Home Affairs Committee
Oral evidence: International exchange of criminal records, HC 1038
Tuesday 24 February 2015
Ordered by the House of Commons to be published on 24 February 2015
Members present: Keith Vaz (Chair), Nicola Blackwood, Mr James Clappison, Michael Ellis, Paul Flynn, Dr Julian Huppert, Tim Loughton, Yasmin Qureshi, Mr David Winnick.
Questions 1 – 15
Witness: Ian Readhead, Director of Information, Association of Chief Police Officers Criminal Records Office, gave evidence.
Q1 Chair: Mr Readhead, thank you very much for coming. This is a one-off session just to look at the work you are doing at the Criminal Records Office. In the time that I have chaired this Committee, we have not had any evidence from the Head of the Criminal Records Office.
Perhaps I can start with this question. The concern of the Committee—and, I think, of the public—is to make sure that foreign nationals who enter the country are able to be checked in a quick and efficient way against databases. Could you please tell the Committee how many people are currently checked against databases once they are in this country and if they are committing any offences?
Ian Readhead: Yes, Chair, I can. Up to October of last year, the amount of checks taking place through the ACPO Criminal Records Office was about 4,000 a month. You will then be aware that there was significant concern expressed about that volume, both by the Home Secretary and by your colleagues elsewhere in Parliament.
Chair: As well as this Committee.
Ian Readhead: And this Committee. A sea change has taken place since that time.
Chair: Since October?
Ian Readhead: Since October. Chair, I have the figures for every month and I thought perhaps your Committee would welcome it if I gave those to you.
Chair: That would be very helpful.
Ian Readhead: What that shows is that we went from 4,000 a month up to nearly 10,000 a month.
Q2 Chair: From October to November, following the concerns and some very high-profile cases of foreign nationals who were arrested, the number of checks went up. Is it because you all are working faster, that is, not having lunch breaks, or is it because more of the local police forces are ringing you up and saying, “We need to check this man against a database”?
Ian Readhead: Chair, I think it is a bit of both. There is no doubt that this rattled the cages of our chief constables and there has been a significant effort by the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, encouraged by the Home Secretary, to check all foreign nationals. That is both EU nationals and nationals from outside Europe.
Chair: These are people who have been arrested, not people who have just arrived for a visit?
Ian Readhead: No, these are people who have been arrested. Across the service, you can see a similar effort taking place.
Q3 Chair: Just to get the process right, I am for one moment the Chief Constable of Leicestershire. Somebody comes in there. They have committed an offence in Leicester. Prior to October, what was the percentage of the cases being checked, as opposed to November? How much is the percentage increase?
Ian Readhead: Prior to that date, on average, about 30%. That meant that 70% of foreign nationals were not getting checked at all, which had—
Chair: These are people who had been arrested.
Ian Readhead: These are individuals who have been arrested and are either then the subject of a criminal process in which you need to find out this individual’s criminal history because that is going to have an impact upon the way in which we investigate the offence, and/or when the court deals with that individual it will have an influence on bail or a tariff. That is why is so important to get the antecedent history.
Chair: Of course, but now what is that percentage?
Ian Readhead: As of the last month, Chair, 70% of EU nationals who were arrested in England and Wales have been subject to a check through ACRO and 64% of non-EU nationals have also been checked through ACRO.
Chair: Mr Readhead, even though that is a huge improvement it is still not satisfactory for this Committee. There is an assumption that anyone arrested who is a foreign national suspect should be checked against your records. The records are there, and 70% or 60% is not enough: surely it should be 100% checked because some of the ones you do not check may be the most serious ones.
Ian Readhead: Chair, it is a feature of this environment that we deal in risk. You are quite right to identify that for some of those individuals who are arrested for very minor offences, when we get their record back from Poland or Romania we find that they have, in fact, committed very serious offences. We then have to engage with our colleagues in Immigration and the Border Agency to try to get those people removed from the country. I would not seek to disagree with you on that: the objective must be to get to 100%.
Chair: Why is it not at 100%? Objective or no objective, it is now February. This whole issue became live in October.
Ian Readhead: Yes.
Chair: Surely you would want to send out a message to every chief constable saying, “We will check every single person”? It does not take long to do this, does it?
Q4 Chair: What is the turnaround? For example, for someone arrested from Romania in the middle of London who you go to the Romanian authorities and you check, what is the turnaround?
Ian Readhead: The return date should be within 10 days but I have to tell you, sir, the fact is that Europe differs in its ability to return conviction data to us. We should not be surprised about that because some countries, such as Romania, are clearly getting together a system which is IT-based and which is more able to respond to us, whereas perhaps countries like Poland and Germany are able to give us a return very quickly. Some countries we do not get any responses from.
Chair: Is that an EU country you are talking about?
Ian Readhead: Some countries within the EU are not even within ECRIS. That is the network which is operated. Countries that—
Chair: Some of the people who are arrested here who are foreign nationals but EU nationals you do not check, you cannot check, because they are not coming back to you?
Ian Readhead: We check them, sir, but what I am saying is—
Chair: They do not come back.
Ian Readhead: —we then wait a long time to get the record to come to us.
Chair: In the meantime, they could have gone through the courts system or committed another offence.
Ian Readhead: There is a risk that during that time the record will not be with us and clearly, on the figures that I have given you, sir, 40% of people not being checked are going through that process anyway. That is the reality.
Q5 Chair: We would feel this is unsatisfactory because we would like to see an absolute, 100% check. That is what the public and Parliament would want to see. What do you think Parliament can do to help you? You have made this huge increase in just one month from 4,000 to 10,000, which is very commendable, but we need you to do better. What can be done to make this 100%?
Ian Readhead: I think it is around three aspects: leadership; I think it is also to do with IT—
Chair: Sorry, whose leadership?
Ian Readhead: Leadership by chief constables. They own the responsibility there.
Chair: Right. The message must go out to chief constables that they must do this checking?
Ian Readhead: I think there is an issue. The chief constables and the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police have evidence that he is able to raise the level of checking significantly as a result of mandating that check.
Chair: Is London 100% checked?
Ian Readhead: In London, it is 100%.
Chair: Right.
Ian Readhead: That is different from the target that has been set for the police service, which is 60% of European nationals.
Chair: How did we set that target of 60%?
Ian Readhead: That was set by the Home Secretary, sir.
Q6 Chair: Right. Well, 100% sounds much better. What is the second thing that can be done?
Ian Readhead: The second thing is this: one of the complexities about checking a foreign national is that if I arrest a Polish national and I do not obtain the Polish national’s PESEL number, when I send that check to Poland I get no response because that is critical to the way in which they run their criminal history.
Chair: What is a PESEL number?
Ian Readhead: It is like an ID number but that is peculiar to Poland. If I check a French national, I need to know the town in which the French national was born. If I do not, I do not get a response from France. Across Europe, the ways in which we hold criminal conviction data and the critical points we need to get that check done are not consistent. There is an issue there of making sure that when I bring an offender to a police station and I am a custody sergeant entering that data, it is a bit like booking an airline ticket: there is a failsafe mechanism that once I know you are Polish, I need to get these other pieces of information because if I do not get that, the check will not happen.
Q7 Chair: What is the third aspect? Leadership, the European differences between countries; what is the third aspect that you think should help you?
Ian Readhead: Training.
Chair: How many people are in your Records Office at the moment?
Ian Readhead: 320, sir.
Chair: This is in Hampshire?
Ian Readhead: Yes, they are all Hampshire employees. They work covering a number of activities and this area is the international side: doing the checks going out to Europe, requesting information, and then getting checks coming back in where we have had a UK national who has been arrested in Poland and has been the subject of a conviction.
Chair: If it is a UK national arrested in Poland they would come to you, would they?
Ian Readhead: They do, and we then put that conviction on to the PNC. It is a feature of today’s world that about 30% of all the foreign nationals that we arrest in this country, when we go to Europe, come back with criminal convictions. We have to put those convictions on to the PNC. For about 30% of UK nationals who have been arrested in Poland, when Poland says, “What do you know about this person?” are also criminals. That shows, in my view, that criminals deliberately exploit the ability to cross boundaries to go on committing crime and to evade capture.
Chair: The training should be done by whom?
Ian Readhead: The College of Policing. We are working closely with the college because we need to embed within police constables the need to get the right information and that they have powers to go and check an individual’s country of origin, to seize passports and to get the right information so we can do the check.
Chair: Thank you.
Q8 Mr Winnick: Following on what the Chair has said, when I questioned the Minister for Immigration last week I did refer to cases where foreign criminals have entered this country where convictions had occurred in their own country. Of course, there was a notorious case of the killing of the young female, Alice Gross.
Ian Readhead: Yes.
Mr Winnick: The offender—one assumes he was the offender—the prime suspect of the killing took his life afterwards and the police are not looking for anyone else. That is a glaring case, is it not, of someone who had been already convicted of murder in his own country, in Latvia, who then comes to this country, is allowed in, and then this crime occurs. That is a glaring mistake, surely, on the part of the immigration authorities. It happened, I know, some years ago and I will come to a more recent case in a moment, but that is a pretty terrible illustration, is it not, of what we want to avoid?
Ian Readhead: That case demonstrates—and it is indeed a very tragic case, the loss of life of a very young girl—how key this is for us to improve our performance, to put in place the right procedures and to work closely with the immigration service and the border agencies so that we can protect our communities and bring offenders to justice, be those UK nationals or be they EU nationals.
Mr Winnick: That was a case where the person came in a few years ago, but more recently a burglary took place in London, as you know—or when I give you the details, you will know—where a male householder, a professor and academic—not that it matters one bit what he did—was brutally beaten up and the people involved, who have now faced justice in this country, had convictions in their own country. That is, more or less, recently. Inevitably, Mr Readhead, people say, “Improvements, we are told, are taking place” but this is hardly an illustration of that.
Ian Readhead: Sir, it is a feature of freedom of movement within Europe that individuals who have been convicted of offences in their country of origin in Europe—they may have been convicted of causing grievous bodily harm—may well, once they have served that conviction, some years later, travel and come into our country. In the same way, individuals in our country convicted of some serious offences and perhaps punished by prison may then leave our country and go into Europe as well.
I do understand the significant concern that exists in our communities because of that. I think our focus should always try to be upon the most serious of offenders and how we manage and monitor them and their movements, especially those in the UK who have been convicted of sex offences by putting them on to our Violent or Sexual Offenders Register so that we can try to protect communities both here and in Europe from further offending by those individuals.
Q9 Mr Winnick: When the Minister was answering my question last week, he said a lot depends on the information we receive from other EU countries. If we are not informed, if the appropriate authorities at border level are not informed, that means, in fact, such offenders can come into Britain?
Ian Readhead: Things are changing, sir.
Mr Winnick: In what way? Since last week?
Ian Readhead: No. The movement, sir, to the Schengen Agreement, as you know, will produce a different arrangement in relation to individuals who are wanted on European arrest warrants or individuals who are missing, or major property. For the first time, the Border Force will have access to that system and will be able to stop people at the border who are coming in who are the subject of such a warrant and detain them. In case we have individuals in this country who are wanted on such warrants, of course when they come to our attention they can also be subject to an arrest and potential deportation. There are a number of efforts to improve the situation and I think we are making progress, but I do not pretend that there is not a lot more effort that needs to take place.
Chair: Thank you.
Mr Winnick: I am not quite finished, Chair, if you do not mind. If you take, for example, a disgraceful incident that occurred in Paris where it is alleged that British people were involved, football fans chanting disgusting racist remarks and refusing to allow a person who happened to be black and living in France on to the train, if such people are identified and convicted by a British court, are they the sort of people that the French authorities will be told about? Would their identities be given so that France, if it so wishes—and one hopes that will be the case—can tell these racists they are not wanted?
Ian Readhead: That is a really interesting question, sir, because as you know, within football, individuals committing certain types of offences can be prevented from travelling and have their passport taken away from them. My hope would be that if those individuals are held to account properly, they will not go to Paris and cause that kind of disruption again.
Mr Winnick: Thank you.
Q10 Dr Huppert: Can I ask about data that you hold on people, particularly biometric information, and how the Protection of Freedoms Act is working in terms of deletions? You are responsible for that as well, I think.
Ian Readhead: Yes, sir. There are two methods by which individuals could seek to have records deleted by the police.
One is called the “exceptional case” procedure. That applies when, for example, an individual is arrested by the police on suspicion of murder because he lives in a house with multiple occupancy of students, a student has been found dead and there is a suspicion that the other student has committed the murder. Some weeks later, it is discovered that the person has died of natural causes so there has never been a crime. In those circumstances, an individual can apply to the chief constable in order to have their records removed. That is a fairly frequent occurrence. I have brought the records for you today: in 2014, 412 removals took place nationally and so far this year, 19. That is in relation to “no crime”.
In relation to biometrics, there is an early deletion process. This occurs when an individual has been arrested for a qualifying offence. Perhaps he has been arrested on an allegation of rape. Within POFA, there is a date period under which the police can keep biometric records. However, the individual can seek to apply to have the record removed early, perhaps because they are seeking an occupation and they feel that inhibits their right to get work. We manage that process on behalf of chief constables and since 31 October 2013, we have dealt with 107 applications and all have been dealt with within seven days, so we are getting applications come through.
My own personal view is that is a bit confusing because you have one process operating through chief constables and another process that operates through ACRO. We have put a paper to chief constables suggesting that we manage all of that through a single port of entry so it is more effective and more efficient for members of the public.
Dr Huppert: That does seem to be quite good, because there seem to be different views among a number of chiefs. I have a constituent whose son-in-law was arrested for an offence in London and was prosecuted for it. It then turned that it, in fact, was not an offence and the magistrates court highlighted the fact that it was an unlawful arrest. They have been trying to get the biometric data, quite reasonably, deleted. The Metropolitan Police’s approach has been to highlight the fact—they say this on their information—that there is no statutory time unit for them to get round to processing requests. Do you think it is satisfactory that the Metropolitan Police are highlighting the fact that, although you can ask to get this stuff removed early, they do not promise to get round to looking at it ever?
Ian Readhead: I do not know the occurrence—
Dr Huppert: I would prefer you to comment on the—
Ian Readhead: — but I think that you are right in relation to this delay. I will tell you how I think I know that: I told you we do not manage that process but we do manage the reference numbers, and we have noted that there is quite a delay between when an issue was raised and when we have given the reference number. Although I have said to you 412 reference numbers were given in 2013, what I do not know is, “When was that matter first raised? Has it taken a month or has it taken two years?” It may be true to say this.
Dr Huppert: You do not have access to that? It would have to be the different police forces?
Ian Readhead: I do not have access to that, although I have access to the numbers.
Q11 Dr Huppert: It might be interesting for the Committee to write to the forces because clearly sitting on these decisions for a long time would not be appropriate.
On another subject, you are, I think, responsible for the freedom of information within ACPO?
Ian Readhead: Yes, I lead for ACPO. As their Director of Information, I lead for FOI.
Dr Huppert: We had long debates about whether ACPO should be subject to FOI.
Ian Readhead: Yes.
Dr Huppert: With the new change that is going to happen when it becomes the chiefs’ council, will your role continue with that and will they be subject to FOI there?
Ian Readhead: My role will continue in advising chief constables with regard to FOI issues. As you rightly say, the Association of Chief Police Officers was not initially covered by FOI. Although we wanted to be and we voluntarily complied with FOI, that was actually quite meaningless because the Information Commissioner has no power to protect applicants when it is only a voluntary process, so ACPO became a designated authority.
The concern that we have had is when ACPO goes into an insolvency process on 31 March and we have the National Police Chiefs’ Council, will that body be covered by freedom of information? We have been in discussion with the Ministry of Justice, who cover this area, and the Ministry of Justice has said that in advance of the election, there is no time to designate the NPCC under the Freedom of Information Act. However, because ACPO will not be wound up until July, they believe that both ACPO and the NPCC, who will be handling and processing data on behalf of both organisations, will still be covered under freedom of information. The intention will be to designate the NPCC immediately after the election.
Dr Huppert: Your clear preference is for that designation?
Ian Readhead: Absolutely. The police service in this country must be transparent and accountable to the public and freedom of information has done much to allow individuals to have access to what we do, to understand what we do and for us to be held accountable through the legislation.
[In the absence of the Chair, Michael Ellis was called to the Chair]
Q12 Chair: Very well. Thank you very much, Mr Readhead. Now, the Minister for Immigration has stated to this Committee previously that under this Government, we have seen a 700% increase in the number of the checks through the ACPO Criminal Records Office of foreign offenders. Can you confirm those are accurate figures?
Ian Readhead: I can, sir. The figures that are related go back to 2010–11. In that year, we checked 8,172 EU nationals and 12 non-EU nationals so we only, in that year, checked 8,184. In 2014, between April and December, we checked 38,836 EU nationals and 22,218 non-EU nationals, a total of 61,054 nationals altogether.
Chair: So there has been a 700% increase, which is very good thing. How have you been able to manage that increase with your resources?
Ian Readhead: A number of areas, sir. The first is we have had to increase resources. When those figures commenced in 2010, our establishment was about 120; the establishment now at ACRO is 320, so there has been a significant increase in resources. Secondly, we have had to improve productivity. One of the things we noted was how slowly our systems worked and so we have spent £200,000 over the last four months and we have improved our productivity per person from 25 checks a day to 47 checks a day.
Chair: Is this better equipment?
Ian Readhead: This is making systems run faster, so we are much more productive. The third thing we have had to do, when you get an increase so significant that it doubles your workload in a month, is we have had to seek assistance from the Hampshire Constabulary and we are paying overtime both to Hampshire Constabulary and also our own staff for weekend work.
Q13 Chair: Clearly there is an effort to increase resources and it is a matter that the Government is giving priority. I noticed you said that Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe has managed a 100% check rate, but this is not happening in other forces. Is that right? Why do you think that is? Why is it that the Metropolitan Police can do it and other forces are not?
Ian Readhead: The target set for forces outside of the Metropolitan Police is 60% of European nationals. However, when you look at what is happening, I think chief constables recognise that, in fact, it does not make sense to try to just target EU nationals. Those figures I want to send to you show that on both sides of the house, the performance is coming up. Although the target was only for 60%, the interpretation by chief constables is to improve performance.
Chair: It is your perception that chief constables around the country are giving this a higher priority and they are informing their staff that they should give it a higher priority?
Ian Readhead: For most, that is true.
Q14 Chair: As far as the number chosen is concerned in an outside-of-London force area, if they are reaching 70% how are they deciding which overseas citizens are not checked? How are they making that decision?
Ian Readhead: When I said earlier on, sir, that the need was to train staff more effectively, one of the reasons why I say that is because you assume that an informed decision is being made as to who to check and who not to check.
Chair: Are you saying it is random?
Ian Readhead: My judgement is that most serious offenders are being checked but after that, it could be random.
Chair: This is what I was getting at. Is it likely that the 30% or so that are not currently being checked are those that are perceived by the arresting police to be less serious offences?
Ian Readhead: I think there is a risk of that, sir.
Q15 Chair: Do you think it is achievable to reach a 100% target in the medium to short term?
Ian Readhead: No. I will tell you why we can never reach 100%: we do not have exchange agreements with a number of countries such as North Korea, Yemen, Afghanistan.
Chair: Within Europe, let us say.
Ian Readhead: Within Europe, yes, I think it is fair to say the target should be 100%.
Chair: Is that achievable in the medium or short term?
Ian Readhead: I think it is achievable within the medium term.
Chair: How long?
Ian Readhead: I would be disappointed if by the end of this year, we were not heading toward having 100% checks. The reason for that is because I think a lot of those technical barriers will be met and it will be an automated process.
Chair: Good. We certainly look forward to that. Thank you very much, Ian Readhead, for coming before this Home Affairs Select Committee.
Serious and organised crime, HC 903 10