A review of community police engagement arrangements at the borough level

Report: 7
Date: 16 June 2005
By: the Chief Executive and Clerk

Summary

The purpose of this report is to review the existing arrangements for borough level community police engagement in London and put forward a number of options for development and reform, and seek direction for future borough based activity.

It will be followed by a second report to the September committee meeting, which will set out an implementation process for the agreed future arrangements with the aim of having them in place by April 2006.

A. Recommendation

1. Endorse the principle of strengthening community engagement at the borough level, whilst upholding the principle that the provision of this is ultimately the responsibility of the MPA.
2. Consider and determine which of the options for change should form the basis of future arrangements for the provision of borough wide community engagement and consultation.
3. Agree that the Members Panel will act as a steering group to guide and support officers through the development and implementation of the approved option for change.
4. Note that an officer led Community Engagement Programme Board comprising relevant partners will be established.
5. Direct that a Community Engagement Programme Board be set up as an ongoing partnership structure.
6. Direct officers to undertake ongoing consultation work with all interested parties and note the request for a special meeting between the MPA and the CPCGs in the week commencing 11 July 2005.
7. Receive a further report at its meeting of 1 September 2005 which will detail the practical steps required for the implementation of the proposed new borough level community engagement and consultation arrangements by 1 April 2006.

B. Supporting information

The need for a review

1. The Community Engagement Committee at its 3 February 2005 meeting agreed to receive a report on the future of community engagement funding at its June meeting.

2. The draft Community Engagement Strategy, also on this agenda, says the following about local community engagement:

• ‘The Community Engagement Strategy is centred on one of the 5 MPA Strategic Goals which is to: Transform community engagement to help Londoners secure more responsive policing at a local level. Section 7 of the Strategy expresses the MPA’s intent to reposition its resources and the current arrangements at borough level.

3. A review of the current arrangements is necessary because the landscape of community engagement and consultation has changed dramatically since the Community Police Consultative Groups (CPCGs) were set up in the 1980s. These changes include:

1. The establishment of the Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnerships (CDRPs)
2. The advent of the Metropolitan Police Authority and its responsibility for consultation
3. The emergence of the Safer Neighbourhood Policing Initiative and the associated ward based community panels
4. The move from consultation to engagement
5. The challenge of the Community Safety Board Pilot Projects

4. There is an opportunity for the MPA to reposition itself in the light of the White Paper ‘Building Communities, Beating Crime’ and in particular Government aspirations for citizen focused policing and its proposals regarding the role of police authorities in ensuring local community engagement at borough and neighbourhood level. This is also reflected in the emerging MPA community engagement strategy.

5. This repositioning needs to take the following into account:

Background to the formation of the Community Police Consultative Groups

6. Policing is always more likely to be effective if it enjoys the trust and cooperation of the public and the police work with local communities to identify and agree problems, solutions and priorities.

7. Notwithstanding the above London was unique in having no form of regionally based and accountable police authority for over 170 years. That is to say from the setting up of the London Metropolitan Police until the advent of the Metropolitan Police Authority in July 2000.

8. At various times, and particularly throughout the 1980s, the demand for a police authority was raised. It was during this period that the relationship between the MPS and a number of communities and local authorities began to deteriorate and a number of disturbances took place, including the Brixton Riots in 1981.

9. The Government commissioned report by Lord Scarman, which was published in 1982, argued that the outburst of anger and resentment against the police stemmed, at least in part, from the adoption of policing methods which did not command the support of the local community. Lord Scarman went on to state that in his view:

‘if a rift is not to develop between the police and the public as a whole …a means must be devised of enabling the community to be heard not only in the development of policing but in the planning of many, though not all, operations against crime.’

10. Whilst the ensuing legislation did not stipulate the form such consultation should take, the most common mechanism adopted was the formation of CPCGs which for the next 20 years or so were to be one of the few means of local consultation between the police and the community.

11. It must be remembered that the CPCGs were at the time of their inception a radical and commendable shift towards community engagement for the police and that much groundbreaking work was carried out during a period when there was neither a police authority nor, after the abolition of the Greater London Council, an upper tier of government for London.

The MPA and the CPCGs

12. The Metropolitan Police Authority was established in July 2000 to replace the old arrangement of the Home Secretary acting as the police authority for London. Its principal function is to secure and maintain a fair, efficient and effective police service for the capital.

13. It is also required to make arrangements, after consulting with the Commissioner, to consult those who live and work in London on matters concerning policing in their areas. In addition the Race Relations Amendment Act 2000 lays a general duty on statutory bodies to eliminate discrimination and promote good community relations.

14. The MPA also inherited from the Commissioner, in April 2001, responsibility for funding and supporting the Community Police Consultative Groups which had received little or no support in terms of developing their role up to that point.

15. With hindsight the MPA’s approach to the CPCGs has been more of a legalistic rather tan a community development oriented approach. This was unfortunate and created an atmosphere of mutual suspicion, with the MPA thinking CPCGs outmoded and ossified and CPCGs that the MPA simply wished to undermine them and take away their independence.

16. Some antagonism was perhaps inevitable with the emergence of a police authority for London which requires accountability for public funds after the CPCGs had been left to their own devices for many years.

The Government White Paper

17. The Government White Paper on policing reform entitled ‘Building Communities, Beating Crime’ devotes a whole chapter to building a new relationship of trust and confidence between the police and the public. Although this does not yet have legal status it does reflect the direction in which the Government would wish community engagement to go.

18. The White Paper is clear on the need for change to be led by Police Authorities tasked to secure the implementation of a strategy to engage the community at all levels in the police area. Delivering effective community engagement will become the joint duty of the police and local authorities in each CDRP, who will be responsible for putting the strategy into place and for responding to neighbourhood level concerns.

19. In terms of engaging the public, the White Paper speaks of the public as not just users of services but as being stakeholders in the security of their neighbourhoods. It goes on to say that:

“people should be clear about how to hold to account those who are responsible for policing and community safety”

20. It goes on to state that Home Office research has shown that the formal public meetings held by the CPCGs are ineffective for strategic consultation on priority setting, although they may be effective as a local problem solving forum. Moving beyond relying on public meetings as the sole form of engagement is seen as a key aim of the Government’s reforms; and indeed the MPA is already doing this with initiatives such as the Safer London Panel.

Early discussions with the CPCGs

21. The Chair of the MPA wrote to the Chair of the London CPCG Chairs Forum on 23 February 2005 setting out the MPA’s view of the consequences of the White Paper in terms of devolving part of the decision making regarding local community engagement to the borough level.

22. That letter is attached as Appendix 1 but the main points may be summarised as follows:

1. The MPA wants to see consultation and engagement become an integral part of local partnership activity with Groups driving local plans and priorities and holding all partners - not just the police - to account
2. Over a period the MPA will shift from directly funding CPCGs itself to funding local partnerships to enable them to secure local consultation and engagement. It will ring fence funding to the partnerships so that it cannot be used for other purposes
3. The MPA will set down the overall framework and standards and satisfy itself that the local partnerships are making effective arrangements
4. The community engagement models that emerge may well differ from one borough to another to suit the local scene and may also change over time
5. In making the transition happen, the MPA will work to support and protect the independence of the CPCGs as they adapt to a new relationship with borough partners and will firmly advocate and support their seeking a place at the local partnership table
6. The MPA will want to allocate resources more evenly across London while recognising the differing challenges in inner and outer London
7. The MPA will continue to test other models for engagement in areas where CPCGs no longer function and will support innovative methods to reach out to hard to reach communities
8. When the MPA ceases to fund CPCGs directly, the Authority will continue to work with local Groups to provide training, development and capacity building to strengthen local engagement at all levels and will continue to listen to what local Groups have to say regarding priorities, plans and performance

The CDRPs and community engagement

23. Members will be aware that the Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnerships have a variable track record in terms of community engagement, least as far as interacting with the community and voluntary sector goes.

24. In 2003 the MPA published a Scrutiny Report into the CDRPs which made the following statements:

1. ‘Community and voluntary sector representation in CDRPs is weak’
2. ‘Consultation with local communities upon priorities is not always representative’
3. ‘Many evidence givers, including the MPA, drew the attention of the panel to the lack of accountability of CDRP partners’
4. ‘There was a lack of general public awareness of CDRPs’
5. ‘Weak community representation/membership’

25. The Report went on to make 35 Recommendations to the MPA and the MPS of which the following were of direct relevance to consultation:

• ‘ Each CDRP should find appropriate mechanisms for ensuring that the communities and key voluntary organisations are represented in the partnership. The MPA should assist in helping to fulfil this aim, including helping to identify appropriate community representatives” (Recommendation 23)’
• 'the MPA should develop good practice consultation guidance for CDRPs to improve representative community consultation”
  (Recommendation 27)’
• ‘A team of MPA officers should be created. Its responsibilities should include supporting the MPA link members’ involvement in CDRPs, assisting CDRPs in consulting with their communities, and collecting and disseminating examples of good practice across CDRPs’.
  (Recommendation 33 – 1st part)

26. Whilst CDRPs may have to some extent developed their consultation mechanisms for the recent Audit and Strategy preparation, their capabilities in relation to consultation and engagement still appear to be extremely patchy.

27. Although it is the case that an increasing number of boroughs are putting into place various area fora and ward based arrangements, which it is unclear whether these may provide new foundations for community engagement on policing issues, but it is unclear how relevant or robust these arrangements will prove.

28. Furthermore a recent report to the BME Cracking Crime Board concluded that:

1. ‘CDRP inclusion of and engagement with BME communities at a strategic level is weak’
2. ‘In general structures for CDRP accountability to the community is poor…’

29. For all these reasons any devolution of responsibility for local consultation and community engagement will require the CDRPs to considerably enhance their current capacity to accept such a responsibility and carry it out in a manner that is both effective and allow a strong and independent voice for the communities.

30. This will call for a significant and sustained degree of support by the MPA for the Partnerships to assist them in developing and expanding their consultation and engagement roles as envisaged by the MPA Scrutiny Report and White Paper.

31. It should also be noted that the Home Office have recently completed a Formal Review of the Partnership Provisions of the Crime and Disorder Act, which is currently before Ministers, and the publication of the report with accompanying recommendations is expected before the end of the calendar year.

Emerging trends

32. The Community Engagement Unit has just completed over 2 years of rigorous funding rounds which have resulted in continuing support for the vast majority of CPCGs, although it has been necessary to withdraw funding and recognition from 4 of them (Greenwich, Hammersmith and Fulham, Islington and Brent).

33. The MPA has initiated 2 exciting and promising Community Safety Board pilots in Islington and Hammersmith and Fulham; and is about to carry out an independent evaluation of recently developed arrangements in Greenwich and is currently consulting locally on future arrangements for Brent.

34. A number of others CPCGs are currently considering adopting a community safety board approach and whilst yet others have either become charitable companies or are strongly considering doing so in order to allow further flexibility and growth in their activities.

35. In addition Kingston CPCG is carrying out a pilot on how communication between the Safer Neighbourhoods and the CPCG might best be achieved and Bromley CPCG has been invited to take a leadership role and possibly merge into the Safer Bromley Forum.

36. There is, therefore, strong evidence both of an emerging desire by many CPCGs to embrace change and reform, which is already beginning to translate itself into practical action on the ground. This approach, coupled with the MPA driven pilots augurs well for the future, providing it is nourished and supported by the MPA.

The role of the volunteer in community engagement

37. An active and involved citizenry is a precondition of meaningful community engagement. It should be noted that the CPCGs currently involve regular meetings of in excess of 1,000 active volunteers across London and that the Chairs and other elected officers contribute around 3,000 days per annum to organising consultation and engagement activities.

38. Such a commitment is not just sustained by the relatively modest funding supplied by the MPA, but rather by the enthusiasm of the volunteers for playing their part in helping to increase the quantity and quality of Londoners participation in policing and community safety affairs. this enthusiasm is also to be found in the emerging pilot models.

39. Any decision about future arrangements must try to understand and be capable of capturing at least that degree of enthusiasm and involvement. Every study of successful community groups demonstrates that the most important factors are that its volunteer members run the group and that it is independent of those bodies that it has to interact with and sometimes criticise. The second factor is that the group is adequately resourced and supported. The MPA’s role in relation to both factors is vital.

The role of the MPA at the local level

40. In terms of community engagement the role of the MPA is threefold: to set the standards and principles required for satisfactory engagement; to actively support those carrying out such engagement and to scrutinise the effectiveness of the outcome.

41. One of the major strengths of the MPA lies in its Link Members who unlike the other statutory partners have direct experience of both a local and a pan-London engagement and consultation role. This includes responsibility for the strategic oversight of community engagement and consultation over policing issues and for the scrutiny of such arrangements. They are also ultimately responsible for MPA budgets dedicated to borough wide community engagement and consultation.

42. Any decisions arising from this report will need to address the issue of what resources would be appropriate and necessary to enable Link Members to develop their role.

43. Such recommendations will also need to address the relationship of the MPA and its Link members to the community and voluntary groups representing local people’s aspirations concerning the better policing of their borough.

Improving the scrutiny role of the MPA

44. Scrutiny will involve the establishment and maintenance of the MPA’s responsibility for the governance of community engagement, by establishing a strategic framework, setting standards, developing performance indicators, scrutinising performance and establishing best practice.

45. Consistent arrangements across London are needed to ensure that CDRPs are held to account by local and independent groups. Scrutiny might involve an annual assessment/inspection of borough based community engagement by the MPA in conjunction with local and pan London partners.

46. Any evaluation regime must include consideration of both quantitative and qualitative factors It may also involve capacity building though information, advice, training and support for those involved in community engagement, especially members of the public.

47. Scrutiny might also include the MPA facilitating a peer review by CPCGs (or equivalents) from other boroughs as one way of spreading best practice.

Establishing good practice

48. The Community Engagement Unit is in the process of carrying out research and evaluation into good practice within the work of the CPCGs. The results of this work will be showcased at a special conference before Christmas 2005 so that all those with an interest in borough level community engagement can see the rich variety of activities being undertaken.

49. As well as covering general development this re will take one or more aspects of the CPCGs’ work; including work with young people; the Kingston CPCG/Safer Neighbourhoods Pilot and early feed back from the Community Safety Boards. Such a conference could become an annual event.

Consultation

50. In contemplating a change of approach to borough level community engagement in is important to listen to a wide as range of views as possible and attempt to achieve as much agreement as possible as to the direction to be chosen.

51. Consultation has already begun and has included meetings with colleagues from other MPA Units, selected CPCG Chairs and Administrators, the MPS at ACPO and Borough Commander level, the Mayor’s Advisor on Policing the Crime and Drugs Director at GOL and the Association for London Government.

52. During this process of consultation strong reservations have been expressed by some about the potential shift from a MPA centrally controlled process to one at least partially devolved to the local CDRP. The issue of independence and the need, though the MPA, to be linked into a pan London overview has been a frequent theme, as has the view that only the MPA is in a position to define and reinforce common principles concerning community engagement.

53. Further consultation will need to take place once members have agreed in principle the way forward. This will be supplemented by the setting up of an officer led Community Engagement Programme Board to co-ordinate and exchange information. This Board could include representatives of the MPA, MPS, GOL, GLA, ALG and Community Engagement Groups. The Home Office and the APA could also be invited to participate.

54. Such a body would bring together all stakeholders for the first time and might also act as a formal vehicle for the MPA and the MPS to fulfil their commitment to listen to what the Groups have to say about the policing priorities, plans and performance that affect London as a whole.

55. It would also be helpful to this process if the existing Members Panel could act as a Steering Group for the process, offering officers advice, support and guidance.

56. The Chair and Executive of the London CPCGs Forum has requested a special meeting with the MPA to discuss the practical steps towards the implementation of the MPA’s decision. This will need to take place in the week commencing 11 July and it is hoped that as many Members as possible will be able to attend.

Options for change

57. When all of the above points are taken into consideration there are still a number of potential tensions to be balanced between:

1. The appropriate level of decision making and the proven ability to deliver adequate local engagement and consultation
2. The need for local community groups to have sufficient independence to criticise the CDRPs’ policy and performance without being fearful of having their funding reduced or withdrawn
3. The ability of the CDRPs to be part of the decision making process but for the MPA to retain ultimate responsibility for setting standards and scrutinising the outcome

Option 1

58. This option devolves the decision to the CDRPs the freedom to decide what form of borough wide community engagement to fund and support, subject to guidelines set down by the MPA. These guidelines would include best practice advice, description and analysis of the pilot projects and of the thrust of the relevant parts of the White Paper.

59. The MPA would set the level of funding it was prepared to devolve to the CDRPs for funding borough community engagement and consultation and such funding would be ring fenced so that it could only be used for that purpose. CDRPs would be free to supplement MPA funding from their own resources.

60. The funding decision would be made locally by a panel of members of the CDRP e.g. the MPA Link Member (who would act as chair), the Borough Commander and the Local Authority representative on the CDRP, with advice and support from MPA Officers. It would also be advisable to include a voluntary sector representative on the panel such as the Chair of the local Voluntary Action Council or the Chair of the Community Empowerment Network. The decision of the panel would have to be unanimous. Decisions would be reached by consensus between the panel members.

61. The panel would be free either to choose to continue the funding of the CPCG or any other model that would clearly and effectively meet both local consultation needs and the MPA guidelines and funding arrangements.

62. The decisions of the various local panels would be reported to the Community Engagement Committee, as would the results of the subsequent MPA scrutiny of the outcomes. The Committee would also arbitrate in the event of unresolved local issues.

63. The MPA would retain its scrutiny role over the borough wide community engagement arrangements and activities and an Annual report would be made to the MPA covering all aspects of its local responsibilities with the MPA reserving the right to refer matters for local consideration and response.

Strengths

64. Option 1 would have the effect of strengthening the impact of the MPA at the local level and enhancing the role of the Link Member. It would give the MPA, through its Link Member, a leadership role around local engagement and accountability issues and ensure the MPA ‘s position at the leading edge of community engagement. It is also consistent with the White Paper.

65. It would also partially balance the need for decisions to be made locally and the need to protect the integrity and independence of the relevant community and voluntary sector.

Weaknesses

66. There is the issue of independence and integrity. Borough wide engagement involves holding both the Borough Commander and the CDRP to account. This in turn means being able to express criticism of policy and performance. Would a Group feel comfortable in expressing such criticism of organisations which would have the power to reduce or withdraw their grant?

67. This might be seen by the community as compromising its ability to hold the local statutory partners to account. It would therefore be vital to have in place the means for the local groups to retain a sense of their independence and be fit for purpose in monitoring the performance of local partners.

68. There is also the need for the MPA to be satisfied that, having contracted out its responsibility for engagement and consultation, the CDRPs would have the capacity to satisfactorily carry out the process in line with the MPA’s overall strategic engagement policy. This is not immediately apparent.

Option 2

69. This option would share responsibility for decision making between the MPA and the local CDRP partners.

70. MPA officers would have the responsibility for carrying out the grant making process after formally consulting the local panel of Link Member, the Borough Commanders and the Local Authority representative on the CDRP. The views of the relevant voluntary and community sector would also be taken into account.

71. the MPA officers would then put forward the locally agreed funding recommendations to the Community Engagement Committee for final approval. There would be no appeal against a decision that had been agreed both locally and centrally.

Strengths

72. This option balances the interests of the MPA, the Borough Commanders and the CDRPs, giving local statutory partners a formal say in the decision making for the first time whilst also giving a greater involvement to local community and voluntary organisations.

73. This option, which would involve all local interest and the MPA taking decisions in partnership, would be bound to encourage a consensus approach. It would also ensure that the different agencies were much clearer on their various requirements from the process than is currently the case.

Weaknesses

74. This model would appear to be less consistent with the direction of the White Paper, and may have to be reviewed in the light of future legislation. Even in the short term allowing CDRPs only an improved right to be consulted about the funding of borough wide community engagement might perhaps not encourage the CDRPs to develop and improve their engagement and consultation role.

75. It also makes local engagement and consultation dependent on the agencies that should be held to account.

Resource implications

76. At this stage the working assumption is that changes in the responsibility for community engagement should be achieved within existing resources for support of local consultation and partnership activity. It is suggested that the MPA should guarantee funding for a period of 2 years to allow new arrangements to develop and stabilise.

77. There would need to be a reconsideration of how the funding allocations are made to the different boroughs as there is neither equity nor logic in the currently arrangements. The implications for organisation and deployment of MPA staff will be considered as part of a review of the Community Engagement and Partnership Support Teams.

Diversity

78. Whichever option is chosen it is vital that in establishing and/or supporting Groups all aspects of diversity are given serious consideration. In particular there is a clear need to ensure that the membership includes representatives of groups within the local community who are considered hard-to-reach, sizeable minorities in the area, groups who are disproportionately victimised in the borough, and groups representing areas with particularly high crime levels.

79. Innovative and imaginative ways must be found to make this more than an empty slogan. These will include examining best practice within the existing CPCGs, taking into account the early lessons learnt in setting up the Community Safety Board Pilots and establishing a good working relationship with the forthcoming MPS Diversity Officers.

Balancing the options

80. There is a need to find the best balance between the various tensions and concerns referred to in the report and the strengths and weaknesses between the 2 options put forward for consideration. Officers are of the view that Option 2 represents the most practicable way forward for the foreseeable future, combining as it does a partnership approach between the MPA and the borough partners, safeguards for the independence of the groups and the enhancement of the MPA’s capacity to fulfil its statutory obligations at a local level. A transition to Option 1 could be subsequently phased in over a period of time having regard to future legislation arising from the White Paper.

81. It is, however, dependent on the achievement, in a relatively tight timescale, of satisfactory consultation and detailed planning with the relevant partners, including the identification and provision of adequate resources. The outcome of this consultation and planning will be the subject of a report to the September Community Engagement Committee meeting.

C. Race and equality impact

It is the intent of the MPA that in reviewing borough level community engagement arrangement all aspects of diversity are given due consideration. In particular, we intend to ensure that Groups receiving funding include representatives of local communities who are considered hard-to-reach, sizeable minorities in the area, and groups who are disproportionately victimised.

D. Financial implications

There are no specific financial implications in this report, but the implications of implementing the options may require the reallocation of existing resources.

E. Background papers

None

F. Contact details

Report author: Christopher Calnan

For more information contact:

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

Appendix 1

09 June 2005

Letter from Len Duvall, Chair of Metropolitan Police Authority to Mrs Sandra Flower, Chair of the London PCCG Forum

Dear Sandra,

I am writing as promised at the end of our meeting at City Hall on 19 January, to outline how I see the relationship between PCCG’s and the MPA developing in the period ahead.

Since I became Chair of the Authority last year, one thing that I have observed clearly is just how much the landscape of local consultation and engagement in policing has changed in recent years. At the present time further change is being driven by a combination of factors, notably government aspirations for citizen focused policing, the growing profile and importance of the boroughs’ Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnerships, and the roll out of Safer Neighbourhoods across London. For me, the principles set down by Lord Scarman remain fundamental to the delivery of responsive policing to London’s diverse communities, even though the models of local engagement may change over time and from borough to borough. MPA Members are convinced of the importance of robust and independent arrangements for local consultation and accountability.

The recent White Paper on Police Reform sets out the government’s vision that local engagement in policing should become the responsibility of local partnerships and borough police commanders, working within a community engagement strategy set by the police authority. The MPA for its own part is clear that this is the direction we want to take in London, and our new Community Engagement Strategy will reflect this.

The MPA wants to see local consultation and engagement become an integral part of local partnership activity, with groups capable of playing a part in driving local plans and priorities, and enhancing the arrangements to hold all local partners, not just police, to account for their plans and delivery. Over a period, the MPA will shift from directly funding PCCG’s itself to funding local partnerships to enable them to secure local consultation and engagement. The MPA will set down the overall framework and standards, and satisfy itself that the local partnerships are making effective local arrangements, but we will not prescribe how it gets done. The structures and working patterns that emerge may well differ from one borough to another to suit the local scene. MPA funding to local partnerships for consultation and engagement will be ring fenced so that it cannot be used for other purposes. Partnerships may decide to supplement the funding provided by MPA from their local resources or from funding from the Government Office.

At the same time, the MPA will increase its consultation and engagement with pan London groups, to underpin our strategic perspective.

In making the transition happen, the MPA will work to support and protect the independence of PCCGs while they adapt into a new relationship with borough partners. We will be firm advocates on behalf of PCCG’s seeking a place at the local partnership table. We will want to continue supporting innovative methods to reach out to young people and hard to reach communities. We will want to allocate resources more evenly across London, while recognising the differing challenges in inner and outer London. We will also continue to test out other models for engagement in areas where PCCGs no longer function, such as the Community Safety Boards now coming into operation in Hammersmith & Fulham and Islington.

When the MPA ceases to fund PCCGs directly, the Authority will continue to work with local Groups to provide training, development and capacity building to strengthen local engagement at all levels. We will also continue to listen to what local groups have to say on priorities, plans and performance. It is vital that our assessment and understanding of London’s needs is underpinned by strong local arrangements, alongside strategic consultation at pan-London level.

I said when we met that the MPA will seek to accomplish this change over a reasonably short timescale, and that we are committed to dialogue and consultation with you in working up the detailed policies and practicalities. My colleagues in the Community Engagement Committee, with MPA officers, will take this forward with you.

Send an e-mail linking to this page

Feedback