Consultation on policing performance plan 2002/3

Report: 17
Date: 26 June 2001
By: Clerk

Summary

At its last meeting the Committee endorsed a set of consultation methods to help prepare the MPA's policing and performance plan 2002/03. The Mayor subsequently indicated that detailed budget submissions must be prepared by 26 October 2001. The new deadline greatly reduces the scope for new consultation and this paper proposes revised procedures.

A. Recommendation

1. Members note the new deadline for the budget submission and the implications for consulting with Londoners.
2. Members endorse the proposed alternative arrangements.

B. Background

1. At its meeting on 22 May 2001 CDO Committee endorsed a set of consultation methods for helping to prepare the MPA's policing and performance plan 2002/03. The methods proposed were based on a timetable similar to that used in previous years. Subsequent to that meeting the Mayor published a timetable under which functional bodies, including the MPA, are to submit detailed budgets for 2002/03 by 26 October 2001.

2. The implications of the Mayor's new timetable were considered at a meeting of FPBV Committee on 19 June 2001. FPBV Committee noted that the scope for extending the timetable was limited and, for a detailed budget to be prepared in time, decisions on provisional priorities and objectives for 2002/03 would need to be made by the end of September. Therefore, FPBV Committee agreed the recommendation that:

3. Provisional priorities and objectives should be agreed prior to the budget submission to the Mayor in October subject to:

• obtaining the view of District Audit and, possibly, seeking legal advice;
• reviewing priorities, objectives, targets and the budget submission once Ministerial priorities are known;
• reviewing 2001/02 priorities, objectives, targets with a view to reducing the overall number;
• undertaking as much consultation as practical under the circumstances;
• reflecting the views of borough commanders (to facilitate the delivery of local crime and disorder strategies);
• reviewing processes and resources so they support the new timetable.

4. This decision limits the extent to which new consultation can be used to help develop priorities and objectives (since consultation needs to be carried out in June-August). Even so, the results of consultation performed in the last twelve months are still regarded as indicative of public/community views and can continue to be used. In practice this will mean using the priorities and objectives specified in the current 2001/02 plan as a starting point for assessing the priorities and objectives to be used next year.

5. Finance Planning and Best Value Committee requested that a 'late paper' be tabled at CDO Committee which set out the implications for consultation. The implications for developing the policing and performance plan are detailed below and reflect the methods considered at the last CDO Committee meeting.

• Citizens' panel
  Introduction is not considered feasible in the time available though future use should be considered as part of the developing MPA/MPS consultation strategy and GLA-family best value review of consultation.
• General surveys
  The Public Attitude Survey is being repeated but headline results are not expected until September. The results of an independent Londoners' attitudes survey are also not expected until September. Consequently, the results of both methods (once known) should be used as a check of provisional priorities and objectives. The results of the previous MVA survey should be used.
• Neighbourhood fora
  The report at item 12 (Facilitating pan-London Community and Police Consultative Groups) proposes a meeting with CPCG chairs in July to obtain views on priorities and objectives for next year. It is considered that CPCG chairs should be asked to prioritise between current MPA/MPS objectives.
• Electronic consultation
  MPS officers are setting up a pilot exercise to consult using the Internet. The pilot will need to ensure data is collected on (for example) age, gender and ethnicity to see if different communities have different views.
• Customer satisfaction surveys
  Data from these ongoing surveys can be used to help inform decisions on provisional priorities and objectives.
• Referenda
  A postal exercise could ask respondents to prioritise between current MPA/MPS objectives using a simple pro forma.
• Delegate committees
  The Mayor's timetable makes it less likely detailed information on local crime and disorder audit / strategies will be available to inform MPA priorities and objectives. The MPS as a matter of priority is seeking the views of borough commanders on probable local priorities and objectives.
• Action planning/focus groups
  MPS officers are considering if these methods can be used. However, given the need to organise events over July and August there are obvious limitations due to use within the main holiday season.

Conclusion

6. The outcome of consultation to inform priorities and objectives for 2002/03 needs to be balanced against:

• MPS performance during 2001/02 (and over previous months);
• constraints and information from other sources (eg Ministerial priorities);
• emerging crime and disorder strategies being developed on each borough;
• the MPA/MPS corporate strategy (currently being developed).

7. The new planning / budget timetable means that (subject to any legal advice) the MPA will be looking to make the best use of whatever information exists at the time a decision on priorities and objectives is needed to ensure an integrated and credible budget submission to the Mayor. There will be a need to refine decisions iteratively following the October submission. This is not an ideal situation but it will mean greater effort and focus can be given to producing robust local implementation plans.

8. As a matter of priority these is a need to reconfigure the MPA/MPS planning and budgeting regime to take account of the Mayor's requirements. This work needs to be done in conjunction with development of the consultation strategy.

C. Financial implications

The financial implications remain to be assessed but will be less than considered previously due to the limited extent of consultation.

D. Background papers

None.

E. Contact details

The author of this report is Derrick Norton.

For information contact:

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

Send an e-mail linking to this page

Feedback