Report on the sub-committees of the Finance and Resources Committee

Report: 04
Date: 22 April 2010
By: Chief Executive

Summary

This report contains a summary of the business considered by the sub committees of the Finance and Resources Committee.

A. Recommendations

That members note the report

B. Supporting information

1. This report covers the following meetings:

• Estate Panel – 18 March 2010
• Resources and Productivity Sub-Committee – 12 April 2010

Estate Panel – 18 March 2010

2. Amongst the matters discussed was the proposals for the future provision of front counter facilities in Greenwich and this is the subject of a report on the agenda for today’s meeting. The next meeting of the Panel is on 20 May at 2.00 p.m. and arrangements are being made for a borough visit.

Resources and Productivity Sub-Committee – 12 April 2010

Comments on a report on the agenda for today’s Finance and Resources Committee: Treasury Management policy Statement 2010/11

3 The Policy Statement 2010/11 continues current practice and adopts the roles and responsibilities as suggested in the KPMG review of Treasury Management in November 2008. There are some minor changes in the Policy Statement 2010/11 that reflect arrangements to cover current post vacancies and new reporting requirements. The Sub-Committee discussed the cover for any future post vacancies and were advised that when vacancies occurred, interim arrangements would be agreed between the MPA and the MPA and these would formally be reported through the next update report. Pursuant to the requirements of the revised CIPFA Code the Committee is asked to seek Full Authority approval for the Treasury Management Policy Statement for 2010/11.

Other reports considered not on the agenda for today’s meeting: Review of HMIC Value for Money profile 2009/10.

4. The report provides an analysis based on the recent ‘value for money’ (VfM) report produced by Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and provided an analysis of a number of internal and external issues that provide context to the HMIC results.

5. There are a number of areas of contention with the HMIC data and in particular the Sub-Committee noted that comparisons throughout the profile are made on a per capita basis, which disadvantages the MPS, given that London’s transient population, which includes tourists and commuters, greatly increases the remit of the MPS beyond that of the quoted resident population of 7.5m.

6. Members requested that a piece of work be carried out which attempted to strip out the London factor in order to give a more meaningful comparator the Service’s most similar forces.

7. 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,

C. Race and equality impact

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.

D. Financial implications

There are no financial implications directly arising from this report although there could be financial implications arising from items discussed by sub committees.

E. Background papers

None

F. Contact details

Report author(s): John Crompton, MPA

For more information contact:

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

Send an e-mail linking to this page

Feedback