information pack, feel informed at the start of the process and receive feedback at its conclusion.

Page 161 of 188

https://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmicfrs/glossary/competency-and-values-framework/

Annex A – About the data

Data in this report is from a range of sources, including: • Home Office; • Office for National Statistics (ONS); • our inspection fieldwork; and • data we collected directly from all 43 police forces in England and Wales.

When we collected data directly from police forces, we took reasonable steps to agree the design of the data collection with forces and with other interested parties such as the Home Office. We gave forces several opportunities to quality assure and validate the data they gave us, to make sure it was accurate. For instance: • We shared the submitted data with forces, so they could review their own and

other forces’ data. This allowed them to analyse where data was notably different from other forces or internally inconsistent.

• We asked all forces to check the final data used in the report and correct any errors.

We set out the source of this report’s data below.

Methodology

Data in the report

British Transport Police was outside the scope of inspection. Any aggregated totals for England and Wales exclude British Transport Police data, so will differ from those published by the Home Office.

When other forces were unable to supply data, we mention this under the relevant sections below.

Population

For all uses of population as a denominator in our calculations, unless otherwise noted, we use ONS mid-2017 population estimates. This was the most recent data available at the time of inspection.

Page 162 of 188

Survey of police staff

We surveyed the police workforce across England and Wales, to understand their views on workloads, redeployment and how suitable their assigned tasks were. This survey was a non-statistical, voluntary sample so the results may not be representative of the workforce population. The number of responses per force varied between 32 and 365. So we treated results with caution and didn’t use them to assess individual force performance. Instead, we identified themes that we could explore further during fieldwork.

BMG survey of public attitudes towards policing (2018)

We commissioned BMG to survey public attitudes towards policing in 2018. Ipsos MORI conducted a similar version of the survey in 2015–2017.

The survey consisted of about 400 respondents for each of the 43 forces. Most surveys were completed online, by members of online research panels. However, a minority of the surveys (around 750) were conducted face-to-face. These face-to-face surveys were specifically targeted to groups that are traditionally under-represented on online panels. This aimed to make sure the survey respondents were as representative as possible of the total adult population of England and Wales. A small number of respondents were also surveyed online via postal invites to the survey.

Results were weighted by age, gender, ethnicity and indices of multiple deprivation to match population profiles. The sampling method used is not a statistical random sample and the sample size was small, which may be more problematic for larger force areas compared to small ones. So any results provided are only an indication of satisfaction rather than an absolute.

The findings of this survey, and previous surveys, are available on our website.

Review of crime files

We reviewed police case files for these crime types: • theft from person; • rape (including attempts); • stalking; • harassment; • common assault; • grievous bodily harm (wounding); and • actual bodily harm.

Our file review was designed to provide a broad overview of how well the police: • identify vulnerability; • conduct investigations; and • treat victims.

Page 163 of 188

https://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmicfrs/publications/public-perceptions-of-policing-in-england-and-wales-2018/

We randomly selected files from crimes recorded between 1 January and 31 March 2018 and assessed them against several criteria. We reviewed 60 case files in each force, except for West Midlands Police and Greater Manchester Police where we reviewed 90.

For our file review, we only selected a small sample size of cases per force. So we didn’t use results from as the only basis for assessing individual force performance, but alongside other evidence.

Force in context

999 calls

We collected this data directly from all 43 police forces in England and Wales.

Recorded crime and crime outcomes

We took this data from the December 2018 release of the Home Office police recorded crime and outcomes data tables.

Total police-recorded crime includes all crime (except fraud) recorded by all forces in England and Wales (except BTP). Home Office publications on the overall volumes and rates of recorded crime and outcomes include British Transport Police, which is outside the scope of this inspection. So England and Wales rates in this report will differ from those published by the Home Office.

Police-recorded crime data should be treated with care. Recent increases may be due to forces’ renewed focus on accurate crime recording since our 2014 national crime data inspection.

Other notable points to consider when interpreting outcomes data are listed below. • Crime outcome proportions show the percentage of crimes recorded in the 12

months ending 30 September 2018 that have been assigned each outcome. This means that each crime is tracked or linked to its outcome. So this data is subject to change, as more crimes are assigned outcomes over time.

• Under the new framework, 37 police forces in England and Wales provide outcomes data through the HODH every month. All other forces provide this data via a monthly manual return.

• Leicestershire, Staffordshire and West Yorkshire forces participated in the Ministry of Justice’s out of court disposals pilot. As part of the pilot, they stopped issuing simple cautions or cannabis/khat warnings and restricted their use of penalty notices for disorder for adult offenders. These three forces continued to follow these procedures since the pilot ended in November 2015. Later, other forces also limited their use of some out of court disposals. So the outcomes data should be viewed with this in mind.

For a full commentary and explanation of outcome types please see the Home Office statistics, Crime outcomes in England and Wales: year ending March 2018.

Page 164 of 188

http://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/police-recorded-crime-open-data-tables

http://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/police-recorded-crime-open-data-tables

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/729127/crime-outcomes-hosb1018.pdf

Workforce figures (including ethnicity and gender)

We took this data from the Home Office annual data return 502. The data is available from the Home Office’s published police workforce England and Wales statistics or the police workforce open data tables. The Home Office may have updated these figures since we obtained them for this report.

The data gives the full-time equivalent workforce figures as at 31 March. The figures include section 38-designated investigation, detention or escort officers, but not section 39-designated detention or escort staff. They include officers on career breaks and other types of long-term absence but exclude those seconded to other forces.

Spend per head of population

We took this data from the HMICFRS value for money profiles.

These profiles are based on data collected by the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy, through the Police Objective Analysis. The spend over time figures are adjusted for inflation. The population figures are ONS mid-year estimates, with the 2018/19 value calculated by assessing the trend for the last five years. More details on this data can be found on our website.

Stop and search

We took this data from the Home Office publication, Police powers and procedures, England and Wales, year ending 31 March 2018. Stop and search totals exclude vehicle only searches and searches where the subject’s ethnicity was not stated.

Vetting data (workforce without up-to-date security clearance)

We collected this data directly from all 43 police forces in England and Wales.

Page 165 of 188

http://www.gov.uk/government/collections/police-workforce-england-and-wales

http://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/police-workforce-open-data-tables

https://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmicfrs/our-work/article/value-for-money-inspections/value-for-money-profiles/value-for-money-dashboards/

https://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmicfrs/our-work/article/value-for-money-inspections/value-for-money-profiles/value-for-money-dashboards/understanding-vfm-dashboards/

https://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmicfrs/our-work/article/value-for-money-inspections/value-for-money-profiles/value-for-money-dashboards/understanding-vfm-dashboards/

https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/police-powers-and-procedures-england-and-wales-year-ending-31-march-2018

https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/police-powers-and-procedures-england-and-wales-year-ending-31-march-2018

May 2019 | ©HMICFRS 2019 | ISBN: 978-1-78655-799-5

www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmicfrs

Page 166 of 188

http://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmicfrs


Page 167 of 188

Report of the Head of Audit and Assurance to the Greater

Manchester Combined Authority to the Joint Audit Panel

30th July 2019

Progress against Internal Audit Plan 2018/20

Overview:

The purpose of this progress report is to inform Members of the Joint Audit Panel of

the progress to date of the delivery of the Internal Audit Plan.

Detail:

2018/20 Internal Audit Plan

The Internal Audit plan for 2018/20 was approved by the GM Mayor (in respect of

police and crime functions), the Chief Constable and the Joint Audit Panel on 12th

December 2018.

Two reports have been issued since the last meeting of the Joint Audit Panel held on

the 18th June 2019 as noted below:

Service Desk – High Level of Assurance

Force Assurance Arrangements for compliance with the Protection of

Freedoms Act (2012) – Good Level of Assurance

GMP/GMSS Payroll 2018/19 – Satisfactory Level of Assurance

Details of the number and priority of agreed actions in respect of these audits are

attached in Appendix A.

A summary of any high or critical findings is also provided in Appendix A.

Internal Audit Work In Progress

We are currently undertaking work in the following areas:

Planning and Scoping:

Specially Trained Officers

Fieldwork:

Provision of Training – ‘newly promoted’ or ‘acting up’

Custody – Health and Welfare of Detainees

Compliance with Disclosure Responsibilities

Reporting:

Page 168 of 188

Use of Agency Staff and Overtime (Serious

Crime Division and Specialist Operations)

Software Asset Management

Cyber Security

Specialist Equipment (Serious Crime Division)

Details of our progress in respect of the 2018/20 Audit Plan is shown in Appendix B.

We are also in the process of agreeing audits to be undertaken within the PCC

team. There are 70 days within the agreed internal audit plan. Internal Audit

attended the July PCC Team Meeting in order to commence the Audit Needs

Assessment process and are currently in the process of formulating a plan for those

70 days with audits likely to include the grants process (evaluation, payments,

monitoring, feedback and decommissioning) and an audit of victim services.

Changes to the Internal Audit Plan

The internal audit plan is regularly reviewed and can be amended to reflect

changing risks and/or objectives. In line with the Internal Audit Charter, significant

changes to the plan must be approved by the Joint Audit Panel.

There are no changes requiring Joint Audit Panel approval at this time.

Appendix C of this report provides a record of changes to the approved plan along

with the date they were approved by the Panel.

Risk:

Risk Mitigation

Individual reports have identified risks

associated with the area’s reviewed

Management has agreed to take

appropriate action to address the issues

identified and mitigate the associated risk.

Page 169 of 188

Recommendations:

Members are asked to review and scrutinise the contents of this report.

Attachments:

Appendix A – Summary of internal audit reports 2019/20

Appendix B – 2018/20 Internal Audit Plan Progress Report

Appendix C - Changes to the Internal Audit Plan

Page 170 of 188

APPENDIX A

2019/20 Summary of Internal Audit Reports

The table below provides a cumulative summary of the internal audit work completed in 2019/20. This will inform the annual Internal Audit opinion for the

year 2019/20.

Audit Assurance Level

Audit Actions Summary of Critical / High findings

Critical High Medium Efficiency

Service Desk High - - 2 - N/A

Force Assurance Arrangements for compliance with the Protection of Freedoms Act (2012)

Good - - 1 - N/A

GMP/GMSS Payroll 2018/19

Satisfactory - 2 4 6 The number of overpayments to existing employees and leaving employees has increased since last year. Common themes for the overpayments are late notification to the GMSS team, which result in overpayment of leave and basic pay etc., and changes in working hours/patterns that have not been notified to the team.

Audit testing found that a large percentage of notifications during the period December 2018 and January 2019, (42%) were received in the month of leaving or after the person had left. Subsequently an invoice has had to be raised to recover the overpayments.

Page 171 of 188

APPENDIX B

2018/20 Internal Audit Plan Progress Report

The table below shows progress made in delivery of the 2018/20 Internal Audit Plan.

Key: Not Yet started Scheduled In progress Complete

Assurance Theme

Auditable Area Days Timing Scoping Fieldwork Draft Report

Final Report

Joint Audit Panel

Comments

Governance Police Complaints 15 Watching brief

Governance and Decision Making

25

Organisational Learning 20

Risk Management 20 Approved by the Panel in April 2019

Workforce and People

Health and Safety 25 Report Issued on 25.03.19

Provision of Training 25

Provision of Training – ‘newly promoted’ or ‘acting up’

10 Q1

Specially Trained Officers 15 Q2

Restricted Duties 25

RIDDOR Reporting 10 Approved by the Panel in June 2019

Assets and equipment

Uniform and Equipment – issue, returns, monitoring and reporting

20 Report Issued on 21.03.19

Management of Specialist Equipment within Serious Crime Division

20 Q1 Draft Report going through internal QA process

Page 172 of 188

APPENDIX B

Assurance Theme


Final Report

Joint Audit Panel

Comments

Equipment – fit For purpose 20

Firearms – security, issue and return to Force Armoury

10 Q2

Firearms – physical control and storage of firearms held across the Force e.g. in Forensics and Property Stores

20

Firearms Licencing 15

Procurement and Contracts

Firearms Procurement 15 Q2

Contract Management and Monitoring

30

Procurement 25 Approved by the Panel in April 2019

Information, Data Governance and Security

IS Incidents and Breaches 25

IS Sharing of Information 25

IS Requests for Information 25

Mobile Digital Devices 20

Force Assurance Arrangements for compliance with the Protection of Freedoms Act (Biometrics)

5 Report Issued on 4th July 2019

Human Tissue Act 5

General Data Protection Regulations

5

Page 173 of 188

APPENDIX B

Assurance Theme


Final Report

Joint Audit Panel

Comments

Change and Transformation

Payroll HR Shared Service 10

Firearms Regional Training Collaboration

15

Change Management Process 30

Forensic Digital Investigations 20

Finance GMP Travel Desk (VFM) 10 Report Issued 08.03.19

CTPNW Travel Desk (VFM) 10 Report Issued 08.03.19

Payroll 30 Report Issued 19.07.19

Use of Agency Staff and Overtime (Serious Crime Division and Specialist Operations Branch)

20 Q3/4 2018/19

Events Planning – Cost Recovery

25 Q1/2

Custody and Criminal Justice

Health and Welfare of Detainees in Custody and on Release

20 Q1/2

Disclosure - Compliance 25 Q1/2

PACE (Police and Criminal Evidence) Beds/Secure Beds for Juveniles

20

Performance Crime Recording 20

Page 174 of 188

APPENDIX B

Assurance Theme


Final Report

Joint Audit Panel

Comments

ICT and Information Systems

Mobile Working 10 Report Issued 18.03.19

Software Asset Management 10 Q4 2018/19

Service Management Platform – Service Desk

10 Q4 2018/19

Report Issued 06.06.19

Cyber Security 15 Q1

CARE family by Disclosure in Criminal Records

10 Q2/3

Service Integration and Management

10

ICT (Information and Communications Technology) Systems Health Checks

5

Follow up audits Seized Cash and Proceeds of Crime

5 Report Issued 28.01.19

Police and Crime Commissioning Framework

5 Q1 Due to significant changes in this process. This activity will be considered in the Police and Crime Functions Audit Needs Assessment.

Mail and Mailboxes 5

Page 175 of 188

APPENDIX B

Assurance Theme


Final Report

Joint Audit Panel

Comments

Police and Crime Functions

Audit Needs Assessment and Audits

70 Q2 ANA Exercise currently underway to identify areas for internal audit to provide assurance

Page 176 of 188

APPENDIX C

Changes to the Internal Audit Plan

The internal audit plan is designed to be flexible and can be amended to address changes in the risks and/or strategic objectives. Similarly management and the board may request additional audit work be performed to address particular issues. In line with Public Sector Internal Audit Standards (PSIAS) the Joint Audit Panel should approve any significant changes to the plan.

This Section records all changes to the internal audit plan that was approved on 12th December 2018. There are no changes over and above those already approved being requested at this time.

Assurance Theme Auditable Area Change requested Rationale Impact on Audit days

Approved by Joint Audit Panel

Governance Risk Management Joint Audit Panel Assurance on new arrangements +20 April 2019

Procurement Procurement Joint Audit Panel Assurance on current arrangements +25 April 2019

Workforce and People

RIDDOR Reporting Force – ACO Potts Assurance on new system +10 June 2019

Page 177 of 188


Page 178 of 188

Report of the Head of Audit and Assurance to the Greater

Manchester Combined Authority to the Joint Audit Panel

30th July 2019

Action Tracker

Overview:

The report is intended to inform Members of the progress being made by the Force in the

implementation of the agreed actions in the various audit assignments that are

undertaken during each financial year.

Detail:

Post Implementation Reviews (PIR’s) are undertaken approximately six months after the

completion of an audit assignment with the formal issue of an Internal Audit report. They

are undertaken on a selected number of audit reviews on the basis of the significance of

the agreed actions.

The purpose of the review is to establish whether the agreed actions in the original report

have been implemented.

To complement this practice, Internal Audit also maintains an Action Tracker process. This

process is informed by updates provided by the Force on the progress that has been

made regarding the implementation of the agreed actions arising in the various audit

assignments undertaken by Internal Audit.

Current Position:

The updated Action Tracker summary is attached at Appendix A. This analyses the up-to-

date position provided by the Force relating to the implementation of agreed actions

where the target timescale for implementation is due or has elapsed.

The audit summary shows that of the number of agreed actions that are due to be

implemented:

8 have been implemented and,

13 remain outstanding

Of the outstanding actions:

1 is a high priority

11 are medium priority and

1 is efficiency related

A revised target timescale has been provided for each of the outstanding actions.

For those actions which are a medium priority or efficiency related and are less than 12

months old, the revised target timescale is shown in Appendix A.

Page 179 of 188

The current position and a revised target timescale for the outstanding high priority action

and outstanding actions over twelve months old are detailed in Appendix B.

Risk:

Risk Mitigation

Agreed actions to address the issues raised

in the areas reviewed not carried out in

timely manner.

Ongoing progress monitored and

reported.

Recommendations:

Members are asked to review and scrutinise the contents of this report.

Attachments:

Appendix A – Updated Action Tracker Summary

Appendix B - Detailed update on the Progress of Outstanding High Priority Actions and

Outstanding Actions over 12 Months Old

Page 180 of 188

APPENDIX A

ACTION TRACKER SUMMARY

Audit Title No.

Agreed

No Previously

Implemented

NLR/Cleared

Not

Due

Due No.

Implemented

since last

Reported

Now Due but not yet Implemented

Total High Medium Efficiency

Digital

Evidence

5 4 - 1 1 - - - -

Secure

Configurations

2 1 - 1 - 1 - 1 – See

Update

No 1

-

Health and

Safety

5 4 - 1 - 1 - 1- See

Update

No 2

-

Seized Monies

and Proceeds

of Crime

13 12 - 1 - 1 - 1- See

Update

No 3

-

Out of Court

Disposals

13 12 - 1 1 - 1

*30.4.20

-

Sharepoint 6 - - 6 1 5 1 – See

Update

No 4

4

*30.9.19

-

Mobile

Working

5 1 3 1 - 1 - 1

*30.9.19

-

Page 181 of 188

APPENDIX A

Audit Title No.

Agreed

No Previously

Implemented

NLR/Cleared

Not

Due

Due No.

Implemented

since last

Reported

Now Due but not yet Implemented

Uniform and

Equipment

8 1 3 4 2 2 - 1

*17.10.19

1

*31.7.19

Health and

Safety

11 1 5 5 4 1 - 1

*1.9.19

-

TOTAL 68 36 11 21 8 13 1 11 1

* Revised Target Timescale

Page 182 of 188

APPENDIX B

DETAILED UPDATE ON THE PROGRESS OF OUTSTANDING HIGH PRIORITY ACTIONS AND OUTSTANDING ACTIONS OVER 12

MONTHS OLD

Ref

No

Audit Title and Issue Priority Management

Response/Agreed Action

Update Target

Completion

Date

Secure Configurations

1 Due to compatibility issues

with some software in the

Force, not all desktops

have been upgraded to

Windows 7.

Medium Action: The incompatible

systems should be

upgraded or re-placed as

soon as is practical to

allow the remaining

computers to be

upgraded to Windows 7

Owner: Colin Carey

Target Timescale: 31st

March 2017 reliant on

dependent projects being

completed.

July 2019

Windows XP only remains

where compatibility and

iOPS go-live requires these

systems. Once iOPS go-live

is complete these can then

be removed.

iOPS go-live continues to

be progressed and is

imminent.

The person responsible for

the removal of XP

completely is Mark

Rawlinson of IS Branch.

The revised target date is

set to allow iOPS 'hyper-

care' to safely pass.

9th October

2019

Page 183 of 188

APPENDIX B

Ref

No



Update Target

Completion

Date

Health and Safety

2 The Health& Safety (H&S)

Team currently use NSPIS

(National Strategy for

Police Information Systems)

to record and monitor

information regarding the

accident reports they

received, including

tracking activities that alert

them to any cases

requiring referral to the

Health & Safety Executive.

NSPIS will be taken out of

service at the end of

March 2017 and will be

replaced with newly

developed capabilities

within the iTrent HR/Payroll

system.

Going forward, accident

and assault data will be

input to iTrent HR/Payroll

system. A report has been

developed using business

objectives to extract the

Medium Action: Establish what the

new arrangements for

managing accident

reports, related

absence/sickness

monitoring/reporting and

statistical data analysis will

be.

Owner: Amy Park, Head of

HR Retained and Health &

Safety Manager Ateeka

Atchia

Target Timescale: 1st May

2017

July 2019

Health and Safety

Accident/Assault/Incident

reporting is now on a

programme Board and the

project is focused on

resolving the issues

identified with the current

ITrent recording system.

Interim arrangements i.e.

recruitment of a H&S

Assistant has been

successful, this is a 12

month contract whilst the

project continues.

31st October

2019

Page 184 of 188

APPENDIX B

Ref

No



Update Target

Completion

Date

relevant data from the

system, However, it is not

yet known who will input

the data to the iTrent

HR/Payroll system or

whether this change will

impact on the Team’s

capabilities to analyse and

report effectively and

efficiently.

Seized Monies and Proceeds of Crime

3 It is difficult to measure

whether the Force have

been successful in

mainstreaming asset

recovery into everyday

policy.

The presence of a

Divisional Financial

Investigator provides a key

point of contact for officers

on Division and an offer of

advice and guidance in

relation to Proceeds of

Crime Act (POCA)

legislation and procedures,

Medium Actions:

1) The cash seizure policy

will be reviewed to ensure

that there are processes in

place that highlight to the

Economic Crime Unit

(ECU) when a cash sum

over £1k has been

entered onto the KIM

Property Management

system or into the admin

safe on division.

2) The changes will be

communicated via Chief

Constable Orders and a

July 2019

1) The Cash Seizure Policy

will be reviewed when the

centralised cash handling is

rolled out.

2) Not actioned as

dependent on no. 1 above

3) Now that iOPS has been

launched discussions will

take place to see what can

be done on the new system

to flag amounts over £1k.

4) This has been considered

but on reflection it is not

30th September

2019

Page 185 of 188

APPENDIX B

Ref

No



Update Target

Completion

Date

this coupled with the

support provided by the

Asset Attack Team within

the Serious Crime Division

goes some way towards

facilitating asset recovery

work into everyday

policing. The extent and

success of this is difficult to

measure.

The review did however,

identify missed

opportunities for cash

seized under POCA.

directive to Divisional

Commanders.

3) Discussions will be had

with the iOP’s team to see

what can be put on the

new system to flag

amounts over £1k.

4) We will look at the

practicalities of the ECU

checking the property

system on a daily basis to

see if any cash in excess of

£1k has been booked in,

however this may be

problematic if it is

recorded on the property

system as uncounted.

5) We are currently

providing input and

upskilling staff on divisions

around cash seizure and

the benefits of ARIS.

Owner: D/I Karen Ryan

(Financial Investigation,

Serious and Organised

Crime)

considered practical or an

efficient use of the teams

resources, this is on the

basis that a significant

amount of time can be

spent looking into individual

instances when cash in

excess of £1k has been

booked into the KIM

(Property Management

System) i.e. accessing KIM

in the first instance then

looking at the crime

records etc

5) Actioned, an NCALT

(National Centre for

Applied Learning

Technologies) training

package is available online

for frontline Officer.

Refresher training sessions

have also been delivered

to each Division, targeting

the Criminal Investigation

Teams and the Divisional

Senior Leadership Teams.

Intranet pages have also

Page 186 of 188

APPENDIX B

Ref

No



Update Target

Completion

Date

Target Timescale: 31st

December 2017

been updated with

relevant information to

provide guidance to

officers.

Cluster Clinics are being

held on Divisions which

provides officers with the

opportunity to seek advice

and guidance on the

POCA and engage with

the Asset Recovery Team.

The Team are currently

working with Corporate

Communications to

produce a video about the

process (Asset Recovery

Incentivisation Scheme and

POCA) which will be

mandatory to view.

SharePoint

4 SharePoint and other

patches relating to the

functionality and security of

SharePoint have not been

installed.

High Action: Windows Servers

require security patching.

The Force will initiate

patching of the SP Server

Estate to current GMP

Standard.

July 2019

We continue to advertise

Microsoft patches once a

month (we have just

released July's). Therefore,

there are no outstanding

1st October 2019

Page 187 of 188

APPENDIX B

Ref

No



Update Target

Completion

Date

Owner: Marc Boldison

Target Timescale: 30th

September 2018

patches.

Novosco will virtualise

SharePoint servers between

Aug and Oct 19, when the

physical servers will

become obsolete and the

new virtualised SharePoint

and patching thereof will

become the responsibility

of Novosco.

Page 188 of 188

Documents

GREATER MANCHESTER JOINT AUDIT PANEL …...[p] Paper attached GREATER MANCHESTER JOINT AUDIT PANEL (POLICE AND CRIME) 10:20 a.m. – 12:00 p.m., Tuesday 30 July 2019 The Boardroom,