Agenda item
Police Tri-borough BCU Reconfiguration (presentation)
To receive a presentation on the Met Police Tri-borough merger and communication of basic command units (BCU).
Minutes:
The Chair welcomed Louis Smith (Neighbourhood Superintendent, Met Police) to the meeting, noting that the Committee had before them an update on the Police Tri-borough merger and communication of Basic Command Units (BCU) reconfiguration. Introduced in November 2018, the changes resulted in the Met bringing together policing in Brent with Harrow and Barnet to form the North-West Area and deliver emergency response and safeguarding to residents through the sharing of police staff, buildings and resources across the three boroughs. The Committee subsequently received a short presentation highlighting a number of key points since the merger, namely the impact of the changes and communication with the local authority and the public.
Three main impact areas resulting from the merger were brought to members’ attention:
· Operational: From an operational standpoint, a key problem was bringing together expertise and balancing the workload of BCUs. The introduction of the BCU had led to a number of changes such as decrease in number of police stations, the merging of safeguarding teams, carrying out more efficient investigations and expanding the remit of officers’ responsibilities/areas of expertise. In addition, the post of a “borough commander” had been replaced with that of a single “BCU commander” responsible for all three boroughs and a new post of “inspectors” had been created. Amongst the most significant changes had been in the Central Records Division (CRD) which now included a much bigger safeguarding wing combining a range of difficulties and vulnerabilities response policing was no longer done along borough boundaries, with the A5 road serving as an approximate dividing line.
· Partnerships: - A further unintended consequence of the merger was liaison with the authorities and other partnerships, which had become more complicated due to the varying needs and lack of a clear linear progression
· Performance: - Supt Smith advised that there had been a number of structural changes, resulting from a nearly 40% reduction in the overall police budget and the need to reassess how policing was done. However, impact had been minimal and overall performance was stable with a reduction of knife crime between 0.2 and 7.5% compared with 12 months ago.
Presentation moved to communication between the Police, councillors and the Local Authority. A key measure in improving communication had also been the establishment of Designated Ward Officers posts (DWOs). Amongst the main responsibilities of DWOs was to act as the default contact for all elected members on all policing related matters in the borough, maintaining regular contact with councillors and providing updates on any issues within their respective wards. In terms of communications with the public, the Committee heard that a decision following local consultation had been made to adopt a soft approach in order not to confuse the public with the move to BCUs, while also considering what should be communicated to the public and how. Finally, members were informed of the Online Watch Link (OWL) initiative, which had proven a popular approach and offered a platform for opportunities important to local residents.
The Chair thanked Supt Smith for his presentation and invited members’ questions.
Members expressed their understanding of the impact of austerity on police but noted that problems of communication between the Police and Council remained. They were mindful of the need to improve communication further and enable councillors access to information on major incidents in a timely manner. It was noted that councillors often found out about events, particular knife crime or other serious assaults, through social media instead of directly from the Police which put them in a difficult position when dealing with residents’ questions. Members also questioned the level of information the Police was allowed to share and their expectation from members – an area which they felt needed clarification. The Committee questioned officers over how they envisioned their partnership with councillors and challenged existing perceptions by reminding officers of the wealth of local knowledge and information members were exposed to and source of.
Whilst members were understanding of the balancing valuable police resources, they requested that a better way of communicating with them be found in order to improve the process going forward.
In response, Supt Smith stated that there was a daily briefing between the LA and the Police with an opportunity for officers/councillors to dial in and be briefed on any issues around the borough. Robust processes and close cooperation was also in place between the Community Safety team and the Police, including daily risk management meeting to gather the latest local intelligence, alongside a monthly task-in meetings which provided an opportunity to note any trends and share information as partnership. However, it was stated that it would be challenging to take officers away from operational duties in order to ask them to do more administrative work/communication. In terms of social media, he stated that this was a sensitive platform to utilise when communicating on crimes and referred members to the DWOs as a first point of contact and added that they should have the mobile numbers of the sergeants. In terms of what can or can’t be shared with members, Supt Smith stated that personal data could not be given until charges had been made and the case was in the public realm. Officers advised that a refresher of all DWOs numbers would be included in the next Member bulletin for information. Supt Smith explained that the Police seeks the role of councillors as part of the community safety partnership. However, he noted that these partnerships were different and did not share the same boundaries any more. Regardless of the size of the borough he reiterated the need for both police and councillors to work as partners. He emphasised that the answer to this closer partnership would be closer liaison with the DWOs.
Discussions moved on to the matter of local ward meetings, with members enquiring whether it was a requirement for every ward to have Senior Management Team (SMT) meetings with councillors present and noting that some wards had no such provision at all. The general view of the Committee was that ward panels had to be more uniform in their format and centrally accountable to the Police. It was explained that a key challenge for the ward meetings had been attendance by the Police, in particular sergeants, as well as knowing what the relevant report mechanisms to were. It was added that some meetings were geographically well represented but more need to be done to promote this consistently across other wards in order to involve more people. A suggestion was also made that some ward meetings be held at Police stations or alternatively utilise existing Brent Connects meetings by asking police officers to attend and answer residents’ questions. Supt Smith explained that the SMTs did not have a statutory membership and served as a consultation forum, intended to find solutions to local concerns. While ward meetings were generally Police-led, officers were open to the possibility of involving councillors and local community in shaping the discussions. He added that while each London ward had a panel meeting, the format often varied from face to face meetings to WhatsApp messaging groups which provided a degree of flexibility and opportunity to involve a range of people. Supt Smith further explained that there was no budget to utilise police stations for such meetings as room availability was limited. Instead, he advised that a broader approach was needed, one which made use of other spaces which came free of charge. He further emphasised the role of DWOs as key contacts for each ward but and encouraged members and residents to engage with the directly. He stated that a balance between attending meetings where Police’s input was required and addressing operational issues across the borough had to be found in order not to compromise on officers’ duties.
Data requests:
i. Details on designated ward officer numbers be shared with all councillors.
RESOLVED:
The Resources and Public Realm Scrutiny Committee recommended:
i. That the Lead Member for Community Safety and Engagement request the Police to review the existing communication arrangements between the Police and elected representatives in order to ensure more effective liaison and sharing of information. That the result of this meeting is fed back to the committee in writing.
ii. That the Lead Member for Community Safety and Engagement reviews and shortlists appropriate ward panel models in Brent and sets up a meeting to discuss best model to replicate.
Supporting documents: