Examination of Witnesses (Question Numbers
1-19)
MR TIM
GODWIN AND
MR KIT
MALTHOUSE
16 MARCH 2010
Q1 Chair: I refer everyone to the Register
of Members' Interests where the interests of Members of this Committee
are noted. I welcome to the Committee the Deputy Commissioner
of the Metropolitan Police, Mr Godwin, and the Deputy Mayor and
Chair of the Metropolitan Police Association, Mr Malthouse. This
is a one-off inquiry which will look at the work of the Metropolitan
Police. We are most grateful to both of you for coming today to
talk about the work you are doing. Mr Malthouse, why did the Mayor
take the decision to stand down as the chair of the MPA and ask
you to chair it?
Mr Malthouse: There
were a number of reasons. At the very moment the Home Office regulations
changed to allow the Mayor to become chair of the Police Authority
he assumed the chairmanship because he wanted to achieve some
specific tasks on the MPA: a shake-up of senior ranks in the Metropolitan
Police Service which he effected immediately; reorganisation of
the Police Authority which is now complete; and the setting of
a longer-term strategy—three years—set out in a document
we published called Met Forward about how the Metropolitan
Police and the Metropolitan Police Authority should work together
in future years. Fifteen months in he took the view that the chair
of the Police Authority was a job that had two halves, if you
like: one was about the administration of the Authority itself
and the other was about contact, advice and influence with the
Metropolitan Police. He wanted to increase the "influence"
part of it and then pass the administration side to me. Therefore,
he appointed me chair of the Authority but increased the amount
of contact time he spends with the Commissioner in particular
from a formal meeting once a month to a meeting once every two
weeks, to receive more regular briefings from me on a weekly and
monthly basis as well as speaking to me on a daily basis. That
was part of a general reorganisation of his time so he could maximise
his effort where he felt it was most critical—for him the
critical connection was with the Commissioner—and minimise
it where he thought he could wisely pass to me other tasks in
this area.
Q2 Chair: Perhaps I may put a couple
of points that have been in the media recently, which will give
you a chance to respond. On 23 February London's favourite, and
perhaps only, evening paper, the Evening Standard, set
out a long list of committee meetings and suggested that you had
not attended a single one of those you needed to attend in order
to understand what was happening about policing. Would you like
to respond to that?
Mr Malthouse: I confess to feeling
slightly bruised by that story because the truth is that I am
an ex officio member of every single committee on the Police
Authority, as are four other individuals, by dint of being vice-chair
and then chair. The intention is that as an ex officio
member I can receive the papers formally and attend and participate
in the meetings, but unfortunately as an ex officio member
I cannot vote on those committees. It is a technicality because
the Police Authority, unlike a lot of other authorities, does
not have a substitution system. Therefore, when members are absent
we cannot substitute people onto the committee. The fact I had
not attended those committees was a reflection of a technicality.
I receive all the papers of those committees and interact with
the chairs on specific issues of concern and the work of those
committees is steered through a mini-cabinet, if you like, called
the business management group, which I chair and attend and that
includes all the chairs of those committees. That was a rather
crafty inflation of a minor technicality.
Q3 Chair: How would you describe
your relationship with the Commissioner and other leaders? Obviously,
the Deputy Commissioner is here today. You made some comments
last September about having your hands on the tiller of the Met.
What exactly does that mean?
Mr Malthouse: As to your first
question, as my boss, the Mayor, would say our relationship is
positively glutinous. We get on extremely well on a professional
and human level and obviously we work closely together. I see
the Commissioner every Friday and we will probably speak to or
bump into each other at meetings two or three times a week. We
now have a shared aim about where we should be. The comments in
the summer to which you allude were, again, an inflation of an
interview I had given to the Guardian during which I had
merely stated the obvious, namely that in our view it was for
the Mayor and Police Authority to set the mission, for the Commissioner
to decide how to achieve it and we then negotiate about how much
it will cost. I believe the Commissioner expressed concern that
that might be misinterpreted as an erosion of the principle of
operational policing but that is completely incorrect. We are
very keen to preserve that principle.
Q4 Mr Winnick: I have listened to
your explanation of why the Mayor stood down and was replaced
by you as chair of the Police Authority. If I remember rightly,
during his election campaign the Mayor made much of the fact that
if elected he would chair the Police Authority. It seems rather
odd that having placed so much emphasis on the fact he would do
that, unlike his predecessor Mr Livingstone, that he has decided
after 18 months that he does not want to do it and has given the
job to you.
Mr Malthouse: No, I do not believe
that is peculiar. The Mayor said he thought it was important that
the Mayor should take responsibility for crime in the capital
and should be accountable to Londoners for the way the police
went about their job, how the Police Authority functioned and
ultimately for crime results in the city. He wanted to maintain
that democratic accountability and initially demonstrated it by
becoming chair of the Authority. He wanted to achieve specific
things early on. Unfortunately, the rules allowing him to become
chair did not kick in until the October after his election. We
had suggested earlier to the then Labour chair that he might respect
the mandate and stand aside but he declined to take that opportunity,
so when the regulations changed Mr Johnson became the chair and
achieved what he wanted to achieve. Then he wanted to allow time
for him to strengthen what he believes to be the primary relationship
in the city which is between him and the Commissioner.
Q5 Mr Winnick: He gave the very strong
impression that was the job he would do if elected but gave no
indication that it would be for only a limited period.
Mr Malthouse: I do not believe
he indicated either way; he said he would chair the Authority.
He believed that changes were required in the Metropolitan Police
Authority.
Q6 Mr Winnick: Did you advise Boris
Johnson that the then Commissioner of Police, Sir Ian Blair, should
be asked to leave, if not dismissed?
Mr Malthouse: Obviously we discussed
it.
Q7 Tom Brake: To move to a different
subject, some have claimed that the appointment of Mr Dizaei following
a series of unproven allegations about his conduct was driven
by a desire on the part of the MPA to appear politically correct.
Could I ask both of you for your views on the current appointment
process for senior officers?
Mr Godwin: The Commissioner of
Police has made it plain that where we now have very clear lines
of accountability and governance with the Police Authority and
the Home Office he is held accountable for delivering the mission
just mentioned. At the same time, in order to be successful like
chief executives who run their own businesses they will be allowed
to pick their teams to ensure they have the best people to deliver.
In saying that the Commissioner was not in any way criticising
the current management team, with which he is very happy, but
that discipline and control of the top police officer tier should
also fall to him rather than an outside body. It is a reversal
of the current practice, which is the Police Authority appoints
in consultation with and following advice of the Commissioner.
The Commissioner believes that for him to appoint following consultation
with and advice from the Police Authority will give a far greater
chance of success. I think that is gaining credibility with a
lot of members of the Police Authority.
Q8 Tom Brake: How extensively does
the Commissioner believe he should appoint his senior management
team? What is the scale of it? Are we talking of 10, 20 or 50
officers?
Mr Godwin: It would be at the
ACPO level within the Met which is the only one he does not appoint
at the moment and that would be about 30 officers.
Mr Malthouse: Obviously, the Commissioner,
the Mayor and I have discussed this on a number of occasions and
there is not a cigarette paper between us. We believe there should
be a reversal of the current situation. The Authority still has
a role because obviously if a vacancy arises in the last six months
of a Commissionership we must ensure that whoever is appointed
is able to serve any succeeding Commissioner competently and all
the rest of it. But fundamentally if the Mayor is holding the
Commissioner to account he must allow him to choose the team that
will enable him to succeed on advice from the Authority. In a
command organisation like the Metropolitan Police Service it is
very important that officers look to their commanding officer
first rather than an outside body; and, to be honest with you,
we saw the results of the previous appointments regime under the
previous Commissioner.
Q9 Tom Brake: Mr Godwin, in a scenario
where the Commissioner appoints or selects the 30 top-ranking
officers how would the Met go about addressing some of the longstanding
issues in terms of gender and ethnic balance and making sure that
those officers are truly representative of London's communities
as far as possible? How would those sorts of issues be addressed
if one person was now responsible for appointing the top tier
of officers?
Mr Godwin: It would be one person
in consultation with the Police Authority, but additionally the
one thing we are very clear about is that the Police Service should
be accountable to police authorities and others in terms of the
democratic process so we are still accountable for the choices
and decisions we take. We are committed to creating a representative
workforce in the Metropolitan Police to serve Londoners. That
is one of our diversity strategies which is part of the control
set by the Commissioner. We shall be working to get that right.
Obviously, we shall be picking the best candidate for the job
but we are very conscious about making sure we have systems in
place to allow progression of all members of the community in
London. For example, the gender balance in senior ranks has changed
significantly. As I said before, the Commissioner is very happy
with the people who are being brought through but feels that the
balance should be redressed.
Q10 Mr Clappison: It appears that
there are far more ethnic minority officers in the junior ranks
of the police than there were, say, 20 or 30 years ago. It would
be a good thing generally if we saw more of them progressing into
leadership roles, would it not?
Mr Malthouse: Absolutely. The
present BME representation in the force is the highest it has
ever been. Obviously, the Metropolitan Police is a long service
organisation. If you go to one of the commendation ceremonies
that hand out medals for 22 years' service you will notice that
all the men who get up on stage are huge because 22 years ago
there was a height requirement to join the service. It will take
time for those characteristics to work their way through, but
we see some very encouraging signs and strong promotion prospects
coming through.
Mr Godwin: There are still things
that we need to do. We have done some work recently in terms of
preparation for the selection processes, informal networks, et
cetera. When you are part of a minority element within the Police
Service sometimes it is harder to gain access to that informal
network so we have to replace it with something else to assist
in terms of bringing people through as quickly as we can. That
is part of the current diversity strategy we have negotiated with
the Police Authority and other staff associations that we are
working through at the moment.
Q11 Mr Winnick: The Met has hardly
been out of the news in the past two or three years for all kinds
of reasons, not necessarily for its work in combating criminality
as it does day in day out. What is morale like?
Mr Godwin: Morale is very good.
We have staff surveys that we monitor regularly and we have a
very high return in the sense of people feeling valued in the
job, that they make a difference, et cetera. Whilst at the time
it did not feel like it, some six years ago when we had significant
recruitment into the serious crime directorates and counter-terrorism
units in the boroughs we had a very young workforce. As a result
we now benefit from the fact that we have a very young in-service
workforce. Morale is high. We have one of the lowest sickness
rates. There have been some challenges around single patrol and
changing working practices which is the subject of ongoing dialogue
with officers but that is now embedding and being pushed through.
Q12 Mr Winnick: So it is a happy
ship from to bottom, if that is the right expression?
Mr Godwin: In addition, we have
not been in the press so much recently. That is something of which
we have been very conscious in the past, and we are very keen
to focus on our core job which is keeping Londoners safe.
Q13 Mr Winnick: The Prime Minister
recently referred to a target whereby neighbourhood police officers
would spend at least 80% of their time on the beat. Is that possible?
Mr Godwin: Yes is the answer to
that.
Q14 Mr Winnick: Is it being done?
What is the percentage at the moment?
Mr Godwin: We monitor our Safer
Neighbourhoods Teams' patrol time and time on the beat. We have
very strict rules in London to ensure that those officers are
not extracted for events, to provide relief or cover or whatever.
There are events like Notting Hill where we need larger numbers
of police officers. That is one of the days where we can use Safer
Neighbourhoods Teams. At the moment the monitoring regime indicates
that they spend 97.5% of their time on the beat.
Q15 Tom Brake: Mr Godwin, how does
that sit with the fact that you are supposed to have only one
target which I believe is customer satisfaction?
Mr Godwin: There is one overriding
target for the Police Service, which is confidence in the local
police target. It is not just confidence in the police but police
and local authorities, so it adds a new dynamic, and all the rest
of it are subordinate indicators that support the ambition. We
have just had the Rounded Assessment which brings in protection
from harm, confidence and satisfaction as well as local policing,
so there are a range of indicators that come underneath it. Most
of these are promises we have to keep, which we accept. We do
not believe that a police service would naturally have only one
target and would ignore all the other management information and
I do not believe that any Police Authority would let them do so,
but we regard the setting of those targets locally as a delegated
responsibility.
Q16 Bob Russell: Mr Godwin, has the
Metropolitan Police stopped nicking police officers from Essex?
Mr Godwin: You have got me on
that one. If police officers from Essex commit crime in London—
Q17 Bob Russell: You deliberately
misunderstand me. I am talking about the Met recruiting Essex
police officers.
Mr Godwin: I am a straightforward
cop and it is easier to say, "nicking". At the moment
our recruiting is slowing down. We have a very low wastage rate
,which is another good thing for us in terms of retaining our
experience. We had a period during which we had a very young workforce;
we recruited 3,500 probationers a year, which meant that at any
given time we had 7,000 probationers on the streets, in the boroughs,
and we needed to encourage people to come back. We had been a
net exporter of senior experienced cops before that mainly because
they were attracted by cheaper housing, et cetera in Essex, Kent,
Surrey, Sussex and Thames Valley. We have turned the tables on
that at the beginning with the support of the Home Secretary of
the day with a London pay lead, but we are not nicking so many.
Q18 Bob Russell: I may return to
that via a Parliamentary Question. On Monday of last week The
Times reported that Kent Police had become the first force
to publicise on its website the results of selected cases from
magistrates' courts across the force area. The cases are based
on what police chiefs say are key issues identified by the public,
including antisocial behaviour, speeding, drink driving and criminal
damage. Are there any plans by the Met to replicate what Kent
Police have done?
Mr Godwin: We are putting on our
website court outcomes and all the rest of it. There is a challenge
in that across the country there is variation in terms of trial
timeliness. In some cases one can have a nine-month delay between
arrest and trial date, so getting a result for a case of grievous
bodily harm can be somewhat troublesome because it takes some
time to get there, but we are now putting outcomes on our website
in terms of arrest et cetera.
Q19 Bob Russell: Therefore, is Kent
Police incorrect in saying they were the first in the country
to do it?
Mr Godwin: They probably were
the first but the increase in information available on websites
is being driven by the Home Office.
| 
