Report 5 of the 12 May 2011 meeting of the Strategic and Operational Policing Committee, with a summary of reports received by the sub committees of the Strategic and Operational Policing Committee.
- Report on the sub committees of the Strategic and Operational Policing Committee
Warning: This is archived material and may be out of date. The Metropolitan Police Authority has been replaced by the Mayor's Office for Policing and Crime (MOPC).
See the MOPC website for further information.
Report on the sub committees of the Strategic and Operational Policing Committee
Date: 12 May 2011
By: on behalf of the Chief Executive
This report contains a summary of reports received by the sub committees of the Strategic and Operational Policing Committee.
That Members receive this report.
B. Supporting information
1. At each meeting of the Strategic and Operational Policing Committee Members will receive a report on its sub committees instead of the minutes. Part 1 minutes will be available on the website, and exempt part 2 minutes are available to Members only, upon request.
2. This report covers the following meetings:
- Counter Terrorism and Protective Services Sub-Committee 27 January 2011 (paragraph 3).
- Professional Standards Cases Sub-Committee on 7 March 2011 (paragraph 4).
3. Counter Terrorism and Protective Services Sub-Committee 27 January 2011
Members present: Toby Harris (Chair), Reshard Auladin (Vice Chair), Neil Johnson and James Cleverly.
36. Performance update: contest
Members discussed a paper which provided an overview of achievements against a range of performance measures relevant to MPS Counter-Terrorism Strategy.
Oral update: palace of Westminster and Heathrow
Members heard an oral report on security at the Palace of Westminster and at Heathrow airport.
4. Professional Standards Cases Sub-Committee on 7 March 2011
Members present: Reshard Auladin, James Cleverly, Valerie Brasse, and Joanne McCartney.
Deborah Glass began by noting that the IPCC had a number of aspirations for the Bill and had made submissions to the Home Office to this affect. Their hope was for a streamlining of complaints, removing some of the bureaucracy around dispensation, for instance. She stated that whilst this was not the central intention of the Bill, it does contain a number of provisions which have been positively received by the IPCC – the definition of complaints has been broadened, specific reference is now made to quality of service complaints, and the process of dispensation will be streamlined.
However, a number of the submissions of the IPCC have not been picked up within the Bill. They had proposed, for instance, that ‘less serious’ allegations be delegated to PCCs for handling – seemingly consistent with their projected role in scrutiny and public confidence. Instead, this power has been given to Chief Constables (and the MPS Commissioner). The IPCC position is that this, in effect, nullifies the right to appeal to an independent body.
The Sub Committee was informed that Schedule 14, Section 7 gives local policing bodies the power to direct the chief officer to comply with the provisions in the Bill relating to complaints. It was submitted that a scrutiny function may be read in from this.
A member raised concerns that whilst the Bill is nominally concerned with stripping bureaucracy from the system, it may in fact create more as the chief officer will require an additional secretariat to discharge these new duties – as the DPS could not. A further level of bureaucracy is likely in that those unhappy with the determination of the chief officer will then have recourse to the complaints process of the local policing body (e.g. MOPC) – by making a complaint against the commissioner.
Update on dip sampling of closed complaints and conduct matters
Deborah Glass responded that dip-sampling is part of the MPA’s scrutiny function, and that it is not for them to remake the decision. Rather members should be asking themselves, are the DPS doing all that one would expect them do in order to ensure public confidence and good decision-making. She noted that any observations made on the individual handling of complaints – as opposed to the policy and process - would carry the same weight as if made by a member of the public.
She went on to agree with members that if a public access request was made, the comments of MPA members would be available to the complainant and could be cited in an appeal to the IPCC (and then in judicial review).
5. Copies of non-exempt reports and minutes from the Authority and its committees can be viewed on the MPA website at www.mpa.gov.uk, or obtained from MPA committee staff.
Other organisational and community implications
1. There are no race and diversity impact issues directly arising from this report. Race and diversity impact is a standing item on reports submitted to committees and sub committees.
Met Forward Implications
2. There are no implications directly arising from this report.
3. There are no implications directly arising from this report.
4. There are no implications directly arising from this report.
5. There are no implications directly arising from this report.
6. There are no implications directly arising from this report.
D. Background papers
D. Contact details
Report author: Thomas Foot, MPA
For information contact:
MPA general: 020 7202 0202
Media enquiries: 020 7202 0217/18
Send an e-mail linking to this page