Minutes

Minutes of the Strategic and Operational Policing Committee of the Metropolitan Police Authority held on 9 July 2009 at 10 Dean Farrar Street, London SW1H 0NY.

Present

Members

• Reshard Auladin (Chair)
• Jennette Arnold (items 1-18)
• Cindy Butts (item 7 onwards)
• James Cleverly (item 7 onwards)
• Toby Harris (Vice Chair) (item 5 onwards)
• Jenny Jones
• Joanne McCartney
• Caroline Pidgeon

Also in attendance: Victoria Borwick (to item 4) and Valerie Brasse and (members).

MPA officers

• Catherine Crawford (Chief Executive)
• Jane Harwood (Deputy Chief Executive)
• Ruth Hastings Iqball (Committee Officer)

MPS officers

• Chris Allison (AC, Central Operations)
• Tracey Baker (Insp, CO1)
• Tony Eastaugh (Commander, TP)
• Simon Foy (Cdr, Serious Crime Directorate)
• David George (Cdr, Professional Standards Directorate)
• Franc Olliffe (Assistant Director (Management & Support), Legal services)
• Jerry Savill (Cdr, CO1)
• Edward Solomons (Director, Legal services)
• David Snelling (Roads Policing, CO 15)
• John Yates (AC, Specialist Operations)

1. Apologies for absence

(Agenda item 1)

1.1 Apologies for absence were received Steve O’Connell (member).

2. Declarations of interest

(Agenda item 2)

2.1 No declarations of interest were received.

3. Minutes: Strategic and Operational policing Committee (Part 1) – 8 June 2009

(Agenda item 3)

3.1 Members considered and agreed the minutes of the above meetings.

3.2 In regard to agenda item 10, ‘MPS response to Laming 2’, members requested that the issues raised in the report on Haringey Child Social Services be included in the report to the Strategic and Operational Policing Committee (SOPC) to be received in the autumn.

Resolved – That the minutes of the Strategic and Operational Policing Committee (Part 1) held on 8 June 2009 be agreed and be signed as a correct record.

4. Urgent actions (if any) and urgent operational issues - oral report (if any)

(Agenda item 4)

HMIC report ‘Adapting to Protest’

4.1. This item was received after item 7 and 8 so that the AC, CO, could leave after his items.

4.2. The AC, CO reported that Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary’s (HMIC’s) report ‘Adapting to Protest’ (on the tactics used to police the G20 disorder) had been passed to the Commissioner on Monday and made public on Tuesday. He added that policing public order events were not easy, the police having to balance the rights of conflicting interests. The HMIC had recognised this complexity. Recommendations had been made in relation to containment and training and the need for police services to be more explicit about what they were doing. The MPS maintained containment was an effective tool to stop disorder, but presented challenges in providing amenities for those contained and extracting non demonstrators caught up in containment. The MPS was now considering how the recommendations could be taken forward. A report on public order would be submitted to the SOPC in November and would include an update on progress on HMIC recommendations.

4.3. Members asked about recent reports that officers had again been seen without shoulder numbers. The AC, CO, explained that supervising officers had spotted this omission immediately after a member of the public had seen it and taken remedial action. He also explained the difficulties of moving shoulder numbers from ordinary uniform to protective clothing. The provision of permanent numbers was being considered, but such changes came with a financial cost. TSG had taken this route and internal budgets had been used to buy woven numerals.

4.4. Members remarked that the public judged the police by their policing of public order events and asked what would be done differently following the HMIC review. The Chair asked if containment could be better explained to the public and changed to address its concerns. The AC, CO, said the MPS policed 4,500 public order events a year and most run smoothly. One of the fundamental causes of success was early dialogue between the police and the organisers. Great strides had been made recently with talking to even the most reticent organisers. Containment was not a tactic usually required, but was useful in containing disorder if it broke out. Members felt there was need for greater subtlety in policing and that some tactics, like use of shields needed to be reviewed. The AC, CO, invited members to view public order training at the facility at Gravesend. He added that the MPS’s approach to public order had to remain within the national framework, especially in the light of the expected mutual aid required to police the Olympic Games.

4.5. Members asked if the MPS recognised the power of use of the internet before and after public order events. The AC, CO said the police were endeavouring to be proactive and the Director of Public Affairs had initiated projects in this direction.

4.6. The Chair stated that a fuller debate would take place on the HMIC report at the meeting of the full Authority at the end of the month and the Civil Liberties Panel would consider the document in depth. He added that he would like to see containment included in the report due in November 2009.

Murder of Michelle Samaraweera, Waltham Forest

4.7. In response to a request by Waltham Forest’s link member, Jennette Arnold, the Cdr, Serious Crime Directorate (SCD), provided members with an update on a murder in Waltham Forest which had been forensically linked to two earlier rapes. Additional resources had been put into the investigation and into public reassurance. A mass DNA screening of men in the area had been well accepted and an ‘e fit’ had been circulated in the media. Similar attacks in the area were being reviewed.

Resolved – That the oral updates be received.

5. Headline performance report - 12 months to April 2009

(Agenda item 5)

5.1. The Cdr, TP, introduced a report providing an overview of progress against targets set for Critical Performance Areas and other corporate measures featured in the Policing London 2009 – 2012 Business Plan. The report had been circulated to members with less than five clear working days’ notice. The Chair agreed to receive it as an urgent item under the provisions of section 100B (4b) of the Local Government Act 1972.

5.2. The Chair noted that burglary remained a concern and welcomed the reintroduction of Operation Bumble Bee.

5.3. Members asked about hotspots for theft of cars and overlaps with other crimes on crime maps. They were told there had been a significant rise in car theft in Barking and Dagenham, Havering and Redbridge and the surrounding areas in Essex, but the hotspots within the boroughs changed from week to week.

5.4. In answer to questions, members were informed that the detail outlined by the Commissioner at the last full Authority on BME satisfaction would be included in the next report on the subject to the SOPC.

Resolved – That

1. the latest performance against the Policing Plan and the MPS’ activities underway to address issues be noted; and
2. a further report be brought to the September meeting of the SOPC on steps being taken to close the satisfaction gap between white and Black and Minority Ethnic (BME) victims of crime.

6. Central Operations Thematic Performance

(Agenda item 6)

6.1. Members received a report updating them on roads and traffic policing. It provided details on the MPS’s drive to deny criminals the use of the road and to reduce road casualties. The MPS was projected to meet the 2010 target provided enforcement levels did not drop.

6.2. Members asked about the consequences of the reduction in grant to the London Camera Safety Partnership (LSCP), which was the central plank of road safety. It was noted that the partnership was originally supposed to be self funding, but the money it raised from fines now went directly to the Department of Transport. Officers were also asked about the impact of recent public order events on traffic policing. Members were informed that the traffic police maintained a minimum level of staffing and aid was planned into rosters to keep a minimum number of vehicles on the road. They were also informed that traffic teams tried to dedicate themselves to a borough once a fortnight and that when resources were available they worked with Safer Neighbourhood teams.

6.3. Questions were asked about the Foreign Driver Review and Enforcement Group. As well as targeting foreign drivers who committed traffic offences, members were told that an increasing number of UK drivers drove foreign registered cars with the aim of avoiding prosecution for traffic offences.

Resolved – That members note the report.

7. MPA Stockwell Scrutiny / HMIC Stockwell Inspection 2009

(Agenda item 7)

7.1. A report was received outlining the activity of the Stockwell Panel since February this year. The MPA recognised that progress had been made in a number of areas, but in the remaining areas identified by the HMIC Panel members felt that greater progress should have been achieved. The report also made recommendations on how to continue to monitor the action plan in place to address the recommendations and highlighted a number of key concerns arising out of the recently published HMIC Stockwell Inspection.

7.2. The report had been circulated to members with less than five clear working days’ notice. The Chair agreed to receive it as an urgent item under the provisions of section 100B (4b) of the Local Government Act 1972.

7.3. (Items 7 and 8 were taken item 3 and together as the AC, SO, had to leave for a press conference. For the discussion see below.)

Resolved – That

1. the findings of the HMIC inspection (appendix 1) be noted and the concerns raised in the report about the progress being made by the MPS in addressing the issues arising out of the tragic death of Mr Jean Charles de Menezes in July 2005 be considered;
2. the serious concerns of the Stockwell Panel about the failure of the MPS to date to provide members with a sufficiently detailed and robust MPS action plan to allow the Authority to monitor implementation of the findings of the HMIC report Members be noted; and it be agreed that the Stockwell Panel meets further, to review the more detailed action plan which has been requested from the MPS, with a view to
   1. identifying any further improvements needed to achieve a sufficiently robust action plan, and
   2. advising this committee of those areas of concern which will require further regular progress monitoring by the MPA;
3. a monitoring regime on progress against the action plan be considered by the Panel and a further report be made to the SOPC; and
4. the Stockwell Panel be then wound up and that that the SOPC monitor the progress made in implementing the action plan as recommended by the Panel.

8. MPS response to the HMIC Stockwell Inspection

(Agenda item 8)

8.1. This report summarised the findings of the latest HMIC inspection into the MPS response to Stockwell and outlined how the MPS would action the issues raised in that report. In particular the report outlined:

• the new ‘non-departmental’ approach mentioned in paragraph 1.2.7 of the HMIC report
• the governance structure and performance management framework to support this new approach
• a detailed action plan including how responsibility has been allocated, the resources required to deliver it (and how these were being provided), key milestones and deliverables

8.2. The Chief Executive stated that the MPS report (item 8) had been completed before the MPS’s Stockwell Panel had met. Although the report (item 7) recognised the MPS’s work, it highlighted the Panel’s concerns. Members commented upon a letter from the AC, SO, that had been circulated to them before the meeting noting his concerns over the content of report 7. Jennette Arnold as Chair of the Stockwell Scrutiny Panel stated that report outlined the Panel’s position following its meeting. She stated that the Panel had spent hours scrutinising the subject and needed to be confident that the MPS had learnt lessons from the events at Stockwell. The report’s comments were made in the spirit of constructive criticism and she took exception to the tone of the AC’s letter, as the report reflected accurately the Panel’s feeling. She added that the letter contained information that had not been made known to it at its last meeting a few days earlier, however at its next meeting it would take into account this new information.

8.3. The AC, SO, stated that the MPS shared the MPA’s desire to make progress against the recommendations but there was a disconnection between the commissioning brief for the report at item 8 and the report at item 7. He added that the Panel’s request for monthly update reports could be challenging and counterproductive for the MPS.

8.4. The Chair suggested the Panel and the MPS discuss oversight further at the next Panel meeting and that a further report be submitted to a future meeting of this Committee.

8.5. The AC, SO added that there was also a national piece of work resulting from the events at Stockwell, and the Panel and MPS needed to link into this, the Chair of the Panel agreed.

8.6. Members noted that that report 8 identified officers by rank, and felt it was important in the light of staff turnover that these officers were identified by name. Members were told that the Acting Deputy Commissioner, currently Tim Godwin, was the Senior Responsible Owner (SRO) and was supported by an AC, SO, as Deputy SRO.

8.7. A member noted that the AC, SO’s, letter implied the MPS didn’t consider the recommendations binding and another asked why the recommendations in relation to conferring had been fully taken up. The Chair stated that the MPS had done a lot of work with the IPCC on conferring and new manuals for guidance had been issued by ACPO. The AC, SO, said recommendations were recommendations, some could not be implement for reasons of cost, legality or need for national consultation. The Cdr, TP, outlined the changes in conferring since the 1990s and recent legal challenges and the reaction by ACPO.

8.8. The Chief Executive added that HMIC had given evidence to the Panel and had also expressed concern by the speed of progress.

Resolved – That the Authority actively monitors and scrutinises progress made by the MPS in achieving the deliverables in the agreed timescales.

9. Specialist Crime Directorate - future reporting

(Agenda item 9)

9.1 This report provided an overview of Specialist Crime Directorate’s reporting arrangements to future committee meetings and was received after report 12.

Resolved – That the report was noted.

10. Taylor Reforms: a 6 month update

(Agenda item 10)

10.1. This report provided members with an update on progress following the implementation of the first six months of the Taylor Reforms (new police misconduct and performance procedures) on 1 December 2008. Early indications showed that implementation had been successful with performance and benefits realisation on track.

10.2. The Chair reminded members that there had been significant changes within DPS and members could request further information if required. In answer to questions, members were told that there had been only one dismissal as a result of a misconduct hearing as opposed to the 79 previously.

Resolved – That

1. the report be noted; and
2. the potential to continue training in professional standards and management of behaviour be noted.

11. Professional Standards Performance Indicators

(Agenda item 11)

11.1. This report informed members that public complaint allegations had risen by 26% at the end of 2008/09 continuing the trend of recent years and that these figures were similar to those of the majority of forces within England & Wales in 2007/08. However, there has been a reduction in the proportion of allegations relating to incivility and oppressive behaviour in 2007/08, although the latter was predicted to rise in 2009/10 particularly as a result of allegations made at the G20.

11.2. Members noted that the figures shown in table 1 were constant year on year and wondered if the MPS had any views on this. The Cdr, Directorate of Professional Standards (DPS), noted that the categories were broad, but could offer no explanation. The Chair noted that incivility/oppressive behaviour was always a problem and had been of concern to the Authority for the last eight years. He felt that work needed to be done in this area as it was a HMIC public confidence measure.

11.3. Members also asked about officers who had repeated complaints made against him/her. They were told after three complaints management intervention took place and that BOCUs were kept informed of complaints by DPS. Members asked how DPS knew that local intervention was taking place in a timely fashion and the Chair requested a briefing note to members on this.

Resolved – That the current performance as indicated in the appendices to the report and any areas of exception, risk or good practice and potential issues outlined in the text be noted.

12. Operation Dockery - the investigation into the murder of Laurent Bonomo and Gabriel Ferez

(Agenda item 12)

12.1. This item was considered after item 4 so that the Cdr, SCD, could leave the meeting. He introduced a report providing some details of the investigation of the murders of Laurent Bonomo and Gabriel Ferez. It focused on the events leading up to the murders in June 2008 and the agencies (including the MPS) which had dealings with one of the murderers, Daniel Sonnex, during this period. The actions of the MPS had been investigated by the IPCC and the report provided details of its recommendations and the subsequent MPS response to them.

12.2. Members stated that the delay in re-arresting Mr Sonnex between the 16 and 29 May 2008 was the crux of the matter and that report provided little explanation of what had happened during this period. The Cdr, SCD, stated that when the warrant for handling stolen goods went to the Borough OCU but did not disclose that the Mr Sonnex was dangerous. However, the BOCU police knew the reputation of the Sonnex family and for two days discussions went on between the Borough and the Firearm Unit as to which should deal with the warrant. A note was put on the CAD system then ‘dropped off’. An individual dealing with the risk assessment for the arrest of Mr Sonnex for the warrant had been given ‘words of advice’ for his actions’.

12.3. Members also asked how many people in London were on licence recall. They were told the figures varied from week to week. The Chair, a member of the London Criminal Justice Board (LCJB), added that the number was one of the LCJB’s performance indicators and that it held the MPS to account for the number of outstanding warrants, which were reducing in number.

12.4. Members felt the failures of the MPS in regard to this case were soul destroying. The issue was not amending standard operating procedures, but compliance with them and there was nothing in the report to say there should be mandatory compliance. The Cdr, SCD, said that there were working arrangements between agencies to exchange information and plan how to manage individuals on a case by case arrangement. He could not be confident that the system would work every time, but the system was as rigorous as it could be.

12.5. Members asked how SCD inspected or tested Borough Intelligence Units. The Cdr, SCD, said this was part of Jigsaw Team performance regime and the Cdr, TP, added that warrants were tracked on every borough and high risk ones were identified.

Resolved – That the report be noted.

13. Monitoring compliance of the MPS with Human Rights Act 1998

(Agenda item 13)

13.1 The report outlined police authorities’ duty to monitor police force compliance with the Human Rights Act 1998. It proposes that the SOPC took overall responsibility for monitoring MPS compliance and a strategic view of work carried out across MPA committees, boards and community monitoring networks. The Chief Executive added that that the Civil Liberties Panel had met and it been agreed that the proposed third recommendation would be reconsidered by it.

Resolved – That

1. the SOPC take overall responsibility for monitoring MPS human rights compliance and the terms of reference for the Committee be amended appropriately;
2. the terms of reference of all MPA committees reflect the police authority duty in relation to monitoring compliance with Human Rights Act 1998 and be amended appropriately;
3.  SOPC would lead a programme of work to consider MPS compliance with Human Rights Act 1998 and consider long term proposals for MPA monitoring and scrutiny; and
4. once monitoring is established the Committee receive an annual report from the MPS and MPA monitoring compliance of the service with HR Act 1998 from 2010-11.

14. Appointments to Sub-committees

(Agenda item 14)

The Committee received a report asking it to agree appointments to its three sub committees – Counter Terrorism (CT) and Protective Services Sub-Committee, Olympic/Paralympic Sub-Committee and Professional Standards Cases Sub-Committee.

Resolved – That

1. members note the appointments of Chair and Vice Chairs made by the full Authority; and
2. confirm the membership of CT and Protective Services Sub-Committee, Olympic/Paralympic Sub-Committee and Professional Standards Cases Sub-Committee.

15. Strategic and Operational Policing Committee Work Programme and Equality Objective

(Agenda item 15)

This report outlined a workplan by which the Committee would fulfil its role as agreed in its terms of reference. It was noted that the workplan was flexible.

Resolved – That

1. the proposed work programme be agreed;
2. the work programme be reviewed in October in the light of priorities within Met Forward; and
3. the proposed equality objective for the Committee be agreed.

16. Report on the Sub Committees of the Strategic and Operational Policing Committee

(Agenda item 16)

This report contained a summary of reports received by the sub committees of the SOPC.

Resolved – That the report be noted.

17. Amendment to Standing Orders

(Agenda item 17)

17.1 The report sought to amend the terms of reference of the SOPC. The amendment would allow the Communities, Equalities and People (CEP) Committee to monitor MPS activity in relation to employment tribunals and grievances, with the SOPC retaining the function to agree any proposed employment tribunal or grievance financial settlement. The report also sought to make an addition to the terms of reference of the main committees to include the monitoring of MPS compliance with Human Rights Act 1998 (as proposed at item 13 above).

Resolved – That the amendments to the SOPC terms of reference as outlined in the report be agreed, subject to ratification by the full Authority.

18. Approval of the Counter Terrorism IS/IT business case

(Agenda item 18)

18.1 Members were asked to agree to delegate authority from the SOPC to the Counter Terrorism and Protective Services Sub Committee for the approval of the Counter Terrorism IS/IT business case.

Resolved – That members agree to delegate authority from the SOPC to the Counter Terrorism and Protective Services Sub Committee for the approval of the Counter Terrorism IS/IT business case.

19. The role and work of the Directorate of Legal Services (DLS)

(Agenda item 19)

19.1. The Committee had resolved that it should receive twice-yearly reports on the role and work of the MPS Directorate of Legal Services (DLS). Members now received DLS’s end of year report which brought to the attention to the Committee issues relating to DLS performance, its working relationships and its links with the key objectives/priorities of the MPS.

19.2. Members noted that when the last report had been received from the DLS in November 2008 they had been informed that cases handled by DLS involving children and wardship had increased dramatically as family courts were increasingly encouraging parties to apply for copies of police statements and notebooks. They were requests had gone from 200 to 500 following the Baby P case and better ways of dealing with these were still being considered. Members were assured no children were at risk and all requests dealt with as soon as possible, delays only occurring when third parties were involved.

19.3. The Chair noted that although there was still work to be done, the DLS had come a long way. The Chief Executive endorsed this.

Resolved – That the report be received.

20. Exclusion of press and public

(Agenda item 20)

20.1 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

Part 2: Summary of exempt items

21. Report on a financial settlement

(Agenda item 21)

21.1. The Committee had requested this report from DLS.

22. Urgent actions and authorisation for funding of legal representation and authorisation of requests for settlement of civil claims (if any)

(Agenda item 22)

22.1. No urgent actions or authorisation for funding of legal representation and authorisation of requests for settlement of civil claims were received.

23. Minutes: Strategic and Operational Policing Committee (part 2) – 8 June 2009 - to agree

(Agenda item 23)

23.1 The minutes (Part 2) were agreed and be signed as a correct record.

Send an e-mail linking to this page

Feedback