Minutes

Minutes of the inquorate special Planning, Performance & Review Committee of the Metropolitan Police Authority held on 14 February 2007 at 10 Dean Farrar Street, London, SW1H 0NY.

Present

Members

• Richard Sumray (Chair)
• Reshard Auladin

MPA officers

• Siobhan Coldwell (Head of Scrutiny and Review)
• Liz Orsborn (Management Accountant)
• Ruth Hastings Iqball (Committee Officer)

MPS officers

• Rose Fitzpatrick (Deputy Assistant Commissioner, Territorial Policing)
• Paul Minton (Commander, South East Link)
• Stephen Rimmer (Director, Strategy, Modernisation and Performance)

47. Apologies

(Agenda item 1)

Apologies for absence were received from Tony Arbour, Richard Barnes, Karim Murji and Dee Doocey (members). The Chair stated that the Committee was inquorate because GLA members were attending an important budget setting meeting at the GLA.

48. Declarations of interests

(Agenda item 2)

No declarations of interest were received.

49. Update on the planning process 2007/08

(Agenda item 3)

Members received a report outlining the progress on the development of the high level objectives, measures and targets that underpinned the strategic priorities for inclusion in the Policing London Plan 2007/08. The Policing London was a key delivery mechanism for the three year Policing London Strategy and Plan agreed by MPS and MPA in September 2005. As part of the planning process, it had been agreed that the draft high-level objectives and developing measures and targets for the strategic priorities would be presented at this Committee prior to be discussed by the full Authority on 22 February. Comments arising from this meeting would be circulated to all MPA members before the full Authority.

In addition to the original report, members had that day been provided with two addendums; a revised version of table 2 in appendix 1 ‘Draft Policing London Strategy for 2007-10 and Policing Plan for 2007-8’ and a revised appendix 3 ’Policing Plan 2007/08 – rationale for critical performance measure and targets- internal reference only’. The revisions in the latter were highlighted in blue.

The Director, Strategy, Modernisation and Performance, stated that the Management Board was proposing 12 critical performance areas for corporate focus and that there had been some developments since the full Authority discussed a draft of the report in January. The addendums contained a synthesis of the changes. The Management Board thought that the satisfaction of racist victims was not a good top line measure as the sample size was too small. The indicators had therefore been amended as shown in the second row of the addendum containing a revised version of table 2 in appendix 1. This in turn was a subset of the next row ‘confidence in local policing’. Homicide sanction detections had been included as a significant factor in public assurance. The Management Board were now not proposing to include officers on front line duties, as this was considered an output not performance indicator. The Director added that the MPS, after discussion with the Home Office, had been unable to find a performance indicator around counter terrorism and unable to find a meaningful measure around reducing crime in challenging wards.

Members were informed that the Management Board was now signed up to a challenging crime reduction target of between 5% and 6% (depending on the 2006/07 out-turn, as the Commissioner felt the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) would not reach the Public Service Agreement (PSA) reduction target of 7%. Members felt the public would look at the investment in the MPS in terms of increased police and police community support officer numbers and wonder why the target was being reduced from the previous year. The Chair added that he had asked the Assistant Commissioner, Territorial Policing, for a comparison of the MPS’s crime reduction with that of other police services and for borough targets. He noted that this was the first time the MPS had openly admitted it was not going to achieve the Home Office’s three year target for a 19.4% reduction in crime. Members were informed that the Commissioner did not want unrealistic targets and that the MPS was second best police service after the West Midlands Police, in its police service family. The Deputy Assistant Commissioner, Territorial Policing, added that the MPS’ past achievements in this direction should not be lost sight of and the direction of travel would still be maintained.

Members asked why locally produced stretch targets (targets that set by boroughs with Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnerships (CDRPs) and local authorities, the meeting of which would result in additional funding from the Government Office for London) with were being reduced corporately. They were informed that that some boroughs had set targets that were unlikely to be achieved. Members felt this reduction in local targets would cause tensions with CDRPs and local authorities and was the antithesis of the ‘bottom up‘ approach extolled by the MPS and would send out mixed messages to the community. There was discussion of the number of boroughs with stretch targets who would be affected. It was conceded that the number could be higher than the MPS officers present were aware of. The Director undertook to look at this issue further before the full Authority.

The Chair of the MPA and members at the full Authority had indicated a desire to see drugs reflected in the ‘Strategy and Policing Plan’ and that drug related crime was a priority in many boroughs. Members acknowledged that tackling drug crime was obliquely referenced in targets relating to criminal networks, but noted that no mention at all was made to it in relation to targets surrounding Safer Neighbourhoods. There were no targets in relation to supply of drugs nor did the narrative reflect current activity, such as closing crack houses. Members also felt there needed to be greater mention of drink related crime in the ‘Strategy and Policing Plan’. The Director agreed to amend the report.

Members asked how the new target in relation to people killed or seriously injured on the road had it been arrived at as a target and how would it be achieved. The Director stated that the driver for its inclusion, following discussion with Management Board, was the Assistant Commissioner, Central Operations and agreed more information was required on how this target would be achieved. Members believed there needed to be some justification as to why this should be included as a critical performance area in relation to other equally critical areas.

Members noted that homicide ceased to be a critical target about three years ago and wondered why it had been reintroduced as a critical target when internal targets were being met. Members questioned the reports assertion that ‘Homicide sanction detections’ is proposed as a critical performance area due to over-riding public concern about bringing these offenders to justice’. They felt Londoners would believe drug related crime not homicide had most impact on their lives. Members were informed that the driver for this was the Assistant Commissioner, Specialist Crime, who wanted to send a message to the MPS that homicide detection was important and the Commissioner, who wanted to illustrate that serious crimes were undervalued by the Home Office’s Policing Performance Assessment Framework (PPAF). The Chair noted that the target was the homicide sanctioned detection rate, not preventing homicide, and that the emphasis should be on combating violent crime, especially in challenging wards.

Questions were asked as to why the target for number of offences bought to justice was only 190,103 given that performance to date this year had reached 198,911. Members were informed that the London Criminal Justice Board (LCJB) set this target. Members felt the MPA and MPS should have some input into the setting the target not the LCJB and that this needed to be discussed further with the LCJB.

Members felt the significant investment in the Met Modernisation Programme was not reflected in the critical performance areas and noted that there was no mention of the £15 million in the current budget. It was felt that there needed to be a clearer message about how the Met Modernisation Programme was a major contributory factor in achieving the critical performance areas.

In relation to the text of the ‘Strategy and Policing Plan’ members stated that counter terrorism was of high priority to the public but no mention of it was made. Nothing was included about the protection of children and ‘Every Child Matters’. The reference to Home Office funding for the security of the Olympic Games was incorrect and greater explanation was required about the non-cash releasing initiative relating to the growth in number of special constables. Members also felt it was too early to expect Londoner’s satisfaction around the policing of the Olympic games to be measured, as at present this work was rarely divulged to the public.

Recommended - That feedback from Planning, Performance and Review Committee on the Policing London Strategy and Plan be provided to the full Authority.

The meeting finished at 15.25 pm.

Send an e-mail linking to this page

Feedback