Minutes

Minutes of the Standards Committee of the Metropolitan Police Authority held on 24 May 2005 at 10 Dean Farrar Street, London SW1H 0NY.

Present

Members

• Aneeta Prem (Chair)
• Ian Whitburn (Deputy Chair)
• Stephanie Caplan
• Bob Neill
• Murad Qureshi

Damian Hockney also attended the meeting and Rachel Whittaker attended for item 6.

MPA officers

• Catherine Crawford (Chief Executive)
• David Riddle (Deputy Chief Executive)
• Simon Vile (Head of Secretariat)

Also attended: Neil Gray and Barbara Gowland of the Audit Commission.

10. Apologies for absence

(Agenda item 1)

The committee was informed that Jenny Jones had resigned from its membership.

11. Declarations of interests

(Agenda item 2)

No interests were declared.

12. Minutes

(Agenda item 3)

Resolved – That the minutes of the meeting of the Standards Committee held on 13 December 2004 be agreed and signed as a correct record.

Matters arising from the minutes: In connection with item 6, it was agreed that Ian Whitburn and Stephanie Caplan be sent contact details for the London Forum of Independent Members.

13. Standards indicators

(Agenda item 4)

The Committee considered a report by the Chief Executive and Clerk on standards indicators.

This was the first such report and would continue to be produced on a quarterly basis to enable comparison over a period of time. Members suggested the Corporate Complaints Officer should review the process for identifying and recording Stage 1 complaints (i.e. those dealt with by MPA units). If not already the case, it would be helpful if the definition of what constituted a complaint was common across the GLA family. It was agreed that ‘compliments received’ should be added to the report. It was also agreed that more regular reminders should be sent to members about the need to declare hospitality.

Resolved – That the report be noted subject to the above comments.

14. Review of Members’ Allowances

(Agenda item 7)

The Committee considered a report by the Chief Executive & Clerk reviewing the current scheme for the payment of members’ allowances.

The Committee did not feel that it had a remit to make a recommendation on the level of allowances. Members did, however, discuss the proposal in para 22 (d) of the report to pay an attendance allowance for certain duties. The Committee invited the Authority to consider whether this proposal should be extended to include the Pensions Forfeiture Sub-Committee and the Senior Officers Conduct Sub-Committee. Both of these were quasi-judicial bodies which placed particular demands on members in terms of reading what could be quite bulky case papers and meeting on a regular, often monthly, basis. As such they were not dissimilar to the Police Appeals Tribunals, for which members did receive remuneration.

The Committee noted that both these and allowances generally could only be paid to independent and magistrate members. As a presentational point it was suggested that the allowances should be described as payments warranted by the role members were expected to fulfil, but that these payments could only be made to independent and magistrate members.

The Committee discussed whether an assessment process should be introduced for members. The Committee decided to recommend to the Authority:

1. That a process should be introduced along the lines set out in paras 23 to 26 of the report and that it should apply to all members of the Authority.
2. That members should be asked to make quarterly reports (which would be reported to the Standards Committee) but that a template be developed which is as simple as possible to minimise the demands on members.
3. That this template be piloted with members of the Standards Committee.

Resolved – That the Committee’s views be communicated to the Authority.

15. Review of the Code of Conduct

(Agenda item 8)

The Committee considered a report by the Chief Executive & Clerk on a review of the Model Code of Conduct by the Standards Board for England (SBE). Members responded to the consultation questions posed by the SBE as shown in the reply to the Standards Board attached to these minutes.

Resolved –

1. That a response be made to the SBE’s consultation paper as set out in the attachment to these minutes; and
2. That the full Authority be recommended to agree the amendment to the MPA’s Code of Conduct proposed in para 1.2 of the appendix, subject to the agreement of the Standards Board for England.

16. Standards Board Conference and Roadshow

(Agenda item 9)

The Committee considered whether to send representatives to the Standard Board’s Roadshow and the Fourth Annual Assembly of Standards Committees. Stephanie Caplan reported back from the previous year’s Assembly. Whilst some of the workshops had been interesting, overall she doubted the value of attending the Assembly. Ian Whitburn pointed out that the programme was particularly focused on local authority issues and that these were not necessarily the same as those of a police authority.

It was agreed, therefore, not to send a representative to the Fourth Assembly of Standards Committees. It was agreed, however, to send representatives to the Standards Board’s London roadshow – Stephanie Caplan and Aneeta Prem expressed an interest.

17. Draft MPA Information Security Policy

(Agenda item 10)

The Committee considered a report by the Chief Executive & Clerk on a draft Information Security Policy for the MPA.

Resolved - That the draft Information Security Policy and its applicability to MPA members be noted.

18. Workshop on Ethical Governance

(Agenda item 6)

At this point in the meeting Neil Gray and Barbara Gowland of the Audit Commission led a workshop session to explore with members, by way of various scenarios, issues around the Code of Conduct and ethical governance. All Authority members had been invited to attend although in the event only Rachel Whittaker did so.

19. ‘Setting High Ethical Standards’ – action plan update

(Agenda item 5)

Barbara Gowland of the Audit Commission presented an update on the 2004 action plan taking forward the recommendations of this Audit Commission review.

She was able to report that appropriate action had been taken in response to this report. An issue that remained outstanding was in connection with clarifying the role of the Monitoring Officer (the Deputy Chief Executive) in relation to investigations into breaches of the code of conduct. The Deputy Chief Executive reported at the meeting that he considered that his role should be to advise the Standards Committee in such cases. He had discussed a reciprocal arrangement with Monitoring Officers in other police authorities and intended that investigations would be carried out by one of them or the MPA’s Deputy Monitoring Officer as appropriate to the case.

Resolved – That the report be noted.

The meeting ended at 10.45 a.m.

Appendix 1

Response to the Standards Board for England Consultation on the Code of Conduct

1. General principles

Q.1 Should the ten general principles be incorporated as preamble to the Code of Conduct?

Q.2 Are there any other principles that should be included?

MPA view: yes it would be helpful to emphasise the importance of the ten principles by including them in the Code. In terms of other principles, it is felt that the Code should as a minimum refer to the general duty imposed on public authorities by the Race Relations (Amendment) Act to:

• Eliminate racial discrimination
• Promote equality of opportunity; and
• Promote good relations between persons of different racial groups

The MPA’s equality policy has widened this duty so that it applies to other diversity strands and the SBE may wish to consider doing likewise, for instance by referring to the need to:

• Eliminate discrimination
• Promote equality of opportunity; and
• Promote good relations between persons of different groups

For instance the MPA is proposing to amend its own Code by including:

“A member must –

1. promote equality by not discriminating unlawfully against any person;
2. treat others with respect; and
3. not do anything which compromises or which is likely to compromise the impartiality of a police officer or those who work for, or on behalf of, the Authority.

With regard to (a) above, a member will take account of the general duty of the Race Relations (Amendment) Act and the requirements of the MPA’s equality policy to:

• Eliminate discrimination
• Promote equality of opportunity; and
• Promote good relations between persons of different groups”

2. Behavioural issues

Q.3 Should the test for disrespect remain broad or more strictly defined?

Q.4 Should the Code include a provision dealing with bullying? If so, is the ACAS definition sufficient?

MPA view: That it is best to leave the test for disrespect broad, with the meaning of ‘respect’ clarified through application. The inclusion of a bullying provision is supported – the ACAS definition is a good starting point but the provision should also address one-off cases of bullying.

Q.5 Should the Code refer explicitly to a public interest defence for members who believe they have acted in the public interest by disclosing information?

Q.6 Should the Code include only lawfully exempt or confidential information to make clear that it would not be a breach to disclose information the authority had withheld unlawfully?

MPA view: explicit reference to a public interest defence is not supported – allowing the point to be put in mitigation is felt to be preferable. However, there are issues to be thought through because this could mean that theoretically a member is in breach of the Code but mitigation has been accepted. The proposal in question 6 is supported.

Q.7 Should the disrepute provision relate only to official activity or should it continue to relate to a member’s private life?

Q.8 If the latter, should it continue to be a broad provision or should it be restricted to criminal convictions or acknowledged criminal conduct?

MPA view: the disrepute provision should continue to relate to the member’s private life where that is relevant to his or her performance in public office. The current broad provision is favoured.

Q.9 Do you agree that the Code of Conduct should address the three areas set out above (in relation to misuse for political purposes)?

Q.10 If so, how could we define ‘inappropriate political purposes’?

Q.11 Do you agree that the Code should not distinguish between physical and electronic resources?

MPA view: Support for inclusion of the three areas suggested by the SBE. A definition of ‘inappropriate political purposes’ could be ‘purposes intended to secure an advantage or disadvantage to any political party or identifiable political cause’. There should be no distinction in the Code between physical and electronic resources.

Q.12 Should paragraph 7 be retained in full, removed altogether or somehow narrowed?

Q.13 If you believe the provision should be narrowed, how would you define it?

Q.14 Should there be a further provision about making false, malicious or politically-motivated allegations?

Q.15 Does the Code need to provide effective protection for complaints against intimidation, or do existing sections of the Code and other current legislation already cover this area adequately?

MPA view: In favour of retaining para 7 in full. On balance it is felt that there should be a further provision about making false allegations, although SBE guidance will need to spell out the distinction between unproven and false allegations to avoid deterring genuine complainants. With regard to question 15, the Code is considered adequate in its current form.

3. Registration and declaration issues

Q.16 Does the term ‘friend’ require further definition in the Code?

MPA view: No, it is best left as it is.

Q.17 Should the personal interest test be narrowed so that members do not have to declare interests shared by a substantial number of inhabitants in an authority’s area?

MPA view: this does not appear to be an issue for MPA members. The SBE have not made a particularly strong case for, effectively, weakening this requirement and the reference to ‘substantial’ would require clearer definition if this is not to be problematic.

Q.18 Should a new category of ‘public service interests’ be created which is subject to different rules of conduct?

MPA view: Yes. There has always been some uncertainty about whether 10(2) is an exemption or not, so this will help to clarify the position.

Q.19 If so should public service interests which are not prejudicial have to be declared at meetings?

MPA view: no

Q.20 Should para 10(2) (a-c) be removed from the Code

MPA view: yes

Q.21 Should less stringent rules apply to prejudicial interests from public service and membership of charities and lobby groups?

MPA view: No

Q.22 Should members with prejudicial interest in a matter under discussion be allowed to address the meeting before withdrawing?

Q.23 Should members with prejudicial public service interests be allowed to contribute to the debate before withdrawing from the vote?

MPA view: no to questions 22 and 23

Q. 24 Should members employed in areas of sensitive employment need to declare their occupation in the public register of interest?

MPA view: no

Q. 25 Should members be required to register membership of private clubs and organisations? If so should it be limited to those within or near an authority’s area?

MPA view: yes

Q. 26 Should the Code require that the register of gifts and hospitality be made publicly available?

MPA view: yes

Q. 27 Should members be required to declare gifts and hospitality offered by not accepted?

MPA view: no

Q. 28 Should members be required to record a series of gifts and hospitality from the same source even where individually they do not meet the threshold? How should this be defined?

MPA view: yes, but the definition of this should have some reference to the time period involved and the value of the gifts

Q. 27 Is £25 an appropriate threshold for the declaration of gifts and hospitality?

MPA view: this should be increased to £50

Send an e-mail linking to this page

Feedback