Proposed pilots to test new consultation arrangements

Report: 11
Date: 26 June 2001
By: Clerk

Summary

The Authority has agreed to pilot new consultation arrangements that would assist the Metropolitan Police Authority (MPA) in achieving more efficient and effective borough based consultation as identified in the Best Value Review of Consultation. This report presents the shortlist of boroughs selected by MPA members and officers, and a proposed option for a centralised pilot resource to support other borough consultation arrangements.

A. Recommendations

1. Members note the high level of interest in boroughs that applied to take part in the MPA's pilot programme.
2. Members endorse the proposed shortlist of boroughs that applied to become pilots with whom officers can now commence detailed discussions for introducing their arrangements.
3. Members note and comment upon the options for providing a centralised consultation resource to support other borough consultation.

B. Supporting information

1. At its meeting on 8 March 2001, the Authority received the proposals arising from the Best Value Review of Consultation. The report proposed the retention of consultative groups through which the MPA could gain assistance in undertaking or coordinating local consultation on a range of policing matters, including for example, the annual policing priorities, crime and disorder priorities as well as ad hoc consultation required by the Association of Police Authorities, Home Office and other organisations.

2. On 22 March 2001, at a meeting attended by CDO and other members of the Authority, assurances were given by the CDO Committee that any new consultation arrangements would include the options to 'test' borough based as well as centralised consultation support. Members asked that officers consult on the proposals and pilot key recommendations in order to inform the Authority on whether these may enable it to meet its obligation to consult in the most effective and efficient ways.

3. One of the key proposals of the Best Value Review was to recruit and deploy Community Consultation Officers (CCOs) to facilitate borough-based consultation. Discussions have now taken place in all but a small number of boroughs with representatives from the local consultative groups, borough command units and local authorities as well as the community safety partnerships in many cases. Opinions on the CCO proposals were sought through the local briefings, as was the interest to pilot this role.

4. Feedback on this could be grouped in the following broad categories:

• support for the CCO role but no interest in taking part in the pilot programme. Such views stemmed largely from boroughs that felt they already had effective and well-structured consultation arrangements in place. However, they expressed interest in the outcome of the pilots;
• support for the CCO role and a high level of interest to take part in the pilot programme. This view was held by those boroughs that agreed with the findings of the review, particularly the gaps identified and/or improvements sought;
• agreement with the findings of the BV report but for a solution different to the CCO role. These boroughs felt that they had personnel in place who undertook a similar role to that proposed for the CCO. There was a preference for funding to be provided by the MPA in order to enable them to make the improvements in ways identified locally;
• sceptism, distrust and objection to the CCO role and the general findings of the BV report. Although such views were only expressed by a minority of boroughs they did flag up important issues such as the costs of the pilot programme, working relationships with the consultative group under any new consultation arrangements, the local management of the process, the timescale of the pilots and retaining the independence of consultative groups.

5. A detailed report on the feedback from the briefings will be presented to this committee, once these are completed.

The pilot selection process

6. Boroughs were invited to submit proposals to become pilots for new consultation arrangements involving the MPA. 20 proposals were received. Members and officers met to assess each proposal. These were assessed against an agreed set of criteria (see Appendix 1). Additionally it was agreed that the short listed boroughs should include the following:

• an outer London borough with an 'independent' consultative Group;
• an outer London borough with a local authority administered consultative Group;
• an inner London borough with an 'independent' consultative Group, and
• an inner London borough with a local authority administered consultative Group.

7. Many of the applications were of a very high standard and met the main criteria. After detailed consideration it is recommended that the proposals from the following 4 boroughs should be pursued as pilots:

• Greenwich
• Harrow
• The Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea
• Hackney

8. Together, it is felt that these 4 proposals offer a good balance and mix of situations, including different political dimensions. Members are asked to agree that detailed discussions commence with these boroughs with a view to progressing their proposals.

Timescale for pilots

9. Officers will be working with the MPA treasurer and selected boroughs to identify the costs and funding arrangements. It is hoped that the pilots will begin from January 2002 should funding allow. The pilots will last for 12 months after which they will be monitored against agreed performance and outcome measures

Support for non-selected applicants

10. It should be emphasised that non-selected proposals have proved useful in informing the MPA about the type and extent of development needed in other boroughs. As with the briefings these have triggered greater dialogue between local partners, including consultative groups. Whilst the Authority will want to wait until the outcomes of the pilots are known before implementing new consultation arrangements via consultative groups, the Authority will wish to ensure that those groups requiring additional support to enhance their practices and performance will have access to the evolving learning from the pilot programmes. This form of support could be usefully provided by central consultation resources.

The central consultation resource

11. Officers were asked to identify options for the MPA providing shared/central support to the boroughs. Appendix 2 lists the initial options identified.

12. Subject to members' approval, it is proposed that these options are discussed with those boroughs whom were unsuccessful in their application to become pilots, to see if they would be interested in developing arrangements for receiving such support. The 3 options being proposed are:

• a resource to provide specialist guidance and advice as well as cross-borough and pan-London co-ordination;
• a resource providing a CCO type role to a cluster of boroughs;
• a resource to support the development of local consultative groups.

13. There is a lot of work still to be done to progress the pilots, both locally and a central option. Members are asked to support the direction being taken.

C. Financial implications

The anticipated costs would be £180,000 in a full year. There is currently no budget identified to support the commencement of the pilot programme. For the current 2002/03 budget review round in this financial year. An additional budget of £1 million has been proposed for consultation arrangements across the MPA and MPS. Subject to agreement of this proposal during this coming year's budget round a proportion of this sum can be allocated to this programme once a detailed budget had been developed. To bring the programme forward i.e. to February as proposed, officers will be exploring the scope to fund this from within existing budgets. The anticipated costs would be £30,000 in 2001/02.

D. Background papers

• Best Value Review of Consultation 2000

E. Contact details

The author of this report is Jude Sequeira and Julia Smith, MPA.

For information contact:

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

Send an e-mail linking to this page

Feedback