Minutes

Minutes of the annual and ordinary meetings of the Metropolitan Police Authority held on 29 May 2008 at 10 Dean Farrar Street, London, SW1H 0NY.

Present

Members

Len Duvall (in the Chair from item 3a)
Reshard Auladin (Deputy Chair)
Jennette Arnold
Richard Barnes
Cindy Butts (Deputy Chair)
Faith Boardman
Victoria Borwick
James Cleverly
Dee Doocey
Toby Harris
Kirsten Hearn
Peter Herbert
Jenny Jones
Kit Malthouse (First Deputy Chair)
Karim Murji
Steve O’Connell
Caroline Pidgeon
Aneeta Prem,
John Roberts,
Navin Shah,
Richard Sumray
Richard Tracey
Rachel Whittaker

MPA officers

Catherine Crawford (Chief Executive)
Ken Hunt (Treasurer)
Nick Baker (Head of Committee Services)

MPS officers

Sir Ian Blair (Commissioner)
Paul Stephenson (Deputy Commissioner)
DAC Rose Fitzpatrick
Anne McMeel (Director of Resources)

Part 1 (Annual meeting)

1. Apologies for absence

(Agenda item 1)

No apologies for absence were received.

2. Declarations of interest

(Agenda item 2)

No declarations were made.

3. Appointments to the Authority

(Agenda 3a)

The Chief Executive introduced this report and in doing so drew members’ attention to the recommendation that appointments at the annual meeting be made for a term to expire on 30 September 2008. This would enable appointments for the rest of the year to reflect the new Independent membership, which is effective from 1 October and also the Mayoral powers to chair the Authority or to appoint its chair and deputy chairs, which come into force on 1 October. Members also noted that Deputy Chair appointment(s) must expire on 21 September 2008.

In addition, members were asked to rearrange the September meeting of the Authority in order to reconsider appointments for the rest of the year.

The Chief Executive then called for nominations for the position of Chair of the Authority. Len Duvall was nominated and seconded and with no further nominations, was appointed Chair of the Authority until midnight 30 September 2008.

The report asked the Authority to appoint its chair and deputy chair(s).

The Chair proposed that in order for the Authority to function during the period of transition until the implementation of the requirements of the Metropolitan Police Authority Regulations 2008 and the appointment of independent members that the Authority appoint in addition to two deputy chairs, a first deputy chair and nominated Kit Malthouse for the position. (Richard Barnes seconded the nomination).

Members supported the proposals, but sought further clarification of the role of first deputy chair and an undertaking that this position would be until 21 September and would be a temporary position and not continue after this date.

The Chair agreed to circulate to members details of the role and agreed that this should be a temporary position.

RESOLVED – That

1. that all appointments made at the Annual Meeting be made for a period expiring at midnight on 30 September 2008, with the exception of the Deputy Chair(s) of the Authority;

2. the meeting of the Authority scheduled for 25 September be moved to Thursday 9 October at 10.00 a.m. to enable appointments for the remainder of the Authority’s year to be made at that meeting;

3. Len Duvall be appointed as Chair of the Authority until midnight on 30 September 2008; and

4. Kit Malthouse be appointed First Deputy Chair and Reshard Auladin and Cindy Butts be appointed as Deputy Chair of the Authority with all appointments until 21 September 2008.

4. MPA committee structure and terms of reference

(Agenda 3b)

Members received a report that sought confirmation of the current committee structure and terms of reference until 30 September 2008.

RESOLVED – That the current MPA committee structure and terms of reference be confirmed until 30 September 2008.

5. Appointments to the MPA committees

(Agenda item 3c)

Members considered a report that asked them to appoint the chairs, deputy chairs and membership of MPA committees until 30 September 2008 and sought ratification of the appointment of co-opted members.

RESOLVED - That

1. the appointments of chairs and deputy chairs of committees until 30 September 2008, given at Appendix 1, be noted;

2. the appointments to the membership of committees until 30 September 2008, given at Appendix 2, be noted;

3. the co-opted member appointments to the Corporate Governance Committee as shown at Appendix 1 to the report be ratified.

6. Appointments of portfolio holders and appointments o oversight groups

(Agenda item 3d)

A report was considered that sought appointments to portfolio holder positions and appointments to the Authority’s oversight groups until 30 September 2008

The report also asked members to agree the establishment of a portfolio holder position for procurement and consideration of the establishment of a Olympic/Paralympic Oversight Group.

RESOLVED – That

1. portfolio positions, at Appendix 3, be confirmed until 30 September 2008, together with a sixth portfolio holder position for Procurement; and

2. appointments made at Appendix 4 (until 30 September 2008) to the membership of the MPA’s Oversight Groups, including consideration of the establishment of a Olympic/Paralympic Oversight Group.

7. MPA representation on outside bodies and borough link members

(Agenda item 3e)

Members received a report that asked them to appoint colleagues to a number of outside bodies and to appoint members as ‘link borough members’.

RESOLVED – That

1. MPA representation on outside bodies, as given at Appendix 5, be confirmed; and

2. Borough link member appointments as given at Appendix 6, be confirmed.

8. Appointments of independent members

(Agenda item 4)

A report was received that invited the Authority to form a panel of members to make independent member appointments and recommended that the term of office for these independent members should be from 1 October 2008 to 30 June 2012.

Members noted that there would be 9 independent member vacancies and that Toby Harris had been appointed by the Home Secretary.

Members agree to receive a further report to the June meeting of the Authority which would provide further details and proposals on the membership of the final appointment panel. In doing so, the Chair asked that those members who might be interested in being part of that panel keep diaries free during the third week of July.

RESOLVED – That

1. a further report on the membership of this appointment panel be presented to the June Authority meeting.

2. the final independent member appointments be made by a panel of members, for report to the Authority for confirmation in July; and

3. the Home Secretary be asked to agree that the term of office for these nine independent member appointments should be 1 October 2008 to 30 June 2012.

9. Members attendance 2007/08

(Agenda item 5)

Members received the annual report of a record of member attendances at the MPA bodies to which they were appointed during the year since the last annual meeting in June 2005.

RESOLVED – That the report be noted.

Part 1 (Ordinary meeting)

10. Minutes

(Agenda item 1)

Members considered the minutes (Part 1) of the Authority meeting held on 24 April 2008.

RESOLVED – That the minutes (Part 1) of the Authority meeting held on 24 April 2008 be agreed and be signed as a correct record.

11. Minutes of committees

(Agenda item 2)

The minutes of the following committees were received for information:

Planning, Performance and Review Committee – 10 April 2008.
Finance Committee – 17 April 2008

RESOLVED – That the minutes of Committees be received and noted.

12. Chair's update

(Agenda item 3)

Dee Doocey sought confirmation when the Authority would be receiving the report on Stockwell and the Chair confirmed that this was scheduled to be considered at the July Authority meeting.

The Chair proposed that the Authority receive a late report on ‘Response to the Mayoral priority on bus crime and anti social behaviour’. The report should be received on the grounds of urgency to allow the Authority is asked to note the new initiative and in doing so support its development and consider the financial arrangements for it

Members agreed to receive the report.

Response to the Mayoral priority on bus crime and anti social behaviour

Following the Mayoral announcement to provide additional resources to enhance policing on the transport system, members considered a report that outlined the MPS response to this announcement.

The report informed members that the MPS welcomed the Mayor’s announcement of additional resources for policing the bus system and that Operation Tyrol was an immediate and visible response to the Mayoral priority which would see developments being made to seek sustainability and properly funded improvements. The report outlined Operation Tyrol’s four objectives; details of current arrangements; details of Transport OCU within Central Operations; Safer Transport Teams within Territorial Policing; and generic policing services provided by the MPS.

In addition, members were provided with details of the new approach, which included the introduction of new teams at bus hubs and staffing resources for Safer Transport Teams. The report also provided information regarding the three areas where Operation Tyrol had been introduced/piloted and a time line of details of how and when the operation would be rolled out. The report the financial implications

In welcoming the report members made a number of comments, which included:

What was the rationale for selection of the three sites where Operation Tyrol was being introduced?
As Operation Tyrol had been introduced so quickly what consultation had taken place with the community?
Members sought further information regarding resources including; ‘Operation Reclaim’, details about accommodation facilities for the increased number of staff; and ensuring that as the Operation was rolled out that it was done so on the basis of value for money.
The need for Operation Tyrol to be capable of dispersal issues.
The need to ensure that engagement, particularly with young people, many of whom feel risk, takes place and with young people with special needs who particularly feel vulnerable on public transport
Members sought further information relating to the oversight arrangements of this operation.
Some members suggested that there was a need for the Operation to also take account of ‘hotspots’ that were linked to alcohol problems, the possible re-introduction of conductors and to ensure that CCTV on buses was both working and used in real time.
There was a need to develop better relationships with key partners such as British Transport Police and Transport for London.
The need to encourage, possibly with key employers such those in the transport sector and GLA family, the recruitment of more special officers.
As some areas of London have a very different local policing need to develop imaginative initiatives for tacking crime in those areas.
The need for a clear performance framework to be established.

In relation to the selection of the three sites chosen to pilot Operation Tyrol, these had been selected following analysis of data that showed that they fitted into other organisational priorities as well. Following assessment of the pilot the roll out of the most effective structure would take place at a rate of six teams a month. The MPS reassured members that engagement with communities, schools and young people would take place on the Operation and its roll out and it was noted that as part of this the MPS would take on board talking to vulnerable groups, such as those with learning difficulties.

The MPS confirmed that there was work needed to be undertaken with asset management plans to ensure that accommodation issues could be met and that ‘Operation Reclaim’, which was aimed at non payment of insurance and could act as an income stream.

Members were informed that at this stage with the Operation only having been in place for a few weeks it was too early to assess if it could be totally integrated into the TOCU, although this would be the aim. Dispersal was an issue and was being looked at further, but one of the aims of the Safer Transport Teams was to work with Safer Neighbour Teams on this issue and Safer Transport Teams would continue on whole journeys in an aim to reduce dispersal. In relation to oversight of the operation an Oversight Board was being developed, as were equality impact assessments and a performance framework.

The Commissioner, in response to members, confirmed that the operation was in response to the recent election and the democratic mandate relating to crime. In doing so, he added that the operation was building on existing strategies and the work of the Authority over the past few years and that the injection of new resources had allowed for this development.

The Chair in summing up welcomed the initiative and additional resources and asked that the Authority receive appropriate update reports on the Operation.

RESOLVED – That the Authority receives reports on Operation Tyrol as it is introduced and developed.

13. Question to the Authority

(Agenda item 4)

The Authority, in accordance with Standing Order 2.7, received the following question from Mr Peter Woodhams.

‘I am the father of Peter Woodhams who was shot dead outside his home by Bradley Tucker on 21 August 2006. Bradley Tucker was convicted of his murder in March 2007.

Peter was stabbed in the same area exactly seven months before his death. An IPCC investigation into the handling of the Metropolitan Police investigation of the stabbing incident identified significant failings as did the ensuing disciplinary proceedings. These included the failure to:

Seize Peter’s clothing which offered ‘considerable forensic opportunities’.
Investigate five suspects whose names were provided. Bradley Tucker was one of these individuals.
Ensure that the Witness Album Display System procedure had eliminated the name suspects. Peter described his assailants as black and of mixed race yet 60 of the 70 photographs shown to him were of white individuals. The photo of Bradley Tucker, who is of mixed race, was in the WADS system but never shown to Peter.

At the conclusion of a Misconduct Hearing the Panel of three, including a member of the Metropolitan Police Authority, required DS Darren Case and PC Adam Suett to resign from the force.

The officers appealed the sanction and on 25 March 2008 an internal Metropolitan Police Review took place before Assistant Tarique Ghaffur, a serving Metropolitan Police officer. On 1 April 2008 AC Ghaffur varied the sanction. He reinstated the officers demoting Darren Case to a detective constable and fining DC Adam Suett, now of Derbyshire Police, thirteen days’ pay the equivalent of just over £1,000.

We, Peter’s family, are obviously shocked and disappointed by this decision and will ask the Metropolitan Police Authority to make interventions on our behalf. It may assist if I set out the reasons for our concern.

In his ‘Reasons for the Determination’, AC Ghaffur notes that both officers admitted the breaches and ‘did not seek to challenge the findings of the Panel’. AC Ghaffur therefore confines his remit to determining ‘the appropriateness of the sanction’. Yet he exceeded that remit by overturning the Panel’s decision that the failures amounted to ‘a gross neglect of duties’ and ‘the most significant and catastrophic of investigative failures’. In doing so AC Ghaffur acted without the requisite authority in the same as would a Crown Court judge who when presented with an appeal against sentence, quashed the conviction.

In the aftermath of Peter’s murder the Critical Incident Advisory Team undertook a review of undetected GNH allegations since 1 January 2006 in Newham Borough. Worryingly, the review revealed that a number of crime investigations did not reach the serious crime minimum standard. Moreover, rather than being unique to Newham, most of the problems were common failings across the Metropolitan Police Service.

The Panel found, however, that although the standards within Newham were poor, the standard of investigation by DC Suett was far poorer. It found that DC Suett’s was not an honest mistake or operational failure. He had ‘either ignored or at best dismissed [the real forensic opportunities which presented without any genuine consideration justification or documentation’. So serious was this breach of trust that it was in the interests of public confidence that the officers resign.

Disputing this finding AC Ghaffur was of the view that PC Suett’s failings were’ about investigation….not his ability to be a police officer’ and that his reinstatement would not undermine public confidence. It is clear from the following selection of quotes from the Esher and Cobham Guardian website that AC Ghaffur was wrong:

Posted by: Vera Williams, London SE25 6QF on 5:37pm Thu 3 Apr 08
What chance do the general public have of support from the police, when the authority is happy to downgrade the punishment of the officers involved who were negligent in their duty. Once again the police look after their own.

Posted by: not supplied, upper Norwood on 7:49am Fri 4 Apr 08
Why, now does it seem right to reinstate? This was a negligent act now and then – in fact we do not want these type of people back in the police!

Posted by Ian Philips, London on 7.29 pm Sat 5 Apr 08
Even when these officers make absolutely terrible mistakes it is standard practice to cover up. Who wants these morons investigating any other crime given the mess they made on the Woodhams investigation. But that’s exactly what they are doing now investigating other crimes.

For us, the outcome of the Misconduct Hearing illustrated a readiness to hold the officers answerable for their gross negligence which may have led to the death of our loved one. The Metropolitan Police Service apparently recognised the importance of learning, accountability, deterring repetitions and improving the force. Peter’s death was not in vain; no family would ever suffer as we have again.

What little comfort we gain from this evaporated with Assistant Commissioner Ghaffur’s decision. He diminished the officers’ crime in order to reduce the punishment. His decision smacks of a self-serving culture of self-preservation within the force. In fact, it suggests that the Metropolitan Police Service is more concerned with protecting its own than members of the public. It is clear from the quotes I read out that this is not just our concern but that of the public.

In view of its statutory duty to ‘maintain and efficient and effective police force’ will the Metropolitan Police Authority now call for a review of AC Ghaffur’s decision to reinstate the officers?’

The Chief Executive responed to Mr Woodhams’ question as follows:

'On 21 January 2006 Peter Woodhams was the victim of a serious assault in which he was stabbed by two men in the Custom House area, sustaining significant facial injuries. The stabbing was investigated by the Metropolitan Police Service. No suspects were spoken to or arrested and on 17 March 2006 the investigation was marked as ‘complete’. On 21 August 2006 Peter Woodhams was fatally shot.

On behalf of the Authority I express sympathy to Mr Woodhams and his family for their loss.

The MPS referred the matter of the police investigation into the stabbing to the IPCC, who carried out an independent investigation. The investigation was expanded to include complaints from Peter’s fiancée Jane Bowden and other members the Woodhams family.

The MPS investigated the shooting and two men, Bradley Tucker and a 17-year-old youth, were charged with murder. At the trial in March 2007 Bradley Tucker was found guilty of murder; the 17-year-old was acquitted. The MPS also reopened the stabbing investigation.

Code 5 of The Police (Conduct) Regulations 2004 states that officers should be conscientious and diligent in the performance of their duties. Nine officers were investigated in relation to the allegation that their conduct fell below this standard. All but one of these officers is currently serving with the MPS.

The IPCC investigation assessed the conduct of officers involved in the primary and secondary investigation of the stabbing. The primary investigation refers to the investigative actions carried out by officers attending the scene in response to reports of the stabbing. The secondary investigation refers to the subsequent investigation conducted by officers within the Serious Crime Unit in Newham Borough. The secondary investigation was carried out by a Detective Constable under the supervision of a detective sergeant. The Constable has since left the MPS and is now serving as a PC with Derbyshire Constabulary.

The IPCC investigation upheld all three complaints made about the primary investigation, and found that there were other significant shortcomings. As regards the secondary investigation, the IPCC upheld 6 of the 11 complaints made, and concluded that the two officers who carried out the secondary investigation failed in the performance of their duties.

The IPCC investigation revealed serious flaws in the MPS response to the stabbing of Peter Woodhams. The published IPCC Report recorded that “It is also clear that the MPS has, since the tragic death of Peter Woodhams in August 2006, recognised and responded to those failings. Some related to policies and procedures in place in Newham Borough at the time, which have since been changed. Others were the responsibility of individual officers, each of whom has now accepted their failings and, the IPCC hopes, has learned from them.”

As correctly stated in the question, the MPS Board imposed a sanction on both officers of a requirement to resign. There was no MPA member involved – the third member of the Panel was an independent person appointed by the MPA.

Both officers exercised their right under the statutory police discipline procedure to request a review by an Assistant Chief Constable, which was carried out by AC Ghaffur. As stated in the question, he reduced the sanctions in both cases, one to demotion and one to a fine. In essence it was his considered view that the sanctions were disproportionate, having regard to all the material factors. AC Ghaffur was advised throughout the review by an independent Counsel. His written decision included a full summary of the submissions made to him on behalf of the officers, and was fully reasoned. It is evident that he took his responsibilities very seriously and reached his decision carefully upon full consideration of the factors.

I can state that the IPCC considered, and took legal advice on, whether there were grounds to challenge AC Ghaffur’s decision by way of judicial review. They concluded that there were no grounds.

The MPA has no direct statutory remit in relation to Assistant Commissioner reviews, and it has no power to overturn the decision of a review. Like the IPCC, the MPA could, if it felt that there were grounds, challenge a review decision by judicial review. In this case, the IPCC has already considered the question and decided there were no grounds.

While in no way implying criticism of the approach taken by AC Ghaffur in this particular case, or the conclusions he reached the current process, whereby an officer can request a review by an Assistant Commissioner of a finding or sanction imposed by a misconduct board, will disappear later this year when the new police misconduct procedures are brought into effect. Thereafter the only appeal will be to an independent police appeal tribunal. The Authority has in the past expressed concerns about the process of Assistant Commissioner reviews, and welcomes the forthcoming changes.

The Authority acknowledges that the murder of Peter Woodhams exposed serious weaknesses in the standards of investigation of crime in Newham borough. As the IPCC noted, the MPS has recognised and responded to those failings. The Authority for its part will maintain its scrutiny of the MPS performance in relation to serious violent crime.

In conclusion, while the Authority will completely understand the family’s concerns as expressed in this question, I must advise, and respond, that there is no further action for the Authority to take in regard to AC Ghaffur’s review'.

Mr Woodhams added:

‘Considering your statutory duty to "maintain an efficient and effective police force" the Woodhams family is most disappointed by your failure to intervene in this matter. Not only do you fail to express concern at AC Ghaffur's decision, you emphasise that you do not criticise his approach. In contrast, Commissioner Deborah Glass of the IPCC stated in a letter to our solicitors dated 13 May 2008:

‘I do not agree with the Assistant Commissioner’s decisions and as a matter of principle do not agree with the role that the Chief Constable’s Review plays in the complaints system. As a mechanism for officers to appeal against disciplinary findings we do not consider that it is fair’.

The family believes that the decision is flawed in two ways:

first, Assistant Commissioner Ghaffur exceeded his remit by revisiting findings regarding the failings of the police officers; and
secondly, the Chief Constable’s Review is unfair and lacks the required independence which is presumably why it is to be replaced this year and why you raised concerns about it in the past.

It would be helpful if the MPA would now add its voice to that of the IPCC in at least accepting that AC Ghaffur's decision is flawed. It would also be helpful if Stephen O’Connell as my Assembly representative and a member of the MPA would call for some form of intervention. Unfortunately as neither you nor the IPCC will challenge AC Ghaffur's decision we, a bereaved family, who not only have to deal with our loss and the catastrophic failings of the met and in particular these two officers we were then let down again by the met policing themselves now we have to bear the responsibility of fighting this and have, via our solicitor, sent a letter of claim to the Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis. Perhaps the Commissioner will use this opportunity to indicate his response.

Also considering the Mayor’s stance on crime and his commitment to openness and accountability within the public sector we call on him to help us get justice for our hero Peter’.

Members, in noting the question and comments made by Mr Woodhams, expressed their sympathies to him and his family regarding his son’s death and thanked him for rising his concerns about the investigation and disciplinary process that followed, with dignity and clarity. In doing so, and whist acknowledging the limited scope that the MPA has in taking this matter forward and the imminent introduction of new disciplinary processes, members supported the proposal from the Chair that the Professional Standards and Complaints (PSC) Committee should receive a report on this matter. In doing so, the Chair reiterated that the MPA could not promise that the MPA could take this matter forward, but the report should amongst other issues look at why the IPCC had not invoked all its powers during its investigation and other surrounding issues. In addition, the Chair asked that member, Steve O’Connell (GLA constituency member), Woodhams family and the family themselves, be kept informed during the development and presentation of the report and that it be presented to the PSC Committee in a timely fashion

RESOLVED – That

1. the question and response from the Chief Executive be noted; and

2. the Professional Standards and Complaints Committee receive a report of the issues around the investigation, officer disciplinary process and other surrounding issues.

14. MPA youth scrutiny

(Agenda item 5)

Members received a report that presented the findings and recommendations of the MPA Youth Scrutiny 2007/08.

At the request of the Chair, Richard Sumray, who had chaired the scrutiny informed members that the scrutiny was the product of an analysis of six months of intensive research into young people’s relationships with the MPS and their experiences as victims, witnesses and perpetrators of crime in the capital. He thanked those young people who had contributed to the finding and recommendations of the scrutiny, fellow members Cindy Butts and John Roberts and paid particular tribute to MPA and MPS officers for their contribution

Cindy Butts also extended her thanks to those involved in the scrutiny and added that when the MPS were considering the scrutiny’s recommendations they should also publicise more the success rates particularly the 95% murder detection rate. During the scrutiny, she had been shocked at the apparent belief that many young people think that many crimes go undetected. Greater publicity of success would challenge the perception amongst young people that the police do not investigate these murders and would also send out a message that if you carry and use a knife the MPS would investigate it and you would put through the courts.

RESOLVED – That

1. the findings and recommendations of the MPA Youth Scrutiny be noted and approved;

2. MPA officers, in consultation with the MPA Youth Scrutiny Panel Chair, devise appropriate communication and monitoring mechanisms for the implementation of the recommendations; and

3. the MPS provide a formal response to the MPA Youth Scrutiny at the July full Authority meeting, including details on how recommendations approved for the MPS will be implemented.

15. Operation Blunt 2

(Agenda item 6)

Members received a report that outlined the introduction across London of Operation Blunt 2, which was aiming to reduce serious youth violence, particularly knife crime building on the reductions achieved in 2007/08.

Members broadly supported the introduction of the Operation and made a number of comments which included:

Some members felt that Operation Blunt and the inclusion of section 60 was not acceptable, however, some members felt that this approach was necessary to tackle the increase in knife crime.
Members sought further details on the sustainability of the operation.
While supporting the Operation and acknowledging that it was not the case each time, some members raised concerns that stop and searches were not being undertaken in an appropriate way and that that this was damaging community confidence and suggested that there was a need for a revision of training.
Members felt that there was a need to work with offenders to stop re-offending.
Members welcomed the apparent joined up working with other organisations.
There was a need to work with young people to change the culture of carrying weapons for protection and look at the reasons they do carry weapons.

The MPS felt that at present the operation was sustainable as it encompasses other strategies under one all embracing, long-term and pan London youth violence initiative, as well as drawing on experiences of other operations. It was also suggested that both youth and community engagement would also be drawn on from existing methods and through safer neighbourhood teams, schools and youth panels. It was noted that one key issues the MPS were keen to ensure that in relation to stop and search people, particularly young people know their rights. In relation to the key areas identified where the operation was focusing on, these had been selected following intelligence, but it was stressed that the operation was working in all boroughs. The MPS stated that one measure of success might be through an increase in the reporting of crimes.

The Chair asked that the Authority receive an update report in 6 months time and which included the evaluation of success; flexibility in ‘hotspots’; and how the operation was working across other strategies.

RESOVLED – That

1. the introduction of Operation Blunt 2 and the associated funding arrangements are noted;

2. this MPS initiative to enhance enforcement activity in relation to serious youth violence, and in particular to reduce the number of young victims of knife crime is supported;

3. members noted that this enforcement initiative takes place in the context of strong long-term engagement by the MPS with young people and communities across London, and an enhanced commitment to Safer Schools Partnerships and Safer Neighbourhoods youth panels; and

4. the Authority receives an update report in 6 months time (November)

16. Commissioner's update

(Agenda item 7)

Performance issues and operational and non-operational news

The Commissioner presented performance information for the period May 2007 to April 2008 compared with May 2006 to April 2007. In doing so, the Commissioner informed members that the figures were presented following the introduction by the Home Office of a new framework for looking at the performance of police and their work known as Assessment of Policing and Community Safety (APCS).

Members welcomed the improved figures and the Commissioner added that better rescoring and the impact of safer neighbourhood teams had helped these improvements.

Other matters

Conviction for murder

The Commissioner requested that his thanks to the MPS investigation team of the death of Nisha Patel-Nasri and conviction of murder be noted.

Border and Immigration Agency

Members raised concerns regarding a number recent ‘stop and searches’ undertaken by the Border and Immigration Agency. There was a concern that these stop and searches were not being carried out in correct or civil manner and could under mind the work being undertaken by the MPS. It was noted that these concerns had been raised with the APA and the Commissioner also noted members concerns and agreed to discuss this with the Agency.

Video/CCTV

Following concerns raised by members of the public, members sought further details on the videoing of young people who had not been involved in any crime. It was noted that the MPS would circulate to members’ details of this process.

MPS involvement of extradition/ Peckham Academy

Members raised concerns of the involvement of the MPS in two areas: in an extradition case at Heathrow airport and police intervention at Peckham Academy. The Commissioner agreed to look at these matters further and report back to members.

Estates Strategy

The Commissioner confirmed that the result of the asset management review was scheduled to be presented to the Authority (Co-ordination and Policing Committee) in July.

British National Party

The Chair requested that the Chief Executive should provide MPA staff with suitable advice on working arrangements with the BNP.

17. Urgent action taken by the Chief Executive

(Agenda item 8)

Members received details, for information, of action taken under delegated authority on the grounds of urgency, in accordance with Standing Orders 6.1.

RESOLVED – That the members receive the report.

18. Exclusion of the press and public

(Agenda item 9)

A resolution was put to exclude the press and public from the meeting during remaining items on the agenda as they were likely to disclose exempt information as described in Schedule 12(a) of the Local Government Act 1972, paragraphs 3 and 5.

RESOLVED - That the press and public be excluded from the meeting during discussion of the remaining items on the agenda

Part 2 Summary of exempt items

19. Minutes

(Agenda item 10)

Members considered the minutes (Part 2) of the Authority meeting held on 24 April 2008

RESOLVED – That the minutes (Part 2) of the Authority meeting held on 24 April be agreed and be signed as a correct record.

The meeting closed at 2.20 pm

Appendix 1

MPA Chairs and Deputy Chairs of Committees
(Until 30 September 2008)

Chair of the Authority
Len Duvall (Proposed Jennette Arnold Seconded Jenny Jones)

Deputy Chairs of the Authority
Kit Malthouse (First Deputy Chair) (Proposed Len Duvall Seconded Richard Barnes)
Reshard Auladin (Proposed Len Duvall Seconded Richard Barnes)
Cindy Butts (Proposed Len Duvall Seconded Richard Barnes)

Chair of Corporate Governance Committee
Toby Harris (Proposed Toby Harris Seconded Faith Boardman)

Deputy Chair of Corporate Governance Committee
Faith Boardman (Proposed Rachel Whittaker Seconded Toby Harris)

Chair of Equal Opportunities and Diversity Board
Kirsten Hearn (Proposed John Roberts Seconded Aneeta Prem)

Deputy Chair of Equal Opportunities and Diversity Board
Aneeta Prem (Proposed Kirsten Hearn Seconded Cindy Butts)

Chair of Finance Committee
Steve O’Connell (Proposed Richard Sumray Seconded Richard Barnes)

Deputy Chair of Finance Committee
Richard Sumray (Proposed Reshard Auladin Seconded Karim Murji)

Chair of Planning, Performance and Review Committee
Richard Sumray (Proposed Faith Boardman Seconded Aneeta Prem)

Deputy Chair of Planning, Performance and Review Committee
Karim Murji (Proposed Richard Sumray Seconded Jenny Jones)

Chair of Professional Standards and Complaints Committee
Reshard Auladin (Proposed Rachel Whittaker Seconded Jenny Jones)

Deputy Chair of Professional Standards and Complaints Committee
Karim Murji (Proposed Reshard Auladin Seconded Rachel Whittaker)

Appendix 2

MPA Committee membership – (Until 30 September 2008)

Co-ordination and Policing Committee
Len Duvall (as Chair of the Authority)
Kit Malthouse (as First Deputy Chair of the Authority)
Reshard Auladin (as Deputy Chair of the Authority)
Cindy Butts (as Deputy Chair of the Authority)
Toby Harris (as Corporate Governance Committee)
Kirsten Hearn (as Chair of Equal Opportunity and Diversity Board)
Steve O’Connell (as Chair of Finance Committee)
Richard Sumary (as Chair of Planning, Performance and Review Committee
Reshard Auladin (as Chair of Professional Standards and Complaints Committee)

Plus Portfolio holders
1. Rachel Whittaker (Human Resources)
2. Cindy Butts (Community Engagement and Citizen Focus)
3. Aneeta Prem (Estates Strategy)
4. Kit Malthouse (Service Improvement)
5. John Roberts (Stop & Search/ICV/Custody Command)
6. Faith Boardman (Procurement)

Others
Jennette Arnold, Dee Doocey, James Cleverly, Karim Murji and Richard Tracey.

Corporate Governance
Reshard Auladin
Faith Boardman (Deputy Chair)
Toby Harris (Chair)
Kit Malthouse
Karim Murji
Rachel Whittaker

Equal Opportunities and Diversity Board
Cindy Butts
James Cleverly
Kirsten Hearn (Chair)
Peter Herbert
Steve O’Connell
Karim Murji
Aneeta Prem (Deputy Chair)

Finance Committee
Reshard Auladin
Faith Boardman
Dee Doocey
Jenny Jones
Steve O’Connell (Chair)
Aneeta Prem
Richard Sumray (Deputy Chair)
Rachel Whittaker

Planning, Performance and Review Committee
Faith Boardman
Cindy Butts
Karim Murji (Deputy Chair)
Steve O’Connell
Caroline Pidgeon
Richard Sumray (Chair)

Professional Standards and Complaints Committee
Reshard Auladin (Chair)
James Cleverly
Karim Murji (Deputy Chair)
Aneeta Prem
John Roberts
Richard Sumray
Rachel Whittaker

Standards Committee
Toby Harris
Kirsten Hearn
Aneeta Prem
John Roberts

Appendix 3

Portfolio Holders (until 30 September 2008)

Human Resources Rachel Whittaker

Community Engagement and Citizen Focus Cindy Butts

Estates Strategy Aneeta Prem

Service Improvement Kit Malthouse

Stop & Search/ICV/Custody Command) John Roberts

Procurement Faith Boardman

Appendix 4

MPA Oversight Groups
(Until 30 September 2008)

Procurement Oversight Group
1. Faith Boardman

Estates Oversight Group
1. Aneeta Prem

ISIT Oversight Group
1. Reshard Auladin
2. Faith Boardman

EU Oversight Group
1. Jennette Arnold

Budget and Police Overtime Group*
*Membership of this group will be that of the MPA Finance Committee

HR Oversight Group
1. Rachel Whittaker

Community Engagement & Citizen Oversight Group
1. Cindy Butts
2. John Roberts

Olympic/Paralympics Oversight Group
1. Richard Sumray (lead)
2. Kirsten Hearn
3. Jennette Arnold
4. Richard Barnes
5. Dee Doocey.
6. Jenny Jones
7. Aneeta Prem
8. Peter Herbert

Counter Terrorism Oversight Group
1. Len Duvall
2. Reshard Auladin
3. Toby Harris

Appendix 5

Appointm,ents to other organisations
Organisation	Appointed May 2008
Association of Police Authorities
APA Council (formally Plenary) (6)	Len Duvall
	Faith Boardman
	Kit Malthouse
	John Roberts
	Richard Sumray
	Rachel Whittaker
APA Board (formally Executive)	Len Duvall
APA policy groups:
People Policy Network (1)(Covers HR, training H&S and professional Standards	Rachel Whittaker
Business/Corporate Policy Network (1)(Covers corp finance, authority processes and performance)	Steve O’Connell
Strategic Policy Network (1)(Covers neighbourhood policing, local partnerships and public engagement)	John Roberts
Citizen Focus Policy Network (1)(Covers CT and protective services)	Richard Sumray
APA Liaison Networks
Black & Minority Ethnic (1)	Vacant
London Councils Leader’s Committee (1)	Kit Malthouse
Panels:
Crime and Public Protection Forum	John Roberts
Local Government Association
General Assembly (4)	Kit Malthouse
	John Roberts
	James Cleverly
	Steve O’Connell
Police Authorities in Corporate Membership Group (3)	Kit Malthouse
Policy Review Groups: Social Inclusion (3)	Watching brief
LGA Urban Commission (1)	Vacant
London Health Commission (1)	Richard Sumray
Others
Home Office groups
BME Retention and Progression Group	John Roberts
BME Trust and Confidence Group	Karim Murji
Airwave Programme Board (1)	Catherine Crawford
London Crime Reduction Delivery Board	Faith Boardman
	Peter Herbert
	Kit Malthouse
	John Roberts
Police Advisory Board (1)	Rachel Whittaker
Crime stoppers (1)	Victoria Borwick
Police Negotiating Board (1)	Rachel Whittaker
Safer London Foundation (1)	Cindy Butts
Race Hate Crime Forum (open to all members)	Peter Herbert
	John Roberts
	Aneeta Prem
MPA Domestic Violence Board	Cindy Butts
	Kirsten Hearn
	Aneeta Prem
London Criminal Justice Board(1)	Richard Sumray
London Community Safety Partnership (1)	Len Duvall
	Kit Malthouse
	Martin Davis (Officer)
London Fraud Forum (1)	Toby Harris
London Fraud Forum (1)	Rachel Whittaker (Deputy)

Appendix 6

Borough Link members (Until 30 September 2008)
Borough	Link member
Barking & Dagenham	Len Duvall
Barnet	Peter Herbert
Bexley	James Cleverly
Brent	Navin Shah
Bromley	James Cleverly
Camden	Richard Sumray
Croydon	Steve O’Connell
Ealing	Richard Barnes
Enfield	Reshard Auladin
Greenwich	Len Duvall
Hackney	Jennette Arnold
Hammersmith & Fulham	Cindy Butts
Haringey	Kirsten Hearn
Harrow	Karim Murji
Havering	Aneeta Prem
Hillingdon	Richard Barnes
Hounslow	Vacant
Islington	Jennette Arnold
Kensington & Chelsea	Victoria Borwick
Kingston upon Thames	Vacant
Lambeth	John Roberts
Lewisham	Len Duvall
Merton	Richard Tracey
Newham	Aneeta Prem
Redbridge	Aneeta Prem
Richmond upon Thames	Dee Doocey
Southwark	Jenny Jones
Sutton	Steve O’Connell
Tower Hamlets	Faith Boardman
Waltham Forest	Jennette Arnold
Wandsworth	Richard Tracey
Westminster	Rachel Whittaker