MPA response to the green paper on police reform: “Building Safer Communities Together”

Report: 6
Date: 23 January 2004
By: Clerk
Also a Full Authority report – 29 January 2004

Summary

In November, the Government published this Green Paper outlining options for and seeking views on further steps in police reform. The consultation period closes on 27 January 2004. This paper sets out a suggested response from the MPA, taking account of the comments captured at an MPA Members’ Workshop on 15 January.

A. Recommendations

The Committee considers the draft response at Appendix 2, and recommends to the full Authority the terms of the formal MPA response to the Green Paper, and considers in particular the passages in italics, as those deal with some key issues warranting discussion.

B. Supporting information

In November, the Government published this Green Paper outlining options for and seeking views on further steps in police reform. The consultation period closes on 27 January 2004.

This paper sets out a suggested response from the MPA. This draft takes account of comments captured at a Members’

Police authorities were encouraged to consult with local groups and communities. Despite the timescale, views were invited from all CPCGs and CDRPs and from about 500 other London groups. Any responses received will be summarized in a further report.

The Green Paper sets out that the Government is working to build safer communities, and that the police service, together with a whole range of other agencies and partners, has a crucial role in delivering that goal.

The document raises critical questions relating to options for reform of the police service. It argues that the pace and scope of change – to the way we work, to our family life, and to how we live – present a huge range of challenges to all public services. Added to these demographic and technological changes is a rise in people’s expectations and aspirations for their services. So the police service, as with all public agencies, has been and must carry on addressing the need for continuing modernisation and reform.

The Green Paper holds that the position of constable – the citizen in uniform – is a key civic position. The Government want to strengthen that local connection and they are clear that communities must be at the heart of reform.

The reforms are also driven by broader objectives: Government wants a police service which is efficient, effective and value for money; which rewards the skills and experience of its personnel and can recruit the brightest and best. They want a police service which enjoys widespread public support and trust, in all parts of the community; which reflects the broad diversity of British society; and which has the latest equipment, technology and intelligence to detect, detain and convict criminals.

The Green Paper suggests that reform and any structural change will be judged on whether crime continues to fall, but also on whether people believe that they are being better policed, feel safe in their homes and streets, and are happy that their local law enforcers are truly visible and accessible.

Government is clear that public services, including the police, can no longer be seen as services ‘done unto’ people; they can only be successful if they are conducted with people. This means integrating policing activity into the daily life of every community. In short, the Green Paper looks to transcend traditional notions of policing by consent, and establish a new principle of policing through cooperation.

The key areas for further reform, as envisaged by the Green Paper, and on which views are sought, are summarized below:

Community engagement

• Empowering local people to use information and networks to engage with their local police.
• Ensuring a policing style, which is both visible and accessible and helps local people to take action themselves.
• Strengthening voluntary, community and business involvement in policing – especially through Special Constables, Neighbourhood Watch, a wider range of volunteers and local businesses.

Accountability

• Strengthened accountability for delivering effective neighbourhood policing.
• Enhancing the leadership capacity, process of accountability and responsiveness to communities of Basic Command Unit (BCU) Commanders in the context of their force wide obligations.
• Ensuring a responsive police service.
• Development of a Community Advocate role.
• Assessing the scope for radical change to police authorities and broader partnership arrangements.

Operational effectiveness

• Ensuring there is sufficient capacity to combat crime at neighbourhood, BCU, force and national levels.
• Opening the debate on structural change of police forces.
• Delivering the right powers to maximise effectiveness.

Service modernisation

• Rewarding good performance.
• Delivering a more unified, representative police service with a better skills mix.
• Bringing forward a transformational leadership agenda.

The detailed questions on which responses are invited are at Appendix 1

A suggested draft response from the MPA is at Appendix 2

C. Equality and diversity implications

The Green Paper addresses issues that have a real impact upon the delivery of effective policing to diverse communities. The MPA response as suggested highlights the importance of building diversity considerations into proposed changes from the outset.

D. Financial implications

There are no direct implications.

E. Background papers

• The Green Paper

F. Contact details

Report author: David Riddle

For more information contact:

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

Appendix 1: Policing green paper - questions for consultation

Community engagement

• We welcome thoughts on the kind of information about policing that communities would find most useful; and how this information can be most usefully distributed.
• We welcome thoughts on what more can be done to ensure that police officers are more visible and more accessible.
• How could the police make better use of the local knowledge, skills and experience of Special Constables; and what more can be done to increase the pool of potential recruits to the Special Constabulary?
• How could the police make better use of the knowledge, skills and experience of members of the local community?
• How could community groups be better enabled to reduce crime and improve community safety?
• What more can be done to ensure that businesses and the police can work together to reduce crime and improve community safety?

Accountability of policing

• We welcome comments on how best to enhance the leadership capacity, and process of accountability, at all levels within the police service.
• We welcome comments on the possible development of local service level agreements.
• We welcome views on the introduction of a single, three-digit non-emergency number for accessing local services.
• We welcome comments on the role Community Advocates could play, what form they might take and how to ensure they added value for communities and for the police.
• We would welcome views on the role neighbourhood level panels or trusts might play in increasing local community engagement in community safety issues.
• We welcome thoughts on how partnership work can be made more effective and accountable – especially in the light of the other issues being explored in this paper.
• We are interested in hearing views on the relative strengths of the new accountability options presented in this paper, or hearing about other possible formulations and models.
• We welcome views on how the links between resources and performance can be most clearly expressed so that people can make an informed assessment of their police service’s efficiency and effectiveness – and whether there are any other ways in which accountability for resources might be strengthened.

Operational effectiveness

• The Government believes that the time is right to consider whether the present 43 force structure in England and Wales is the right one for today’s and tomorrow’s policing needs. We welcome comments on how things might be structured differently, to improve the effectiveness of the police.
• We welcome thoughts on enhancing central support for the police service.

Modernising the police service

• We welcome thoughts on how the concept of earned autonomy could work in policing terms, what flexibilities might be introduced. And we welcome thoughts on which level should earn the freedoms – force/police authority level or below that (for example, at Basic Command Unit level).
• We welcome thoughts on developing the role of police staff further and achieving a more unified service; and on whether, in today’s dynamic work environment, there are sufficient flexibilities in the present system of police workforce regulations to allow forces deliver the best standards of service to communities.
• We welcome thoughts on what more can be done to achieve our goal of a truly representative police service.
• We welcome comments on the approach to supporting and improving the leadership and management of the police service.

Appendix 2: Draft response from MPA to the green paper on policing: Building Safer Communities Together

A. Introduction

1. The Metropolitan Police Authority (MPA) came into existence in July 2000 and for the first time has given London a properly accountable framework for the governance of the policing of London. The fundamental principle that informs its work is that the nation’s capital must have good quality, good value, responsive and sensitive policing.

2. The arrangements for delivering a police service and for governance of that service in London already represent in many respects just the model of strategic forces envisaged in Chapter 6 of the consultative document. The Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) is the kind of “strategic police force” that the Green Paper envisages, and one whose capital city, national and international responsibilities have vital national significance, as well as impacting on the delivery of local policing services. The Authority’s experience over the period since July 2000 of the governance of a strategic force uniquely qualifies it to respond to the organisational proposals. It can also contribute from direct and relevant experience to the debate about consultation and community engagement.

3. During the MPA’s first term, the MPS has seen enormous changes, growth and innovation. Post 11 September 2001 the MPS has had to provide a major anti-terrorist response, which has tended to affect other priorities. Despite this, the MPA has made significant progress during its brief, three-year history. Since 2000, the MPA has provided a strong policy lead and has been instrumental in the unprecedented growth in police numbers and in recruitment and retention initiatives such as free rail travel. The MPA has also overseen the introduction of Police Community Support Officers (PCSOs). We have established a Transport Operational Command Unit with Transport for London. The Authority has introduced better financial control and accountability for the MPS’ £2.5 billion budget, including work in progress to devolve budget responsibility to borough commands.

4. The MPA’s key responsibility for developing trust and confidence among London’s communities has been tackled through our investigations of areas of concern like stop and search and fatal shootings, as well as work on our Race Equality Scheme and extensive consultation activities. The leadership we provide is exemplified by our recent appointment of an Independent Inquiry into Professional Standards and Employment matters in the MPS.

B. General response to the green paper

1. It is clear from the MPA’s own consultations with the public of London and with local partnerships that there is already a broad consensus that the delivery of local policing services and community reassurance must be organised more locally, and that the police must be, and be seen to be, responsive to London’s diverse communities.

2. The MPA welcomes and supports the Government’s objective to enable local communities to have much more involvement in local policing decisions and solutions, within the strategic context of community engagement and civil renewal.

3. There is a need for further reform to deliver sustainable improvements to community safety and create truly joined up and accountable partnership working.

4. The MPA welcomes the move towards strategic police forces and strategic police authorities.

5. Strategic authorities should have express powers to hold to account the chief officer of police (as in the example of the Northern Ireland Policing Board), to promote community safety and to assess the effectiveness of partnership working.

6. Urgent and radical action should be taken to rationalise the anomalous employment terms and conditions for police officers to make the extended police family cohesive

C. Community engagement

1. Any strategy for community engagement in London must address the huge implications of the diverse population served. Our diversity includes wide differences in crime and safety experiences and thereby differential policing needs based on age, gender, sexual orientation and mental and physical ability.

2. A defining characteristic of the capital city is its cosmopolitan nature – values, beliefs, lifestyles, life chances, disadvantage and deprivation are all factors that impact on community engagement. So is population turnover and mobility. These factors must be reflected in the strategic approach to engagement, and in local delivery.

3. The MPA has extensive experience of different patterns of local consultation and is already trialling several models, all based on closer engagement with local partnerships. Examples of the initiatives in London are attached. (to be written)

4. Lessons from MPS work so far on the reassurance policing model indicate the greatest public anxiety at neighbourhood level is generated by “signal crimes” – events such as vandalism, graffiti, abandoned vehicles and litter. Some crimes and disorders matter more to the public than others. These signal crimes negatively impact public perception of police performance and neighbourhood safety. Listening and responding to neighbourhood priorities is a key to success.

5. One size will not fit all. Mechanisms for community engagement will need to reflect particular localities.

6. Local engagement will be frustrated if locally expressed priorities are not capable of influencing policing plans. There needs to be a reconsideration of the balance to be struck between national plans and targets, and local needs and priorities. The concept of a Service Level Agreement will only be meaningful if the service defined is a response to what is seen to be needed locally, rather than what is prescribed in Queen Anne’s Gate.

7. The Green Paper’s aspirations for community engagement are laudable. But if engagement is to involve more than “the usual suspects” then two key ingredients must be:

• first, for the police service to relate to the community in wholly new ways, with changes in organisational culture, training and skills, and with police officers rooted in local community bases, not in traditional police estate:
• second, real and sustained effort in community development and capacity building, especially in bme and other disadvantaged communities, undertaken by the local partners and the strategic police authority. Policing in co-operation can only become real if the community policed has the confidence and capacity to co-operate.

D. Accountability of policing

1. The contribution police authorities should make to the delivery of effective, efficient and fair policing in the police force areas for which they are responsible is currently constrained by the unequal balance within the tripartite partnership and by misapprehensions about the meaning of operational independence.

2. It is unsurprising that, even in London (where the MPA has achieved a reasonable profile) few people have any clear sense of what a police authority does and remain unaware of the extent to which there is an open accountability mechanism. There is plenty of potential to increase the profile of police authorities and make the public aware of the benefits of local accountable oversight of policing, but this should not become an end in itself.

3. The solution is to enhance the role of the strategic police authority, with clearer, and stronger, statutory powers to fulfil its responsibilities.

4. It is also necessary to create a clearer framework of public accountability for local partnerships. CDRPs should be required to account to local communities for their collective performance, and the individual partners for individual performance.

5. The powers and duties of the strategic police authority or board should include all the existing police authority powers/duties plus:

• an express duty to hold the Commissioner/Chief Constable to account;
• a duty to report annually to the Home Secretary on the effectiveness of public and private policing in the area;
• a power to review/make recommendations to other bodies providing policing services (for example, in London, the British Transport Police and the City of London Police)
• a duty to develop a strategy for community engagement
• a power to make recommendations to CDRPs individually/collectively
• a power to conduct inquiries into local or force wide policing issues
• a redefined responsibility to consult residents and business interests on policing performance, needs and priorities.

6. The MPA suggests that as police forces develop the National Intelligence Model as a key driver to planning at all levels, it will become increasingly important for the police authority to take full ownership and implementation of strategic consultation processes on cross-cutting, force wide, issues, priorities and plans, to demonstrate that the consultative process is independent and distinct from police themselves, and that it is directly informing strategic policy decisions.

7. Local consultation activity should be undertaken in conjunction with the CDRP, using local authority consultative networks. The strategic police authority should have a role in setting standards to ensure that there is effective local, operational and tactical consultation. In the MPA’s experience, the extent and effectiveness of consultation by CDRPs is variable.

8. A strategic police authority must have a strong democratic base. Not only does this give it democratic legitimacy, which is essential for credibility and if the authority is to have the power to precept, but it also ensures that public sector disciplines with respect to budgetary control and best value are transmitted to police service regimes.

9. The experience of the MPA leads us strongly to favour a mix of elected and appointed members. An open appointment process allows for a balance of background, experience, ethnicity, gender, age and other diversity to be reflected in the membership.

10. There is a very real danger that a wholly elected body, directly or indirectly elected would struggle to reflect the diversity of the community to the same extent as has been achieved with the present model of elected members, independents and magistrates. This could result in a disturbing loss of confidence by minority communities.

11. The commitment, both in time and energy, and the range of skills and experience the independent and magistrate members have brought to the work of the MPA, have been invaluable in complementing the political expertise contributed by the elected Assembly members.

12. The composition of a strategic police authority or board for London needs careful thought. The strategic body must be informed by, and be truly engaged with, local borough based partnership activities. In London, with 32 borough based CDRPs, the challenge is to ensure that the Authority and its members have the capacity to link effectively into local networks, (so that local concerns may properly be fed through to the strategic planning process, and vice-versa) while also maintaining the strategic focus and driving service wide improvement.

13. An increase in the membership for the MPA would create more capacity for a member level link for each of the 32 borough-based Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnerships. The downside of an increase is that it may make the Authority more bureaucratic, less flexible and less workable. It may also prove difficult to recruit significantly more independent members than at present.

14. The capacity of the existing membership could be enhanced to a certain extent by allowing the Authority to appoint co-opted members to undertake specialist roles on committees (for example, to undertake some of the quasi-judicial responsibilities of members which can be very time consuming).

15. The MPA does not favour direct election to police authorities as a principle. However, in London it is already the case that 14 of the Members of the Greater London Assembly are elected: if they were all also Members of the Police Authority it would represent a significant increase in democratic oversight. In any new model of strategic authority, there is a case for representation of the 32 London Boroughs, perhaps by nomination made by the Association of London Government.

16. There are a number of options for a strategic police authority for London:

• Option A – Status quo but with power for the authority to co-opt other persons to be members of committees
• Option B – 33 Members made up of 14 directly elected GLA members; 3 representatives of the ALG; 10 independent members; 6 magistrates.
• Option C – Between 23 and 33 Members made up of GLA members or other directly elected members, representatives of the ALG, and independent members (with no quota for magistrates but they would be eligible for appointment as independents).

17. At present in London the Police Authority, uniquely, does not have power to determine its budget or set the precept on the council tax, as those functions are given to the Mayor and assembly by the Greater London Authority Act 1999. The MPA considers that this division of responsibility is uneasy and confusing to the public. The situation would be remedied either by the MPA becoming a budget making and precepting body in its own right, like all other police authorities, or by a redefinition of the responsibilities of the Mayor and Assembly to include all the direct functions of the Authority. In the view of the Authority, the preferred approach would be to make the strategic police authority for London responsible for the budget and precept, with clear statutory obligations to consult the Mayor and Assembly on policing strategies and priorities.

18. The accountability for delivery at the Borough or Operational Command unit level could be achieved by Borough Community Safety Boards. Such Boards should hold all of the local partners to account for their delivery of the Community Safety Strategy and Plan.

19. Borough Community Safety Boards would be made up of say 3 borough councillors, 1 police authority member, and 7 - 9 community representatives.

20. Borough Community Safety Boards could have the following functions:

• holding the borough commander and other local partners in CDRP to account for performance
• ensuring that the crucial work of local partnerships is transparent and accountable
• setting local standards and plans for consultation and community engagement
• approval of a local policing plan, drafted by the Borough commander.
• approval of the partnership strategy and action plan
• funding local consultation activity, whether by Community and Police Consultative Groups (CPCGs) or other mechanisms

21. There should be a clearer, transparent, framework for the involvement of the police authority in the appointment of BCU commanders.

22. The concept of locally based “Community Advocates” is supported in principle, although there is a need for greater clarity of role. The MPA suggests that these local facilitators should be recruited, employed and trained by the Strategic Police Authority. In London, there would be one for each BCU, reporting into the Borough Community Safety Board as well as the Strategic Police Authority. Complementing the role envisaged by the Green Paper, the MPA suggests that the Community Advocates should give particular emphasis to energising and supporting community engagement at neighbourhood level, and improving local consultation.

E. Operational effectiveness

1. The MPA agrees with the view that debate should be opened up about the number and structure of police forces in England and Wales. The MPA’s experience is that model of a strategic force works. The effectiveness of the organisation in dealing with serious and organised crime impacts upon effectiveness in handling localised crime and disorder, and vice-versa. In short, policing the levels of criminality in an urban community requires a seamless policing organisation tackling all levels. Crime and criminals move between communities, across borough boundaries and between regions. Officers at community level must be equipped to understand the complexities of the communities they serve (in terms of crime as well as other social patterns). Specialist crime tactics must align with and complement community based policing.

2. For this reason, the MPA considers that any proposal to remove responsibility for terrorism, serious or organised crime from the MPS would be inappropriate and damaging to the overall effectiveness of the policing of London.

3. The MPA considers that within the current national debate, it is timely to review again the present fragmented arrangements for public policing in London, to assess how best to secure optimum integration, in particular as regards policing of the transport infrastructure and London’s mass transit systems, and as regards the vital interests of the City of London.

4. With regard to central support services, the MPA considers that the present arrangements with loosely interlocking regulatory regimes involving Her Majesty’s Inspectorate, the Police Standards Unit, and the Audit commission are both confusing and inefficient. The Authority believes that there would be merit in merging these disparate functions to form a strengthened Inspectorate and Improvement Agency for Policing, and to continue the current move to risk based, lighter touch inspection.

5. National funding for local policing should continue to be allocated at police authority / force level. There is no case for direct funding of BCUs.

F. Service modernisation

1. Police services must be reflective of the communities they serve. Much more work remains to be done to achieve this, in recruitment, training and retention. Increased recruitment of officers and staff from bme communities, and from amongst women, is essential. Currently, anti-discrimination legislation prohibits measures that could otherwise be taken to address this problem. There is a need to consider whether the time has come to introduce statutory quotas for recruitment, similar to those introduced in the Police Service of Northern Ireland.

2. The MPA supports the arguments for radical modernisation of employment practices, and the appointment of leaders in the top jobs from a variety of backgrounds not restricted to serving police officers.

3. In particular the Authority believes that now is the right time to reconsider the employment status of officers. With the advent of the extended police family and the increased use of police staff, including PCSOs, in operational roles the anomalies created by having two separate employers and employment regimes is exacerbated. The Morris Inquiry into professional standards and employment issues within the MPS may well make relevant recommendations in this area.

4. The employment framework for police requires greater flexibility to enable police services to reward skills, and competencies, and to recognise performance, not just length of service; and to facilitate recruitment of specialists into “police” functions amongst other things. Arrangements for pensions should be reviewed to make it possible for people to move into and out of policing as part of individual career development, not assuming that a lifetime career will be spent in policing.

5. The current focus on police officer numbers as the measure of “strength” must change towards a recognition of the parts played by all the branches of the extended police family of volunteer, civilian, uniformed non-sworn officers, and constables in the achievement of the total policing task.

6. Decisions on the selection of chief officers should remain with police authorities, without central direction limiting local choice.

Send an e-mail linking to this page

Feedback