Minutes

Minutes of the Co-ordination and Policing Committee held on 11 February 2005 at 10 Dean Farrar Street, London, SW1H 0NY.

Present

Members

• Len Duvall (Chair)
• Reshard Auladin (Deputy Chair)
• Richard Barnes
• Cindy Butts (Deputy Chair)
• Toby Harris
• Kirsten Hearn
• Elizabeth Howlett
• Karim Murji
• Richard Sumray
• Graham Tope
• Rachel Whittaker

MPA officers

• Catherine Crawford (Clerk)
• Peter Martin (Treasurer)
• Nick Baker (Head of Committee Services)

MPS officers

• Sir Ian Blair (Commissioner)
• DCI Petrina Cribb
• AC Tim Goodwin
• DAC Richard Bryan

38. Apologies for absence

(Agenda item 1)

Apologies for absence were received from Jennette Arnold and Toby Harris (for lateness)

39. Declarations of interest

(Agenda item 2)

No interests were declared.

40. Minutes – 12 November 2004

(Agenda item 3)

The Committee considered the minutes (Part 1) of the meeting held on 12 November 2004.

Resolved - That the minutes (Part 1) of the meeting held on 12 November 2004, be agreed and signed as a correct record.

41. Review of the Resource Allocation Formula (RAF) 2005/06

(Agenda item 4)

This report was circulated with less than five working days notice, under the provisions of Section 100b of the Local Government Act 1972, as amended. The Chair agreed to accept the report as urgent as, following ongoing discussions between the MPS and the MPA, an urgent decision is required to enable the formula to be implemented for the forthcoming financial year.

The Commissioner provided an explanation of the new resource allocation formula (RAF), which would be used to allocate police officers between Borough Operations Commands Units (BOCUs) for 2005/06. The Commissioner informed the Committee that the formula built on the proposals brought to the Committee in July 2004. He recommended to members the formula with the application of a 2% cap against budgeted workforce targets (BWT) with no BOCU losing officers against BWT.

The Commissioner reported that the service review would not only look at borough policing, but also at specialist units and may reach conclusions that impact on borough resourcing. The proposed 2% cap option would represent a cautious implementation, which would limit any potential issues that may arise from the review.

Members sought clarification as to why a 2% cap was being proposed, together with the need to understand the stability issues in the light of the proposed service review.

The Chair of the Committee agreed that members should be presented with additional data (tabled) that proposed two options for delivery of RAF (‘pure RAF’ and 2% cap’). In doing so, the Chair invited the Treasurer to comment on the options and in particular, the recommendation of a 2% cap and no losers option. The Treasurer suggested that there would be a requirement for some deferment of equivalent new growth, subject to the service review, in the process for funding the additional resources required to support a no losers approach. It was agreed that these would need to be brought to the attention of the next Finance Committee. However, the Treasurer confirmed that 2% cap was more affordable in terms of implementing a no losers basis.

Members were disappointed that the Committee had not received any details on RAF since July 2004 and requested an update on work undertaken since then. In regard to the capital city and security component, some members question the accuracy and relevance of ‘London visitors statistics’. In response to these concerns, it was reported that it was felt that this was the most robust data available.

In the light of the proposed service review and other issues likely to impact on the MPS, it was suggested that consideration should be given to delaying the implementation of the RAF. Members also agreed that an explanation was required to those boroughs that would have gained from a non-capping/no losers (pure) RAF option.

The Chair commented that delaying the implementation of RAF could lead to confusion. He also agreed that MPA officers would need to relay to boroughs the methodology of reaching a decision on RAF.

DCI Petrina Cribb gave a detailed response to members on the issues that they had raised. Members were reminded that at the Committee meeting in July 2004, it was agreed that the two main components of the RAF should be ‘demand’ and ‘need’ to reflect the reactive element of policing and the long term social and environmental factors in boroughs. Since then the MPS had been consolidating the most appropriate measures and weightings within each of the two main components, whilst developing other structures for the remaining components. The resulting RAF was now much more refined then the earlier version.

DCI Cribb reported that in arriving at the revised RAF formula, consultation had taken place with partners and stakeholders, who had supported the high level weighting towards ‘demand’

In response questions around Commissioner’s judgement, the Committee was informed that following the refinement of RAF, only one borough (Brent) would be given additional resources. A paper was tabled that outlined the justification for this decision. Members requested assurances that Commissioner’s judgement should be used minimally. They also suggested that the Committee should be given feedback when Commissioner’s judgement is taken, with a 12-monthly review of this process.

The Committee in supporting the option of a 2% cap agreed that the cap should be reviewed following the service review in addition to the financial position during the next budget process, either of which could identify opportunities to lift the cap.

It was also agreed that, following implementation of RAF, that a robust monitoring of the formula be undertaken and that the Committee receives regular updates.

The Committee requested that their thanks to the DCI Cribb and her colleagues who have worked on the development of the RAF be noted.

Resolved – That (noted that Richard Barnes and Elizabeth Howlett did not support the resolutions)

1. members agreed the structure and weightings of the new formula that will be used to allocate police officers between BOCUs;
2. members agreed an allocation process to BOCUs based on the application of a 2% cap against the existing Budgeted Workforce Targets (BWTs), and ensuring that no BOCU loses officers against its existing BWT;
3. members agreed the process for funding the additional resources required to support the no losers approach through deferment of equivalent new growth, pending the outcome of the service review and that the identified deferments be presented to the Finance Committee; and
4. RAF be monitored following its implementation and the Committee receives regular updates, including; a review of the 2% cap following the service review and feedback on allocation of Commissioner’s update, with a regular 12 monthly review of this process.

42. Review of MPA partnership funding

(Agenda item 5)

The Committee considered a report that reviewed the arrangements for the disposition of the fund established following the MPA scrutiny into Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnerships in 2003.

Resolved –

1. retain the current system but with further guidance to borough commanders (Option 1); and
2. that Co-ordination and Policing Committee continue to receive reports detailing the disposition of partnership funds.

43. Any other urgent business

(Agenda item 6)

Visits overseas to the MPS secondees

Members received a report that requested approval to members to accompany MPS visits to MPS secondees in Jordan, Sierra Leone and Bosnia.

It was reported that all members had been invited to express an interest in the visits. The Head of Committee Services reported that following a ballot; Kirsten Hearn was drawn to visit Bosnia, and Cindy Butts to visit Sierra Leone and John Roberts to attend Jordan (Rachel Whittaker had declined due to other commitments).

Resolved – That those members drawn from the ballot accompany the MPS to Bosnia, Jordan and Sierra Leone.

Send an e-mail linking to this page

Feedback