Minutes

Minutes of the meeting of the Metropolitan Police Authority held on 27 February 2003 at 10 Dean Farrar Street, London, SW1.

Present

Members

• Toby Harris (Chair)
• Richard Barnes (Deputy Chair)
• R David Muir (Deputy Chair)
• Anthony Arbour
• Jennette Arnold
• Reshard Auladin
• John Biggs
• Cindy Butts
• Lynne Featherstone
• Kirsten Hearn
• Peter Herbert
• Elizabeth Howlett
• Jenny Jones
• Nicholas Long
• Eric Ollerenshaw
• Sir John Quinton
• Richard Sumray
• Graham Tope
• Abdal Ullah
• Rachel Whittaker
• Cecile Wright

MPA officers

• Catherine Crawford (Clerk)
• Ken Hunt (Deputy Treasurer)
• Simon Vile (Head of Secretariat)

MPS officers

• Sir John Stevens (Commissioner)
• Ian Blair (Deputy Commissioner)
• Keith Luck (Director of Resources)
• Richard Bryan (Commander)
• Martin Tiplady (Director of Human Resources)

81. Apologies for absence

(Agenda item 1)

Apologies for absence were received from Nicky Gavron and Darren Johnson.

The Chair also informed members that John Biggs would shortly be resigning from the membership of the Authority, and this was his last meeting. Other members joined the Chair in wishing him well and thanking him for his work on the Authority.

82. Declarations of interest

(Agenda item 2)

No declarations were made.

83. Minutes

(Agenda item 3)

Resolved – That the minutes of the Authority meetings held on 30 January 2003 be confirmed and signed as a correct record.

84. Question to authority

(Agenda item 4)

In accordance with Standing Orders, the Authority received questions from Ms Kelly ben-Maimon and Mr James de la Mare. The questions and the replies given by the Clerk are shown below:

Question to the Authority by Ms Kelly ben-Maimon

“Which is the latest version of the constitution template, agreed by the authority and submitted for consultation to all consultative groups?”

Response by the Clerk

“I would like to thank Ms ben-Maimon for her question to the Authority. She has also written to the Chair of the Authority in similar terms and a detailed written response is on its way to her.

“I can confirm that the version of the consultation on which groups have responded is that sent out to the Lambeth CPCG administrator.

“This contained some minor amendments to the earlier version that did not affect the substance of the model constitution.

“I will arrange for Ms ben-Maimon to be given a copy of this draft constitution”

Question to the Authority from Mr de la Mare

1. Whether the Authority will now expedite assistance to appoint a Secretary/administrator to this PCG and its counterpart Independent Custody Visitor Panel, and
2. To explain why, despite:
   1. Almost ten months having passed since notice of the resignation of the last Secretary was received,
   2. Knowing that a professional Secretary is essential to the proper running of volunteer PCGs and ICVPs,
   3. Acceptance that PCGs are the principal means of direct public involvement in the police consultation process, and
   4. Having had various meetings and correspondence in which the urgency of action was stressed to MPA staff, and clear warnings given about the detrimental effects of further delays
3. the matter has been allowed to reach the point where the future of the Group is placed in doubt and the work of the Group and the ICVP has had to be halted.

Mr de la Mare also gave members some background information relating to his question.

Response by the Clerk

“Can I thank Mr de la Mare for his question and for the valuable contribution he has made to the Hammersmith & Fulham CPCG over the years. I appreciate the strength of feeling and concern that has prompted him to raise this issue here today.

“An oral reply is an inadequate way of fully addressing Mr de la Mare’s questions about what is a complex situation. Whilst I will try to summarise the position now, I will also reply more fully in writing to Mr de la Mare. I will copy the written response to all members and will ensure that it is available on the MPA website.

“The delay in the appointment of a group secretary for the CPCG and the Independent Custody Visiting Panel has been occasioned by concerns about both the viability of the post and of the CPCG as a whole. When the former secretary resigned in June 2002 he suggested that the Authority should review whether to appoint a full-time administrator. Since then discussions have been held on various occasions between MPA officers and members, Mr de la Mare and the Chair of the Independent Custody Visiting Panel, without a definite conclusion being reached. Arrangements were made to provide a temporary administrator, who was in post from mid-August to October 2002, when she left for alternative employment.

“At the CPCG’s AGM last September, the only officer to be elected was Mr de la Mare, as Chairman. The posts of Treasurer and Vice Chairmen remained unfilled. This lack of local support has been a factor in the MPA’s caution about the viability of the group, and therefore about the advisability of recruiting to a full time position of group secretary.

“The MPA has sought on a number of occasions to meet with CPCG representatives and others to discuss a resolution to the current situation and the Authority remains committed to this course. However, the Authority must satisfy itself that any consultative mechanism that it funds from the public purse is both representative and effective.

“My written response will also cover the arrangements made to safeguard equipment, and sensitive material, including personal details of independent custody visitors, about which I know Mr de la Mare is also concerned.

“Can I finally address the position as regards the Independent Custody Visiting Panel? In December general agreement was reached with the former chair and ICV Panel members for Hammersmith & Fulham visiting to be arranged by the secretary of the Kensington & Chelsea Panel. These arrangements are now in place and their effectiveness will continue to be reviewed.

“Can I again thank Mr de la Mare for his question and invite him to continue to take part in discussions with the Authority about the future of consultation in Hammersmith & Fulham.”

Written response to Mr de la Mare from the Clerk

28 March 2003

Question asked at Metropolitan Police Authority meeting

In my response to your question to the Authority on 27 February, I promised to write to address some of the detail which it would have been inappropriate to cover in public session. I have attempted to set out my understanding of the background to the issues in this reply. This supplements the response which I read out at the Authority meeting.

You asked whether the MPA will now expedite assistance to appoint a secretary/administrator to the Hammersmith and Fulham CPCG and the Independent Custody Visiting Panel and for an explanation of why almost ten months have passed since notice of the resignation of the last secretary was received.

Let me give some background. The former group secretary resigned from his post in June 2002. Following his resignation, he formally wrote to the Authority, highlighting a number of issues that he felt the MPA should take into consideration in the appointment of a new administrator. He also suggested that the MPA should look into whether the Authority should appoint a full-time administrator or whether this should be reviewed with any new appointment. I understand that officers from the Human Resources Unit and the Consultation and Diversity Unit held several discussions with you and Mr Johnston, Chair of the ICV Panel, to progress the recruitment process. Mr Johnston was initially of the view that the administrator to support the work of the ICV Panel should be separate from that of the CPCG, because different skills and knowledge were required.

The Lead Member for CPCG and ICVP matters, Mr Nicholas Long, and the Link Member for Hammersmith and Fulham, Ms Cindy Butts, were involved in the initial discussions regarding the appointment of a new administrator and officers were instructed to progress with this.

I understand that you and Mr Johnston attended meetings with officers and arrangements were made to place a temporary administrator (who was also working part-time as the administrator for the Hounslow ICV Panel) as the temporary group administrator. This appointment was due to last for three months, to start from July 2002. However, due to difficulties in the Group, the administrator did not actually take up her post until mid-August. She left in October, having found alternative employment.

The Authority was made aware that at its AGM in September 2002, the Group had failed to appoint the required executive officers stipulated in its constitution. The Treasurer had previously resigned and neither of the two vice-chairs elected to put themselves forward for re-election. You were the only group officer who put himself forward as chair, and were therefore elected unopposed.

This situation has caused the MPA to re-consider the viability of the consultative group in Hammersmith and Fulham and has been a contributory factor in the lack of progress on the appointment of a permanent secretary or administrator for the Group.

As you know, the Borough Commander, Mr Anthony Wills, wrote to you on 10 September 2002 expressing his concerns about the viability of the CPCG in Hammersmith & Fulham and suggesting a meeting with you and Cindy Butts. As far as I am aware this meeting did not take place.

Cindy Butts has been closely involved in all the discussions regarding officers’ actions in this case. On 23 December 2002, Cindy Butts and the Borough Commander met to discuss the possible actions that could be taken regarding the CPCG. I understand that you were aware of the date of this meeting but were unable to attend. A letter was sent on 19 December inviting you to contact Julia Smith’s office to arrange a meeting to discuss the outcome of the 23 December meeting, but no response was received. Julia Smith, who did not attend the meeting, was asked to put forward proposals for an alternative consultative process to form the basis of future initial discussions with the police and local authority, as key partners in the crime and disorder reduction partnership.

Due to staff changes in the Consultation and Diversity Unit, this document was circulated later than was originally planned. I apologise for the fact that a copy was not sent to you, especially as it would clearly have been of benefit for you to be kept informed about the discussions that were taking place.

Let me deal briefly with the matter concerning the independent custody visiting panel. In December, Julia Smith met with the former chair and members of the Hammersmith & Fulham Independent Custody Visiting Panel and sought their view on being jointly administered by the Kensington & Chelsea Panel administrator. The chair and panel members were in general agreement with this proposal and arrangements were made with the Council and the chair of the Kensington & Chelsea Panel for the visits to continue to take place in Hammersmith & Fulham. Arrangements were formally agreed with the borough commander and visits to the custody suites in Hammersmith & Fulham are continuing. MPA officers will continue to meet with the visitors of both panels to assess how these arrangements are working. The Authority is working to ensure that, where possible, panels are managed to ensure a wider availability of custody visitors.

I hope that this account represents a balanced view of events and that the proposals for a way forward for consultation in Hammersmith and Fulham will provide a constructive basis for progress.

Yours sincerely

Catherine Crawford
Clerk to the Authority

85. Petition – police officers for Bromley

(Agenda item 5)

The Authority received a petition, signed by over 1,000 Bromley residents, in the following terms:

“We, the undersigned, note with concern that Bromley with a higher crime rate and larger population has only 425 police officers compared with Lewisham’s 566 and Greenwich’s 600. We call upon the Metropolitan Police Authority to review its current unfair funding policy and increase the number of police on Bromley streets.”

In presenting the petition, Councillor Ruth Bennett referred to the fact that the petition has received cross-party support at the Bromley Council meeting on 27 January. She pointed to the increase in crime in Bromley, such as burglary and anti-social behaviour to the extent that there were more crimes in Bromley than in Lewisham the previous year, albeit of a different composition. Whilst Bromley had one police officer per 700 residents, Lewisham had one per 360 residents and Greenwich one per 400 residents. The residents of Bromley felt, therefore, that they were unfairly subsidising other London boroughs through the precept on their Council Tax.

Resolved – That the petition be received and the following response agreed:

“The Authority set the resource allocation formula just over a year ago, after extensive consultation and a process of development. Unsurprisingly, given its importance for every area of London, it has not met with universal approval, and Bromley are not alone in feeling that the formula has given insufficient weight to local characteristics and needs. Southwark representatives petitioned the last Authority meeting, as have Bexley and Brent in the past. Other boroughs have expressed an intention of raising their local circumstances with the Authority. The expressed need for more borough police is also a regular feature of the borough visits that the Chair, Toby Harris, is currently undertaking. Indeed, there was a lengthy discussion about the Resource Allocation Formula at his visit to Bromley last October. It is important to bear in mind that the numbers allocated direct to borough commands under the formula do not represent the whole picture. The boroughs are substantially supported by specialist units in dealing with serious crimes which take place in borough areas, such as murders, gun crime and child abuse. In addition, the transport policing initiative is directly addressing crime on bus routes.

“The Authority understands the natural concerns of borough residents who want to see more police on their streets. The MPS will have increased from 25,467 officers at the beginning of July 2000 to 28,412 by the end of this financial year, an increase of nearly 3,000 and, in line with the Mayor’s budget, by a further 1,223 officers next year. However, there are no immediate plans to carry out a fundamental review of the resource allocation formula and the Authority considers that the formula remains the best way to allocate a limited police resource on the basis of need across London.

“The petition draws comparisons between Bromley, Lewisham and Greenwich. This is not the forum in which to address the detailed basis on which the allocations were made to these boroughs, but I will ask the MPS to write to the Leader of Bromley Council, if this has not already been done, to explain how the formula was applied.

“Clearly, the recruitment of PCSOs for community duties provides an opportunity to address some of the concerns that the resource allocation formula mainly favours inner London boroughs because it is based on a needs analysis. Although the MPA has not yet formally agreed the basis for allocating PCSOs to boroughs, in informal discussions Members have recognised the merits of a population-based allocation.

“In conclusion, I would like to thank Councillor Bennett for presenting this petition. If we cannot agree on the merits of the resource allocation formula, I’m sure that we can agree that the Borough Commander, Chief Supt Dillnutt, is doing an excellent job with the resources at his disposal.”

86. Minutes of committees

(Agenda item 6)

The Authority received the draft minutes of the following committees:

• Equal Opportunities & Diversity Board 9 January 2003
• Planning, Performance & Review Committee 9 January 2003
• Finance Committee 16 January and 13 February 2003
• Co-ordination & Policing Committee 24 January, 7 February and 17 February 2003
• Human Resources Committee 6 February 2003

Resolved –That the minutes of committees be noted.

87. Chair’s, Members’ and Clerk’s updates

(Agenda item 7)

The Authority noted tabled and oral updates given by the Chair and other members.

Arising from these updates, Cecile Wright reported that, on behalf of the Authority, she had met with Commander Dick and other MPS representatives to consider the extent to which the actions in the ‘Lindo action plan’ had been addressed. The meeting had concluded that all the actions had been completed or were actively underway where sustained activity was required. Commander Dick would be meeting with Mr and Mrs Lindo shortly.

Peter Herbert referred to the hate emails he had received following his comments about the Taki article in the Spectator. He commented that the article was still on the Spectator website and asked whether there was any possibility of criminal proceedings against the Editor for continuing to publish race hate material. The Commissioner confirmed that the matter was being investigated.

In response to comments from Richard Barnes it was agreed that a report would be put to the next meeting of the Authority providing an update on Specials, including:

• Recruitment trends
• How they are deployed and how to minimise inconsistencies between boroughs
• Whether Specials should receive any payment or, for instance, free rail travel
• Whether there should be fastrack recruitment of those Specials who want to join the MPS (the Commissioner said that he would also include proposals in relation to PCSOs)

88. Commissioner’s update

(Agenda item 8)

The Commissioner updated the Authority on a number of issues:

Security update

It had been necessary to increase the levels of security around Heathrow Airport on 11 February, in a joint operation with Thames Valley Police, Surrey Police, British Transport Police and military personnel. At the height of the operation there were in the region of 1,235 officers deployed over a 24 hour period. During the operation a total of 79 arrests were made, seven of which were for terrorism related offences.

Richard Barnes commented that there appeared to have been little communication with local authorities and hospitals during the alert. He also expressed concern at the excessive hours it had been necessary for officers to work.

The Chair commented that in the event of a war with Iraq, it would be essential for the MPS to publicly announce as clearly as possible that it exists to support all communities in London.

No War in Iraq march and rally, 15 February

The Commissioner commented that with upwards of 1 million people attending, this had been the largest march ever in the United Kingdom. Although the march was peaceful and there was excellent co-operation between the police and the organisers, there were some problems caused by the sheer weight of numbers and consequently the slowness of the march. The total MPS deployment was 3,000 officers, traffic wardens and civil staff.

A new vision for London policing

The Commissioner referred to the fact that the MPS was undergoing the biggest expansion in its history. By the end of the following financial year the MPS should have nearly 30,000 police officers and perhaps 1,000 PCSOs. This provided the opportunity to radically change the style of policing in London. He described it as providing an accessible policing presence based on the citizen’s perspective. It was clear that the public wanted street patrols and community based policing which was sensitive to local needs and issues. With additional resources it was possible to deliver ward based teams of police officers and PCSOs.

Authority members welcomed this announcement, which echoed many of their own views. In agreeing that greater community based policing was a valuable way forward, members commented that much work would now be needed to develop detailed proposals for how to achieve it – taking into account, for instance, infrastructure issues and, given the potential impact on the precept, a robust business plan and a communication strategy to persuade Londoners that the consequential increase in their Council Tax would bring benefits. It was also important that the proposals should be seen as a starting point in a general review of the policing needs of London, which should include specialist operations. The contributions made by MPS civil staff should also be recognised when enumerating those who are working for a safer London.

Peter Herbert commented on the need to gain community support for such proposals. He referred to the recent stop of the editor of the New Nation publication, under Section 60, and commented on the harm such actions caused to community confidence in the police. The Deputy Commissioner responded that the MPS had already apologised to Mr Eboda and he had been invited to attend police briefings on the Section 60 operation. The reason for the stop had been fully explained to him. The MPS were going to review the operation of Section 60, although the Deputy Commissioner emphasised the legitimacy of its use when faced with a huge increase in firearms crime.

In bringing the discussion to a conclusion, the Chair said that the forthcoming Members’ Awayday would be looking at the various issues on the horizon, and this development would be central to that debate. Policing by consent meant that the police must demonstrate responsiveness at a local level and it was therefore essential to develop a convincing case for a greater community-based approach.

89. Policing and performance plan 2003/04 – proposed measures and targets

(Agenda item 9)

The Authority considered a report by the Commissioner seeking agreement on outstanding targets and measures that will support the objectives in the annual plan. It was noted that three objectives - 15, 16 and 24 - still needed further work and would be brought to the next meeting of the Authority for approval.

Several members made some detailed comments on the proposed measures and targets.

Resolved – That the measures and targets be approved, subject to account being taken of the comments made at the meeting and a further report to the Authority on those measures and targets which remain outstanding.

90. Three year strategy plan

(Agenda item 10)

The Authority considered a report by the Commissioner seeking approval to this strategy.

Some members suggested some detailed additions or amendments to the strategy, which it was hoped there would be an opportunity to include in the strategy before its submission to the Home Secretary the following day.

Resolved – That, subject to the comments made at the meeting, the draft strategy be approved for submission to the Home Secretary on 28 February 2003.

91. MPA statutory responsibility in Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnerships

(Agenda item 11)

The Authority considered a report by the Clerk on three of the recommendations in the MPA scrutiny report. These recommendations had been deferred at the previous Authority meeting for further consideration.

After discussion, particularly around whether to create a team of six MPA officers to support this work, and whether MPA members should sit on the board of their link CDRP(s), with minimum standards established for their role, it was

Resolved:

1. That recommendation 12 be agreed, subject to the funding being ring fenced by borough commands for this purpose;
2. that MPA members should sit on the board of their link CDRP(s);
3. that, to ensure a consistent approach across London, the MPA should establish minimum standards, or alternatives, relating to the MPA link members’ role on CDRPs; and
4. that recommendation 33 be approved (approving the recruitment of MPA officers to support members on CDRPs)

(resolutions 2,3 and 4 were a majority decision)

At this point Toby Harris left the meeting temporarily and Richard Barnes took the Chair.

92. Treasury management strategy 2003/04

(Agenda item 12)

The Authority considered a report proposing borrowing limits for formal adoption.

Resolved – That the Authority adopts the borrowing limits as set out in recommendation 2 of the Treasurer’s report.

93. Airwave – ready for service date

(Agenda item 13)

The Authority considered a report by the Clerk proposing agreement to a ready for service date.

Resolved - That approval be given to a ready for service date for Airwave of 1 October 2003.

94. Police non-emergency response time survey

(Agenda item 14)

At the request of Lynne Featherstone, the Authority agreed to consider a report on this survey. In introducing the survey Lynne Featherstone suggested that performance indicators were needed for the time taken to respond to non-urgent calls. The quality of the response was also important and measures such as secret shopping exercises and public attitude surveys could be developed. Several other members commented on the importance the public placed on accessibility to police stations and considered that accessibility was an important element of visibility.

After discussion it was

Resolved – That the issue be referred to the Planning, Performance and Review Committee for further consideration, and that the results be fed into the Best Value review of demand management.

95. National Intelligence Model in the MPS

(Agenda item 15)

The Authority considered a report by the Commissioner on the implementation of the National Intelligence Model in the MPS.

Resolved - That the report be noted.

96. MPS calendar of meetings 2003/04

(agenda item 16)

The Authority considered a report by the Clerk proposing a calendar of meetings for 2003/04.

Resolved –

1. That the calendar of meetings for 2003/04 up to April 2004, be approved as set out in Appendix 1 to the report, subject to:
   • the Finance Committee agreeing an alternative date for the meeting on 22 September 2003
   • the MPS changing the date of a C3i meeting scheduled for 18 December 2003, as it clashes with a Finance Committee meeting
   • the Planning, Performance and Review Committee considering whether it wishes to hold or rearrange the meeting scheduled for 15 April, as this is in Easter week.
2. That following confirmation of the election arrangements for GLA elections in 2004, a report be presented to a future meeting of the Authority with committee dates for May and June 2004.

The meeting ended at 12.55 p.m.

Send an e-mail linking to this page

Feedback