Minutes

Minutes of the Planning, Performance & Review Committee of the Metropolitan Police Authority held on 9 November 2006 at 10 Dean Farrar Street, London, SW1H 0NY.

Present

Members

• Richard Sumray (Chair)
• Karim Murji (Deputy Chair)
• Tony Arbour (item 1-10)
• Reshard Auladin
• Dee Doocey

MPA officers

• Siobhan Coldwell (Head of Scrutiny and Review)
• Ken Hunt (Treasurer) (item 9)
• Jane Owen (Head of Planning and Performance)
• David Riddle (Deputy Chief Executive and Deputy Clerk)
• Ruth Hastings Iqball (Committee Officer)

MPS officers

• George Clarke (Chief Superintendent, Criminal Justice)
• Alan Croney (Director, Property Services)
• Simon Foy (Commander, Performance Directorate)
• David Imroth (Det Superintendent, Emerald Custody Directorate)
• Christopher Jarrett (Det Chief Superintendent, Specialist Operations)
• John Keilty (Det Chief Inspector, Economic and Specialist Crime)
• Adrian Lovegrove (Head Accountant, Finance Directorate)
• Graham McNulty (Det Supt, Economic and Specialist Crime)
• Stephen Rimmer (Director, Strategy, Modernisation and Performance)
• Jerry Sheppard (Det Chief Inspector, Specialist Operations)
• Martin Tiplady (Director, Human Resources)

Also in attendance: Elizabeth Howlett (item 9), Aneeta Prem (item 9), and Rachel Whittaker (item 4, 7 and 9), (members)

18. Apologies

(Agenda item 1)

Apologies for absence were received from Richard Barnes (member) and Tarique Ghaffur (Assistant Commissioner, Central Operations).

19. Declarations of interests

(Agenda item 2)

No declarations of interest were received.

20. Minutes of the meeting held 14 September 2006

(Agenda item 3)

Resolved – That the minutes of the meeting held on 14 September 2006 be confirmed and signed as a correct record.

21. Criminal Justice update

(Agenda item 4)

A report was received providing an update on the work being carried out by the Department of Criminal Justice with the ultimate aim of bringing more offences to justice.

Members asked how virtual courts would deal with pleas of mitigation. They were informed that legislation required the prisoners’ consent to each part of the process. Members felt that the introduction of virtual courts would be a challenge for courts, especially as evening courts had not worked well, there was also a need to get police national computer up to date.

Members asked about victim focus desks and were informed that the work was at present performed by specialist, trained staff from agencies. Members were disappointed that London was not reaching the persistent young offender target of 71 days from arrest to sentencing. They were informed that because the numbers involved were small, a few cases could unduly sway the figures. Members requested more information about cases taken into consideration (TICs) in the next report on Criminal Justice in the MPS. Members also requested more information about penalty notices for disorder (PNDs), but it was agreed that reporting on this should be deferred until new legislation came into effect in April. In relation to questions about cannabis formal warnings members were assured that figures were monitor the Home Office’s Police Standards Unit and were not out of kilter with the rest of the country.

Resolved - That

1. the report be noted;
2. the next report contain more detail about TICs; and
3. April’s report contain more information about PNDs, including those for cannabis.

22. Custody Capacity Service Improvement Review – progress against the improvement plan

(Agenda item 5)

This report provided an update of the work within the Emerald Custody Directorate arising from the recommendations of the Service Improvement Review (SIR) concerning Custody Capacity. Members asked for more information about police cells in department stores and were informed that this had been initiated at Selfridges by a chief inspector, because of lack of cell capacity at Marylebone police station.

Members asked for assurance that any new cell provision would be for use by the MPS’s prisoners. They were informed that this was the case, but the Home Office could use cells if Operation Safeguard was enacted. Members were reminded that MPS cells were not generally suitable for long-term occupation and that local communities were consulted before any planning applications were made.

Members noted that the report stated that the MPS did not recognise the Royal College of Nursing (RCN) and of its difficulty in retaining nurses. It was suggested that the MPS should get to grips with these issues, as nurses in custody suites was one of the pilots proposed as part of the workforce modernisation programme in report 9. Members were informed that the issue around recognising the RCN was that only certain staff organisations were recognised within the MPS. A report was requested back on this subject through the MPA’s Met Modernisation Oversight Group.

The Head of Scrutiny and Review reminded members that there were only two outstanding recommendations from the SIR of custody in the MPS. It was agreed the next report on custody capacity, due in May 2007, should recommend the signing off of the Review, but the Committee should continue to receive reports from the Custody Directorate on a regular basis.

Resolved - That

1. the report be noted;
2. the next report recommend the signing off of the SIR; and
3. a report on custody nurses be received by the MPA’s Met Modernisation Oversight Group.

23. Security Vetting Service Improvement Review – report withdrawn

(Agenda item 6)

This report had provided a progress report of implementation of the SIR of security vetting. However, the MPS had requested the report that had already been circulated be withdrawn, because its Management Board had changed its mind about issues contained in the report.

The withdrawal of a report from the MPA’s website required the agreement of the Committee, and the Chair apologised for having already agreed to its removal verbally with the T/Assistant Commissioner, Standards and Intelligence Command. He added that the withdrawal of the report was not the fault of Assistant Commissioner as he was new in post. The Chair added that he was disappointed with the Management Board’s request, as the contents of the report had already been highlighted at the Planning, Performance and Review Committee in September, when members had specifically requested a further report. A Member noted that in discussing the report they might have been able to assist the Management Board in its deliberations. It was agreed that a further report should be received at the next meeting of the Committee.

Resolved - That

1. the report be withdrawn, and
2. a further report be submitted to the committee in January.

24. Service Improvement Review of Security – recommendations progress report

(Agenda item 7)

The SIR of security guarding (concluded in July 2005) had made a number of recommendations identifying key areas for improvement. Members received a report providing an update on progress in implementing the recommendations. The Director of Property Services felt the MPS was on top of the recommendations, but some would always remain amber because of their ongoing nature. He recommended that the report should be closed and maintenance of the service returned to business as usual under the control of Property Services and SO16. However, the Head of Scrutiny and Review felt that some of the recommendations were still incomplete. It was agreed the committee should receive a report in a year’s time dealing with the recommendations that were still amber, prefaced with a general report on security guarding. At the suggestion of the Director of Property Services, it was agreed the next report should be received in January 2008.

Resolved - That

1. it be noted that the remaining amber recommendations would always remain amber as they were ongoing requirements of a service contract; and
2. a report be received in January 2008 dealing with the recommendations that were still amber, prefaced with a general report on security guarding.

25. Operation Maxim

(Agenda item 8)

A report was received updating members on the progress and activity directed at Organised Immigration Crime (OIC) within the MPS. The report had been circulated to members with less than five clear working days’ notice, however the Chair agreed to receive it as an urgent item under the provisions of section 100B (4b) of the Local Government Act 1972 because there was a need to keep members informed of such an important area of the MPS work. The Chair thanked the author for completing the report at short notice, as the Assistant Commissioner, Specialist Crime Directorate, wished to share its content with his Management Board colleagues.

Member’s noted that if funding for Operation Maxim ceased, the MPS would have to consider whether it could continue the Operation, perhaps by further efficiency savings across the Directorate. However they felt that OIC should be regarded as a ‘capital city’ policing function and funded nationally. The Chair agreed, noting that only the MPS had had people trafficking as a priority crime. He felt the MPA should support any initiatives to maintain external funding, and noted the timely provision of reports to the MPA assist in gaining the support of members.

Resolved – That the report be noted.

26. MPS participation in ACPO workforce modernisation programme

(Agenda item 9)

Members received a report on ACPO workforce modernisation work and, in particular, the offer to the MPS to participate as two national demonstration sites. The report also outlined the intended MPS approach to participation and sought the MPA’s support. The report had been circulated to members with less than five clear working days’ notice, however the Chair agreed to receive it as an urgent item under the provisions of section 100B (4b) of the Local Government Act 1972 because the MPA approval was required by the submission date of the 10 November 2006.

Members were impressed by the number of ideas contained in the report, but were not sure that they could all be regarded as workforce modernisation, some appeared to be just civilianisation of posts. With regard to custody nurses, it was pointed out that they had been at Charing Cross for six years so they were not a new idea. Members also felt it was important to receive a report on the financial implications and benefits realisation of the proposals. However in general they supported the submission of the bid to participate as two workforce modernisation sites.

In answer to questions, the Director of HR informed members that if the submissions were approved the MPS would prepare business cases with cost benefits analysis, milestones etc. He added that the Director, Strategy, Modernisation and Performance and himself had personally reviewed all the proposals, which were not about cutting costs but improving effectiveness. However, they did provide genuine financial benefits. He agreed that the proposals did sound like a random set of initiatives, but that was because neither ACPO nor the Home Office had defined workforce modernisation. He added that the initiatives would continue whether ACPO provided support or not. The initiatives would be internally accountable to the Met Modernisation Oversight Group.

A member had wondered whether PCSOs would be removed from Safer Neighbourhoods Teams to become station reception officers (SROs) or provide victim support. The Director of HR explained that 380 PCSOs would be used as SROs and 80 for victim support; none would be removed from the numbers earmarked for Safer Neighbourhoods Teams. He added that at present, agency staff provided victim support.

The Director, Strategy, Modernisation and Performance added that the Commissioner felt that a constraint to modernisation was a lack of consistent funding streams. These would enable him to be more flexible in the use of his workforce. Members agreed the proposal, adding that they would like to know what proposals from other police services were accepted by ACPO.

Resolved – That members support the MPS’s intention to express an interest in participating in the ACPO work on workforce modernisation as two of the ‘national demonstration sites’.

27. Crime recording

(Agenda item 10)

The Committee received a report providing a summary of the MPS crime recording system with particular reference to the levels of non-recording that occurs for detailed fields, which might impact upon diversity issues. The report had been circulated to members with less than five clear working days’ notice, however the Chair agreed to receive it as an urgent item under the provisions of section 100B (4b) of the Local Government Act 1972 because it covered an area of the MPS’s performance which would be reported upon by the Audit Commission in January. Discussion of this report run parallel to discussion of agenda item 14 ‘National Crime Recording Standard (NCRS) update’.

The Commander, Performance Directorate, noted that the receipt of the commissioning briefing for the report revealed to the MPS that there was no one place where responsibility for crime recording lay, as it cut across the Directorate of Information (technology), Territorial Policing (inputting data) and the Performance Directorate (analysing data).

Members went on to discuss the issues outlined in the report. The Head of Planning and Performance stated that the Home Office was concerned by the MPA’s ethnicity coding and requested a briefing paper on this.

Resolved - That the report be noted.

28. Corporate performance report: financial year to date 2006/07

(Agenda item 11)

This report provided members with an overview of MPS performance for the period April to September 2006. It included an overview of performance with respect to the critical 13 high level indicators, further information on performance with respect to other indicators and targets and a summary of the results of the 2005/06 PPAF assessment.

Members noted that they were still awaiting a briefing on the disruption of criminal networks. The report had some areas where there was no target. If was requested that more information be provided in these cases. The Chair requested the introduction of targets for crime in the most ‘challenging wards’, although he acknowledged this was difficult.

Resolved - That the report be noted.

29. Police Performance Assessment Framework (PPAF) and baseline assessment 2005/6

(Agenda item 12)

The committee received a report outlining the key issues arising out of the Baseline Assessment and highlighting the 2005/06 results of the PPAF report issued on 24 October 2006.

The Head of Scrutiny and Review noted that the Baseline Assessment was positive, although there were still some areas of concern. The Head of Planning and Performance said that the PPAF report was an improvement on last years report, but more effort was still required around citizen focus. Last year the result had been capped because of problems around NCRS and there was a needed to ensure this did not arise again (see reports 10 and 14).

Resolved - That

1. the issues arising from the Baseline Assessment and PPAF results for 2005/06 be considered; and
2. a further report be received on proposals for any areas of concern

30. Specialist Operations management information

(Agenda item 13)

The Specialist Operations management information report provided a summary of Specialist Operations Command performance against its objectives from April to September 2006.

Resolved – That report be noted.

31. National Crime Recording Standard (NCRS) update

(Agenda item 14)

Since the 2005 Audit Commission grading of yellow (good) in relation compliance with the NCRS for the MPS, a plan to further improve compliance had been implemented. This had been further developed to ensure progress towards achieving the required standard alongside the other significant change programs taking place within the organisation. Members received a report providing information about the development of the plan, barriers that had been encountered and progress towards full compliance with the NCRS and Home Office Counting Rules for Recorded Crime.

Although the proposal to centralise crime recording had been reject on grounds of cost, the Commander, Performance Directorate, was asked his opinion of the proposal. He responded that it would standardise inputting, make the process more accountable and, he believed, would be in the long term more cost effective. However, he added, OCU Commanders wanted to own their own crime recording and be held to account for it.

A further report was requested after the inspection by the Audit Commission

Resolved – That

1. the report be noted; and
2. a further report be received after the inspection by the Audit Commission

The meeting finished at 4.50 pm.

Send an e-mail linking to this page

Feedback