Independent Advisory Groups’ role in consultation

Report: 10
Date: 25 June 2003
By: Commissioner

Summary

Independent advice forms an essential element of community contacts enabling the MPS to gather views of those who might be affected by police activity. Officers seek advice to guide operational decisions and decisions about policy. Advice is sought before decisions are made or after incidents have occurred. In all cases, advice is intended to inform police decision makers about the effects of police action in communities, particularly those who have low trust and confidence in police.

Two advisory groups exist centrally, to advise the Deputy Commissioner about diversity issues affecting the MPS. Most boroughs have either advisory groups or other arrangements under different titles to assist locally.

DCC4 co-ordinates the activities of the two central advisory groups and assists boroughs with their groups. In addition, Operation Trident has its own advisory group.

Following the Damilola Taylor Murder Investigation Review, DCC4 is carrying out an audit to establish those boroughs that have advisory groups or similar arrangements. Those that do not have satisfactory arrangements to obtain independent advice will be identified and supported in forming such groups.

A. Recommendation

That members note the report.

B Supporting information

History

1. The Stephen Lawrence Inquiry report states, at paragraph 46.31, that-

“The need to re-establish trust between minority ethnic communities and the police is paramount”.

2. A number of steps were taken at the time of the publication of the report-

• Establishment of Community safety Units on every borough;
• Appointment and training of family liaison officers;
• Commencement of Community and Race Relations Training.

3. A key decision, made by DAC John Grieve, was to invite people who had experience of policing in London, particularly people with knowledge of the effects of policing within minority ethnic communities, to form an advisory group. The first meetings took place in the early part of 1998. The Independent Advisory Group (IAG) was formed from these first steps.

4. Later, in 1999, following the activities of the nail-bomber, David Copeland, DAC Grieve decided to invite people from lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) communities to form an advisory group. This group became the LGBT Advisory Group.

5. These two groups now advise the Deputy Commissioner on diversity issues. They are both represented on the Diversity Board, Diversity Forum and all working groups.

6. They have been consulted on a wide range of policy issues as well as some of the most sensitive ‘critical incidents’.

7. Since the formation of the two central groups, the MPS has advised many other police forces about formation of advisory groups. In addition, 24 of the 33 Borough Organisational Command Units (BOCUs) have formed groups.

Rationale and objectives of advisory groups

8. The MPS recognised that it had lost the trust and confidence of significant parts of minority ethnic communities in London. Processes for gathering views of such people were inadequate, leading to poor communication, lack of transparency and, as a result, continuing lack of sensitivity to the needs of all minority ethnic communities. If the concept of ‘colour blind’ policing was to be replaced by sensitive and understanding policing, based on the needs of those being policed, the MPS had to understand those needs. Independent advice forms a crucial part of the process of understanding.

9. In addition, the groups provide transparency by being part of decision-making processes and scrutinising police activity.

10. The strength of the advisory process rests on-

• The skills, talents and experiences of members;
• Their willingness to challenge MPS decision-makers robustly;
• The willingness of the MPS to learn from the experience of advisors;
• The immediate availability of advice to police decision-makers.

11. The terms of reference for the IAG set out objectives for advisory groups and these are included as at appendix 1.

Number of IAGs

12. A small team supports the two central advisory groups. The team’s role has been to deal with administrative tasks, facilitate communication with various police decision-makers and advise BOCUs (and a small number of central OCUs) on the advisory process.

13. Recommendations 14 and 15 of the Damilola Taylor Murder Investigation Review relate to independent advice. They recommend the establishment of advisory groups on every London borough and proper training for advisors.

14. DCC4 carried out an audit and identified 24 of 33 BOCUs had advisory groups or other arrangements that they considered performed the functions of such a group. DCC4 has a target to increase this number by April 2004.

15. The process to achieve this is to identify those functions that are the minimum required of an advisory group. A further audit will be carried out, using these criteria. BOCUs with no arrangements for advice will be identified and supported by DCC4 staff, with the intention of fulfilling the recommendation.

16. In addition, critical incident training is now being made available to BOCU advisors. The training is based on that given to superintendents.

Role, responsibilities and accountabilities of advisory groups

17. The terms of reference contained in the appendix set out roles and responsibilities.

18. Advisors inform police decision-makers about the possible consequences of their actions. The police decision-maker retains accountability for the decision reached and its consequences. The advisor bears no such accountability.

19. Whilst the accountability of advisors is limited, the MPS recognises that advice is disclosable. Advisors have given evidence of their role in previous cases. To protect advisors and ensure that advice is properly recorded, advice logs have been developed and are available for use.

Specific role of advisory groups in consultation

20. The MPS consultation strategy is still being developed. Independent advice forms a significant part of the strategy, particularly in relation to operational policing decisions.

21. The MPS recognises advisory groups as stakeholders whose views must be sought about those issues of concern to them. Views must be sought as early as possible, preferably at the initiation of the decision-making process.

22. Advice is also sought on policy and strategic issues of concern to advisors – attendance at the Diversity Board, chaired by the Deputy Commissioner is an example of strategic advice. However, the advice directly affects operational policing.

23. DCC4 research indicates that BOCU advisors generally help with critical incidents and dealing with hate crime. They have a less well-developed role in relation to local policy and strategy.

Role of Advisory Groups on BOCUs

24. As indicated above, local advisory groups tend to be operationally focused. Advisors meet with local senior officers regularly to discuss police/community issues. In addition, advisors support police decision-makers at critical incidents. Good examples of advisors assisting at critical incidents are the Damilola Taylor investigation and the siege at Hackney over the New Year.

25. Many BOCUs have used the IAG’s terms of reference to guide their own advisory groups.

Evaluation

26. It is difficult to give empirical evaluation of the value of advice. Advice may have local or pan-London impact. Advice may or may not be followed. It is not possible to show whether the following of advice had any community impact.

27. The MPS believes, however, that independent advice has helped to improve policing in London, particularly its response to critical incidents. The increased maturity of relationships with communities and the transparency of decision-making processes are also considered to be successes at least partly attributable to independent advice.

28. A review of independent advice was published in September 2000. The report was compiled by ICG, based on a very limited sample of advisors who responded. The validity of that report needs, therefore, to be regarded with some scepticism. Having stated the caveat, the report concluded that independent advice gave the MPS access to high levels of experience and knowledge at very low cost, when compared to other methods of obtaining such advice. The MPS endorses this view and believes it to be valid now.

C. Equality and diversity implications

1. Independent advice forms a significant part of the MPS’ measures to respond to the general duty to promote racial equality. Advice ensures that police services are more sensitive to the needs of all people of London. Awareness of racial issues is heightened in appropriate cases by the contribution of advisors – the part played by advisors in the investigation of the murder of ‘Adam’ is a good example of raising racial awareness.

2. It also assists to promote good relations between people of different racial groups. Sensitive policing prevents the build up of resentment against police that can sometimes result in disorder. When disorder does occur, relations between ethnic groups are often damaged – e.g. Burnley and Oldham riots in summer 2001 led to inter-ethnic conflict and, arguably, the raising of popularity of extreme right wing politics.

3. Advisors have helped the MPS to deal with some of the most sensitive internal cases. A dialogue has been established between IAG and Department of Professional Standards to ensure that discipline enquiries are as fair and transparent as possible.

4. Members of both central advisory groups participated in the MPS Race Relations (Amendment) Act Steering Group that produced the MPS Race equality Scheme.

D. Financial implications

1. The MPS took the view, in 1998, that if the organisation was to receive the best advice the best people should be advisors. Those in employment should not be excluded from giving advice, and neither should that not in employment. Therefore, advisors are able to claim expenses and a gratuity for attending meetings and conferences on behalf of the advisory groups. The gratuity stands at £60 for a half day and £120 for a full day. These figures have not changed since 1998.

2. Presently, there are around 25 members on each of the two central advisory groups. The expenses and gratuities budget stands at £100,000 per annum. Every claim for expenses is scrutinised by the DCC4 support team.

3. In addition, the team supporting the central advisory groups comprises an inspector, a sergeant (working 50% part-time), two constables and two administrative officers. The work of the unit is not limited to advisory groups support. The team has significant roles in developing new community links, particularly faith communities.

4. The author is not aware of any BOCU currently paying advisors any expenses or other payments. In addition, it is not possible to assess the staff costs of supporting local advisory groups because of the different structures used across the MPS.

E. Background papers

None.

F. Contact details

Report author: DCI David Tucker, Diversity Directorate, MPS.

For more information contact:

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

Appendix 1

Independent Advisory Group Protocols

1. Introduction

The Independent Advisory group was originally set up to advise the Racial and Violent Crime Task Force through its director on any aspect of policing that impacts on minority ethnic communities.

As the Group became more established and better known throughout the Metropolitan Police Service its area of influence has increased. As such, the Group is not simply confined to giving advice to the Racial and Violent Crime Task Force but is able to influence the policing debate in all areas of the Met. This has been made more accessible by the introduction of the Diversity Directorate under the command of the Deputy Commissioner.

The Independent Advisory Group will work along side the Metropolitan Police Service to help the organisation to challenge issues of racism, xenophobia and other forms of inequality affecting the diverse communities of London. The group should be capable in the 21st Century of an inclusive remit to look at and be involved in any issue that it sees fit. The fundamental principle underpinning the relationship should be one that is built on mutual respect building the trust and confidence of all communities in London from which everybody benefits.

There needs to be openness and transparency – this goes for all concerned in this ‘partnership’ Trust and confidence must be a ‘two way street.’

2. Definition of independent advice

This relates to advice given by non-police persons either on an ad hoc basis or as members of a recognised advisory group as Independent Advisors. Their advice is independent of police and carries no responsibility or liability for outcomes. Such advisors are not answerable to police, and police are neither responsible for advisors’ actions nor obliged to follow any of the advice they give. Accordingly, they are truly independent.

Independent advice is the process that takes place when people independent of the Police Service monitor, observe or participate in any police activity. They have no responsibility for the outcomes but are free to make observations both within the organisation and to the wider community, unless there are legal implications or a decision made by the IAG for information gleaned not to be a matter of public record.

3. Advisors

Those people who are:

• Able to critically appraise police policies and practices
• Able to make dispassionate, measured, considered and ethical assessment of what they experience
• Able to bring relevant expertise, experience and integrity
• Able to reason and willing to articulate their views -
• Able to represent the views and commanding the respect of the communities policed
• Committed to the improvement of community – police relations
• Able to exercise judgement/discretion re: conflict of interest

4. Advisory Group Advice

IAG advice can be requested and delivered by way of an informal telephone call, written request and written response, an informal meeting or formal meeting. The police should always brief properly and debrief at the end of any co-operation.

The IAG will access the highest levels of management within the MPS. There will be regular meetings with the Commissioner and Deputy as appropriate, the MPA and Home Office Ministers.

The IAG expects access to any bodies dealing with any aspect of policing/diversity issues.

The Advisory Groups Team of the Diversity Directorate at New Scotland Yard will be responsible for ensuring recommendations and decisions agreed by the group are actioned to the appropriate individuals/departments in the MPS.

It will be the role of the Advisory Groups Team (AGT) to undertake a secretariat function between the IAG and the Metropolitan Police Service.

Where individual advisors are involved in particular areas of work, e.g. critical incidents, the advice/ recommendations will be put in writing to the person(s) seeking the advice. All IAG members will record in an IAG advice log their advice and actions. Copies will be sent to the appropriate personnel.

5. Confidentiality

By the very nature of the work confidentiality issues will arise. Though members will not be expected to sign a confidentiality clause it is prerequisite that it is observed. Work of the group is conducted on assumption of total confidentiality unless agreed collectively by the group, respecting personnel confidentiality.

6. Expectations

• Progress and Action taken on advice given within agreed time limits
• Written progress reports to be sent to IAG within agreed time limits.
• The facility to initiate projects/actions.
• Members to respect, trust and adhere individually and collectively to decisions.
• Support from the police - to include administration; letters of introduction/ID and appropriate external support
• IAG to be notified and provided with appropriate training
• Members will be expected to actively participate and volunteer in the IAG Sub Groups. (Where members are unable to attend meetings, apologies to be tendered).
• Each member has a vote
• Police attendees will be determined by the group and may vary depending on issues under consideration (exceptions to this – Director of Diversity, holder of portfolio to MPS, the BPA are members with full voting rights and the Federation have a blanket invite but no voting rights).
• The group will agree associate members as appropriate, these members will not have voting rights

7. Structure

There will be a chair and three vice chairs. The IAG will seek a Media/Liaison officer. They should meet every two weeks unless there is an emergency then sooner. The IAG will meet on a monthly basis unless agreed otherwise. The IAG should have a three-day weekend once a year to plan the annual agenda and for training on legislation, policing techniques and MPA/Government policy. The Group will function through sub-groups. Work will be communicated back to the wider group for ratification on decisions.

Core Areas of Work (Sub-groups)

• Anti-racist police
• Hate Crime
• Critical Incidents/Reinvestigations

Sub groups will have a chair who will be responsible for convening the group; agreeing the agenda and chairing the meetings. Issues that are brought to the IAG will be fed into the appropriate Sub-group. Individuals that are engaged in an area of work will consult with the appropriate sub-group.

The Group may decide that additional work groups are set up as required with precise terms of reference on a time limited scale.

8. Selection

Selection (offices)

The Group will vote on the offices of Chair, Vice Chairs and Media/Liaison Officer. After nominations have been received and seconded by another member eligible to vote. Where any of the posts are not filled, it may be at the discretion of the Chair or Vice-chairs to nominate an individual.

Selection (members)

The Director selects individuals from selected groups as identified by the advisory group. Nominations may come from both within or outside of the Group.

9. Deselection

• Members may be deselected from the Group if they are found to be in breach of the operating protocols.
• Where members fail to take forward the actions allocated to them on a systematic basis.
• Where members fail to participate actively in the work of the group
• Elected officers of the group will recommend deselection to the wider group
• Where there has been no contact from members over a sustained period of time.

Send an e-mail linking to this page

Feedback