Minutes

Minutes of the inaugural meeting of the Professional Standards and Performance Monitoring Committee held at Romney House, Westminster on 29 August 2000.

Present

Members

Richard Sumray (Chair)
Elizabeth Howlett (Deputy Chair)
Anthony Arbour
Reshard Auladin
Roger Evans
Lynn Featherstone
R David Muir

MPA staff:

Ian Gaskell (Deputy Clerk), Coln Balkman (Deputy Treasurer), C Williams, (Consultant) and John Douglas (Consultant)

MPS staff:

Ian Blair (Deputy Commissioner), A Hayman (Commander - Professional Standards), B Riddell (Director Corporate Development Group) and C Kitching (Corporate Development Group)

In addition approximately 10 members of the press/public and other MPA/MPS staff were present.

Part 1

1. Apologies

There were no apologies for absence.

2. Terms of reference and membership

The Committee was invited to note its terms of reference and membership. It was recognised that these were likely to change to reflect the future requirements of the Committee. The Chair would speak to Graham Tope, Chair of the Finance Planning and Best Value Committee to clarify which forum would have responsibility for HMIC Inspections. The decision would then be put to the Chair’s Coordination and Urgency Committee for ratification.

Resolved:

1. that the terms of reference and membership be noted; and
2. that the Chair consult with the Chair of the Finance Planning and Best Value Committee on the issue of ownership of HMIC Inspections. The decision would be put to the Chair’s Coordination and Urgency Committee for ratification.

3. MPS performance report - July 2000

Members considered a report which gave a commentary on MPS performance for July 2000 against key performance targets based on the Policing Plan and Best Value performance indicators.

The Chair stated that there was a need to consolidate information in future reports to avoid duplication. Key issues should also be identified for closer scrutiny and more detailed discussion. The Chair also requested that the origins of the performance indicator were included to enable the committee to identify which indicators they could influence.

The Deputy Commissioner commented that although there had not yet been an increase in recruits as a result of the recent pay award there had been a 35 per cent increase in the number of enquiries.

A member said that a more informative indicator for drugs offences would be an indication of the volume of drugs removed from the market. The Deputy Commissioner added that an index of costs could be developed which indicated availability. A presentation would be provided to the next meeting on the judicial disposal for drugs misuse cases (PPSc1).

It was noted that the Finance Planning and Best Value Committee would start drafting next years Policing Plan in November. Information obtained for this Committee on drugs offences could be used to raise the profile of these offences in the plan.

Members were also interested in the ongoing initiatives for dealing with young offenders and the Chair questioned the joint performance indicator for youth files. Further information on this issue would be provided to the Chair and a report on the wider view of how young people were dealt with would be tabled at a future meeting.

It was noted that the current performance indicators for response times failed to give a clear picture of actual performance. The quality and outcome of the response was key to the customers’ satisfaction.

Information on specific boroughs was considered useful and it was agreed that this could be produced by the MPS at a later date when specific areas for review and appropriate comparison had been identified.

The Chair requested that a report be produced for the next meeting summarising the responses to the customer satisfaction survey including a copy of the questionnaire used.

The Deputy Commissioner said that it would benefit discussions at future meetings if members raised questions in advance to enable the MPS to provide a pertinent response. A mechanism would be devised to define priority areas for debate, which would include workshops.

The Chair asked that more detail be provided on the numbers of police officers, the initiatives underway to recruit officers and an indication of where difficulties arose. The Chair of the Human Resources Committee would be consulted on this proposal to obtain further information.

Resolved:

1. that consolidation of information be undertaken to avoid duplication in future reports. The origin of the PI i.e. HO, HMIC and MPS would also be included;
2. that a report be produced for a future meeting on the initiatives for dealing with young offenders. Clarification would be sought from the Chair on the focus and content of this document;
3. that an informal report be prepared on the background to the Joint Performance Management (MPS/CPS) PI’s for young offender case papers. (BVPI31);
4. that a mechanism be developed for members to identify key areas on which they required specific information. This would include structuring of future workshops, which would be available to all members of the Authority. Further suggestions as to which areas to be subject of workshops would be made by officers; and
5. that a presentation would be provided to the next meeting on the judicial disposal for drugs supply cases (PPSc1);
6. that a report be produced for the next meeting summarising the responses to the customer satisfaction survey including a copy of the questionnaire used.

4. PACE stop and search figures

Members reviewed a report, which provided figures on the use of stop and search in the MPS. It included a breakdown of the numbers and results of stop and searches by reason and ethnic group. The report outlined the development work currently in hand, which would culminate in the production of an integrated MPS wide policy and guidance document and action plan.

The Deputy Commissioner said that volumes of research had been completed on stop and search and that it was now time to establish this form of investigation as an effective tool for operational policing. DAC Ghaffur was undertaking a review of all the research with a view to producing an operating protocol. Details of this protocol would be tabled at a future meeting of the Consultation Diversity and Outreach Committee. Feedback was that it was the manner in which the stop and search was undertaken that caused problems.

The Chair requested that the ‘other’ category on the reasons for stop and search table be broken down into more detail for the next meeting. The Chair also requested that an explanation be obtained for the lower arrest rate for the offence of going equipped.

It was noted that the 1991 Census data was no longer considered a reliable source for defining population proportionality. The use of other sources of information should be researched for the October meeting.

Resolved:

1. that the report on the operating protocol for stop and search devised from the review by DAC Tariq Ghaffur be tabled at a future meeting of the Consultation Diversity and Outreach Committee;
2. that an informal report setting out the elements of the 'other' category, including comparisons with other forces be provided to members;
3. that a report be provided to the next meeting stating the reasons behind the use of the 1991 Census data for population proportionality in London. Alternative sources of data would also be explored.

5. Street crime performance indicators and analysis

Members considered a report that provided performance information on street crime in the Metropolitan Police District. It included a picture of trends over time, performance against the 2000/2001 target, and comparison with other Metropolitan forces.

The Deputy Commissioner highlighted Operation Strongbox, one of the initiatives used to combat street crime. The operation had commenced in Lambeth where the specialist squad had targeted this type of crime. Although the operation had been successful in this borough lessons learnt had improved the operations effectiveness when it moved to Hackney. A total of eight boroughs, that had received funds from the Crime Fighting Fund, would participate in this initiative.

A member questioned whether the 80 per cent figure for first time offenders related to first time offending for this specific type or any offence. A response to this question would be provided to members outside the meeting.

The Chair stressed the need to learn from the successes and failures of Operation Strongbox. A presentation would be given to a future meeting on the outcomes when a number of boroughs had been visited. It was recognised that the Consultation, Diversity and Outreach Committee would take the lead on this issue.

A member also raised a concern that Strongbox was operating in inner London boroughs and asked what was planned to combat the public disorder in outer boroughs such as Redbridge and Havering. The Deputy Commissioner stated that it was an issue of priority for the local BOCU Commander to decide.

Resolved:

1. that an informal response be provided on a members’ query relating to 80 per cent first time offenders. Whether the first time related to that type or any offence; and
2. that a presentation on the lessons learnt from Operation Strongbox be given at a future meeting when more boroughs had been involved.

6. Roles and requirements of PSPM Committee and other committees in managing performance

Members considered a report that set out proposals on the role of the committee in monitoring performance, including a list of available performance indicators indicating which committees they may be of interest to, and recommendations on timing of the meetings and the availability of data to support the meetings.

It was agreed that refinement to the list of performance indicators and interested committees was required. Committees should not duplicate one another. As a general rule most data would routinely be provided to PSPM although it was recognized that the HR Committee would wish to review relevant indicators and targets on a monthly basis. Officers were able to revise the table showing Committee interests to remove duplication and conflict where possible.

A member said that he would like to know the number of staff involved in the data collection, the mechanism for collection and the related opportunity costs. There was a need to consider the best value question of whether the information was actually required. The Deputy Commissioner added that a reduction in the volume of data collected would be welcomed.

Resolved:

1. that the full performance report be circulated to members of the PSPM each month;
2. that the table of indicators be revised by MPA Officers in consultation with the MPS to indicate lead committee responsibilities, origin of PI and remove duplication. This would be put to the other committee chairs at the October meetings;
3. that the Terms of Reference for the Committee be expanded to include;
   • taking an overview of MPS performance across the whole range of indicators
   • leading on the development of new indicators through delegation where appropriate
   • co-ordinating target setting
   • leading on the review of the suitability of existing indicators through delegation where appropriate
   • assessing whether collection of management information was cost effective
4. that the PSPM forward a quarterly report to the Full Authority meeting, adding;
5. analysis and commentary as appropriate;
6. that MPA Officers raise any concerns about how PIs might be perceived by the public and how they might be best presented to the public with the PSPM Chair and Deputy Chairs before they are formally issued to members of the public;
7. that the Committee note the timetable for the provision of regular monthly performance management reports; and
8. that in the longer term, the proposed MPA analyst (Working with the MPS) look at qualitative information, the usefulness of PIs, the cost of collection and look at the development of new PIs.

7. Proposed member involvement in individual complaints protocol

Members were invited to comment on a report that set out a draft protocol for dealing with individual complaints matters. It was noted that the draft protocol had not yet been agreed by the MPS.

It was commented that there was a need to look at the protocol in more detail. The parameters of members' role in complaints needed to be defined to avoid compromise. It was suggested the members' remit should be limited to ensuring that a complaint drawn to their attention had been properly recorded and to ascertain the status of that complaint.

It was also agreed that amendments would be made to notes 2 and 5.

Resolved:

1. that members comments on the draft protocol be forwarded to the MPA Secretariat by Friday 8 September;
2. that the protocol be amended to highlight that the members remit within the complaints procedure limited them to ensuring that a complaint had been made and to establish the status of that complaint;
3. that the point in note 2 ‘that the clerk should be authorised to decide what action should be taken in consultation with the chair of the PSPM Committee or in his absence the deputy chair’ be applied to note 6; and
4. that note 5 be revised to include that the Chair of the Authority could deal with an urgent requirement to suspend an ACPO officer through calling a meeting of the Chair’s Coordination and Urgency Committee.

8. Complaints, conduct and efficiency

Members considered a report, which provided an oversight of the law, regulations and procedures that apply to police officers, whose conduct or efficiency is called to account.

The Chair asked how many members had volunteered themselves for police appeals tribunal training. Ian Gaskell said that he did not have the numbers available but undertook to find out. The Chair recommended that members of the Committee obtained training to attain a knowledge of the process and assist other forces. He further recommended that the MPC complaints procedure be adopted.

By way of familiarisation for members a schedule of visits would be arranged to MPS complaints units. A paper outlining a year's timetable would be tabled at the next meeting. It was suggested that the first visit should be made to Complaints Investigation Bureau.

An issue in the complaints protocol still to be resolved was the MPA role in the dismissal of MPS civilian employees. The MPS did not support this proposal and it was recommended that a decision on this matter be deferred until the APA view was known.

The Deputy Commissioner added that members should obtain an understanding of the complaints procedure both for internal and external complaints including the grievance procedure and major corruption cases. A knowledge of the impact of the Human Rights Act should also be obtained. An investigation of how this information could be imparted to members would be undertaken to ensure that members were not compromised.

The potential overlap of Shoebridge employment tribunal case with the HR Committee would be discussed by the respective Chairs.

Resolved:

1. that officers to ascertain how many members had put themselves forward for appeals tribunal training. The format of the training would also be established;
2. that a rolling monthly timetable of visits would be arranged for members including attendance at a discipline hearing. A supporting paper outlining the programme of visits would be put to the next meeting;
3. [Secretary’s Note: the first visit has been arranged for all members to visit Complaints Investigation Bureau];
4. that a decision on whether members should be involved in the dismissal of civilian staff would be deferred until the APA view on this issue was known; and
5. that a report on the Shoebridge case would be tabled at the Human Resources Committee in November. The Chair would confirm this with the Chair of that Committee.

9. Member involvement in Integrity Testing Oversight Panel

Members considered a report that invited them to nominate three members to sit on the MPS Integrity Testing Oversight Panel. The aim of the panel was to look at how staff dealt with members of the public.

Membership of the panel was agreed and members nominated. If it was recommended that a member of the MPA should chair this panel, Elizabeth Howlett was nominated to undertake this role.

Resolved:

1. that the following three members serve on the Integrity Testing Oversight Panel;
   • Elizabeth Howlett
   • Roger Evans
   • Richard Sumray
2. that should a member of the MPA be proposed as Chair this role would be undertaken by Elizabeth Howlett.

10. Provision of analytical support to the MPA

Members reviewed a paper, which presented options to identify the type and extent of analytical support required by the MPA over and above the support available from the MPS.

A member commented that the requirement for an analyst highlighted the wider issue of MPA policy officers. The Authority currently lacked expertise and independence. Policy officers were necessary to provide advice and suggest alternative approaches to policy matters.

Resolved:
that the MPA would appoint a senior analyst (Grade 7 equivalent) on a full time basis.

11. Dates of future meetings

The Committee was invited to set a timetable for future meetings of the committee.

Resolved:
that future meetings of the forum be held on the second Tuesday of each month at 2.30pm.

Send an e-mail linking to this page

Feedback