Minutes

Minutes of the Co-ordination and Policing Committee held on 3 March 2006 at 10 Dean Farrar Street, London, SW1H 0NY.

Present

Members

• Len Duvall (Chair)
• Reshard Auladin (Deputy Chair)
• Cindy Butts (Deputy Chair)
• Richard Barnes (item 4 to 11)
• Toby Harris (item 4 to 7)
• Kirsten Hearn
• Elizabeth Howlett
• Karim Murji
• Richard Sumray
• Graham Tope (item 4 to 11)
• Rachel Whittaker

MPA officers

• Chris Calnan (Community Engagement) (item 7)
• Catherine Crawford (Chief Executive and Clerk)
• Andy Hull (Community Engagement) (item 6)
• David Riddle (Deputy Chief Executive and Solicitor to the Authority)
• Ken Hunt (Treasurer)
• Ruth Hastings Iqball (Committee Services)

MPS officers

• Steve Allen, (Commander, Crime TP)
• George Clarke (Chief Superintendent, Operation Emerald)
• Rose Fitzpatrick (DAC, Diversity and Citizen Focus Directorate)
• Ian Harrison (Chief Superintendent, Programme Manager - Citizen Focus Policing)
• Paul Stephenson (Deputy Commissioner)

Also present: John Roberts.

43. Apologies for absence

(Agenda item 1)

Apologies for absence were received from Abdal Ullah (member).

44. Declarations of interest

(Agenda item 2)

No declarations of interest were received, although it was noted in relation to item 7 that all members had a relationship with their link borough’s community engagement groups.

45. Minutes – 3 February 2006

(Agenda item 3)

The Committee considered the minutes of the meeting held on 3 February 2006.

Resolved - That the minutes of the meeting held on 3 February 2006, be agreed and signed as a correct record.

46. MPS citizen focus policing programme

(Agenda item 4)

Members considered a report on the MPS’s Citizen Focus Policing Programme, which supported the MPS’s mission of Working Together for a Safer London. The DAC, Diversity and Citizen Focus Directorate also gave a PowerPoint present to members on the Programme.

Members asked how the Programme would engage with ‘hard to reach’ groups, about contact with the public at police station reception areas and how the cynicism of officers and police staff would be overcome. Members were assured the Programme would engage with ‘hard to reach’ groups. Station reception officers (SROs) were managed by Territorial Policing who were trying to develop the role of SRO as a profession. It was also planning to use the triage system for dealing with the public, as piloted at Bexley. Stakeholders in the Programme included a range of officers and police from throughout the MPS. The Deputy Commissioner stressed the it was need to maintain public support of the police as the public, as witnesses, were required to get cases to court.

Members asked about the 48 obligations on the police listed in the Victim’s Bill, as many had prescriptive delivery times. They were informed that some of the obligations were already being met, and that to meet the remainder a bid for more funding was being made by Operation Emerald to the MPS’s Investment Board within a few weeks. Members also expressed anxiety about how the Programme would be made part of OCU Senior Management Team agendas and part of OCU performance management regimes. They were assured the Programme was engaging with OCU commanders. Members also felt customer groups such as businesses, commuters and tourists were not mentioned in the report.

The Chair asked that the report be drawn to the attention of all the MPA members, and a further report be received at a later date by the full Authority. He also felt it should, with additions on the Victim’s Charter agreed by Cindy Butts, be shared formally with the Greater London Assembly, ALG and Chief Executives’ Forum.

Resolved – That

1. the report be received; and
2. and a further report be received at a later date by the full Authority; and
3. the report, with additions on the Victim’s Charter agreed by Cindy Butts, be shared formally with the Greater London Assembly, ALG and Chief Executives’ Forum.

47. MPA and MPS Community Engagement Strategy

(Agenda item 5)

The Deputy Clerk and the DAC, Diversity and Citizen Focus Directorate introduced a report proposing the adoption of community engagement strategy for both the MPA and MPS. A draft strategy had been seen by the full Authority in June 2005 and members had asked that it be aligned with the Citizen Focus Programme. It was noted that the proposals had yet to be discussed by the MPS’s Management Board, and that the final strategy would come back to the full Authority in April for formal adoption.

Members felt the report had differentiated the respective roles of the MPA and MPS, but the MPA role lacked definition. Questions were asked about the budget for providing policing summaries to every household in London. Members were told this was a legal obligation. It was agreed the action plan for the strategy would come to a future meeting of the Co-ordination and Policing Committee.

Resolved – That

1. the final version of the strategy be submitted to the April meeting of the full Authority for adoption; and
2. the action plan for the strategy would come to a future meeting of the Co-ordination and Policing Committee.

48. Community engagement to counter terrorism (2)

(Agenda item 6)

A report was considered that sought approval for a programme of community engagement by the Authority to counter terrorism, following on from the ‘Together Against Terror?’ event. The Clerk, in introducing the report, said that officers now had reservations about the proposed documentary component and that the proposal would be set aside for the time being.

Members praised the thoroughness of the report’s section on financial implications, although surprise was expressed at the amount of contingency funding proposed. However, they felt the proposals, like the event, had not taken account of London’s tourist, hotel, theatre and restaurant businesses. Members were reminded that two members sat on business policing groups, but were assured contact with tourist and commuter groups would be considered. Members discussed various tertiary education establishments that could be used and asked officers to note that Muslims did not just come from south Asia. Members also felt some of the outcomes suggested had no mechanism by which they would be measured, and therefore should be omitted.

Resolved – That implementation of the programme of activity proposed in paragraphs 19 –23 of the report and detailed and costed in appendix 1 be approved with the exception of the documentary component, which was retracted.

49. Community engagement funding 2006/07

(Agenda item 7)

(This agenda item was considered after item 5.) Members received a report setting out the proposed community engagement funding allocations to borough wide community engagement groups for 2006/07.

One member was disappointed that it had not been noted that there were three community engagement groups in Westminster and that a blanket approach had been taken to boroughs regardless of their size and the BOCU’s strength. Questions were asked about the funding of the new safer neighbourhood panels, as it was felt these were rivalling community engagement groups in importance. Members were informed that links with safer neighbourhood groups had formed part of the appraisal this year and it had been was made clear that it was part of community engagement groups’ role. Questions were asked as to whether the withholding of funding would affect jobs. Members were told that where this may occur, the MPA would consider funding the costs associated with any redundancies.

Resolved – That

1. the considerable progress being made in reforming the arrangements for borough wide community engagement groups be noted;
2. Bromley, Camden, Croydon, Ealing, Enfield, Harrow, Haringey, Hillingdon, Hounslow, Kingston, Kensington and Chelsea, Lewisham, Richmond, Southwark, Waltham Forest, Wandsworth, Westminster and the London PCCG Forum be funded without major conditions;
3. Barking and Dagenham, Barnet, Havering, Merton, Newham, Redbridge and Sutton be funded subject to further development work and a review of their budgets and resources;
4. the specific conditions for funding Lambeth CPCG and Tower Hamlets Borough Policing Forum as set out in paragraphs 32-34 of the report be noted;
5. Bexley and Hackney not be funded at this time and a further report on local progress be received at an appropriate juncture;
6. the particular arrangements for Brent, Greenwich, Islington and Hammersmith and Fulham be noted;
7. officers’ efforts to arrive at a more equitable distribution of funds across London as set out in Appendix 1 be noted; and
8. a further progress report be presented to the October 2006 meeting of the Committee.

50. Operation Safeguard

(Agenda item 8)

At the December 2005 meeting of the Committee, members had received a report on Operation Safeguard and raised a number of questions. The Committee now received a report that addressing those questions.

Resolved – That the report be received.

51. Scrutiny programme 2006/07

(Agenda item 9)

Members considered a report outlining a proposed scrutiny programme for 2006/07. This report was deferred to the next meeting of the full Authority

Resolved – That the report be deferred to the next meeting of the full Authority.

52. Update estate strategy

(Agenda item 10)

At the Finance Committee held in February 2006, it was recommended that the Strategy be considered by the Co-ordination and Policing Committee, in the light of the Committee’s linkage with the Met Modernisation Programme. However, members agreed that the report should be developed further and be submitted to the full Authority.

Resolved – That a revised report be submitted to the full Authority.

53. Any urgent business

(Agenda item 11a)

Violence in London

This report set out proposals for a new response by the MPS to violence in London by the establishment of a Violent Crime Directorate with responsibility for ensuring that resources and expertise from every part of the MPS be brought together to make a bigger impact on violent crime faced by Londoners. The Commander, TP Crime, introduced the report and explained that violence was often committed in a range of contexts by the same person, and that new Directorate would be able to use increased intelligence to bear on the perpetrators.

Members felt evidence of a performance regime was required. They felt the report implied the establishment of the new Directorate was being rushed and its launch timed to coincide with a TV programme. They were also concerned there was no reference to safer neighbourhood teams and to domestic violence. There was concern that current expertise in this field would be lost in the new Directorate. The Deputy Commissioner regretted that the MPA had been formally consulted at such short notice, adding that MPA members’ views were valued. He stated that a performance regime would be bought back to the MPA. The Chair stated that he still had reservations about the proposed Directorate, although he supported the MPS’s direction on this issue. He would write to the MPS about these concerns.

Resolved – That

1. the proposal for cross-business group working and the establishment of the Violent Crime Directorate be endorsed;
2. a performance regime for the Violent Crime Directorate be brought back to the MPA; and
3. a letter to be written by the Chair to the MPS about his concerns.

(Agenda item 11b)

Dates of future meetings of the committee

Members received a report asking them to confirm the dates and times of the Co-ordination and Policing Committee’s meetings in May and June 2006. The proposed dates for the meeting in June were now no longer available due to a members away day having been scheduled. A further date of Friday 9 June at 11.00 am was proposed.

Resolved – That the meeting date be confirmed as Thursday 11 May 2006 at 2.00 p.m. (as originally proposed) and Friday 9 June 2006 at 11.00 am

The meeting closed at 1.30 p.m.

Send an e-mail linking to this page

Feedback