Independent Advisory Groups - update report

Report: 6
Date: 4 November 2010
By: Director of Diversity and Citizen Focus on behalf of the Commissioner

Summary

This report presents an update on the development of MPS Independent Advisory Groups (IAGs). It outlines the contribution of IAGs to the MPS approach to community engagement and defines their key functions. The report summarises key recommendations arising from the HMRC investigation into the employment status of Independent Advisors and the Directorate of Audit Risk and Assurance study into the Commission and Use of IAGs especially in relation to the remuneration and vetting arrangements for advisors.

A. Recommendation

That members

1. Note the work done over the last year to develop the system of Independent Advisory Groups.
2. Endorse the proposals for progressing outstanding issues relating to remuneration and vetting and the proposed next steps outlined at paragraph 41.

B. Supporting information

1. In September and November 2009 the MPA Communities, Equalities and People Committee received reports on MPS Independent Advisory Groups (IAGs). These provided information on the status of IAGs and the progress made in implementing recommendations arising from the review of IAGs in 2007.

2. Considerable work has taken place over the last 12 months to enhance the MPS approach to community engagement and develop the system of Independent Advisory Groups. Some of the key developments that have taken place are described below:

• In October 2009 the decision was made that recommendations from the 2007 MPS review of IAGs where agreement had been reached would be implemented, those where agreement had not been achieved would be put aside, pending the development of the new MPA/MPS community engagement strategy.
• In January 2010 regular meetings between MPS lead for community engagement and chairs of Corporate IAGs were established. This has allowed corporate IAGs to inform the development of the new Community Engagement Commitment and provided a mechanism which allowed the MPS and Advisors to identify and resolve issues.
• In May 2010 the MPS formalised the role of IAGs within the governance structure for the MPS Diversity and Equality Strategy with members of corporate IAGs sitting on the MPS Full Diversity Board and the Diversity Partnership Forum.
• The MPS received the results from HM Revenue and Custom’s audit into the employment status of independent advisors in March 2010.
• The MPA Directorate of Audit, Risk and Assurance (DARA) issued its formal report from its study into the Commission and Use of Independent Advisory Groups, in September 2010.
• The MPS Disability Independent Advisory Group was dis-banded and a formal ceremony held at New Scotland Yard to thank members for their contributions in July 2010. The process to establish a new strategic group to advise on disability issues is on going.
• A successful recruitment campaign to appoint new members of the LGBT Advisory Group was undertaken in early 2010.

Current Status of Independent Advisory Groups

3. The MPS has established four Corporate Independent Advisory Groups, relating to Race, LGBT, Disability and Gypsy and Traveller issues. All have an established remit and terms of reference, although there is variation in their membership and operation arising from MPS needs, the range and scope of the remit of the groups and established working arrangements. In broad terms each group exists to provide independent advice to the MPS (on issues that include MPS policy development, improvements to service delivery), assist with critical incidents (in relation to internal and external issues), advising on and monitoring of issues affecting specific communities.

4. The current status of each group is described below:

• Race IAG - currently comprises 15 members and meets regularly, every 6 weeks at NSY.
•  LGBT Advisory Group - comprises 22 members and meets regularly, every 7-8 weeks at NSY. It has established a number of sub-groups to explore specific issues.
• Disability IAG - This group is in transition. It comprised 17 members and held regular meetings until February 2010. In late 2009 the MPS reviewed the functioning of the current group and consulted with every existing member of the Group. There was general agreement that the current arrangements were not effective. Proposals were presented to the Group on the way forward but a consensus could not be reached and the Group was clear that the MPS should set the direction. As a result the MPS wrote to all existing advisors describing the MPS position and the need to have a group of corporate disability advisors that are able to provide strategic advice to policy and decisions makers based on knowledge of legislation, good practice in other organisations, their personal experiences and can be called upon to provide advice in critical incidents. The group was dissolved and an event held in July 2010 to formally thank members of the Group for their contribution. A specialist consultant has been appointed to assist the MPS to develop a process to appoint corporate disability independent advisors against an updated person specification and skill set. This work is on track to for membership of the new group to be established during 2010.
• Gypsy and Traveller Advisory Group - although a small number of advisors are ‘on the books’ this group has not met for some years, and any advice required is obtained on an ad hoc basis from one or two advisors directly. Whilst this group is not formally a sub-group of the Race IAG, a member of the Race IAG did attend meetings when the Group met.

5. Four groups exist that are considered Specialist IAGs, these are: Trident IAG, Safeguarding Children IAG, Police Promotions External Advisory Group, Training Advisory Group. In addition, the Specialist Crime Directorate has established a Rape Reference Group. Each of these groups has a defined remit and terms of reference, tailored to the needs of the OCU or business area. The current status of each group is described below:

Trident IAG

• The Trident IAG provides the Trident OCU with independent advice with regards to our interaction with, and policing of the Black communities of London. It currently has 16 members and meets monthly, at NSY. It has convened subgroups that relate to bespoke issues for example Media, Uncooperative Witnesses and Community Engagement

Safeguarding Children IAG

• This group comprises three members and has not met for some time. The role and operation of this group is under review.

Training IAG

• The Group looks into changes made within the training regime both at Hendon and occasionally within the MPS when asked to do so. They look at changes to the curriculum, course content and policies such as dress code, discipline and latterly the changes currently under consideration to the recruitment process. The group has 13 members and meets quarterly at NSY, Hendon or the Central London Training Centre.

Police Promotions External Advisory Group

• The Group reviews police promotions processes to ensure equality of opportunity and effectiveness; to make recommendations for improvements to service delivery. Regular meetings are not held (other than a welcome event), but the group which has a total of 20 members is invited to identify two volunteers to work closely with the project manager for each police promotion process run by the MPS and are actively involved through the process.

Rape Reference Group

• This group comprises a diverse range of members from voluntary sector groups representing victims and offenders, members of the media and academia with experience and specialist knowledge in the areas of sexual offences, public protection, victim care and community trust and confidence to inform the delivery of strategy and service delivery.
• The terms of reference for this group are explicit in saying that this is not an Advisory Group - although its remit aligns to that of an Advisory Group, the way it operates is different. The Group meets quarterly at NSY and has had four meetings to date. It has a fluid membership, based around a small set of core members that nominate colleagues and others to contribute to specific meetings that are based around specific topics.

Community (Borough) Advisory Groups

6. Information on Community (Borough) Advisory Groups is based on a survey of all Borough Partnership Chief Inspectors undertaken in January 2010 as part of the development of MPA/MPS Community Engagement Strategy. A total of 28 Boroughs responded. The results showed that all Boroughs had an Advisory Group, with the majority meeting 4-6 times a year. The majority of groups (21) involved partners. TP and DCFD are currently undertaking an exercise to capture the status of borough groups and identify good practice or issues or areas of concern. The results from this work will be available during November 2010.

Governance and Accountability

7. The joint MPA/MPS Community Engagement Commitment was formally approved by MPA Full Authority in July 2010. MPS Management Board agreed that corporate responsibility for community engagement would rest with Assistant Commissioner Territorial Policing (TP) and that the MPS Confidence and Satisfaction Board would oversee delivery of actions to support the implementation of the Commitment within the MPS. All business groups are represented in this forum and can provide updates on their community engagement activities and ensure this supports the organisational approach to improving confidence and satisfaction.

8. The Director of the Diversity and Citizen Focus Directorate (DCFD) retains organisational responsibility for the development of IAGs and the development and maintenance of the associated policies and operating procedures. The development of the strategic approach and the structures that support independent advisors will be in line with the directions outlined in the Community Engagement Commitment and the national guidance.

9. A number of enhancements have been introduced to integrate corporate independent advisors within existing MPS governance structures and strengthen communication and coordination between the MPS and the corporate groups. This includes:

• Since January 2010 regular meetings have been held with the MPS lead for community engagement and chairs of Corporate IAGs. These meetings have allowed the Chairs of the corporate IAGs to input to the development of the new strategy for community engagement and provide a mechanism where the MPS and IAGs can raise and discuss issues of concern. This will help to ensure that the work of the groups is focused on organisational priorities and ensure issues of concern raised by the groups are being considered.
• The governance structure for the MPS Diversity and Equality Strategy has been developed and strengthened. Representatives from the Corporate IAGs are members of both the MPS Full Diversity Board and also the Diversity Partnership Forum.

The Role and Function of IAGs in the Context of the new MPA/MPS Community Engagement Commitment

10. The broad approach to MPS community engagement has been reviewed as part of the development of the new MPA/MPS Community Engagement Commitment. Extensive consultation was undertaken as part of the development of the Commitment, this included consultation with Community and Police Engagement Groups (CPEGs), Ward Panels, and community stakeholders from across London to ensure the Commitment reflected the expectations of communities at neighbourhood, local and pan-London levels. As described above members of IAGs were actively involved in this process through meetings with the MPS lead and inputs were provided to meetings of each of the corporate IAGs and drafts of the strategy were circulated for comment. The MPS also commissioned a survey of all borough partnership managers to establish the formal engagement mechanisms that were in place on each borough and the key issues affecting local level engagement work.

11. The feedback highlighted concerns over the overlap in the engagement activities that take place across London and that the scope and remit of formal mechanisms such as IAGs, CPEGs, Ward Panels and Key Individual Networks (KINs) need to be clearly defined and bounded. The work identified that across many of these formal engagement mechanisms a balance needs to be struck between ensuring a consistent approach across London and having groups that meet local needs. Whilst there are clear differences in the purpose of these different engagement mechanisms, there is overlap in membership (some of this is designed in) and overlap in the topics that are considered.

12. The role of IAGs has been considered within the context of the new strategy to ensure that the groups continue to meet the needs of the organisation. IAGs are very much seen as a resource that can be accessed by Borough Commanders and other MPS managers to provide advice and insight on policing policies, procedures and practices. They should not be seen as the way in which the MPS consults and engages with communities. It is proposed that the functions of Independent Advisors (at both corporate and local levels) fall into three broad areas.

Role Delivery	Role Delivery
Critical Incidents (Reactive)
Provide advice to support investigating officers and other managers as part of critical incidents and through attendance at Gold Groups..	Skills of individual advisors are essential to the successful delivery of this function. It is important that advisors have the credibility and skills to provide advice in an operational context.
Development of Strategy, Policies and Working Practices (Proactive)
Provide advice to inform the development of policies, working practices, community engagement processes and policing operations. The focus should be on using advisors’ expertise, knowledge and insight to develop solutions that improve service delivery to London’s communities. Advisors act as critical friends, not as a scrutiny body although they have a right to be informed about how their advice has been used, and if not acted upon, why not.	Likely to be delivered through a group of advisors (rather than by a single individual). Typically policy developers will benefit from their ideas being exposed to a mixed group of advisors, providing different diversity and community perspectives at an early stage. (This should not be seen as a purely consultation mechanism required to ‘tick the box’ but effective engagement that can shape appropriate strategy and policy development.)
Community Feedback (Information Sharing)
Two-way informal information and knowledge sharing that provides a mechanism for both the police and community members to raise emerging issues or concerns.	This should not be seen as an alternative to the existing community engagement mechanisms; it provides an additional informal mechanism for discussing issues especially sensitive issues with trusted advisors. Boroughs, in particular, may use this mechanism to test operational proposals in a ‘safe environment’ before wider consultation takes place.

 13. These functions are broadly consistent with the original purpose of Independent Advisors which stems from the Stephen Lawrence Inquiry Report which noted that there need to be a change in the relationship “between the police and all sections of the community” that involved a “genuine partnership” that would increase their ‘trust and confidence’ in the police. In 1998 the MPS introduced its first Independent Advisory Group as one mechanism to address this concern. The IAG protocol that was developed stated that a group should have “an inclusive remit to look at and be involved in any issue that it sees fit”. The Morris Inquiry (2004) went on to comment that the role of an IAG was one “to challenge the thinking of the organisation and how it conducts its business”.

14. Whilst IAGs should not be seen as having a scrutiny role in their own right (although, in order to operate as critical friends, they may need to ask the organisation some uncomfortable questions), Independent Advisors do have a legitimate and valuable contribution to MPS governance and accountability mechanisms. For example, the MPS has strengthened the governance structures for its Diversity and Equality Strategy and the role of Independent Advisors within these have been formalised.

15. These definitions are consistent with the draft guidance developed by ACPO on the role of IAGs which says:

1. 1. IAGs provide the valuable role of critical friend to the police force/police authority, not as an independent group but as a forum where independent advisors can give independent advice on the development and review of policy, procedures and practices identified by the police, police authority in partnership with the IAG. The role of the IAG is not one of scrutiny, but ensures the police procedures and practices of the force meet the strategic aim of the ACPO Equality Diversity and Human Rights strategy and provide a safeguard against disadvantaging any section of our communities through a lack of understanding, ignorance or mistaken belief, by the service, as set out by Macpherson.

The ACPO guidance defines Independent advice as:

2. Guidance, personal insight or constructive challenge, given by non-police persons, reflecting their individual perspective from the point of view of a member of a community. Advice provided is independent of the police service and carries no responsibility or liability for the outcome of decisions based upon it.
3. The term “independent” therefore refers to the nature of the advisors and the advice they provide, rather than the relationship with the organisation. IAGs must exist with the aim of being genuine partners in driving service improvement and building positive relationships between the police service and diverse communities.

16. As a resource to MPS managers who can be called upon to provide critical insight and advice, Independent Advisors do fulfil a distinct and different role to members of Ward Panels (responsible for setting policing priorities at neighbourhood level), KINs (ward level community contacts) and CPEGs (provides a borough level mechanism for community consultation and holding the police and other partners in the Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnership to account). However, there are likely to be overlaps in membership; indeed, the CPEG handbook recommends that chairs of local IAGs be members of CPEGs. However, it is recognised that a number of other pieces of work including the review of CPEGs, the MPA scrutiny into Safer Neighbourhoods and the TP Development Programme may impact on the function and operation of these groups.

Outstanding Issues from the IAG Review

17. In October 2009 IAG Members were informed of the MPS decision to temporarily suspend work on agreeing and implementing the Standard Operating Procedures for IAGs. This meant that where agreement on recommendations from the review had been achieved, these would stand, but where differences of opinion on implementation remained, these issues would be put aside pending the development of the new Diversity and Equality Strategy and a refreshed approach to community engagement. The outstanding issues included remuneration and vetting. An update on these areas is presented below.

Remuneration

Current Position

18. The current remuneration arrangements for members of MPS corporate, specialist and local IAGs is described below:

• Members of local IAGs may claim reasonable expenses to cover travel costs, childcare arrangements, phone calls, and any other necessary expense as agreed by the senior police user prior to them being incurred.
• Members of Specialist and Corporate Advisory Groups may claim a ‘payment for inconvenience’ in addition to expenses. For members of Corporate IAGs this is set at £75 for a period of up to four hours and a further £75 for an additional period of up to four hours, making a maximum of £150 claimable in one day. A different daily rate is in operation for members of some specialist groups.

19. The origin for the payment provided to corporate and specialist advisor was as an optionally claimed, nominal payment given to the employer of an advisor in recognition that their employee was taking time away from their day job to assist the MPS. Over time this has evolved into direct payment to the individual.

20. A budget is set and monitored for the Corporate IAGs. Over the last three financial years, the total payments made to members of Corporate IAGs for payments and expenses amounted to: £112,277 in 2007/08, £57,539 in 2008/09 and £33,705 in 2009/10.

21. It is clear that the total MPS expenditure on corporate has reduced considerably over the last few years. A number of factors have contributed to this: a reduction in the number of corporate advisory groups (e.g. the youth IAG has been incorporated into the work supporting the youth strategy), a reduction in the number of meetings / removal of subgroups, greater control over use and deployment of advisors, change in willingness of advisors to claim.

22. Analysis of claims made during 2009/10 indicates that 31 advisors did not claim anything, 11 claimed £1000 or less, 12 advisors claimed between £1000 and £4000, 3 advisors claimed £4000 - £5000k.

23. It is important to consider the range of work that Advisors do. The majority of Advisors add value by attending IAG meetings (full or sub-groups) and providing at critical incident Gold Groups and other MPS meetings as appropriate. Some of these advisors claim payments, others do not. A small number of Advisors, generally the chairs/co-chairs provide an enhanced service through participation with a range of senior MPS managers, active liaison with stakeholders, community contacts etc. Again, some advisors claim payments, others do not. Some advisors have argued strongly for payment to be retained – arguing that it is a nominal amount for the time that they give to the MPS and that it would be considerably more expensive for the MPS to obtain this input in any other way.

24. Over the last few months, the MPS has received two reports relating to the payments of Independent Advisors: the results of an audit by HMRC and a study conducted by the MPA Directorate of Audit, Risk and Assurance.

Results of HMRC Audit

25. In 2008 HMRC commenced an audit into the employment status of a number of groups of individuals supporting the MPS, including independent advisors. Its conclusions on the status of Independent Advisors were:

“This was not a straight forward argument, and although there is no employment situation, an office may have been created. There is no statute but there are several documents indicating the intent and purposes of the group. Reluctantly it has been decided not to take this matter forward but I must raise our concerns especially in the light of current restructuring of the scheme.

HMRC consider these individuals may be considered office holders and the per diem rate could be considered fees if the current ad hoc arrangements are formalised.”

DARA: Commission and Use of Independent Advisors

26. A study into the commission and use of independent advisors formed part of the 2009/10 audit programme. Work on this study commenced in December 2009 and a discussion draft was issued to both the MPS and MPA Members in May 2010. The MPS provided a response to the report in early June and the formal report was released on 1 September 2010.

27. The report contains a number of recommendations relating to the payment process for independent advisors. In particular, it highlights two risk areas:

1. In line with HMRC it highlights that “remunerating Advisors for costs other than out of pocket expenses could result in them losing their volunteer status and being treated as employees. The MPS could then be exposed to the risks of having to pay National Insurance and tax. The MPS may also be required to offer entry into a pension partnership scheme. In addition, there is exposure to a responsibility for providing other statutory benefits such as paid leave, sick pay etc
2. Secondly, it points out that it could be argued that an Advisory Group is providing a service to the MPS (i.e. members are not treated individually but as a collective) and in these circumstances the amount paid to some groups “exceed the thresholds that may have required formal procurement action, in which case the MPS may have breached legislation”. For example, the payment made (including travel costs) to members of one corporate IAG over the last three years was approximately £47k and to a specialist group was £29k.

ACPO Guidance

28. In addition, ACPO has recently produced draft guidance on the management of IAGs that recommends that forces only pay advisors for out of pocket expenses incurred by an advisor. “All forces should provide a small budget for the provision of out of pocket expenses only incurred by the IAG member.”

29. The implications of the reports by HMRC, Audit and ACPO are that the MPS should move to a position where Independent Advisors are considered to be volunteers and are paid expenses only.

30. Adopting an expenses only system could lead to a number of Advisors withdrawing their support resulting in the MPS losing trusted advisors and their expertise. This could also result in additional costs for the MPS in recruiting new Advisors under new arrangements. There is also a reputational risk to the MPS should Advisors withdraw their support that could impact on community trust and confidence.

31. These issues were discussed at the MPS Diversity Executive Board. The MPS is currently consulting with Advisors on the implications of these studies and developing an appropriate way forward.

Vetting - current position

32. The vetting of independent advisors has been a contentious area. Debate has revolved around three inter-related issues:

• The benefits to the MPS of accessing advisors who can provide a valuable perspective on policing from a hard to reach community but whose background, including historical convictions or associations may mean that they would not satisfy MPS or national vetting requirements.
• A reluctance by potential advisors to submit themselves to a vetting process, perhaps because of suspicion over how the information would be used and / or a lack of transparency over what the vetting process entails and the implications of failing.
• The need to protect the MPS by managing risks of inappropriate access to MPS information and access to MPS buildings.

33. The current position on the vetting of MPS Independent Advisors assumes that Advisors require unescorted access to MPS building and access to sensitive MPS information. As such, it recommended that advisors be vetted to Initial Vetting Clearance (IVC) level (as with MPS volunteers). In recognition of the concerns expressed by some long standing advisors who had not previously been vetted the MPS agreed that these Advisors could voluntarily undertake vetting but this would not be a requirement for them to continue to be an independent advisor.

DARA: Commission and Use of Independent Advisors

34. The DARA study identified that “there is no current policy on the vetting of independent advisors, and an adequate framework to ensure that the requirements of the MetSec code is followed is not in place. This was an area covered within the recommendations made in the Independent Advisory Group Review. MPS information may therefore be at risk from unauthorised access.” It recommended that:

1. If Independent advisors require unescorted access to the MPS estate and MPS information, they are vetted to Counter Terrorist Check (CTC) clearance level;
2. A framework is developed and used to meet the requirements of the MetSec code in using independent advisors.

ACPO Guidance

35. The draft ACPO guidance indicates that nationally the vetting of advisors takes place across the majority of forces but disparity exists in relation to the roles vetted. It notes that vetting can be a barrier to engagement, but it is an important to protect the reputation of the service. It recommends that “vetting should be conducted at the basic level for all Strategic IAG members and those individuals giving critical incident independent advice. Small geographic or thematic groups may not require vetting.”

36. As discussed above, the MPS has been supported by a number of trusted corporate and specialist advisors over a number of years, some of whom have voluntarily been vetted, others have not. For established advisors who do not wish to be vetted, it is often a matter of trust - why should they be vetted when they have demonstrated their integrity over a number of years?

37. In establishing an appropriate way forward, it is important to consider the roles that the MPS sees independent advisors performing and the information that they will have access to. As described earlier, these fall into three broad categories:

1. Advice /support to critical incidents
2. Advice on policy and working practice
3. Community insight/contacts and links.

38. In general terms, roles 2 and 3 do not require access to restricted information and can be performed without vetting. Role 1, depending on the nature of the incident, may require sight of restricted information and vetting is therefore a consideration. The MPS is able to exempt people from vetting and allow unvetted people access to MPS information. However, it is not permitted to exempt people to allow them to have access to information that has been restricted by HM Government.

39. The approach to vetting was considered by the MPS Diversity Executive Board in October 2010. The Board considered the options for the vetting of Advisors. The Board was concerned that vetting could be a barrier to volunteers coming forward to advise the MPS who may be from communities or have knowledge of areas that the MPS most needs to hear from. The Board felt that the MPS should revise the existing approach to the vetting of advisors by formalising that Advisors should not be vetted.

40. This would need to be clearly communicated to MPS staff working with Advisors who would be responsible for managing any risks in relation to the information that is presented to Independent Advisors. This could impact on Senior Investigating Officers and how they use advisors in critical incidents.

Next steps

41. The following section outlines a number of proposed actions that the MPS plans to undertake to progress this work.

Policy issues

1. Following decisions on any changes to the vetting and remuneration of independent advisors, DCFD will work to publish the revised Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) on the management and operation of IAGs. It is important to note that as part of previous consultation, the Trident IAG rejected the draft SOPs in their entirety. It is intended that the revised SOPs would be published in advance of April 2011.

Corporate IAGs

1. DCFD will continue the recruitment process to appoint advisors to a new strategic Disability Independent Advisory Group and, alongside this, a virtual group that can provide expertise on British Sign Language issues. The recruitment process for the new DIAG is due to be completed by the end of December 2010, with the new group operational in early 2011.
2. DCFD proposes to work with the Race IAG during 2011 to refresh its membership in line with the recruitment model used for the LGBT AG to ensure that it has a membership that can reflect the current issues affecting London’s ethnic minority communities, this should include a consideration of whether Gypsy and Traveller issues should fall within the remit of this group.

Specialist IAGs

1. All Business Groups to review any Specialist Advisory Groups that they operate and consider their ongoing need, revising their operation as necessary. This work should be undertaken in line with the publication of the revised SOPs by April 2011.

Local IAGs

1. TP and DCFD are currently undertaking an exercise to capture the status of borough groups and identify good practice or issues or areas of concern. It is planned to hold a seminar later in 2010 chaired by Cdr Rodhouse with the chairs of all local IAGs.
2. The fifth in the series of IAG Masterclasses organised by DCFD took place on 12 October 2010. This event is based on “The Situation has Changed” and is an interactive presentation by the Territorial Support Group that takes the audience through all the processes involved in a public order situation from initial notification to dealing with incidents of disorder. Representatives from all Corporate, Specialist and Borough Advisory Groups have been invited to attend the event. These events have been well received and DCFD will be planning further events.
   

C. Other organisational and community implications

The mandatory elements of this section are:

Equality and Diversity Impact

1. Independent Advisors are a crucial resource in building trust and confidence with all communities especially minority communities in London. A full EIA was conducted as part of the development of draft Standard Operating Procedures to support the recommendations arising from the MPS review of IAGs. Changes to the SOPS were made to address issues identified through the assessment.

2. Proposals to relax the requirement for Advisors to be vetted may have a positive equalities impact as it will remove a barrier that may have prevented suitable advisors coming forward to support the MPS. This was an issue raised through previous consultation. It is possible that changes top the remuneration arrangements for corporate and specialist advisors could reduce the pool of volunteers willing to support the MPS and existing Advisors may withdraw their support. The MPS is committed to the concept of independent advisors and having an effective pool of advisors available to support the organisation. If necessary, the MPS would undertake additional recruitment exercises to ensure it continues to have an effective pool of advisors that it can call on.

Consideration of MET Forward

3. The MPS system of Independent Advisors supports the delivery of Met Forward, in particular the aims of Met Connect and work to standardise community engagement structures, building the confidence of all the communities we serve and addressing community concerns.

Financial Implications

4. Any changes to the remunerations arrangements for Independent Advisors will have a financial impact. Amounts paid to members of corporate independent advisory groups during 2009/10 amounted to approximately £34k. This included expenses and payments for attendance. It is estimated that moving to a system where advisors may only claim expenses could generate financial savings of around £25-30,000. The budget for Corporate IAGs is held in DCFD while the budgets for specialist IAGs are held in the relevant Business Group (i.e. Trident - SCD). Once the actual savings are identified they will be given up in the next Business Planning process.

Legal Implications

5. The formation of Independent Advisory Groups (IAGs) are not a statutory requirement, however, it is considered to be an appropriate mechanism for achieving the widest possible consultation with community groups, and is now recognised as good practice by the HMIC.

6. This report provides an update to changes made to the MPS’s IAGs structure, membership, governance and work streams. Whilst the report recognises the benefits and valued contribution of IAGs to date, the proposed changes aim to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the various groups; produce greater transparency and accountability and consequently build greater public confidence in how policing functions are exercised.

7. The APA and ACPO have jointly produced “Guidance on Independent Advisory Groups” (“the Guidance”) which recommends the guidance is followed by all host organisations in relation to the formation and management of all IAGs.

8. In terms of the issues relating to security checking, whilst the final decision rests with the host organisation having taken into account all relevant risks, benefits and guidance, the Guidance recommends that all IAG members should be subject to a level of security checking commensurate with the roles required of the individual and group. The Guidance also documents an array of available options for security checking, and it is advised all such options are explored before a final decision is made on whether or not to undertake a security check or to assess the appropriate level of security check, due to the potential risks involved.

9. In terms of payment to IAG members, the Guidance makes clear that IAG members are not generally paid for their contribution, however, reasonable expenses such as travelling or subsistence may be paid. It is also recommended all payments are subject to proper auditing procedures so that any expenses paid are open to monitoring and are accountable.

10. There may be additional legal implications arising as proposed changes are further developed. Advice from DLS should be obtained as and when necessary.

Environmental Implications

11. There are no direct environmental implications associated with report.

Risk Implications

12. Risks to any proposed changes to the system of independent advisors have been considered in the main body of the report.

D. Background papers

MPS IAG review 2007

• ‘MPS Independent Advisory Groups (IAGs) - Implementation of the IAG Review and their governance’ MPA Communities, Equalities and People Committee, September 2009
• ‘MPS Independent Advisory Groups (IAGs) - Development Report’ MPA Communities, Equalities and People Committee. MPA, November 2009
• Commission and Use of Independent Advisors, MPA Directorate of Audit, Risk and Assurance

E. Contact details

Report authors: David Skelton, Diversity and Citizen Focus Directorate, MPS

For information contact:

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

Send an e-mail linking to this page

Feedback