MPS Independent Advisory Groups

Report: 9
Date: 27 April 2006
By: Commissioner

Summary

Members of the MPA Morris Steering Group received a further report from the MPS Diversity and Citizen Focus Directorate outlining the basic principles underpinning Independent Advice both pan-London and at B(OCU) level. It covered their structure, composition, remit, and accountability. MPA Morris Steering Group members requested that a paper outlining proposals to address Independent Advisory Groups’ job description, tenure and budgets, funding access for people with disabilities to IAGs and formation of OCU IAGs be brought to the attention of all Authority members. This report seeks to inform members of the work being done to progress those proposals.

A. Recommendation

That the report be received.

B. Supporting information

1. In seeking to address the further issues raised by the MPA concerning independent advice in the MPS, it is first felt necessary to put into context the events over the past 12 months which have played a major part in influencing the direction and reshaping of the Diversity and Citizen Focus Directorate [1]. In particular, these events have required the Directorate to re-evaluate it’s response to major critical incidents, how it drives diversity, organisational learning and development issues forward within the MPS, develops it’s external community engagement strategy and not least, advance the management of the advisory process in the MPS.

2. The past year has seen the Directorate undertake a radical review of its structure and business portfolios and redefine its commitment to improving service delivery to the MPS and all London’s communities, through adopting a citizen focus.

3. The creation of the Diamond Support Group [2] by the Directorate, post 7 July 2005, was key to providing the MPS with a central conduit for community engagement, the management of the ‘Purple Advisory Group’ (which included representatives from the various pan-London IAGs and other key external community stakeholders) and the exchange of community information and reassurance messages under the banner of the Communities Together project. The MPS recognises the importance of maintaining such a dedicated community focused resource, providing a 24 hour response to actual or perceived counter-terrorist activities and other community impacting critical incidents, as well as the development of other Directorate teams engaged with ‘front-end’ service delivery.

4. To complement this development, and in particular to provide greater accountability and coherence to the advisory process, the Directorate will now take overall responsibility for the day-to-day administration of the existing five pan-London advisory groups, the formulation of service wide protocols and undertaking a review of IAGs across the organisation.

5. As referred to in the previous report to the MPA Morris Steering Group in December 2005, a partial review of the MPS IAG operating protocols was conducted by the Directorate with the MPS IAG (Race) following the Morris Inquiry recommendations which recommended:

• The adoption of the ‘Nolan Principles’ for public appointments.
• Governance of appointments.
• Transparent and open selection of members.
• Terms of appointment, tenure and any remuneration being made public.
• Assessment for suitability being made against a formal specification.
• Proper resourcing and budgeting.
• Agreed protocol for disclosure of documentation

6. The full wording of recommendations 14, 15 and 16 are at Appendix 1. MPA Morris Steering Group minutes relating to IAGs are at Appendices 2 and 3.

7. The Directorate’s present intention is to conduct a review process that takes a fundamental, holistic approach to independent advice across the Service at pan-London, Borough and non-Borough levels. A review framework has been devised to examine existing advisory group practices, operating procedures and areas of commonality, and to produce a protocol setting out minimum standards for all MPS independent advisory groups. A key component of the protocol will be to place emphasis upon ensuring as broad diverse representation among the membership of groups as possible is achieved, notwithstanding the original purpose for their individual creation.

8. The review will also examine the internal management and administrative systems that are currently employed by those police officers/police staff having responsibility for advisory groups. The purpose of this is to offer opportunities to standardise in-house practices and provide greater accountability in the use of resources; not only financial where budgets for IAGs exist, but also in terms of the method and rationale for the use and deployment of advisors, their terms of reference and the valuable advice offered and received. This area of work is précised below:

• Recording requests for independent advisors.
• Arrangements for meeting advisor’s expenses.
• Capturing feedback from advisors and those engaging them following deployment.
• Identifying any training needs.
• Maintaining accurate details of IAGs expenditure.
• Monitoring members’ activity records.
• Maintaining members’ skills profiles and registers of conflict of interest.
• The protocol will include standard operating factors: composition, generic job role/responsibilities, selection, tenure, executive powers, advisor deployment and meetings, agendas and administrative support.
• The review framework.
• Review being led by Detective Superintendent Williams.
• Examination of the MPS’s advisory group procedures/systems and sampling systems of Borough and non-Borough IAGs.
• Drafting MPS IAGs protocol and guidance.
• Consultation with Borough Commanders and representatives from advisory groups.
• Engagement with MPS IAGs steering group, including MPA representation, for wider consultation and feedback.

9. In addition to producing an MPS IAGs protocol, the working group will also be engaged upon the revision and publication of guidance documents explaining the purpose and role of independent advice across the Service and intended for use by police personnel and advisors. These include the existing documents ‘A Guide for Establishing Independent Advisory Groups’ and ‘Guide for Independent Advisors’. In the revised version of the Management of Critical Incidents manual, produced by the Directorate’s Critical Incident Team, there is also a section dedicated to the role and use of independent advisors in such events. The new guidance documentation will be available electronically on the Directorate’s intranet site and accessible through the MPS website.

10. Further, the Directorate will introduce a monitoring matrix, which will be used as a means of measuring B(OCUs) against the protocol’s minimum standards and for preserving the integrity of advisory groups across the MPS. An annual check of B(OCU) IAGs will be conducted by the Directorate . Should B(OCUs) fail to meet the minimum standards, support and guidance will be offered by Directorate staff and advisors, as appropriate, to bring them within the standards.

11. The review process is expected to be completed by late summer 2006. It is viewed essential that the protocol, administrative systems and guidance materials have undergone thorough consideration and have the widest consultation before implementation.

OCU IAGs

12. The MPS IAGs protocol will offer guidance as to the need and relevance of creating and maintaining OCU based IAGs dealing with specific community or crime based issues. In the past there has been a tendency to sometimes form ‘independent advisory groups’ in response to specific community issues, which may otherwise have effectively been resolved by using the wealth of independent advice already available to the MPS by engaging pan-London or Borough based groups or individuals. There may be a necessity to form new advisory groups but the Service must also maximise the use of its existing advisory resources.

Disability

13. Through the formation of the MPS Disability Independent Advisory Group (DIAG), the Service has become very aware that managing and facilitating disability issues in relation to independent advice can be complex and has to be addressed appropriately in order to meet the specific needs of our disabled advisors. The provision of disabled access to achieve input to the MPS advisory process requires forethought and consideration and may incur additional resources. The Directorate has a dedicated budget available to service its pan-London IAGs, including the DIAG. As resources are finite, careful consideration will need to be given to the specific and significant access needs of DIAG members, balancing this with the need to make the best use of their services and group deployments. The MPS IAGs protocol will include such considerations and will aim to ensure that disabled IAG members are as far as possible offered inclusive access to all IAG activities.

Recommendation 16

14. The MPS IAGs protocol will clarify and reinforce previously published guidance in respect of police disclosure of information and documentation to Independent Advisory Group members. It will take into account specific case and investigative needs regarding confidentiality, protection of victims, witnesses or suspects details and the necessity for independent advisors being provided with such detail as to enable them to offer an informed opinion. Advisors acknowledge that in certain cases, for legal or operational reasons, it is neither desirable nor practicable to have unrestricted access to all information available to investigating officers but as far as possible, they should be consulted and briefed appropriately.

C. Race and equality impact

MPS independent advisory groups comprise members of the public from diverse ethnic backgrounds, cultures, faiths, disabilities, professions, sexual orientation, gender and age. Members bring a wealth of experience, life and professional skills to the Service and offer the benefits of community perspectives. Advisory groups have evolved far since their inception and whilst many milestones and successes have been achieved, the MPS cannot express complacency in having achieved the maximum potential it can from the process. The MPS continues to work with advisory groups who truly reflect London’s diverse communities and to be receptive to challenge and constructive criticism. By engaging with communities through the advisory process, benefits have been gained, both for the MPS as a service provider and for communities whose voices have been heard. Independent advice is a recognised, effective process of improving trust and confidence in the police among communities. Through the MPS IAGs Review and development of existing procedures, introducing a minimum standards protocol and improved communication between advisory groups, MPS independent advice will continue to help shape ever more effective MPS efforts to make London safer.

D. Financial implications

There are various financial implications in creating and maintaining MPS IAGs at all levels, from initial advertising and selection costs, to funding advisors’ expenses, access or assistance costs, meetings, training and general administration. B(OCUs) often have limited resources to manage their advisory groups, although this alone should not be a reason for not seeking as wide as diverse representation on groups as possible. Pan-London IAGs may have access to greater resources with which to support their deployment, however, all MPS advisory groups must be able to demonstrate financial accountability and demonstrate public value for money.

E. Background papers

None

F. Contact details

Report author: Tony Bennett

For more information contact:

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

Appendix 1

Morris Inquiry Report

Recommendations - MPS Independent Advisory Group

Recommendation 14

That the ‘Nolan Principles’ for public appointments should apply to the appointment of members of the Independent Advisory Group and that:

1. their appointment should be by the Metropolitan Police Authority;
2. they should be appointed in a transparent way following open competition by public advertisement;
3. the terms of their appointment, including tenure of office and any remuneration, should be made public; and
4. candidates should be assessed for their suitability against a formal specification which should also be made public by the Metropolitan Police Authority

Recommendation 15

That the Independent Advisory Group is properly resourced and that this should include a budget for expenditure on items such as independent professional advice (this includes legal advice), where the Independent Advisory Group believes this is necessary.

Recommendation 16

That the Independent Advisory Group and the MPS agree a protocol in relation to disclosure of documentation and the rationale for decisions to Independent Advisory Group members. This must be based on the presumption that Independent Advisory Group members see everything that is available to the investigating officers. Where possible, this should be before decisions are taken.

Appendix 2

MPA Morris Steering Group

Notes of meeting held on 8 September 2005 at 10.00 a.m.

Present:

• MPA members: Cindy Butts (Chair), Reshard Auladin (items 4 to 8), Kirsten Hearn and Rachel Whittaker
• MPA officers: Hamida Ali (Race and Diversity), Laurence Gouldbourne (Head of Race and Diversity); Alan Johnson (Head of HR), David Riddle (Deputy Chief Executive) and Pam Standley (Senior HR Manager)
• MPS officers: Glen Allison (D/Chief Supt, Organisational Learning) Tony Bennett (A/DCI, DCC4) Rose Fitzpatrick (DAC, Diversity and Citizen Focus), Wendy Reeves (Organisational Learning and Development) and Steve Roberts (DAC, Deputy Director, HR) (item 1 – 4)

1. Apologies for absence

1.1 Apologies were received from Elizabeth Howlett and Jenny Jones (members), and Claire Lister (Professional Standards Officer, MPA).

2. Notes of the meeting held on 18 July 2005

2.1 The notes of the last meeting were agreed.

3. Matters arising from the notes of the previous meeting

3.1 Any matters arising would be covered in the Steering Group meeting.

4. Training and development strategic theme (presentation by DAC Roberts)

4.1 DAC Roberts apologised that the incorrect version of ‘Situation Report on Training and Development Theme‘ had been initially circulated. In introducing the report, he stated that the HR response to the Morris Inquiry had two strands; to ensure all staff had training in conduct, discipline and grievance and to equip managers to perform their roles properly in these areas.

4.2 Members felt that such training should not just negatively concentrate on the grievance procedure, but include modules on the positive aspects of the code of conduct and fairness. DAC Roberts undertook to look at this and report back. Action - DAC Roberts

4.3 Members were informed that the Training Standards Unit would evaluate the internal training being given to DPS staff. Members felt that some external evaluation would offer greater reassurance. DAC Roberts invited an MPA member or officer to become involved. Action – David Riddle

4.4 The Steering Group was informed that Centrex would be providing management training until the Leadership Academy had been implemented. Members indicated that they would expect a report on the proposed Leadership Academy to go to COP, so that the MPA might give approval. Action - MPS

4.5 With regard to the recommendation that HR Directorate should maintain accurate records of training, DAC Roberts acknowledged that MetHR had not yet the functionality to do this and that data input was sometimes delayed. The Steering Group was told that staff were given the opportunity to update their entire personnel record every year, as part of the annual appraisal procedure. Members felt the Steering Group should keep this recommendation under review.

4.6 Members asked about the implication of the national race and diversity learning and development programme. They were informed that the national occupational standards were being applied to probationers and police officers seeking promotion. DAC Roberts stated that he had reservations about the fitness for purpose of the Race & Diversity National Occupational Standards as they currently existed and the workload which would be created by the implementation of the national Race and Diversity Development Plan in terms of the formal assessment of all MPS staff against one or both National Occupational Standards. He informed the group that he had met with the Home Office, HMIC, ACPO and Skills for Justice and it had been agreed that the expression of the standards would be revisited and clear guidance issued on the nature and extent of assessment against the standards by January 2006.

4.7 The Steering Group, noting the original version of the report, asked for a briefing on black and minority ethnic recruitment to specialist units, including information on training, promotion and retention. Action - DAC Roberts

4.8 The Steering Group went on to discuss whether recommendations from other reports should be monitored by this group, the role of the Steering Group in relation to the HR, PS&C and EODB Committees and how the Steering Group would report to the full Authority. The need for clear commissioning briefs was also emphasised. It was agreed that the Steering Group was a co-ordinating and monitoring body, and that the detailed work of driving forward the implementation of Morris et al rested with Committees. The Officer Working Group would meet as soon as possible to review the overall work programme and to develop a template for Strand Leader’s Reports to the Steering Group. Action – David Riddle/Laurence Gouldbourne

5. Independent Advisory Groups

5.1 A report ‘Discussion document – points of discussion for a new protocol for the Central Independent Advisory Group’ had been circulated to the Steering Group. Members were informed that the report was to have been discussed at the last IAG meeting, but a full agenda meant that it would now be discussed at its next meeting. A/DCI Bennett had a copy of ‘A Guide to Establishing a Independent Advisory Groups’. It was agreed that members would be sent copies. Action – A/DCI Bennett

5.2 The Steering Group felt there was an expectation that the MPS would develop best practice in setting IAGs, following Nolan Principles on appointments and that this should be prescriptive. The Disability IAG offered a model that could be followed. It was felt that IAGs should not dictate such policies and procedures.

5.3 Concern was also expressed that it appeared, in allowing it to develop this protocol and then offering it to other IAGs, that the Central ‘race’ IAG was being given more status than other IAGs.

5.4 Questions were asked about how other police services selected their IAGs. The Steering Group was informed that 30 out of 40 police services had IAGs, with six or seven more services considering their introduction. There was no national template at present.

5.5 Questions were asked about IAG members’ awareness of disclosure of information. Although members were told IAG members knew IAG minutes were circulated, they felt this answer was insufficient.

5.6 Members requested a further report on how MPS would implement the Morris Inquiry recommendations on and the cost of IAGs. Action – A/DCI Bennett

5.7 On questioning who authorised IAGs, members learnt that there was no one with overall control over the formation of IAGs in the MPS, nor on what was an IAG (some of those listed were un-disbanded critical incident groups). DCC4 had no responsibility for all IAGs, although it did try to monitor them.

6. Engaging with stakeholders

6.1 The Steering Group had received a report ‘Involving Stakeholders in the Implementation Process’.

6.2 It was agreed that the use of focus groups and expert witnesses appeared the most effective vehicles for engagement. The Steering Group stated that the focus for engagement should be Committees that should report back to the Steering Group, and that this activity should be co-ordinated and audited by the Race and Diversity Unit.

7. Any other business

7.1 Kirsten Hearn stated that that she could not attend meetings on Mondays. It was agreed that the meeting on 7 November be moved. Neither Cindy Butts or Kirsten Hearn could attend the next meeting. Action - CLAMS

Dates of future meetings (members to note)

• 3 October 2005 11.30 am
• 7 November 2005 at 2:30 pm (to be changed)
• 14 December 2005 at 10.00 am

Appendix 3

MPA Morris Steering Group

Notes of meeting held on 14 December 2005 at 10.00 am

Present:

• MPA members: Cindy Butts (Chair), Kirsten Hearn and Rachel Whittaker
• MPA officers: Hamida Ali (Policy Development Officer, Race and Diversity), Laurence Gouldbourne (Head of Race and Diversity), Andy Hull (Policy Officer, Community Engagement), Alan Johnson (Head of HR), David Riddle (Deputy Chief Executive, Deputy Clerk and Solicitor) and Ruth Hastings Iqball (Committee Officer)
• MPS officers: Tony Bennett (Diversity Directorate), Rose Fitzpatrick (DAC, Diversity and Citizen Focus Directorate), David Hamilton (Director of Legal Services), Wendy Reeves (Diversity and Citizen Focus Directorate) and Stephen Rimmer (Director, Strategy Modernisation and Performance)

1. Apologies for absence

1.1 Apologies were received from Reshard Auladin (member) and Glen Alison (D/Chief Supt, Diversity and Citizen Focus Directorate).

2. Notes of the meeting held on 3 October 2005

2.1 The notes of the previous meeting were agreed.

3. Matters arising from the notes of the previous meeting

3.1 No matters were raised under this item.

4. The role and work of the Directorate of Legal Services

4.1 The Morris Inquiry recommended that the Directorate of Legal Services (DLS) explained its work to a wider section of the organisation and to the MPA. During the Inquiry, DLS had established an Intranet site to make the MPS aware of its various functions. Members received a briefing paper that provided further detail with particular reference to the role of DLS as an in-house provider of legal services.

4.2 The Director of Legal Services stated that the DLS did not make decisions on the cases referred to them. The role of its solicitors was as in a private practice; they did not make decisions but offered advice upon which the client could make a decision. He added that some solicitors were trained mediators and that his senior lawyers were members of Association of Police Lawyers, whose members shared best practice and developments.

4.3 Members suggested that the MPS was a compliant organisation and had possibly a culture of taking legal advice and being risk adverse, so that the advice offered by DLS would most often be very influential. The Director of Legal Services denied this, saying the police were trained to challenge cases, and that in his experience clients made their own decisions. Members asked if the community impact of legal advice was considered, for instance in cases of deaths in custody. The Director explained DLS would be involved in such cases as it organised inquests and provided representation for the Commissioner. Officers were represented separately. At inquests, the DLS had to look after the MPS's interests with proper regard for the sensitivities of relatives. It had received positive feedback from relatives.

4.4 In answer to questions about the makeup of staff in the DLS, members were told that 33% were non-white and 55-65% women. The number of woman was attributed to the flexibility of working for a public service.

4.5 In answer to questions, the Director indicated the results of a recent customer survey and how learning was disseminated. Members requested that the full Authority or CoP should in the future receive a performance report that would include, for example, the cost of the DLS and counsel's fees paid. Action – DH

4.6 The report stated that the DLS Senior Management Team would welcome the opportunity to meet with the Chief and Deputy Chief Executive of the MPA and any members who were interested, on a periodic basis, to answer any specific queries which they might wish to raise in relation to the role and work of the DLS. The Deputy Clerk stated that he would take this forward. Action –DR

4.7 Members asked if there was legal precedent for the payment of money to the family of Mr de Menezes. David Hamilton explained the circumstances in which an ex gratia payment had been offered with the approval of the MPA.

5. Independent Advisory Groups

5.1 Members received a further report outlining the basic principles underpinning Independent Advisory Groups (IAGs) at both pan-London and at BOCU level. It covered their structure, composition, remit, accountability and purpose. The report was welcomed and members acknowledged the difficulties the author had encountered because his Directorate had no direct control of all IAGs.

5.2 Members noted that not all IAGs had job specifications and asked about the commonalities of tenure and budget. Questions were also asked about the funding of disabled access to IAGs. The Chair reiterated that the MPA supported IAGs but wanted every IAG to conform to common standards with job specifications and standard operating procedures for appointments and tenure. Members felt there was a lack of clarity about when OCU IAGs were formed, when they finished and their membership sitting on Gold Groups. They felt there was no real grip by the MPS on the subject because no one Directorate had ownership of IAGs. It was agreed a further report on IAGs should come to the full Authority covering the points above. Action RF

6. Morris Inquiry recommendations in relation to diversity

6.1 Members received a report providing an update on progress in meeting those Morris Inquiry Report recommendations that the MPS had themed into a diversity-based strand. Overall, responsibility for their progress had been assigned to DAC Rose Fitzpatrick, as Director of Diversity and Citizen Focus in the Service. She stated that a new MPS diversity strategy would be launched next year, together with a race and development programme to embed the strategy. The Directorate was doing work with OCUs on producing their own action plans.

7. Met Modernisation Programme

7.1 Stephen Rimmer presented a report introducing the Met Modernisation Programme within which the building capability strategic theme identified from combination of the Morris, CRE, Taylor and AC Ghaffur thematic inspection report recommendations would be delivered. The report provided high-level information on the Met Modernisation Programme vision, business requirement, outline programme benefits, stakeholder communication and consultation, race and equality impact and financial implications in relation to the Building Capability Strategic Theme. Members noted that a report would be going to the full Authority in January on the programme plan.

7.2 The Head of HR noted that at the HR conference on the previous day the links had been drawn between Met Modernisation Programme and Morris inquiry report and communicated to HR managers.

8. Future meetings

8.1 (This item was dealt with after item 5.) The Deputy Chief Executive presented a report, which proposed a different method of working for the Steering Group for 2006. It was agreed to focus the Morris implementation work on MPA Committees, with the Steering Group meeting less frequently to provide monitoring, co-ordination and resolution of any cross cutting issues. Policy officers would prepare programmes to show how their committee would take forward their Morris recommendations in the business of the committee for the next twelve months. Members asked that all reports to MPA committees dealing with Morris business be badged to enable them to be identified and tracked. Members agreed, subject to the forthcoming review of committees, that if COP agrees to take over the monitoring of Morris, then the Steering Group would be disbanded.

Send an e-mail linking to this page

Feedback