Devolution of certain police functions

Report: 7
Date: 14 September 2001
By: Commissioner

Summary

Following the last meeting of the Metropolitan Police Authority, Members requested a report on the financial and operational effects of the MPS devolving to an appropriate body (1) the traffic warden service, (2) the enforcement of traffic regulations and (3) a single organisation for providing waterborne services in London currently provided by London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority (LFEPA) and the MPS.

A. Recommendations

1. Members to note the legislative and operational barriers to devolving the specific responsibilities; and
2. Members to note that a report on the future of the Traffic Warden Service will be submited when all options have been assessed and the full financial implications are known.

B. Supporting information

Traffic warden service

1. The GLA Act, 1999, makes a number of amendments to the Road Traffic Regulation Act, 1984 which in practice will allow the Mayor to operate a decriminalised parking regime along the Transport for London Road Network (TLRN). In effect this would decriminalise parking and waiting offences along the whole of the red route network, and certain side roads, currently patrolled by the MPS Traffic Warden Service. Transport for London (TfL) indicated that it was their intention to carry out decriminalisation with effect from 1 April 2002, with a view to securing the revenue stream from decriminalised parking fines.

2. This intention has placed the MPS in a similar situation to that when the yellow line parking offences were decriminalised. At that time the MPS withdrew from patrolling those areas as they did not consider it part of their duty to issue non-criminal parking tickets and appear to be engaged in the collection of non-criminal revenue on behalf of the London Boroughs. As a result of this the MPS began to consider the impact of adopting a similar view following the announcement of the intention to decriminalise the red route offences.

3. The Police Traffic Warden Service currently spends 88% of its time on enforcing red route parking offences and the remainder of its time in direct support of police operations. In view of the implications of decriminalisation, a review of the roles and responsibilities of the Police Traffic Warden Service was commenced. A full report arising from that review is due to be presented to MPS Management Board in late September.

4. Early indications from the review are as follows:

• Following decriminalisation, the Traffic Warden Service could legally continue to patrol the red route and issue parking tickets on behalf of the Mayor. However this might be regarded by some as revenue generation on behalf of the Mayor and not a truly ‘policing activity’.
• The MPS is presently in some difficulty meeting demands for low level traffic enforcement activity contained within the Mayor’s Transport Strategy together with demands for assistance from other agencies to enable them to undertake enforcement activities e.g., roadside vehicle emissions testing. Given appropriate powers the Traffic Warden Service could be tasked to carry out this work.
• The MPS is keen to maintain, and if at all possible develop its street patrolling presence, so keenly desired by Londoners. This includes the use of the uniformed Traffic Warden Service. Widening the remit of the Traffic Warden Service would provide public reassurance and be likely to impact upon crime generally.
• The MPS has had considerable success in tackling transport related traffic flow problems using Traffic Wardens in an intelligence-led way to patrol on the bus network. Furthermore, this measure has produced favourable public reaction in terms of reassurance and improved public safety.
• Traffic wardens currently have the power to report four endorseable traffic offences by way of fixed penalty ticket. They are trained to detect and recognise fifty-two additional offences but do not have the power to enforce them. Under present regulations Traffic Wardens have the power to direct and regulate traffic, but do not have the power to stop moving vehicles for the purpose of detecting and reporting offences. Given that power, Traffic Wardens could be deployed across London in an intelligence led and targeted way in order to carry out low level enforcement activity designed to impact upon London’s traffic and transport network. The adoption of this power, however, would require Ministerial support within the Home Office, but would not require the laying of primary legislation.

5. Although all options are being considered the Commisioner has given an indication that he sees the Police Traffic Warden Service being an important part of the MPS patrolling function providing reassurance to the public and support for police colleagues. Work on the future of the Traffic Warden Service is on-going.

Enforcement of traffic regulations

6. Enforcement of traffic regulations is currently carried out by dedicated Police Traffic Patrols, the Police Traffic Warden Service and by police officers based on Boroughs. The vast bulk of this enforcement activity is reliant upon the unique police power, given only to sworn Constables, to stop a moving vehicle for the purpose of speaking to the driver to investigate, detect and report offences. In order to maintain public reassurance and accountability the MPS does not support the extension of this power to other agencies outside the immediate police family.

7. In his Transport Strategy, the Mayor proposes ‘Transport for London, in conjunction with the London Boroughs, will press the Government to introduce new legislation to allow further non-endorseable traffic offences to be enforced on all the streets through the decriminalised system.’ (proposal 4g.3). The rationale for this is stated as follows ‘Police resources for traffic enforcement are limited and should be concentrated on the more serious safety related traffic offences…….Moving to a decriminalised enforcement system, has the added benefit that the revenues from penalties can be reinvested by TfL and the London boroughs in enforcement or on other specified transport related expenditure’ (para 4G.36).

8. There are some benefits to the MPS in supporting the decriminalisation of a number of low level traffic offences which would allow officers to concentrate on more pressing priorities. There are obvious financial benefits to TfL. The enforcement of certain bus lanes offences by the use of camera technology were transferred to TfL on 1 April 2001. However, since the publication of the Mayor’s strategy, senior managers within TfL have indicated that they do not now consider further decriminalisation of offences to be an urgent priority nor do they remain convinced that this is the way forward to improve London’s transport infrastructure. The MPS has conducted operations which suggest that a considerable percentage of those who commit minor traffic offences are also likely to be of interest to police in connection with more serious criminal matters. Thus the loss of our ability to enforce low level offences might give rise to the loss of an important criminal intelligence stream. Regular discussions with TfL on these issues is on-going through various enforcement working groups.

9. The complex nature of traffic regulation, which could involve everything from the investigation of a fatal collision through a whole spectrum of offences to a minor parking infringement, means that police have been granted unique powers to deal with and respond to such matters, e.g. power to stop vehicles, powers to demand details of drivers and power to arrest in serious cases. At present legislation does not allow for any other agency to exercise these powers and both the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) and the Police Federation are strongly opposed to extending these powers outside the immediate police family.

10. It has been noted however, that in conjunction with the Westminster City Council, TfL’s are in the process of laying the London Local Authorities Bill before Parliament in November. This will give TfL the necessary powers to issue decriminalised fixed penalty notices for a number of minor traffic offences, e.g. yellow box junctions, prohibited turns, one way streets, which they regard as ‘network management’ issues. Although this Bill will put enabling mechanisms in place, TfL have given no indication of their intention to begin carrying out this activity.

Waterborne services

11. Following the Government’s decision to hold a public enquiry into matters surrounding the Marchioness disaster, the Metropolitan Police made a full submission to Lord Justice Clarke’s, Thames Safety Enquiry. Annex 24 of that submission set out The Role of the MPS Thames Division. This might be summarised as follows:

• To police the River Thames in a manner consistent with our policing plans and strategy, and in particular to;
  • Tackle crime,
  • Provide public reassurance,
  • Prevent disorder,
  • Prevent drugs importation,
  • Maintain security and prevent terrorism.

12. It is important to note that policy changes in recent years have meant that the Marine Support Unit (MSU) provides officers with marine skills to support any waterborne activity across the whole of the MPS and not just on the River Thames.

13. The bulk of this work is carried out within the Crime and Disorder Act partnership framework used by land-based Divisions. Furthermore the MSU also have specific responsibility for, together with equipment and skills to carry out, underwater and confined space search activity and forensic recovery and dead body recovery from water across the whole of the Greater London area.

14. As a result of the Thames Safety Enquiry specific responsibility for Search and Rescue (SAR) on the tidal Thames was placed in the hands of the Marine & Coastguard Agency supported by the Royal National Lifeboat Institute.

15. It can be seen that the roles and responsibilities placed upon the (now) Marine Support Unit require the powers of a Constable enshrined in law for their execution and remain consistent with the Mission, Vision and Values of the MPS.

16. There are also health and safety considerations when deploying any police officer in a marine environment. This would require appropriate levels of training and equipment for those (likely to be) involved and there would be cost implications if this was devolved away from MSU trained staff.

17. Under present legislative arrangements (Police Act 1964) it is not possible for a Police Authority to transfer its specific policing responsibilities (i.e., law enforcement) to another body, not being a police authority. Furthermore the other enforcement agencies presently exercising similar policing functions within London, e.g., the British Transport Police, the Ministry of Defence Police, are not Police Authorities for the purposes of the Police Act. Such forces are not recognised by the Home Office and their officers have strictly limited powers and responsibilites. This situation could not be changed without the laying of primary legislation before Parliament.

18. LFEPA currently operate two boats on the tidal Thames for the purposes of firefighting. LFEPA have certain responsibilities and powers granted under the various Fire Services Acts in order to carry out this work. There are no plans at present to transfer responsibility for firefighting to any other body.

C. Financial implications

Traffic warden service

Work is underway to establish the full financial implications of the options under consideration in respect of the Traffic Warden Service. This will include:

• a full assessment of the budgetary and resource implications of the options available
• the possible transfer to TfL, and financing, of accumulated pension entitlements.
• any additional financial commitments arising from the need to continue to employ skilled traffic enforcement staff.

D. Background papers

• The Mayor’s Transport Strategy, Greater London Authority, July 2001
• Thames Safety Enquiry: Interim Report by Lord Justice Clarke, Cmnd 4350
• Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions.

E. Contact details

The author of this report is Paul Clulow Supt, 020 7230 2004.

For information contact:

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

Send an e-mail linking to this page

Feedback