New MPA committee structure

Report: 3
Date: 07 May 2002
By: Clerk

Summary

At the Members' Development Day on 12 April the broad shape of a new committee structure was agreed. This report puts some flesh on this structure, raises some issues and seeks confirmation that the structure accords with members' wishes, so that a final structure can be proposed to the full Authority at its meeting on 23 May.

A. Recommendation

That the Committee

1. indicates whether it is in broad agreement with the proposed structure set out in this report, so that a more detailed structure can be prepared for consideration by the full Authority at its meeting on 23 May;
2. in doing so, indicates whether or not it favours the possibilities outlined in paragraphs 5, 6 and 7 of this report;
3. gives a steer on what sub-committees or sub-groups should continue in the new structure – see paragraph 8; and
4. comments on the suggestion that reports which are 'for information' should mainly be handled separately as briefing papers rather than placed on committee agendas.

B. Supporting information

Review of the current structure

1. The MPA's committee structure has remained largely unchanged since the formation of the Authority. Given that this structure was based on the anticipated demands on the Authority, it is timely to review whether it remains fit for purpose in the light of experience.

2. This was done at the Members' Development Day which was held on 12 April and attended by 15 members. Members looked at several options including, for instance, one based on the local authority model of a separation of the executive and scutiny functions. However, members were firmly of the view that, in principle, the present committee structure remains the best method of achieving the accountability required of police authorities. It also makes the most of all members' skills, experience and commitment. In doing so, members agreed that the current structure does need some changes to address the following: 

• avoiding duplication between committees
• redrawing committee areas of responsibility in a more logical way and addressing the present gap in that no committee is responsible for policing issues generally
• building in the capability to respond proactively and quickly to emerging issues
• striking a balance between executive, monitoring and policy review functions
• greater clarity and formality about which members are appointed to lead on which specific issues or areas of work
• to ensure that the MPA fulfils its statutory duties, including those within the Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000.

Proposed structure

3. The proposed structure that emerged from the Development Day is shown in diagrammatic form in the attached appendix. The main changes to the current structure are as follows: 

• the Co-ordination and Policing Committee would exercise the functions of the present Co-ordination & Urgency Committee. In addition it would address policing issues and have the specific role of responding to emerging issues. The intention would be to have informal and private briefing sessions after formal meetings, to which all members could be invited. This committee could meet 22 times a year. These briefing sessions could replace the present workshop arrangements and the recently introduced informal early evening sessions with the MPS Management Board.
• this committee would also be responsible for agreeing an ongoing programme of policy reviews – perhaps three or four at any one time, subject to member and officer resources. These member-level reviews might be held in public, depending on the issue etc.
• the creation of an Equal Opportunities and Diversity Board to emphasise the importance that the MPA places on equal opportunities both for itself and the MPS. This would be a member-level body – a formal, public committee – but with the opportunity to co-opt external members in a non-voting capacity. The Board would be responsible for taking an overview of the MPA's and the MPS's implementation of equal opportunities and diversity practices as well as implementation of the MPA's Race Equality Scheme.
• the current four MPA committees being replaced by five committees covering the same areas and issues but in more coherent combinations. It was not clear from the Development Day which of the current sub-committees and informal sub-groups should remain in the new structure.
• the Equal Opportunities & Diversity Board and the committees to meet five times a year, although this is unlikely to be sufficient for the Finance Committee (the Finance, Planning & Best Value Committee met 11 times in the current year).

Comments on the proposals

4. The proposals represent an increase in both the number of committees and the number of meetings (assuming that the current sub-committees and sub-groups remain). The policy reviews will add to this. There has to be concern that this may not be sustainable either for members or, without extra staff, for the already stretched committee services team or the policy officers. There has not been an opportunity to consult adequately with the MPS, but they may have similar concerns. The following suggestions may help in reducing the number of meetings.

5. In the proposals, the Co-ordination and Policing Committee (or perhaps it should be named the Co-ordination, Urgency and Policing Committee) would meet 22 times a year. In part this frequency reflects a desire to have a forum for timely responses to emerging policing issues. As it would be subject to the Access to Information legislation there would be inherent difficulties in servicing a committee which meets every fortnight, particularly in terms of producing reports to deadline. An alternative would be: 

• for the committee to meet once a month in the early part of the month, as does the current Co-ordination & Urgency Committee. As intended, there could be a formal meeting followed by an informal, private briefing session as necessary.
• for the members' lunches following each full Authority meeting to be combined with an informal briefing session as necessary if any emerging issues required a formal decision or response, there would be two opportunities a month – at the committee or the Authority, for this to be done.
• It has also been suggested that the membership of this committee could be extended to all MPA members. To avoid quorum problems, the committee could have a specific quorum of, say 6 or 7 members.

6. Arguably, the proposed structure has resulted in some committees having quite narrow terms of reference which suggests that they may not be viable as committees in their own right. The most obvious example is the Professional Standards and Complaints Committee, particularly as it is intended to handle allegations, reports or complaints against ACPO officers in a sub-committee. It might be appropriate to merge these functions with those of the Human Resources Committee.

7. Similarly, the Consultation Committee has a limited role as currently envisaged. Members may feel that the planning role proposed for the Performance Committee (concerned with the development of the draft policing and performance plan) might sit equally well with consultation, given that this is such an important element in the development of the plan. It would be sensible for this committee to take on the 'outreach' element of the present CDO Committee. 

The Committee is asked for its views on the possibilities referred to in paras 5, 6 and 7.

8. The proposals do not at present identify what bodies there should be below the committee level. At present there are two kinds: 

• sub-committees, which have executive powers formally delegated to them by their parent committee. They are open to the public and must comply with the Access to Information legislation.
• sub-groups, which are informal bodies set up by committees to advise them on particular issues or to act as a sounding board for officers. These have no executive powers so cannot take decisions on behalf of the parent committee. They are not open to the public.

The Committee's advice is sought on what bodies it considers should be carried forward to the new structure, and which should be sub-committees and which sub-groups. They are as follows:

• Diversity Board: CDO Performance Sub-Group (it is suggested that this sub-group could be wound up as its role should be part of the Diversity Board's core business)
• Performance Committee: Best Value Programme Board; and Planning Panel (both are informal sub-groups)
• Professional Standards and Complaints: ACPO Complaints Sub-Committee
• Human Resources Committee: Remuneration Sub-Committee Finance Committee: IS/IT Sub-Group; and Estates Sub-Committee. In addition there is currently an informal budget group. Consultation Committee: Consultation Strategy Board (not yet set up)

9. An early draft of the committee terms of reference has been produced. In part this is based on the composite parts of the existing terms of reference. This will be sent to members of the Committee separately for information as it gives an indication of what roles the various committees might have.

10. Although the calendar of meetings cannot be arranged until the structure is agreed, an early draft of a calendar based on the proposed structure will also be sent to members of the committee to give an indication of what implications it might have for members.

11. Finally, the Committee may have a view on possible ways of reducing the amount of business that committees are having to deal with. Members may feel that committees consider too many reports which are just for information. It might be possible to adopt an approach whereby information reports were circulated to members as briefing notes. If members then felt that a particular report raised issues that needed discussion in committee, it could be put to the following meeting of the relevant committee.

C. Financial implications

There are no immediate financial implications to this report. However, depending on what structure is finally agreed, the frequency of meetings etc, there may be additional staffing requirements, committee printing and other associated costs.

D. Background papers

None.

E. Contact details

Report author: Simon Vile, MPA.

For information contact:

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

Send an e-mail linking to this page

Feedback