Minutes

Minutes of the Olympics/Paralympics Sub-committee of the Metropolitan Police Authority held on 10 September 2009 at 10 Dean Farrar Street, London SW1H 0NY.

Present

Members

• Dee Doocey (Chairman)
• Jennette Arnold (Vice Chair)
• Christopher Boothman,
• Toby Harris (item 4 onwards)
• Victoria Borwick (item 4 onwards)

MPA officers

• Annabel Adams (Deputy Treasurer)
• Siobhan Coldwell (Head of Oversight and Review)
• Ruth Hastings Iqball (Committee Section)

MPS officers

• Chris Allison (AC, Central Operations)
• Richard Morris (Cdr, Olympics Policing Co-ordination)
• Ian Percival (Lead Accountant, Olympic Security Directorate)

1. Apologies for absence

Agenda item 1)

Apologies for absence were received from Kirsten Hearn (member).

2. Declarations of interests

(Agenda item 2)

No declarations of interest were declared.

3. Minutes: Olympics / Paralympics Sub Committee – 8 June 2009 (Part 1)

(Agenda item 3)

Members considered the minutes of the above meeting.

Resolved – That the minutes of the Olympics / Paralympics Sub Committee (Part 1) held on 8 June 2009 be agreed and be signed as a correct record.

4. ACPO / MPS co-ordination of delivery of policing in preparation for the Olympic and Paralympic Games

(Agenda item 4)

4.1 The Sub Committee received a report outlining arrangements for co-ordinating the police service response to commissions arising from the Olympic Safety and Security Plan, including the establishment of a new joint ACPO / MPS Olympics Policing Co-ordination Team. A similar report had been agreed at MPS Management Board and submitted through ACPO Cabinet for noting at Chief Constables’ Council.

4.2 Members asked about paragraph 2: ‘The OPC (Olympic Policing Co-ordination Team) has been established as a means of co-ordinating the delivery of police-led projects within the programme and reflects a need to ensure consistency of service delivery and a coherent interface with the Olympic Security Directorate (OSD) within the Home Office’. They were informed that the OSD included police officers, paid for out of the £600 million Olympic security budget envelope, as were those in the OPC.

4.3 Members then asked about the OPC (paragraph 7), and whether there would be a contribution from ACPO. It was explained that the OPC was a joint team, comprising officers and staff from both MPS and ACPO. The reason for the ACPO and national element was that the Olympic Games were taking place in 11 force areas (including the football venues). Both the MPS and Dorset Police Authority would need mutual aid to deliver policing it their areas and ACPO would assist its provision.

4.4 Members were informed that the OPC would be using MPS back office functions such as IT and HR. AC, CO indicated that this was unlikely to have an impact on MPS resources, but Members requested they be informed if the OPC was draining MPS resources. They also asked if the MPS would be funding ACPO and were told ACPO’s contribution both to the OPC and in terms of ‘Olympic additionality’ in general, would be funded by the Home Office, in the same way as the MPS contribution.

4.5 Members asked for more information in relation to paragraph 14 ‘An ACPO Communication Manager will be recruited directly by ACPO, and while they will retain an ACPO professional line of management, the post holder will be working at Canary Wharf as part of the OPC under the direction of the OPC Commander. It will be vital that this role is not seen as standalone but works as part of the wider communication team supporting the Assistant Commissioner, and MPS DPA remains the lead body on communications for the Commissioner on Olympics matters.’ The Cdr, Olympics Policing Co-ordination, said the MPS was employing two people to deliver communications, and another would be employed by ACPO, but that it was all funded by the Home Office. All three would work seamlessly together. Statements would come from whatever was the most relevant body and be agreed all three communication officers. The AC, CO, added that he and the Cdr were members of ACPO as well as being MPS officers.

4.6 Members requested that future reports include more detail of staff make up under the ‘Race and Equality Impact’ section, including the number of disabled people employed. Members noted that the Paralympics presented an opportunity for the MPS to be more inclusive.

4.7 Members also requested an organisational chart showing who run what and lines of accountability. It was felt that appendix 2 of the report could be enlarged upon to provide this.

4.8 The Chair suggested the Sub Committee should visit the Olympic site and asked the Head of Oversight and Review to arrange such a programme. The Deputy Chair expressed a desire to meet the newly appointed Head of Security for the London Organising Committee of the Olympic Games.

4.9 The Chair noted that British Waterways had informed her that it wanted waterways around the Olympic site to remain open during the event. She was taking this up with the Cdr, Olympics Policing Co-ordination, adding that Sub Committee members would be increasingly lobbied as the Olympics approached.

4.10 The Chair of the Civil Liberties Panel, Victoria Borwick, spoke of the exercise of discretion during the period of the Olympics and the need for that discretion to be exercised similarly across all the forces involved so that a common service could be delivered by all police forces. The AC, CO, said this had been discussed by ACPO and consideration was being given to how it could be achieved. He noted that policing Olympics is unlikely to be confrontational so the training implications will be minimised.

Resolved – That the Sub-Committee note the proposed joint ACPO / MPS arrangements for co-ordinating police service delivery within and outside the MPS.

5. Exclusion of Press and Public

(Agenda item 5)

A resolution was put to exclude the press and public from the meeting during remaining items on the agenda as they were likely to disclose exempt information as described in Schedule 12(a) of the Local Government Act 1972, paragraph 3.

Resolved - That the press and public be excluded from the meeting during discussion of the remaining items on the agenda

Summary of exempt items

6. The MPS Olympic Delivery programme - financial approval process

(Agenda item 6)

6.1. The Sub Committee received a report suggesting a methodology to allow the MPA oversight and scrutiny of proposed MPS Olympic expenditure, including a timetable of proposed business cases requiring MPA approval. In order to review every business case the Sub Committee would, based on the current timetable, be required to review approximately 17 business cases, and potentially a further 7 to be confirmed, at its meetings between October and December 2009. This could prove difficult logistically. The proposed option was to incorporate all the Olympic related estimates into the MPS 2010-13 budget. This would allow the Finance and Resources Committee and Full Authority to approve in principle the overall proposals, based on outline business case estimates. Full business cases for significant projects, any projects that required significant capital expenditure, the letting of a contract or a policy change would be submitted to the Olympic/Paralympic Sub-Committee. Financial limits would be as outlined in the MPA Financial Regulations. This meant the Sub Committee would scrutinise approximately 80% of the proposed MPS Olympic budget.

6.2. The Deputy Treasurer asked how the remaining 20% of business cases would be approved. It was agreed a process would be discussed outside the meeting. The Chair suggested that the she be given delegated authority to make decisions between meetings if necessary, which could be ratified by the Sub Committee retrospectively.

7. Minutes: Olympics / Paralympics Sub Committee – 8 June 2009 (Part 2)

(Agenda item 7)

Members agreed the minutes of the above meeting.

Send an e-mail linking to this page

Feedback