MPA response to the green paper on police reform: “Building Safer Communities Together”

Report: 11
Date: 29 January 2004
By: Clerk
Also a Co-ordination and Policing Committee report – 23 January 2004

Summary

In November, the Government published this Green Paper outlining options for and seeking views on further steps in police reform. The consultation period closes on 27 January 2004. This paper sets out a suggested response from the MPA, taking account of the comments captured at an MPA Members’ Workshop on 15 January.

A. Recommendation

1. The Co-ordination & Policing Committee considers the draft response at Appendix 2, and recommends to the full Authority the terms of the formal MPA response to the Green Paper, and considers in particular the passages in italics, as those deal with some key issues warranting discussion.
2. The full Authority confirms the response made on its behalf by the Co-ordination & Policing Committee.

B. Supporting information

1. In November, the Government published this Green Paper outlining options for and seeking views on further steps in police reform. The consultation period closes on 27 January 2004. This paper sets out a suggested response from the MPA. This draft takes account of comments captured at a Members’ Workshop on 15 January.

2. Police authorities were encouraged to consult with local groups and communities. Despite the timescale, views were invited from all CPCGs and CDRPs and from about 500 other London groups. Any responses received will be summarized in a further report.

3. The Green Paper sets out that the Government is working to build safer communities, and that the police service, together with a whole range of other agencies and partners, has a crucial role in delivering that goal. The document raises critical questions relating to options for reform of the police service. It argues that the pace and scope of change – to the way we work, to our family life, and to how we live – present a huge range of challenges to all public services. Added to these demographic and technological changes is a rise in people’s expectations and aspirations for their services. So the police service, as with all public agencies, has been and must carry on addressing the need for continuing modernisation and reform.

4. The Green Paper holds that the position of constable – the citizen in uniform – is a key civic position. The Government want to strengthen that local connection and they are clear that communities must be at the heart of reform.

5. The reforms are also driven by broader objectives: Government wants a police service which is efficient, effective and value for money; which rewards the skills and experience of its personnel and can recruit the brightest and best. They want a police service which enjoys widespread public support and trust, in all parts of the community; which reflects the broad diversity of British society; and which has the latest equipment, technology and intelligence to detect, detain and convict criminals.

6. The Green Paper suggests that reform and any structural change will be judged on whether crime continues to fall, but also on whether people believe that they are being better policed, feel safe in their homes and streets, and are happy that their local law enforcers are truly visible and accessible.

7. Government is clear that public services, including the police, can no longer be seen as services ‘done unto’ people; they can only be successful if they are conducted with people. This means integrating policing activity into the daily life of every community. In short, the Green Paper looks to transcend traditional notions of policing by consent, and establish a new principle of policing through cooperation.

8. The key areas for further reform, as envisaged by the Green Paper, and on which views are sought, are summarized below:

Community engagement

• Empowering local people to use information and networks to engage with their local police.
• Ensuring a policing style, which is both visible and accessible and helps local people to take action themselves.
• Strengthening voluntary, community and business involvement in policing – especially through Special Constables, Neighbourhood Watch, a wider range of volunteers and local businesses.

Accountability

• Strengthened accountability for delivering effective neighbourhood policing.
• Enhancing the leadership capacity, process of accountability and responsiveness to communities of Basic Command Unit (BCU) Commanders in the context of their force wide obligations.
• Ensuring a responsive police service.
• Development of a Community Advocate role.
• Assessing the scope for radical change to police authorities and broader partnership arrangements.

Operational effectiveness

• Ensuring there is sufficient capacity to combat crime at neighbourhood, BCU, force and national levels.
• Opening the debate on structural change of police forces.
• Delivering the right powers to maximise effectiveness.

Service modernisation

• Rewarding good performance.
• Delivering a more unified, representative police service with a better skills mix.
• Bringing forward a transformational leadership agenda.

The detailed questions on which responses are invited are at Appendix 1

A suggested draft response from the MPA is at Annex B

9. A suggested draft response from the MPA is at Appendix 2. This will have been considered by the Co-ordination and Policing Committee on 23 January. Details of that committee’s deliberations will be tabled at the full Authority meeting. In view of the Government’s consultation deadline – 27 January – a response will already have been made on the basis of the Committee’s views. However, there should be scope for any subsequent views made at the Authority meeting to be submitted late.

C. Equality and diversity implications

The Green Paper addresses issues that have a real impact upon the delivery of effective policing to diverse communities. The MPA response as suggested highlights the importance of building diversity considerations into proposed changes from the outset.

D. Financial implications

There are no direct implications.

E. Background papers

• The Green Paper

F. Contact details

Report author: David Riddle

For more information contact:

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

Appendix 1: Policing green paper - questions for consultation

Community engagement

• We welcome thoughts on the kind of information about policing that communities would find most useful; and how this information can be most usefully distributed.
• We welcome thoughts on what more can be done to ensure that police officers are more visible and more accessible.
• How could the police make better use of the local knowledge, skills and experience of Special Constables; and what more can be done to increase the pool of potential recruits to the Special Constabulary?
• How could the police make better use of the knowledge, skills and experience of members of the local community?
• How could community groups be better enabled to reduce crime and improve community safety?
• What more can be done to ensure that businesses and the police can work together to reduce crime and improve community safety?

Accountability of policing

• We welcome comments on how best to enhance the leadership capacity, and process of accountability, at all levels within the police service.
• We welcome comments on the possible development of local service level agreements.
• We welcome views on the introduction of a single, three-digit non-emergency number for accessing local services.
• We welcome comments on the role Community Advocates could play, what form they might take and how to ensure they added value for communities and for the police.
• We would welcome views on the role neighbourhood level panels or trusts might play in increasing local community engagement in community safety issues.
• We welcome thoughts on how partnership work can be made more effective and accountable – especially in the light of the other issues being explored in this paper.
• We are interested in hearing views on the relative strengths of the new accountability options presented in this paper, or hearing about other possible formulations and models.
• We welcome views on how the links between resources and performance can be most clearly expressed so that people can make an informed assessment of their police service’s efficiency and effectiveness – and whether there are any other ways in which accountability for resources might be strengthened.

Operational effectiveness

• The Government believes that the time is right to consider whether the present 43 force structure in England and Wales is the right one for today’s and tomorrow’s policing needs. We welcome comments on how things might be structured differently, to improve the effectiveness of the police.
• We welcome thoughts on enhancing central support for the police service.

Modernising the police service

• We welcome thoughts on how the concept of earned autonomy could work in policing terms, what flexibilities might be introduced. And we welcome thoughts on which level should earn the freedoms – force/police authority level or below that (for example, at Basic Command Unit level).
• We welcome thoughts on developing the role of police staff further and achieving a more unified service; and on whether, in today’s dynamic work environment, there are sufficient flexibilities in the present system of police workforce regulations to allow forces deliver the best standards of service to communities.
• We welcome thoughts on what more can be done to achieve our goal of a truly representative police service.
• We welcome comments on the approach to supporting and improving the leadership and management of the police service.

Appendix 2 (revised): Draft response from MPA to the green paper on policing: Building Safer Communities Together

(Version 2 – revised following discussion at Co-ordination & Policing Committee on 23 January)
See Version 1 of the draft response

A. Introduction

1. The Metropolitan Police Authority (MPA) came into existence in July 2000 and for the first time has given London a properly accountable framework for the governance of the policing of London. The fundamental principle that informs its work is that the nation’s capital must have good quality, good value, responsive and sensitive policing.

2. The arrangements for delivering a police service and for governance of that service in London already represent in many respects just the model of strategic forces envisaged in Chapter 6 of the consultative document. The Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) is a “strategic police force” of the sort the Green Paper envisages, whose capital city, national and international responsibilities have vital national significance, as well as impacting on the delivery of local policing services. The Authority’s experience over the period since July 2000 of the governance of a strategic force uniquely qualifies it to respond to the organisational proposals. It can also contribute from direct and relevant experience to the debate about consultation and community engagement.

3. During the MPA’s first term, the MPS has seen enormous changes, growth and innovation. Post 11 September 2001 the MPS has had to provide a major anti-terrorist response, which has tended to affect other priorities. Despite this, the MPA has made significant progress during its brief, three-year history. Since 2000, the MPA has provided a strong policy lead and has been instrumental in the unprecedented growth in police numbers and in recruitment and retention initiatives such as free rail travel. The MPA has also overseen the introduction of Police Community Support Officers (PCSOs). We have established a Transport Operational Command Unit with Transport for London. The Authority has introduced robust financial control and accountability for the MPS’ £2.5 billion budget, including work in progress to devolve budget responsibility to borough commands.

4. The MPA’s key responsibility for developing trust and confidence among London’s communities has been tackled through our investigations of areas of concern like stop and search and fatal shootings, as well as work on our Race Equality Scheme and extensive consultation activities. The leadership we provide is exemplified by our recent appointment of an Independent Inquiry into Professional Standards and Employment matters in the MPS.

B. General response to the green paper

1. It is clear from the MPA’s own consultations with the public of London and local partnerships that there is already a broad consensus that the delivery of local policing services and community reassurance must be organised more locally, and that the police must be, and be seen to be, responsive to London’s diverse communities.

2. The MPA welcomes and supports the Government’s objective to enable local communities to have much more involvement in local policing decisions and solutions, within the strategic context of community engagement and civil renewal.

3. There is a need for further reform to deliver sustainable improvements to community safety and create truly joined up and accountable partnership working.

4. The MPA welcomes the debate about a move towards strategic police forces and strategic police authorities.

Softened by inclusion of ‘the debate about’

5. The MPA welcomes the intent signalled by the Green Paper to redefine relationships in the tri-partite structure and in particular to recognise that Chief Officers have operational responsibility, not autonomy, within a clear framework of accountability.

B.5 is a new paragraph

6. Strategic police authorities should have express powers to hold to account the chief officer of police (as in the example of the Northern Ireland Policing Board), as well as to promote community safety and to assess the effectiveness of partnership working.

7. Urgent and radical action should be taken to rationalise the anomalous employment terms and conditions, including pensions, for police officers to make it possible to recruit the kinds of skills that will be required, and to put all parts of the extended police family within a cohesive employment framework.

C. Community engagement

1. Any strategy for community engagement in London must recognise and address the implications of the diversity of the population served. Communities in London experience wide differences in the levels and impact crime according to race and ethnicity, sexual orientation and gender. The high rates of population turnover and mobility are also important factors that need to be taken into account in designing and implementing local engagement and service delivery.

The old paragraphs C.1 and C.2 have been rewritten and combined as C.1 above.

2. The MPA has extensive experience of different patterns of local consultation and is already trialling several models, all based on closer engagement with local partnerships. Examples of the initiatives in London are attached. (to be appended)

3. Lessons from MPS work so far on the reassurance policing model indicate the greatest public anxiety at neighbourhood level is generated by “signal crimes” – events such as vandalism, graffiti, abandoned vehicles and litter. Some crimes and disorders matter more to the public than others. These signal crimes negatively impact public perception of police performance and neighbourhood safety. Listening and responding to neighbourhood priorities is a key to success.

4. One size will not fit all. Mechanisms for community engagement will need to reflect particular localities.

5. Local engagement will be frustrated if locally expressed priorities are not capable of influencing policing plans. There needs to be a reconsideration of the balance to be struck between national plans and targets, and local needs and priorities. The concept of a Service Level Agreement will only be meaningful if the service defined is a response to what is seen to be needed locally, rather than what is prescribed in Queen Anne’s Gate.

6. The Green Paper’s aspirations for community engagement are laudable. But if engagement is to involve more than “the usual suspects” then two key ingredients must be:

• first, for the police service to relate to the community in wholly new ways, with changes in organisational culture, training and skills, and with police officers rooted in local community bases, not in traditional police estate:
• second, real and sustained effort in community development and capacity building, especially in BME and other disadvantaged communities, undertaken by the local partners and the strategic police authority. Policing in co-operation can only become real if the community policed has both the confidence and the capacity to co-operate.

D. Accountability of policing

1. The contribution police authorities should make to the delivery of effective, efficient and fair policing in the police force areas for which they are responsible is currently constrained by the unequal balance within the tripartite partnership and by misapprehensions about the meaning of operational independence. The MPA welcomes the government’s intention to redefine relationships and responsibilities for the governance of policing, so as to make clear that the operational responsibility of chief officers is subject to a clear framework of accountability.

D.1 has been expanded to include further reference to the tripartite partnership and operational responsibility.

2. It is unsurprising that, even in London (where the MPA has achieved a reasonable profile), few people have any clear sense of what a police authority does and remain unaware of the extent to which there is an open accountability mechanism. There is plenty of potential to increase the profile of police authorities and make the public aware of the benefits of local accountable oversight of policing, but this should not become an end in itself.

3. The solution is to enhance the role of the strategic police authority, with clearer, and stronger, statutory powers to fulfil its responsibilities. The Home Office also has a part to play by supporting authorities and publicly acknowledging their importance.

The old D.4 has been deleted.

4. The powers and duties of the strategic police authority or board should include all the existing police authority powers/duties plus:-

• an express duty to hold the Commissioner/Chief Constable to account;
• a duty to report annually to the Home Secretary on the effectiveness of public policing in the area, embracing all the participants in the extended police family;
• a power to review and make recommendations to other bodies providing policing services in the area (for example, in London, the Metropolitan Police Service, the British Transport Police and the City of London Police)
• a power to conduct inquiries into local or force wide policing issues
• a duty to develop a strategy for community engagement
• a power to oversee the performance of CDRPs and make recommendations to them individually or collectively
• a statutory responsibility for carrying out surveys of public opinion and satisfaction and for obtaining public views on policing performance, needs and priorities at the regional level; and for setting standards for local operational and tactical consultation to be carried out by the force in conjunction with local Community Safety Boards and CDRPs.

This is a revised version of the old D.5.

5. The MPA suggests that as police forces develop the National Intelligence Model as a key driver to planning at all levels, it will become increasingly important for the police authority to take full ownership and implementation of strategic consultation processes on cross-cutting, force wide, issues, priorities and plans, to demonstrate that the consultative process is independent and distinct from police themselves, and that it is directly informing strategic policy decisions.

6. Consequently, local and operational consultation activity should be undertaken in conjunction with the CDRP or Community Safety Board, using the local consultative networks. In the MPA’s experience, the extent and effectiveness of consultation by CDRPs is variable. Therefore, the strategic police authority should have a role in setting standards to ensure that there is effective consultation that will enable minority communities to have their views listened to.

A revised version of the old D.7

7. A strategic police authority must have a strong democratic base. Not only does this give it democratic legitimacy, which is essential for credibility and if the authority is to have the power to precept, but it also ensures that public sector disciplines with respect to budgetary control and best value are transmitted to police service regimes.

8. The experience of the MPA leads us strongly to favour a mix of elected and appointed members. An open appointment process allows for a balance of background, experience, ethnicity, gender, age and other diversity to be reflected in the membership.

9. There is a very real danger that a wholly elected body, whether directly or indirectly elected, would struggle to reflect the diversity of the community to the same extent as has been achieved with the present model of elected members, independents and magistrates. This could result in a disturbing loss of confidence by minority communities. There is also a danger that direct elections might produce authorities that are dominated by a single issue focus or might encourage a move towards political interference in operational matters.

D.9 is a revised version of the old D.10

10. The commitment, both in time and energy, and the range of skills and experience the independent and magistrate members have brought to the work of the MPA, have been invaluable in complementing the political expertise contributed by the elected Assembly members.

11. The composition of a strategic police authority or board for London needs careful thought. The strategic body must be informed by, and be truly engaged with, local borough based partnership activities. In London, with 32 borough based CDRPs, the challenge is to ensure that the Authority and its members have the capacity to link effectively into local networks, (so that local concerns may properly be fed through to the strategic planning process, and vice-versa) while also maintaining the strategic focus and driving service wide improvement.

12. An increase in the membership for the MPA would create more capacity for a member level link for each of the 32 borough-based Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnerships. The downside of an increase is that it may make the Authority more bureaucratic, less flexible, less workable and inherently less strategic. It may also prove difficult to recruit significantly more independent members than at present.

13. The capacity of a strategic police authority could be enhanced by allowing the authority to appoint non-voting associate members to undertake specialist roles on committees (for example, to undertake some of the quasi-judicial responsibilities of members which can be very time consuming, or to provide expertise on complex matters such as police information technology).

D.13 is a moderated version of the old D.14

14. In any new model of strategic authority for London, there is a case for an element of representation of the London Boroughs, perhaps by nominations made by the Association of London Government.

The old D.15 and D.16 have been deleted and replaced with a new D.15:

15. Accordingly, the MPA commends the model of a strategic police authority for London made up of GLA members or other directly elected persons, independent members and magistrates, and representatives of the London Boroughs.

16. At present the MPA, uniquely, does not have power to determine its budget or set the precept on the council tax, as those functions are given to the Mayor and assembly by the Greater London Authority Act 1999, although the Mayor has no other responsibilities for policing. The MPA considers that this division of responsibility is uneasy and confusing to the public. The situation would be remedied either by the MPA becoming a budget making and precepting body in its own right, like all other police authorities, or by a redefinition of the responsibilities of the Mayor and Assembly to include all the direct functions of the Authority.

This is the old D.17 with the last sentence deleted.

17. Alongside the enhancement of accountability at the strategic level, it is necessary to have a framework of public accountability for local partnerships. CDRPs should be required to account to local communities for their collective performance, and the individual partners for individual performance.

18. The MPA recommends that at the Borough (Operational Command Unit) level there should be Borough Community Safety Boards, holding the local police commander and all of the other local partners to account for their delivery of the Community Safety Strategy and Plan.

19. Borough Community Safety Boards would be made up of borough councillors, police authority member(s), representatives of the other statutory partners and community representatives including a business voice.

20. Borough Community Safety Boards would have the following functions:

• holding the borough commander and other local partners in CDRP to account for performance
• ensuring that all of the crucial work of local partnerships is transparent and accountable
• setting local standards and plans for consultation and community engagement
• approving the partnership strategy and action plan
• approving a local policing plan
• organising and funding local consultation activity, whether by Community and Police Consultative Groups (CPCGs) or other mechanisms, reflecting the special needs of diverse and hard to hear communities.

21. The relationship between the strategic police authority and the community safety boards should be defined so as to ensure that there are coherent strategic and local planning processes with effective linkages between the strategic and local plans and priorities, that local boards provide systematic reports on local performance and issues to the strategic authority, and that there is effective oversight of the work of the local boards.

D.21 is a new paragraph

22. There should also be a clear, transparent, framework for the involvement of the police authority and community safety boards in the appointment of BCU commanders.

23. The concept of locally based “Community Advocates” is supported in principle, although there is a need for further debate about their role. The MPA suggests that these local facilitators should be recruited, employed and trained by the strategic police authority. In London, there would be one for each BCU, reporting into the borough community safety board as well as the strategic police authority. Complementing the role envisaged by the Green Paper, the MPA suggests that the Community Advocates should be responsible for energising and supporting community engagement at neighbourhood level, and improving local consultation.

E. Operational effectiveness

1. The MPA agrees with the view that debate should be opened up about the number and structure of police forces in England and Wales. The MPA’s experience is that the MPS, as a model of a strategic force works. The effectiveness of the organisation in dealing with serious and organised crime impacts upon effectiveness in handling localised crime and disorder, and vice-versa. In short, policing the levels of criminality in an urban community requires a seamless policing organisation tackling all levels. Crime and criminals move between communities, across borough boundaries and between regions. Officers at community level must be equipped to understand the complexities of the communities they serve (in terms of crime as well as other social patterns). Specialist crime tactics must align with and complement community based policing.

2. For this reason, the MPA considers that any proposal to remove responsibility for terrorism, serious or organised crime could have a serious adverse impact on the overall effectiveness of the policing of London.

The comment in E.2 about the impact on overall effectiveness has been moderated.

3. The MPA considers that within the current national debate, it is timely to review again the present fragmented arrangements for public policing in London, to assess how best to secure optimum integration, in particular as regards policing of the transport infrastructure and London’s mass transit systems, and as regards the vital interests of the City of London.

4. With regard to central support services, the MPA considers that the present arrangements with loosely interlocking regulatory regimes involving Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary, the Police Standards Unit, and the Audit Commission are both confusing and inefficient. The Authority believes that there would be merit in merging these disparate functions to form a strengthened Inspectorate and Improvement Agency for Policing, and to continue the current move to risk based, lighter touch inspection.

5. National funding for local policing should continue to be allocated at police authority / force level. There is no case for direct funding of BCUs.

6. The basis of funding of the national and international functions of the MPS (as of any other strategic force required to discharge national functions) should be reviewed and a funding protocol should be put in place under statutory arrangements. It is essential that there is a transparent, and sustainable, approach which ensures full reimbursement of the costs from the exchequer, so that local tax payers are do not have to bear the cost of national and international policing functions

E.6 is new

F. Service modernisation

1. Police services must be reflective of the communities they serve. Much more work remains to be done to achieve this, in recruitment, training and retention. Increased recruitment of officers and staff from Black and minority ethnic communities, and from amongst women, is essential. Currently, anti-discrimination legislation prohibits measures that could otherwise be taken to address this problem. There is a need to consider whether the time has come to introduce statutory quotas for recruitment, similar to those introduced in the Police Service of Northern Ireland.

2. The MPA supports the arguments for radical modernisation of employment practices, and the appointment of leaders in the top jobs from a variety of backgrounds not restricted to serving police officers.

3. In particular the Authority believes that now is the right time to reconsider the employment status of officers. With the advent of the extended police family and the increased use of police staff, including PCSOs, in operational roles the anomalies created by having two separate employers and employment regimes are exacerbated. (The MPA also notes that the Morris Inquiry into professional standards and employment issues within the MPS may make recommendations in due course which are relevant in this area.)

Last sentence of F.3 is new

4. The employment framework for police requires greater flexibility to enable police services to reward skills, and competencies, and to recognise performance, not just length of service; and to facilitate recruitment of specialists into “police” functions. The arrangements for pensions must be reviewed, to make it possible for people to move into and out of policing as part of individual career development, not assuming that a lifetime career will be spent in policing.

5. The current focus on police officer numbers as the measure of “strength” must change towards a recognition of the parts played by all the branches of the extended police family of volunteer, civilian, uniformed non-sworn officers, and constables, in the achievement of the total policing task.

6. Decisions on the selection of chief officers should remain with police authorities, without central direction limiting local choice.

Annex to Appendix 2

(referred to in paragraph C.2 of appendix 2: the response)

Community engagement initiatives undertaken by the MPA

The MPA is pursuing a number of initiatives to strengthen its community engagement responsibilities. For example:

• The MPA is presently undertaking work to ensure robust analysis of the function and future direction of Community Police Consultative Groups (CPCGs) through the introduction of a rigorous annual bidding process which will ensure greater local accountability, representativeness and community influence on policing.

In addition, in partnership with the London-Wide CPCG Chairs’ Forum, discussion is underway to first highlight innovative activity and to produce and widely disseminate a ‘best practice’ guide and secondly to establish regular input in to the MPA’s Consultation Committee to ensure that the strategic issues emanating from CPCG discussions are channelled directly into the MPA’s community accountability responsibilities and governance and oversight role.

• Secondly, the MPA is extending the array of consultative methodologies employed to obtain the views of the public including the participation in public surveys, e-consultation with community stakeholder groups in partnership with the MPS, focus groups, and deliberative conferences.
• Thirdly, the MPA is establishing a Citizen’s Panel, which will be representative of the London demographic data, and be large enough to ensure statistically valid representative samples and sub-samples of ‘hard to hear’ communities. The Panel permits a more rapid “quick –time” response and will be used on a regular basis for different policing issues
• Fourthly, the MPA is enlarging its partnership work with community-based networks as a more effective mechanism of consulting with different sectors of the community. Recently it undertook a breakfast consultation with over 200 representatives of the faith communities in partnership with the Haringey Peace Alliance. In partnership with the London Civic Forum, six focus groups were held with representatives from Asian communities, refugee and asylum seekers, disability communities, women’s networks, small businesses and the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender communities. Also recently a youth workshop was organised by the Peabody Trust.
• Fifthly, the MPA is testing innovative approaches to community police consultation in London Boroughs such as Kensington and Chelsea and in Hammersmith and Fulham. The experimental project in Kensington and Chelsea arose from the recognition that the conventional CPCG structure is not always effective at representing the ‘ordinary citizen’, let alone developing active citizenship.

Consequently a group of 20 volunteers, without any particular community group affiliation, has been directly recruited by a market research company on behalf of the MPA, using random selection. Between them this group is broadly representative of the population of the borough in terms of age group, gender, ethnic origin and Police Sector of residence. The volunteers have little or no prior formal involvement with police community consultative structures. Thus the new Panel will be complementary to the existing CPCG and will provide the Group with a more broadly based community perspective.

The task for the new Panel is to consider a range of policing and community safety issues by listening to and cross-questioning experts in these different areas and formulating observations, recommendations or questions for the CPCG itself. The task for the Management Committee of the CPCG will be to act as the ‘executive arm’ of the Police Community Panel, to take on board the Panel’s comments and to act on them as appropriate, with feedback to the Panel at regular intervals.

The MPA expects this experiment to provide valuable lessons both in police engagement with a wider community in sufficient depth to make the engagement fruitful for both sides, and also in making local policing accountable to active citizens.

In Hammersmith and Fulham, while there is a variety of consultation processes dedicated to policing and community safety issues at the local level, there is much less at the area or sector level and virtually none at the Borough or strategic level. In order to address this, the MPA is testing the concept of a small ‘cabinet’ of key players, balancing the interests of the various community stakeholder groups, and that would be chaired by the MPA Link Member. An MPA staff person, located in the borough, will support this structure, monitor and analyse local crime and disorder issues and organise community meetings.

This approach will provide lessons with regard to increasing the visibility of the Police Authority at the borough level, with clarifying the role of the Link Member, and with strengthening the relationship of local consultation to the policy and strategic level.

Send an e-mail linking to this page

Feedback