14. Memorandum submitted by
the Mayor of London
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 The Mayor welcomes this opportunity
to respond to the Home Affairs Select Committee inquiry into Police
Reform. London has unique needs for policing—it is a dynamic
capital city with serious security requirements, home to an ethnically
diverse population living in extremes of poverty and wealth, and
a centre for serious and organised crime. All Londoners deserve
high-quality local policing. London has the highest rate of crime
for any region in the UK. 40% of robbery offences in England and
Wales take place in the UK. Londoners are more worried about crime
than any other comparable population. Londoners are twice as likely
to be victims of personal crimes.[15]
The cost of crime in London in 2002-03 was estimated at £5.9
billion:[16]
1.2 This response focuses on the areas of
reform that are essential to deliver the quality of policing the
capital deserves. Given the complexity and challenges of policing
London, the priorities and pace of reform for London will be different
from other forces in England and Wales. This point is important—London
is a special case for policing, and the reform agenda being proposed
by the Home Office must meet the needs of London.
2. MAYORAL PRIORITIES
2.1 Cracking crime in London is one of the
Mayor's highest priorities. In his manifesto, he has set out the
key elements of his vision for policing London efficiently and
effectively:
— Introducing a new model of community
policing to tackle fear of crime by providing high visibility
reassurance policing and community engagement as illustrated in
the Safer Neighbourhoods scheme.
— Increasing the level of engagement
and joint working between the police, other statutory partners,
the voluntary sector and London's communities.
— Increasing the numbers of Black and
Minority Ethnic (BME) men and women in the force to create a police
force that reflects the diversity of the capital.
— Rationalising the governance structure
of the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) to increase accountability.
2.2 A safer London with stronger communities
depends on an accessible and visible MPS. A responsive and clearly
accountable police force is crucial for improving Londoners' trust
in their police service. Trust is essential to improving co-operation
between police and Londoners and will help to reduce crime in
the capital.
2.3 Over the past four years, the Mayor
has demonstrated his commitment to the role of policing in making
London a safer, stronger city. He has invested funds to increase
police numbers by nearly 5,000 new officers, bringing the strength
of the MPS to over 30,000, the biggest in its history. The three
year joint MPA/MPS/GLA efficiency and effectiveness review programme
has redirected resources to front line policing through making
better use of resources reviewing procurement and budget devolution.
But further reform is necessary in London to achieve the high
standards Londoners deserve. The following sections set out how
policing in London needs to be reformed and correspond to the
topics under consideration by the Committee.
3. THE RELATIONSHIP
BETWEEN NATIONAL
STANDARDS/PRIORITIES
AND LOCAL
DECISION-MAKING
3.1 The Mayor's Safer Neighbourhoods programme
provides visible and reassuring policing for Londoners and creates
the opportunity to invigorate community involvement in local policing
and revitalise local accountability of police officers. The Safer
Neighbourhoods Teams of six officers work in partnership with
local people and public services to tackle crime, anti-social
behaviour and improve quality of life. The teams are dedicated,
ring fenced resources that cannot be abstracted for other duties.
An essential element of this new model of policing is that local
people, through neighbourhood panels and other forms of community
engagement set the priorities and direction for their local team
and review progress. Crucial to the success of neighbourhood panels
is the quality of information provided by the police and the accessibility
of senior officers.
3.2 Of the 50 teams established to date,
the range of priorities requiring attention has spanned from youth
gangs, to litter, to aggressive driving. The national priority
crime—burglary, robbery and motor vehicle crimes have not
featured highly consultation. The level of public satisfaction
with safer neighbourhood teams appears to be much higher than
with the police in general. This demonstrates the importance local
control over priority setting and decision-making. The Home Office
should learn from the experience in London and devolve decision
making to the lowest level. The role of the centre is to set standards,
distribute funding and support performance assessment but not
to dictate priorities.
3.3 However effective community engagement
in policing will be dependent on active support and capacity building
of some marginalised communities, otherwise, in a city as diverse
as London, there is a danger that only the most vocal and active
minority will determine local policing priorities. Creative funding
from the centre is essential for groups such as newly arrived
communities and young people to be engaged in decisions about
the police.
3.4 Given the nature and scale of crime
in London, there is a tier of crime and police response that is
necessary at a regional level. Freedom and flexibility on the
use of police resources should be applicable to regional and sub-regional
units within specialist crime as well as to local policing. London
has already developed effective models of community engagement
at a regional level—for example the Operation Trident Independent
Advisory Group. Operation Trident working with its Independent
Advisory Group model has helped deliver a 50% reduction in murders
and a 22% reduction in attempted murders involving guns in black
communities.
4. THE USE
OF COMMUNITY
SUPPORT OFFICERS
4.1 The Mayor has welcomed the introduction
of Community Support Officers—they provide a visible presence
on the streets and improved relations with the community. They
are an important part of the Safer Neighbourhood's teams. Increased
funding for PCSOs would allow for the rapid rollout of Safer Neighbourhoods
teams across London. The profile of PCSOs in London is closer
to London's diversity, with more women and BME officers attracted
to these positions. At the end of May 2004 34% of London's PCSOs
were from visible ethnic minority communities, and 29% were women.
This new rank with a specific focus on engagement with the community
and policing on the street has expanded opportunities to enter
the service, and suggest that new gateways into the service could
lead to a more diverse force. The Mayor does not support increasing
the powers of PCSOs or changing their role to include management
or supervisory responsibilities, as this could lead to the dilution
of their original purpose, which is to provide visible, front-line
policing to London's communities.
5. PROPOSAL TO
ESTABLISH COMMUNITY
ADVOCATES
5.1 Community Advocates might improve trust
of the police within the community but there may be opportunities
for other current organisations such as Citizens' Advice Bureaux,
Victim Support and community groups to extend their remit. The
Mayor has set up and supported a network of Black led community
organisations engaged in community safety through the BME Cracking
Crime initiative. Consultation through this network has revealed
how difficult it is for small, community led organisations to
access funding for the advocacy and police liaison services that
they are already providing. So, rather than creating and funding
new roles, the Mayor suggests that funding and support should
be made easily available to existing organisations.
6. ACCOUNTABILITY
MECHANISMS FOR
POLICING AND
THE FUTURE
OF THE
"TRIPARTITE" STRUCTURE
6.1 The lines of accountability in policing
London remain unclear. This is frustrating the progress of police
service modernisation and reform in London. The structure for
police accountability in London needs to be simplified or the
current duplication and wasting of resources will continue to
hamper the implementation of the reform agenda.
6.2 Fragmented leadership at a regional
level and extensive local partnerships have led to confused lines
of accountability. The "Tripartite" structure in London
in fact includes several partners with statutory responsibilities
(Mayor, Home Office, Commissioner, Borough Commanders, City of
London Police Force, The Royal Parks Constabulary, MPA, CDRPs,
Local Authorities, LSPs). Each agency has its own targets many
of which overlap. This multi-layered structure frustrates democractic
accountability.
6.3 The current structure of the MPA needs
to change. As directly elected representative of Londoners, the
Mayor should Chair the Metropolitan Police Authority. The MPA
as currently configured is independent of the Mayor, although
the Mayor's sets the budget for the MPA and raises a precept from
Londoners to fund policing. The Authority should be replaced by
a strategic police board for London The strategic police board
must have a strong democratic bases for legitimacy, credibility
and in order to use precept raising powers. There should be more
democratically elected representatives on the London Police Board
than are currently on the MPA and fewer selected from interest
groups. Elected representatives could be drawn from London assembly
members, local authorities and local neighbourhood panels. Directly
elected local police boards would be a mistake due to the problems
of voter apathy and shortages of quality candidates. The Mayor
should also appoint the Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner for
the Metropolitan Police, so that accountability and leadership
is clear to all Londoners. The Board should hold chief officers
to account for their performance against London and neighbourhood
priorities. The Board should be responsible securing the delivery
of an effective, efficient and fair police service.
6.4 In terms of operational effectiveness,
it is important to have a single police force coterminous with
the boundaries for London, which is able to deliver both on local
policing and policing a capital city. There is a strong argument
on the grounds of efficiency, effectiveness and clarity of accountability
for the City of London Police, Royal Parks Police and British
Transport Police to be absorbed into the structures of the Metropolitan
Police Service. This could be achieved without diluting their
skills, knowledge and expertise. A service level agreement, such
as the one that exists between Transport for London and the MPS
for transport policing, could ensure that the City of London and
Corporation pare provided with the level and type of policing
necessary for the square mile.
6.5 Funding streams currently channeled
though Government Offices, such as the Building Safer Communities
fund to local crime and disorder partnerships and the new Safer
Stronger Communities Fund to be rolled out in April 2005, should
be directed through a new London Metropolitan Police Board, and
the MPA until such a Board is established. This would simplify
the funding streams for policing and community safety and provide
efficiency savings. In addition it would also create a simplified
performance management regime so a single body assesses policing
partnership performance.
7. PERFORMANCE,
PLANNING AND
THE ROLE
OF THE
POLICE STANDARDS
UNIT
7.1 The police standards unit should develop
performance assessment mechanisms that reflect regional differences
and can then be used to improve regional performance. The Mayor
recognises the benefits of a central performance unit for standardising
performance indicators nationally. Flexibility within the targets
is welcomed but there is not enough recognition of the particular
needs of London.
7.2 An effective performance culture will
only be embedded in the MPS when funding and performance management
systems are streamlined through the democratically elected strategic
leadership of London, the Mayor. The Mayor has made a manifesto
commitment to making transparent to all Londoners police performance,
by providing real time information on crime, police response and
results.
8. THE GOVERNMENT'S
RESPONSE TO
THE O'DOWD
REPORT ON
POLICE BUREAUCRACY
8.1 The Mayor welcomes the principles of
the O'Dowd report since it releases police time for them to be
on the streets and as a result of this provides an opportunity
to improve police and community relations. The Mayor welcomes
the Government's recognition that reducing police bureaucracy
and getting more police on the streets will require a partnership
between police forces and local authorities. The Mayor will monitor
the implementation of the O'Dowd recommendations and the re-distribution
of roles.
9. INCREASING
THE NUMBERS
OF BME MEN
AND WOMEN
IN THE
FORCE
9.1 Essential to effective community engagement
is creating a workforce that reflects the diversity of London.
The Mayor is committed to increasing police numbers in the capital,
which gives the MPS a unique opportunity to change the demographic
profile of the force. All efforts on workforce modernisation should
be driven by a commitment to improve the diversity of the workforce.
Cultural change within the organisation is central to this. The
MPS want to adopt a recruitment strategy that targets recruits
from London, but the high cost of living in the capital makes
this difficult. Pay and conditions will affect the composition
of the MPS; more flexible working practices nationally are needed
to achieve a representative force. Currently, BME officers make
up around 7% of the MPS, and, on current practice, there is no
way that the MPS are going to be able to achieve the Home Office
target of 25% BME officers by the year 2009. The Mayor calls for
the temporary suspension of the Race Relations Amendment Act as
it relates to employment legislation in order to target recruitment
at BME communities are to be met. Police training also needs to
be reviewed to carry through cultural change in the organisation.
An independent London-wide body that is accountable to the Mayor
should carry out training for the MPS.
4 August 2004
15 Crime in England and Wales 2003-04. Back
16
The Case for London. Back
| 
