MPS Independent Advisory Groups (IAGS) – development report

Report: 10
Date: 12 November 2009
By: Assistant Commissioner Territorial Policing on behalf of the Commissioner

Summary

This report provides an update on the development of the Independent Advisory Groups (IAGs), Standard Operating Procedures, the membership of IAGs, IAG expenditure, advantages and disadvantages of merging the corporate groups and the added value that IAGs provide for community consultation.

A. Recommendation

That members note the contents of this report.

B. Supporting information

Introduction

1. This report follows an earlier report to the MPA Communities Equalities and People Committee on the 10 September 2009, which provided an update on the history of the MPS Independent Advisory Group Review 2007 and progress on implementation of the recommendations. This report should be read in conjunction with the previous report.

Development of the SOPs

2. Over the course of several years the MPS, in close consultation with the Independent Advisory Groups (IAGs), have undertaken a review of the role of IAGs and also of the selection and appointment processes adopted in their creation. The purpose of this process has been to establish Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) through which standardisation and consistency in practice and procedures could be achieved across all IAGs.

3. The SOPs were reviewed at a meeting between Corporate IAG chairpersons, IAG representatives and DAC Alf Hitchcock on the 10 July 2008, where agreement was achieved on thirty-four of the thirty-nine recommendations. Of the five recommendations where agreement was not reached:

• Recommendation 13 (remuneration),
• Recommendation 21 (an advisor sitting only on one group),
• Recommendation 34 (the need to vet personal assistants),
• Recommendation 38 (merging into a Single Corporate IAG), and
• Recommendation 39 (an enabling recommendation for Rec. 38).

the MPS has, since resolved any outstanding issues regarding Recommendations 21 and 34 (detailed within Section 6 of the Equality Impact Assessment (EIA) which can be found at the above hyperlink) and has now also rejected Recommendations 38 and 39 in the absence of support for the concept. These two recommendations are discussed in greater detail in the section entitled ‘Merging the groups’.

The issue of remuneration remains unresolved and awaits a formal response to the MPS from Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs Service (HMRCS) over the issue of whether IAG members are deemed to be self employed or not.

5. Consultation on the contents of the SOP was started at the direction of DAC Hitchcock as an element of the of the broader EIA consultation process on 28th January 2009.

The SOP was initially circulated to MPS Management Board and senior police staff and officers across the MPS on the 10 February 2009 to gain views and observations as to its readiness for wider consultation. It was next circulated to Diversity & Citizen Focus Directorate (DCFD) staff involved with corporate advisory groups on the 4 March 2009. From these initial observations an amended version was distributed to all MPS advisory groups via their senior police users on the 18 March 2009, and to corporate advisor chairs on the 19 March 2009. The consultation period was concluded on the 24 April 2009 and the SOP was amended to reflect observations received.

The SOPs were intended to form the basis of a new relationship between the MPS and its independent advisors and encapsulate the main contents of the MPS IAG Review recommendations as amended during the EIA process. The consultation period for the SOPs was not intended to re-open discussion about the recommendations per se. Instead, it provided an opportunity for advisors and others to suggest contributions, deletions, or amendments that could strengthen the SOPs, and so strengthen the positive partnership that the MPS and advisors enjoy.

7. Reaction of existing IAGs to SOPs

The majority of independent advisors and police users across the MPS’s forty-five advisory groups welcomed the SOPs, believing that they would aid and assist members and advisory groups operate to better effect. The main emphasis of the consultation feedback was that the SOP’s should be easy to access and as far as possible be jargon-free. However, some corporate and specialist advisors remain dissatisfied by the process, feeling that they were not adequately consulted and one specialist advisory group has dismissed the SOPs as unacceptable to their group, seeing themselves as pre-dating the establishment of MPS IAGs and regarding recruitment and tenure as a group rather than a MPS matter.

8. With the imminent launch of a new MPS Equality and Diversity strategy; the development of an MPA/MPS Community Engagement strategy; and in light of these ongoing areas of disagreement and concern, the MPS has taken the decision to suspend implementation of the SOP with effect from the 30th of September and has written to the chairs of IAG’s to this effect.

What this means in real terms is, that where agreement on recommendations from the review exists then these will stand. Where there are differences of opinion on implementation then these will be put aside for the time being.

With regard to issues concerning remuneration, it is our intention that payments and rates of payments existent as of the 30th of September 2009 will be maintained for the time being.

Membership of IAGs

9. The following two sections look at membership for local and corporate advisory groups.

Local advisory groups

10. The MPS IAG Review recommendations have provided Borough Commanders with the opportunity to ensure that they are obtaining the maximum value from their independent advisors. Tenure is being applied to local groups: appointment to advisor role is four years and they may apply for reappointment at the end of that period to serve a maximum of eight years. Appointment to chair, co-chair or vice chair is two years and they may apply for reappointment at the end of that period to serve a maximum of four years in these roles.

11. The process to recruit new independent advisors will follow the spirit of The Office of the Commissioner for Public Appointments (OCPA) Code of Practice for Ministerial Appointments to Public Bodies. The recruitment practice will lie with each individual Borough and will focus on target audiences from relevant “grass root” communities. Membership of advisory groups must also aim to reflect the wider diversity of London.

12. Local IAG members are not remunerated but do receive reasonable expenses, if claimed.

Corporate advisory groups

13. The SOPs - were they to be implemented - provide the MPS with an opportunity to introduce processes, which have been subject to extensive consultation and would more effectively deliver independent advice which meets the current and future needs of the Service.

14. Tenure has not been implemented as yet for corporate groups due to a suspension of recruitment activities during the review and whilst the SOPs were being developed. Should recruitment take place, members who have exceeded eight years as an advisor are currently permitted to remain until the 12th August 2010 in order to help with the transition and introduction of new members.

15. The process to recruit new independent advisors will follow the spirit of OCPA. Further consultation is underway with Race and Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender advisors to consider recruitment options.

16. Some corporate advisors do currently claim remuneration to the value of £75 for up to four hours advice and £150 for more than four hours in any one day. Some specialist advisors claim remuneration at a reduced rate to these. Corporate advisors also receive expenses if claimed.

The introduction of this facility was originally meant to provide compensation for financial disadvantage incurred by the advisor or by the organisation that employs them. Recommendation 13 of the Review sought to clarify and bring a consistent approach to remuneration via a ‘Payment of Inconvenience’. However, this recommendation has not been agreed and in any case is not in line with guidance from the Association of Police Authorities, which states that advisors should not receive any payment other than reasonable expenses.

A related issue is that Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs have yet to rule on the employment status of Independent Advisors, on whether they are ‘self-employed’ or ‘employees’. Once that decision has been reached, the MPS will decide upon the payment issue.

IAG Expenditure - Reasonable Adjustments

17. Reasonable adjustments for independent advisors are achieved through the use of personal assistants, support workers, cabs, and interpreters. The cost for interpreters which is predominantly used by corporate advisory groups amounts to approximately £10,000 over the past two years. The costs for cabs in relation to IAG use are impossible to differentiate as there are two separate contracts within an overall general budget. The costs for personal assistants or support workers are claimed in expense forms submitted by the advisors and these are not individually tracked by the MPS.

Merging the groups

18. In December 2007, a discussion document was circulated to corporate advisory group chairs with a view to setting up a single pan-London group (IAG Review recommendation 38 & 39). Membership of the proposed group would have been based on diversity representation merging the existing corporate IAGs into one group.

The possible benefits of this arrangement were envisaged as:

• A wider range of diverse communities could be brought together to provide a cross-strand approach
• Maximising advisors’ time by having fewer meetings and undertaking less project work
• Staff opportunity costs may reduce
• Potentially an improved opportunity for advisors to support key MPS priorities.

This proposal met with wide and significant opposition from the corporate advisors. Disadvantages identified for a merged group were:

• The inclusion of a wider range of diverse communities could implicitly make the group so large as to be unworkable
• Decisions around the balance of diversity representation were met with significant resistance by all corporate advisory groups (i.e. numbers of disabled people, youth, BME, etc. on the group)
• The focus on specific diversity strand areas could be lost
• The range of corporate activities for one group could be too difficult to manage if it were size limited.

As a result, and after extensive consultation, the proposed establishment of a single pan London Advisory Panel has now been rejected by the MPS in the absence of support for the concept.

22. Further work was undertaken following this consultation with internal stakeholders, including the MPA, to explore exactly what the MPS may require of Independent Advice for the future. The emerging findings have indicated that strategic independent advice did not need to be constructed into thematic diversity groups. Diversity issues could be considered through an effective EIA approach that sat outside of the independent advisory process in the form of wider community consultation.

Community Consultation

23. Community consultation should not be looked at in isolation in relation to IAGs. The MPS engages with a number of communities and individuals through a range of systems, including safer neighbourhood panels and Community and Police Engagement Groups (CPEGs). The value that is added through engagement is experienced though the creation of community intelligence reports. It is therefore accepted that the use of IAGs is, and should be, part of a larger community engagement approach. This is being taken forward by DAC Rod Jarman as one of the four themes of the MPS Diversity and Equality Strategy 2009-13. Outstanding IAG issues will be addressed within the remit of this Community Engagement review.

24. The following four areas detail some examples of the range of matters in which police tend to seek an independent perspective. Whilst these examples are mostly drawn from MPS borough advisors, some also apply to specialist advisors and corporate advisors. They have been identified by MPS advisors and senior police users across the MPS following recent work in implementing Recommendations 31 and 32 of the Review to address monitoring and evaluation of IAGs:

Community Impact Assessments/Equality Impact Assessments

• The effect of incidents on the relevant sections of the community - in particular public order situations.
• Responses to an incident and the ability of advisors to give the MPS access to vulnerable groups and communities.
• Community issues around festivals and demonstrations
• Advice regarding the perception of police post critical incidents.

Wider Community Issues

• Community engagement and feedback on how local issues are perceived by the community
• Community assurance literature
• Community cohesion in response to local, national and international incidents
• Community tension and concerns.

Equalities Issues

• Cultural differences
• Awareness of diversity and equalities and the impact of operational activity.

Policies/Standard Operating Procedures

• Media strategies
• Key changes in BOCU policing
• Local and corporate police SOPs.

25. Examples of crime or subject matter areas where IAG engagement has been sought by police users are listed below:

• New search powers under the UK Borders Act 2007.
• Equality Impact Assessment of s44-47, UK Borders Act 2007.
• Hate Crime
• Deaths in custody
• Stop and Search
• Gangs/Youth violence
• Single parade site
• Policing pledge
• Counter Terrorism
• Youth engagement and involvement
• Community feeling on Estates following murders & how public confidence can be improved
• Murder cases
• Serious Fire at a Gurdwara Sikh Temple
• Operation Blunt 2.

26. The MPS benefits from the accessibility of IAGs particularly when there is a critical incident. Through the advisors, the MPS are able to draw upon a wider network of contacts than would otherwise be the case, and it allows the MPS to have real-time critical appraisal of police actions from the perspective of a recipient of policing services and a member of the community. Community engagement for critical incidents in the MPS is predominately managed by boroughs where they include local advisors at Gold groups.

27. Effective engagement per se may mean that police service provision is improved but may not always be formally measured. In line with recommendation 33, advice offered is included within the minutes of each IAG meeting. An annual reporting process is being commenced, which will record the number of meetings, attendance by members, the key issues raised, costs and good practice. Whilst all advice from advisors should be written down and captured, the reality is that there are times when conversations with people from London’s communities take place within other forums, on the street or on the phone. These may enhance police decision-making but may not necessarily be documented.

C. Race and equality impact

Equality and diversity are the very subjects of this report. A full EIA has been undertaken, as attached in the previous report.

D. Financial implications

The financial implications were detailed in the previous report. All expenditure is managed within existing MPS budgets.

E. Legal implications

1. The Independent Advisory Group, though not a statutory requirement, is considered to be an appropriate mechanism of achieving the widest consultation from community groups. Involvement of the IAGs also provides additional scrutiny on the exercise of police functions, as it is independent from both the police force and police authority.

2. The proposed recommendations of the IAG’s structure, membership, governance and work, aims to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the groups, produce greater transparency, build public confidence and secure continuous improvement in the way policing services are delivered.

F. Background papers

• MPS Independent Advisory Group Review 2007

G. Contact details

Report author(s): Sarah Gausden

For information contact:

MPA general: 020 7202 0202
Media enquiries: 020 7202 0217/18

Abbreviations

• BOCU Borough Operational Command Unit
• DAC Deputy Assistant Commissioner
• DCFD Diversity and Citizen Focus Directorate
• EIA Equality Impact Assessment
• IAG Independent Advisory Group
• OCU Operational Command Unit
• SOP Standard Operating Procedure
• CPEG Community and Police Engagement Group

Send an e-mail linking to this page

Feedback