Minutes - draft

These minutes are draft and are to be agreed.

Minutes of the Strategic and Operational Policing Committee of the Metropolitan Police Authority held on 5 November 2009 at 10 Dean Farrar Street, London SW1H 0NY.

Present

Members

• Reshard Auladin
• Jennette Arnold (items 1 to 10)
• Chris Boothman (items 4 to 7)
• Cindy Butts (items 1 to 8)
• Neil Johnson (item 1 to 11)
• Jenny Jones
• Joanne McCartney
• Caroline Pidgeon
• Deborah Regal (item 4 to 10).

Also in attendance: Valerie Brasse.

MPA officers

• Catherine Crawford (Chief Executive)
• Siobhan Coldwell (Head of Oversight and Review)
• Ruth Hastings Iqball (Committee Officer)

MPS officers

• Ailsa Beaton, (Director, DoI)
• Gordon Briggs (Cdr, SCD5)
• Michael Clark, (Higher Performance Analyst, DPS)
• Cressida Dick (AC, SCD)
• Simon Foy (Cdr, SCD)
• Alan Mitchell (SCD)
• Simon Pountain (Cdr, SCD)
• Jerry Savill (Cdr, CO1)
• Mark Simmons (Commander, TP)
• Moir Stewart (Cdr, DLS)
• Martin Tiplady (Director, HR)
• John Yates (AC, SO)

55. Apologies for absence

(Agenda item 1)

55.1. Apologies for absence were received from Toby Harris (Vice Chair) and Richard Tracey (members). It was noted that at the full Authority the previous week James Cleverly had resigned from the Committee but it had been joined by Deborah Regal and Richard Tracey.

56. Declarations of interest

(Agenda item 2)

56.1. Valerie Brasse stated that she was a non executive member of the Independent Safeguarding Board (agenda items 8 and 11).

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

(Agenda item 3)

57.1 The committee received a late report asking it to note the appointments to its three sub committees – Counter Terrorism (CT) and Protective Services Sub-Committee, Olympic/Paralympic Sub-Committee and Professional Standards Cases Sub-Committee made by the full Authority on 29 October 2009 and confirm the appointment of Chairs and Deputy Chairs to those committees as follows.

• CT and Protective Services Sub-Committee
  Toby Harris (Chair) Reshard Auladin (Vice Chair)
• Olympic/Paralympic Sub-Committee
  Dee Doocey (Chair) Jennette Arnold (Vice Chair)
• Professional Standards Cases Sub-Committee
  Reshard Auladin (Chair) James Cleverly (Vice Chair)

57.2 The Chair agreed to receive it as an urgent item under the provisions of section 100B (4b) of the Local Government Act 1972 as Chairs need to be confirmed before the sub committees met.

Resolved – That

1. the membership of the Sub Committees agreed by the full Authority on 29 October 2009 be noted; and
2. the appointment of Chairs and Deputy Chairs of the Counter Terrorism and Protective Services Sub-Committee, Olympic/Paralympic Sub-Committee and Professional Standards Cases Sub-Committee be confirmed.

58. Headline performance report 6 months to September 2009

(Agenda item 4)

58.1 This report provided the Committee with an overview of progress against targets set for Critical Performance Areas and other corporate measures featured in the Policing London Business Plan 2009–12.

58.2 In response to the 9.8% increase in residential burglaries, Operation Bumblebee had been relaunched in October. The Chair asked about displacement of burglary as a result of the Operation. He was told there was no evidence of this at Hillingdon, but the MPS was aware of a greater possibility of this in Croydon. The Chair added that he would have thought that burglary was not generally under reported, but there had been a recent incidence where a burglar had asked for 30 cases to be taken into consideration and police had found that 10 of these cases had not been reported. The Cdr, TP, said burglary was not generally under reported but there were difference between inner and outer London. The reported case was unusual and he would investigate further.

Resolved – That members note the latest performance against the Policing Plan and the MPS’s activity underway to improve outcomes.

59. TP Thematic performance report from a business group - Community Safety Unit

(Agenda item 5)

59.1. This report provided an overview concerning the MPS performance trends in relation to hate crime and the resourcing of borough based Community Safety Units.

59.2. Members noted that that disability hate crime was not included in the report and requested that it be in future. Members were informed that this had not been asked for in the report’s commissioning brief.

59.3. The Chair asked if there was any increase in hate crime offences after a British National Party member had been a panellist on BBC 1’s Question Time. He was told that there had been no discernable changes in crime figures as yet. Members asked if more hate crime was reported in areas where right wing groups were most active. They were told there was no evidence, but such activity could be a deterrent to reporting.

Resolved – That the report be noted.

60. Specialist Crime Directorate - thematic performance report

(Agenda item 6)

60.1. This report provided members with an overview of Specialist Crime Directorate’s performance against its headline measures and targets with commentary on any significantly under or over performing areas. The Cdr, SCD, noted that there had been 37% fewer homicides than the same reporting period last year and that the Homicide and Serious Crime Command had achieved a detection rate of 100%. He stated that Trident continued to generate significant arrests and gun seizures, but a worrying trend was increasing arrests of young women for storing and carrying guns on behalf of partners and friends.

60.2. Members noted the report stated that there was a 47% increase in serious gun crime offences and the following questions were amongst those asked:

• What were ‘more serious gun crime cases’?
• What as the national sanctioned detection rate?
• Details of gun crime reporting emanating from Accident and Emergency Departments
• What was the age of women and girls involved in gun crime?
• Was the age profile of those involved in gun crime going down?
• How were women and girls carrying guns in Lambeth and Southwark targeted?
• Did the Trident media campaign consist of more than posters?
• Was there more shooting aimed at lower limbs and was this linked to the wish to avoid a sentence for murder or part of a punishment shooting culture?
• How was the fact that gun crime now was now being carried out by communities other than those targeted by Trident being dealt with?
• Why were not link member being approached in the fight against gun crime, as they frequently had links to local groups?
• Shooting in north London were linked to retaliation, was this picked up and were resources put into prevention?
• What was the outcome of the research asking if police resources were focused on knife crime was there an increase into gun crime?
• Witnesses to gun crime were likely to shoot or be shot at, what could be done to stop this?
• What were the high volume boroughs?
• What was the availability of guns on the streets?
• Was mediation effective?

60.3. The AC, SCD, stated that all gun crime was serious, but SCD specifically dealt with gun crime that caused death or injury, occurrences where a gun was fired, armed robbery and gun suppliers – any other offences involving gun was dealt with on borough. However good practice in relation to this offence was disseminated by SCD to boroughs through regular meetings. She did know the national gun crime detection rate. Gun crime victims were often reluctant to assist the police, but the numbers reported via A&E Departments had now gone up, so reporting was now more accurate.

60.4. The Trident media campaign was designed to show women and girls that carrying or looking after guns attracted long sentences. Stop and search was one element in catching people carrying guns, and in some areas it was felt women would not be stopped and searched and if they were caught with guns they would get lighter sentences. The Trident media campaigns run all year round and were aimed across boroughs. The AC, SCD, undertook to talk further to the interested member further outside the meeting.

60.5. The AC, SCD, said there was no intelligence for punishment shootings of lower limbs. She undertook to provide the age profile of those involved in gun crime, but it was going down. She agreed that the ethnic profile of gun crime perpetrators was changing and work was being done with the new communities, but added that the police’s function was to enforce and provide information and providing education and awareness should be done by other agencies. However it was not always easy to get them involved. Intelligence was used to prevent retaliation shootings where possible as it was the police duty to save lives. There was no evidence to support the hypothesis of link between knife and gun crime. Efforts were concentrated on the boroughs with highest gun crime. The names of boroughs changed as gun crime rates changed. With regard to availability of guns, with the exception of converted and shot guns, they were difficult to get hold of and dear to both buy and hire. This was why conversations were popular.

60.6. The Chair asked for an update to the mediation project in three months time.

Resolved – That

1. the report be noted; and
2. a report on the mediation project be received in three months time.

61. Multi perpetrator rape and youth violence

(Agenda item 7)

61.1 Members received a report written in response to some specific questions from the MPA in relation to the issue of offences of rape committed by multiple offenders. It outlined current recorded crime statistics and our operational and partnership responses to supporting victims and encouraging reporting. The report was circulated late but the Chair agreed to receive it as an urgent item under the provisions of section 100B (4b) of the Local Government Act 1972 as the MPS had already deferred the report from October’s committee meeting. At the meeting the MPS requested that a further version of the report be tabled with a revised paragraph 4. It was noted that the report on the MPA's website had been amended to reflect the further changes.

61.2 The Cdr, SCD, stated that the multi perpetrator rape was under reported and so it was hard to identify trends. The victims were usually under 19 and there was disproportionality in the victims, suspects and perpetrators.

61.3 Members welcomed the report, the forthcoming targeted media campaign, the Haven work and the MPS's lead in this area and agreed more work needed to be done with partners to understand the reasons behind the crime. They noted that multiple perpetrator rape had anecdotally been linked to gang initiation and asked how interested parties could get beneath the figures. Members asked:

• Were they rapes inter familial,
• Did the perpetrators know their victims,
• were the perpetrators and victims gang members?
• Was there a link between victim and perpetrator,
• What were the links between victim and perpetrator,
• Did they belong to the gun culture or other gang cultures
• Were the victims disabled?

61.4 Members also asked about the definition provided at the beginning of the report. A member noted that multiple perpetrator rape was not a new phenomenon and felt the people who would perhaps most understand the causes were not the police, but those who worked with young people, such as teachers and social workers.

61.5 The Cdr, SCD, agreed there was a need to understand the perpetrators and agreed with the comments about teachers and social workers, but added that the police had a unique insight into the background of the offences and could share this with other agencies. He spoke of the difficulties of defining a ‘gang’. For the police it was a demonstrable association between individuals, but recognised the public had its own definitions. Sometimes the victim knew one perpetrator, but not always all. More work needed to be done in this area. Information about disability was not always recorded, but he would try to ensure more was done to record this. He added that SCD2 was investing in more intelligence to support victims and understand offenders.

61.6 Members noted that rape investigation was usually carried out by SCD2, but the initial contact with victims was usually on borough. Rape investigation training used to be just one element of detective training but dedicated officers now undertook training in sexual offence investigative techniques (SOIT). Members asked if they could observe such training.

61.7 The Chair stated that this report had been requested so that a public debate on this difficult area could be initiated and more investigation made into the cause of such crimes. Now the first steps had been taken, he hoped there would be less sensitivity about the subject and he requested that the MPS come back with a further report when more research had been completed. He requested that the next report be open, clearer about definitions and include information on the risks and trends in relation to the offence. Members requested that they have a briefing session and discussion on the subject before the report was commissioned. This was agreed.

Resolved – That

1. the report be noted;
2. a briefing / discussion session for members be arranged; and
3. a further report be received after further research.

62. MPS progress update on response to Laming 2

(Agenda item 8)

62.1 A report was introduced by the Cdr, SCD5, providing:

• An update to the report provided on 6 June 2009 on the MPS response to the recommendations in the Lord Laming review; ‘The Protection of Children in England A progress Report, following the death of Baby P’.
• An update on the progress of the MPS action plan also outlined in the same report
• An update on the Ofsted led Joint Agency Review (JAR) in June 2009 of progress made in Haringey

Appendix 1 was the report ‘Inspection of progress made in the provision of safeguarding services in the London Borough of Haringey’, published 3 July 2009 and a background update was provided of the criminal prosecutions, serious case reviews (SCR) and other relevant inspections affecting the MPS since the last report received by the committee.

62.2 Members felt the report contained details of a lot of good work, and was pleased that the MPS was leading in work with other agencies and police services across the country.

62.3 However members felt it was taking too long to complete recommendation 16 which referred to the need for ‘constructive challenge’ between agencies. SCD5 training unit were developing a competency for constructive challenge in the child abuse environment and a course including role play exercises with paediatricians, lawyers and social care managers, but it would not be completed until January 2010.

62.4 Members noted that “CAITs (Child Abuse Investigation Teams) continue to support RCCs (Review Case Conferences) by report only as the new staff are not yet in place. Once in place, a supervisory process will involve pre and post RCC meetings between PCLOs (Police Conference Liaison Officers) and supervisors, monitoring of report quality and documented rationale where RCC attendance is deemed unnecessary. Non attendance will normally be agreed in advance with the RCC chair. SCD5 continue to maintain 100% attendance at initial case conferences (ICC) and 100% report submissions to RCCs.” Members felt this was not enough and if police were not represented at RCCs they would not know what intelligence they were missing.

62.5 They also noted the problems in staffing and asked about the gender balance. It was noted that a large young female staff led to problems with maternity leave, but were informed the MPS had strategies for dealing with this. They also asked what was being done to get more male officers to apply. Questions were also asked about quality assurance, use of vehicles and measurement of workloads.

62.6 Members asked to see the serious case review for baby Peters’ sibling, and were told they would be provided with a copy. They asked about paragraph 38 of the appendix which spoke of the MPS action plan and Haringey’s borough action plan. They were told that the two had now been joined up.

Resolved – That

1. the contents of this current report be noted;
2. this report be considered alongside the content of the previous reports presented on the 4 December 2008, 8 January 2009 and 6 June 2009; and
3. members receive a copy of the serious case review for baby Peters’ sibling.

63. Metropolitan Police Service response to Stockwell

(Agenda item 9)

63.1. This report highlighted how the MPS was responding to the findings of the latest HMIC review of the MPS response to Stockwell (published in June 09), and outlined how the MPS is going to action the issues raised in that report. The report:

• reassured members that the new ‘non-departmental’ approach mentioned in the HMIC report was working effectively in practice and that there are mechanisms in place to ensure effective resolution should problems arise, and that an effective governance structure and performance management framework is in place to support this;
• provided a detailed action plan including how responsibility has been allocated, the resources required to deliver it, key milestones and deliverables and progress being made to date;
• responded to the concerns of the Stockwell Scrutiny Panel raised within the MPA report received by the Committee in July 2009; and
• provided members with a summary of progress being made against the recommendations in the MPA Stockwell Scrutiny report (published May 2008).

63.2. The AC, SO, thanked Cdr Savill and Insp Baker for their work in implementing the recommendations and highlighted the challenges in implementing the national recommendations.

63.3. This report was considered in tandem with the complementary report at agenda item 9 and the discussion is summarised under agenda item 10.

Resolved – That the Authority should actively monitor and scrutinise progress made by the MPS in achieving the deliverables in the agreed timescales.

64. MPA Stockwell Scrutiny 2009

(Agenda item 10)

64.1. This report outlined the activity of the Stockwell Panel since February 2009. It made recommendations on how the MPA should continue to monitor the action plan in place to address its recommendations and highlighted a number of key concerns arising out of the HMIC Stockwell Inspection published in June 2009.

64.2. Members requested that future reports contained a grid containing a table with key milestones for ease of review and requested that the Chair of the Committee write to the Len Duvall Chair of the Stockwell panel thanking him and the Panel for its work.

64.3. Members felt it was unacceptable that recommendations 19 to 22 (in relation to the practice of officers writing up their notes together after an incident) had not been employed. The AC, SO, said there were legal and financial reasons why they had not been implemented and that, in his view, recommendations were recommendations not obligations. The Cdr, SO1, stated that the IPCC was content with the current arrangements, but added that the Commissioner had commissioned academic research on the subject of conferring involving 350 officers, the results of which would be published soon. The Chair asked if the MPS would change its position in relation to the recommendations if the academic research suggested that it should do so. The AC, SO, said that the results of the study would be shared with ACPO which had responsibility for maintaining the policy. The Chair felt this attitude was disingenuous as the MPS had gone against ACPO policy in the regard to vetting (agenda item 11). It appeared the MPS only followed national policy when it wanted to. The AC, SO, said the MPS would go against ACPO policy if there was good reason to do so, but here it felt it could not. Members felt that as the MPS had more armed officers than any other police service it should be leading on policy in this area.

64.4. A member noted that he had visited the control rooms twice to watch exercises and stated how impressed he had been by them and the officers involved in the exercises.

Resolved – That the Stockwell Panel be wound up and that this Committee commissions reports on a quarterly basis on the progress being made in implementing the action plan.

65. Vetting within the MPS

(Agenda item 11)

65.1. This report provided a briefing on vetting within the MPS. The first part detailed options for the location of MPS vetting. There were currently two vetting units in the MPS, one within Specialist Operations which dealt with developed vetting and security checks; the other within SCD which conducted vetting enquiries on all recruits, new staff and contractors. The 2004 Service Improvement Review had recommended that there should be one combined vetting unit in the MPS. however this amalgamation was delayed due to the uncertainty over the future national position. As the current arrangements had worked better than any previous arrangements in terms of performance, the MPS Management Board had made the decision to maintain the status quo at the present time. The second part of the report dealt with the performance of vetting and the final part provided information on the vetting and barring scheme (VBS). In July 2010, the VBS would become fully operational with a requirement for all people who had frequent and intensive contact with children or the vulnerable to be registered with the scheme. Police services were not currently exempted from this requirement and so work was in hand to identify the roles which the MPS would be required to register under the scheme should exemption not be granted by the Home Office.

65.2. The Chair asked for the reasons behind the Management Board decision to maintain the status quo. The Cdr, SCD, explained that the transfer of much of MPS vetting to either the Foreign and Commonwealth Office or the Defence Vetting Agency was still under consideration, and that as vetting performance was the best had ever been under the current arrangements it was felt irresponsible to change the status quo.

65.3. Members noted that the Internal Audit report on MPS vetting had been very critical of the MPS’s performance in this area, and noted the report did not say anything about the quality of decision making made under the current arrangements. They felt vetting was not core business for SCD. They noted that one of the benefits of vetting was remaining in SCD was that it was “seen as independent.” Members asked from what. They also noted that some of the recommendations contained in the report’s appendix were out of date as they talked about amalgamation. Members asked which police officers and staff roles would be required to register with the Independent Safeguarding Authority (ISA), and noted that from last month any officer or staff member disciplined was required to be referred to the ISA. The Chief Executive added that the liability for police staff lay with the MPA not the MPS.

65.4. The Director, DoI, responded that the speed of vetting checks in the MPS was the best it had ever been and that the link between vetting and intelligence was close and intelligence management was an SCD function. Members were informed that the officers and staff required to register with ISA were at present those who worked with school and youth clubs, worked in child investigation teams, schools officers and those who worked in custody suites. The Cdr, SCD, was the ACPO lead in this and a national list was currently being drawn up, but was hindered because roles differed around the county.

65.5. The Chair said he accepted the improvement in speed of vetting but would still like more assurance on the quality of decision making, citing recent examples of an officer and PCSO who should not have been employed without further consideration. He accepted that it was an operational decision for the MPS where the function lay, but if something was to go wrong the Management Board could not again say there were lessons to be learnt. He said a further report would be commissioned on vetting performance and would seek assurance on decision making. In the interim a briefing note should be circulated to members answer questions about ISA registration.

Resolved – That

1. members note the content of this report and, in particular, note the decision to retain the current arrangements for the location of the vetting functions;
2. a further report be received, and
3. in the interim a briefing paper be received in ISA registration.

66. Professional Standards performance indicators

(Agenda item 12)

66.1 The Committee received a report providing

• an update on current performance regarding Professional Standards Performance Indicators;
• an analysis by BOCU/OCU of good and poor performance;
• trends and areas of potential risk, identifying steps taken to redress emerging problems;
• a highlight of issues from recently published report on police complaints by the IPCC; and
• identifying equalities and diversity issues arising from the data

66.2 It was noted that the IPCC has proposed the introduction of the concept of ‘upholding a meritorious complaint’ even where there might not be sufficient evidence or reason to show misconduct or unsatisfactory performance. (for instance where the wrong door was broken down as the result of valid intelligence, no individual could be blamed, but the householder would still feel he had a valid complaint). as there was insufficient time to discuss this further it was agreed the report would be bought back to the next Committee meeting in November and placed higher on the agenda.

Resolved - That consideration of the report be deferred to the next meeting when it would be placed higher on the agenda.

67. Dip sampling of closed MPS complaints / misconduct cases

(Agenda item 13)

67.1. The MPA had a statutory duty to maintain an efficient and effective police force, including a duty to keep itself informed about the handling of complaints and misconduct cases by the MPS. The MPA was expected to comply with this duty by ‘dip sampling’ closed MPS complaints and misconduct cases. A review of the dip sampling process had recently been conducted and this report set out the new draft protocol for dip sampling MPS.

67.2. Because of time constraints there was insufficient time to consider it fully and it was deferred to the next meeting. A member who wished to ask questions in relation to the report was asked to submit them to the Chair.

Resolved - That consideration of the report be deferred to the next meeting

68. Forfeiture of police pension (1 October 2008-1 October 2009)

(Agenda item 14)

Resolved - That consideration of the report be deferred to the next meeting

69. Report on the sub committees of the Strategic and Operational Policing Committee

(Agenda item 15)

Resolved - That consideration of the report be deferred to the next meeting.

70. MPS intelligence systems and information sharing

(Agenda item 16)

Resolved - That consideration of the report be deferred to the next meeting

71. Exclusion of press and public

(Agenda item 17)

71.1 As there was insufficient time to consider the remaining agenda the press and public were not excluded from the rest of the meeting.

Summary of exempt items

72. MPS intelligence systems and information sharing - Exempt appendices to report 16

(Agenda item 18)

72.1 The exempt appendices were not considered.

73. Travel concession – review of travel benefit

(Agenda item 16)

Resolved - That consideration of the report be deferred to the next meeting.

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

(Agenda item 16)

74.1 No requests for urgent action or authorisation of funding or authorisation of requests were received

The meeting finished at 5.00 pm 

Send an e-mail linking to this page

Feedback