Appendix A
Kit Malthouse CV
Education
Newcastle University: BA Joint Honours in Politics and Economics Touche Ross & Co: training and qualification as a Chartered Accountant.
Business
1991 – 1995: Touche Ross & Co, Trainee Chartered Accountant 1995 – 2001: Cannock Investments Group, Finance Director 2005 – 2008: Alpha Strategic, Chief Executive 2001 – Current: County Holdings and related companies, Chairman and Majority Shareholder 2008 – Current: Alpha Strategic and related companies, part time Finance Director
Politics
1996 – 1997: Parliamentary Candidate, Liverpool Wavertree 1998 – 2002: Westminster City Councillor, St George’s Ward 2002 – 2006: Westminster City Councillor, Warwick Ward (Deputy Chair Housing Committee, Chief Whip, Chair Social Services, Cabinet Member for Finance, Deputy Leader, Lead Member for Business Process Re-Engineering) 2006 – 2007: Director, City West Homes 2008 – Current: London Assembly Member for West Central 2008 – Current: London Hydrogen Partnership, Chair 2008 – Current: Deputy Mayor of London, Policing 2008 – Current: First Deputy Chair, Metropolitan Police Authority (MPA) 2008 – Current: London Councils Leaders Committee, MPA Representative 2009 – Current: Association of Police Authorities, Board Director (paid)
Other
Member: Institute of Chartered Accountants Member: The Poetry Society Benefactor: Sadler's Wells Member: Passage Day Centre Member: The Art Fund Member: Old Lerpoolian Society
Languages: French and Italian(ish)
Pastimes: Writing, painting, family, baking bread. Appendix B
Confirmation Hearing Committee 23 February 2010 Chair of the Metropolitan Police Authority (MPA)
Jennette Arnold (Chair): What I would like to do is to start off procedures by asking Kit [Malthouse] an opening question. By way of an opening statement perhaps you could tell us what you see as the challenges and opportunities of the role of Chairman of the MPA and what your objectives would be.
Kit Malthouse (AM): Chair, first of all can I thank the Committee for agreeing to move the meeting out of half-term and avoiding me having to break my time with my family, so I am grateful for that.
I think the challenges that we are facing break down into two areas: the first is general policing challenges and secondly then there are the challenges that face the Metropolitan Police Authority as a separate body. In policing, as you will appreciate as a member of the Metropolitan Police Authority, Chair, the challenges seem to change daily. There are some themes broadly which I think we can draw and I particularly would like to push - and I know the Mayor is keen for us to push - in the next couple of years.
The first is to continue the drive against violence. Over the last 18 months to 2 years or so we have seen a big push both here in this building, at the Metropolitan Police Authority and particularly with the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) against violence. We have done our best to draw in local authorities so that we can drive as much joint working as possible on in particular youth violence, but we have also taken measures to address dogs, knives, guns, gangs, starting to do some work around and indeed domestic violence through our Violence Against Women Strategy. So, for me, given that there are numerous crime types, but I think the one that is on top of most people's list and that detracts most from their quality of life in the city is violence in its generality. So, dealing with the challenge of that over the next couple of years will be number one.
We have obviously got to keep up the momentum on burglary. Pleasingly the performance figures on burglary indicate that the peak was reached and many boroughs are now showing a reduction. It looks as if we are on course to have a satisfactory result, I think, for the year, albeit that there has been a peak and a lot of people were burgled during the year who might not have been. So, that positive trend is key and balancing the resources that we devote to that against the resources we devote to other crime types is going to be one of the challenges.
Then the third area which is causing me concern, that I really think as the Metropolitan Police Authority we need to do more work on, is getting to the root of some of the - I was trying to think of a word for it earlier - social crimes. So, hate crime in particular where we have seen a rise in reported hate crime and whether we need to do work about whether that is an actual rise in incidence; domestic violence in particular - as you know that is a key theme in our Violence Against Women (VAW) Strategy in this building and we want to see what work the Metropolitan Police Authority and the Metropolitan Police Service can do around that; and prostitution and sexual crime needs to be looked at. I am pleased that the changes the Metropolitan Police Service has made around the human trafficking units seem to be bedding in nicely and they have had their first result. I think they have had their first ever result on trafficking for domestic slavery in the Metropolitan Police Service in the last couple of weeks rather than purely for sexual exploitation, which is good news. Also, of course, we need to look at rape.
1 I call them social crime because they differ in their characteristics from other types of crime in that prevention is not necessarily just about catching the perpetrators. It is about social and cultural issues that might need to be addressed on a wider stage. I think if we are going to make an impact on those then we will need to draw in other parties, in particular the Government, around some of the causes there.
There are some other areas which are pretty critical too. Obviously finance. Whatever the outcome of the election is going to be we face a tightening envelope, so doing more for less over the next couple of years will be a big challenge. I think performance management through the Metropolitan Police Authority is going to be key. I am quite keen to move us away from bare examination of performance numbers into a much more coherent link between the measurement of activity and linking that to performance outcome. So, we can actually see where things are working, why they are working and, therefore, what we ought to be doing as a generality across the city. The truth is that performance across boroughs for the same crime type can de very patchy and there is no agreed tactic necessarily for dealing with any particular crime type across the city. We need to make sure that boroughs are talking to each other and engaging in the same kind of activities to get the same kind of results.
Then obviously the big elephant that is looming in 2012 is the Olympics and that will absorb more and more of our time and energy over the next couple of years. I am conscious that there is an Assembly and Mayoral election just before the Olympics and so it will be absolutely critical, as we approach that, which will obviously also absorb a lot of our time and energy, that the preparations and foundations have been well laid and that we are very closely integrated as an authority, and indeed in this building, into some of the security arrangements around the Olympics. Dee [Doocey] has been doing some very valuable work on the Olympic/Paralympic Sub-committee and with me on the Olympic Security Board to make sure that we actually know what is going on and are on top of the game there. Against that we also need to balance the fact that while the Olympics is, if you like, the kind of sexy end and will be attractive as a once in a lifetime thing, we still need to have our eye on the day job. So, balancing that draw on our resources and attention against still needing to deliver leather on the streets on a day-to-day basis and dealing with low-level crime is going to be a big challenge.
Just turning briefly to the Metropolitan Police Authority, I think the challenges of the Metropolitan Police Authority fall broadly under three headings. First of all I think the Metropolitan Police Authority still has a challenge of being relevant. I hope it is the case that its profile has risen over the last couple of years, both by accident and design. So, people recognise it as a body that is here to do a job for them and on their behalf, with the Metropolitan Police Service, making sure that what we do, the work we do, the questions we ask, the way we do it is relevant to people in London and indeed that we are engaging correctly with our electorate or audience – call it what you like - I think is going to be a challenge for us. We are starting some work, as some of you may know at the Metropolitan Police Authority, about looking at how we talk to Londoners, how we have that conversation and whether, therefore, we are heading in the direction they want.
The second challenge is about us being effective. The nature of the relationship between the Metropolitan Police Authority and the Metropolitan Police Service is a semi-detached one. As many of us know, we operate on the basis of cooperation rather than command or direction. While that is a very British way of doing things it does mean that we need to have an eye to our effectiveness in terms of making sure that we are getting what the public want from the police. Again, our structures, the way we do our meetings and the questions we ask will all help us with that and we need to look at that.
Secondly, it is about accountability. I think as the profile of the Metropolitan Police Authority has grown we have seen a greater recognition that we, as a group - and when I say we I am talking about those of us who are on the Metropolitan Police Authority - are in fact the public face of accountability to Londoners and I would like to see that embedded and increased. I think some of the measures we have taken, although they may seem cosmetic, have improved that. So, moving full authority
2 meetings to this building and putting them in this room has given them a status and a greater availability for the public, which I think has helped.
We are seeing more and more correspondence now as people recognise that, both in this building and at the Metropolitan Police Authority, there is a place they can go with their problems and their issues. I do think we need, as an authority, to review – as part of that review of the conversation we are having with Londoners - how we can be more accountable to them and engage them more in the work that we do. So, I would like to think as Vice Chairman over the last - whatever it has been - 21 months we have made some progress, but I think there is still a lot to do, and there will always be a lot to do because, as I say, the challenge changes seemingly on a daily and indeed sometimes hourly basis.
Jennette Arnold (Chair): Thank you, Kit. Now, Members will have some supplementary questions to those statements and then we will go on and look at specific areas.
Roger Evans (AM): That was quite an interesting and comprehensive list. So often we have people in front of us and they give us a list of priorities which are not too different from those of their predecessors, because of course the city does not change that much and day-to-day the same things remain important to people.
One of the things that struck me that was not in your list that I think would have been in the list of someone like Sir Ian Blair [former Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis from 2005 to 2008], for example, because he always spoke about it, is dealing with the terrorist threat. You really only I think alluded to that in reference to the 2012 Olympics. Is this an indication that you now feel at the Metropolitan Police Service that the threat is less than it was and it has become less of a priority?
Kit Malthouse (AM): No. That is not the case. Obviously we do stay in touch with counterterrorism, we obviously supervise the counter-terrorism efforts and James [Cleverly] sits on the Counter-terrorism and Protective Services Sub-committee. I do not mean to detract from any sense of threat but I am very conscious that although the terrorist threat is very real, very serious and we do need to pay it attention, it cannot be to the detriment of the day job which is about making sure we deal with people's day-to-day concerns around crime, antisocial behaviour and other issues in London.
The place of the counter-terrorism effort within the Metropolitan Police Service is a peculiar one in that we obviously deal with it on a kind of subcontracted basis. While there is a lot of crossover I am very aware of the, if you like, dotted line between London political leadership and national political leadership on counter-terrorism issues. So, while I obviously have - and have had and intend to have - regular meetings with John Yates and other members of the counter-terrorism command, and in deed with the Security Service [responsible for protecting the UK from threats to national security] and the Home Office around the issue, I regard myself as a custodian of the subcontract rather than driving performance which is quite rightly a national function for them to do.
Roger Evans (AM): Would you feel that perhaps that work ultimately would fit better in a separate force rather than being a part of London's policing?
Kit Malthouse (AM): I do not actually, no. One of the great strengths of UK policing is the unbroken line between the police officer walking the beat and - whatever it may be - the Assistant Commissioner for Specialist Operations [John Yates, who has a responsibility for Counter-terrorism] or indeed the Commissioner. That unbroken line is something which is the envy of many other countries. Indeed I have met a number of people from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) in the United States (US) who have time and time again said that their big problem - the big lacuna in their armoury; the hole in their armour - is that they do not have this connection between frontline intelligence officers on the beat, feeding information and connections and all the rest of it up through to the very senior effort in counterterrorism. In fact I know that in the United States they are
3 attempting to reproduce what we have here. So, while it would be organisationally mute it would be, to my mind, to the detriment of the counterterrorism effort in the UK.
Joanne McCartney (AM): Kit, I want to ask a question about something you said in your opening statement and that was about the challenges facing the Metropolitan Police Authority. When you were talking about the Metropolitan Police Authority being effective, you said, that the MPA and MPS are semi-detached and there needs to be more cooperation between the two parts. We have obviously had comments by yourself in the press and a spat - or not spat - with Sir Paul Stephenson about whether you have the hand on the tiller or not. Last week when Reshard Auladin was here and was confirmed as your Vice Chairman, he stated - and I am going to quote what he said,
"I would like to see the MPS re-establishing a relationship with the MPA as it was previously, by which I mean an understanding as to who they are reporting to. I am not blaming anybody here; I do think there has been confusion in the past because of the new structure with the Mayor being the new Chairman of the Metropolitan Police Authority."
He seems to be saying that there was a good relationship before and he wants to return to how it was before and that the new structures that have been put in place since you were in charge have led to confusion. Do you agree with this statement?
Kit Malthouse (AM): I do not necessarily agree with that, no, I am afraid. I do not think it has led to confusion. I think it has been new and, therefore, has taken some time to get used to but I do not personally see, and have not felt, that it has led to any confusion. No, I do not see it, sorry.
Joanne McCartney (AM): Have you talked to Reshard [Auladin], your Vice Chairman, about those comments? I believe, just talking to MPA members, that many of them feel there is confusion.
Kit Malthouse (AM): I have not talked to him specifically about those comments, no, but I am more than happy, as you know Joanne, my door is always open to Metropolitan Police Authority members and we have had a number of formal and informal meetings to talk about the direction of the Metropolitan Police Authority and obviously that will continue - I will be more than happy to do that. Obviously the rule change by the Government was seemingly a small one and I do not think they appreciated when they made the change the impact that it would have.
It is undoubtedly the case that it was a fundamental change in the way the Metropolitan Police Authority was constituted and, as a result, did cause a certain amount of - not confusion - uncertainty about where people would sit. So, if I put myself in the place of an independent member on the Metropolitan Police Authority and sitting opposite me on the table is somebody who has a 1.3 million- person mandate, what legitimacy do I have in terms of contradicting, out-voting and dealing with that person? I can see why that would create some issues, but I do not think it necessarily created any confusion - well, certainly not for me.
Joanne McCartney (AM): I would like to ask about that last point you raise because when you were here two years ago and we were confirming you as Vice Chairman then, you did not seem very keen on independent members. You said that,
"Should an independent member who, as I say, is appointed off a 20-minute interview and a curriculum vitae (CV) is able to frustrate the legitimate democratic desire of the Mayor with a mandate of 1.2 million."
Now, you have since appointed Reshard [Auladin], an independent member, who I think very highly of, as your Vice Chairman.
Kit Malthouse (AM): Yes, me too.
4
Joanne McCartney (AM): Has your view towards independent members, therefore, changed?
Kit Malthouse (AM): No. I think you have to separate two things to be honest. You have to separate the personal from the structural. Now, there are a number of independent members who are very experienced and very skilled personally and Reshard [Auladin] is one of those. Over the last two years my respect for him has grown significantly. The structure of the MPA is defined in law; there is nothing we can do about that, but that does not detract from my general view in principle that, as a democrat, I think that if you are coming onto a body, like the Metropolitan Police Authority in a representative position, you should have some kind of mandate.
The truth is that independent members often subconsciously yearn for that mandate and, in the past, my perception is that they seek it through the link member role. Independent members often are very keen on the link member role because it gives them a quasi-mandate that they are geographically representative of an area. From my point of view, I would love to see people of Reshard Auladin's skills on the MPA also elected because then they come with a mandate as a representative.
Now, if they are not coming with a mandate as a democratic representative I think, from their point of view, it causes confusion and it creates a kind of two-tier membership on the Metropolitan Police Authority. We do see that and I do think the elected and non-elected members of the Metropolitan Police Authority see themselves in different ways. I am not sure that is necessarily that healthy. In terms of what we have got, am I happy with the work the vast majority of independent members do? Absolutely. They are skilled, devoted and give their time freely and I would not take that away from them.
Joanne McCartney (AM): I would like to ask one further thing. You said that you want to see more of a relationship between the MPA and the MPS and you said everything is done by cooperation - the MPA works with the MPS in cooperation - there is not enough command and direction of the police. Where would you see that command and direction coming from?
Kit Malthouse (AM): Well, it is not necessarily that, it is that in my view there are certain issues on which the Metropolitan Police Authority should decide. We are, in law, the properly constituted representatives, if you like, of London. So, in terms of the priorities, the direction, the budget and all those high-level strategic things then I think it is perfectly legitimate for us to decide what those should be and that should not necessarily be a negotiation. That should be, "This is what we think. We have obviously listened to your view - and that is absolutely vital - but this is what we would like to happen."
That is what we produced in Met Forward. We produced a strategic direction for the organisation over the next two or three years. That is not the same as saying, "You will do this or you will do that." The role of the organisation has to be more strategic than that. I think we are now at a place that we have got to in a very British way rather than it being written down on paper, we have got to where we need to be. For me it was just about the MPA being more assertive around that role.
Len Duvall (AM): Can you just go back over and explain what you think the semi-detachment role is then? You appear on one hand to be wanting to strengthen the MPA's role - in May we have a general election and you may have a different view about that so maybe you will touch on those and maybe you would like to give your views around that - and some of the issues of some of the lobbying, which I believe maybe the Mayor or yourself support, about taking the powers of appointment away from the MPA and giving it over to Sir Paul Stephenson.
So, where are you? Do you want to strengthen the MPA's role or do you want to see a changed role? What is it about that assertiveness?
5 Kit Malthouse (AM): There are three answers - and under the current structure I would like to see a strong MPA, yes. I think a strong MPA is what London wants and I actually think a strong MPA would be to the benefit of the Metropolitan Police Service too.
Len Duvall (AM): So, that is a collective response or as your role as Chairman in terms of directing the Metropolitan Police Service?
Kit Malthouse (AM): No, collectively. Absolutely. I think a strong and clear voice from the MPA and a coherent MPA that speaks with one voice and speaks clearly is obviously desirable for both partners in the relationship. Now, that may be difficult because of the nature of the makeup of the MPA but, nevertheless, it can be an aspiration. Post an election what do I think the situation should be? Well, I do think, and I think a lot of us who are on the MPA feel this from time to time, that the MPA is structurally a conflicted organisation. It is both a scrutiny body and an executive body. We sign off contracts which we then are supposed to scrutinise which makes life difficult. For me a separation of those two would be an improvement, I think.
So, moving towards a Transport for London (TfL) model where there is a police board which is appointed by the Mayor, which could bring on the skills of Londoners, maybe some borough leaders - whatever - the Mayor could choose the makeup of the board as he does with the TfL Board, but then the crucial role of scrutiny on behalf of Londoners should frankly fall to this body, should fall to the London Assembly in my view, in the same way that it does with transport. I think that separation would actually strengthen the governance overall rather than weaken it.
On the appointment of senior officers - I have obviously discussed this with Sir Paul Stephenson - my view is there should be a simple reversal of the current situation, which is at the moment the MPA makes the appointments in consultation with the Commissioner. I reason the Commissioner should make the appointments in consultation with the MPA. The truth is in a command organisation you want the officers to be looking to the commanding officer rather than looking sideways to the Metropolitan Police Authority.
I think that would aide coherence and avoid some of the personnel issues that we have had in past, but at the same time it would put the MPA in a very powerful position, effectively with a veto if it was required in terms of the number of officers because obviously there is a difficulty - I think Sir Paul Stephenson has probably been slightly misrepresented in the newspapers - in giving the Commissioner absolute power of appointment without consultation because if there are six months to go to the end of the commissionership, does he bind the next commissioner or does everybody the commissioner has chosen get fired the moment he leaves and the next commissioner starts clean?
So, there has to be a slightly longer-term view and the Metropolitan Police Authority can play a role in that. I do think from a coherence point of view the Commissioner should make the appointment, yes.
Len Duvall (AM): I would like to just go back over it. If we can call it the TfL model, where does that fit in with your earlier remarks about the elected mandate - the accountability issue? Of course the Mayor is appointed, satisfactorily meeting the legal requirements, but in terms of appointing to that board would that still be made up of independents or elected politicians?
Kit Malthouse (AM): Well, obviously that would mean accountability. At the moment we have a hybrid organisation that is half elected and half independent. To me that is undesirable. I think you either have all or nothing. I think a hybrid is always difficult. Try to imagine – those of you who are councillors - if your council was half elected members and half independent members who were not elected.
Len Duvall (AM): It would be in the past, wouldn’t it? Aldermen.
6 Kit Malthouse (AM): Oh, there were aldermen in the past; you are absolutely right. Even today, if it was Southwark Council Jenny [Jones], it would cause all sorts of difficulties, and you would feel that you had a primacy over those people who were not elected. So, those hybrid organisations I do not think are necessarily desirable.
The alternative would be to go for all elected, but my preference is to go for all appointed on the basis that you would then attract some of the skills that we need on the Metropolitan Police Authority, skills around dealing with large organisations, Human Resources (HR), large contracts, local authorities - all of that kind of stuff we can attract. Then crucially the scrutiny and accountability would be through the Mayor to the London Assembly, as it is with Transport for London, the LDA or any of those other bodies. I think that would achieve the best of both worlds. It would strengthen scrutiny and separate it out, and would also mean the Metropolitan Police Service would have a supervisory board - non-executive - you can call it whatever you like - of individuals who had the skills to deal with the challenge on a day-to-day basis, much as you would appoint transport people to the TfL Board.
Len Duvall (AM): How does that differ from the former London Police Committee under John Quinton [former independent member of the MPA] that had local authority representatives on, and others? Is that the model?
Kit Malthouse (AM): I do not know; I would have to have a look. It may be. I do not know what the power of appointment was. I guess in those days though the Home Secretary directly controlled the Metropolitan Police Service so it was a slightly odd one. I think if obviously both parties proposed a greater democratisation of policing generally, although they have all interestingly carved London out as a special case so it has not been treated in the same way as the rest of the country. For me, the critical thing is the separation of scrutiny and executive, and I think that would strengthen things.
Len Duvall (AM): Just to close this one down, Chair, very quickly; it is on record that the Mayor has met with Chris Grayling [Shadow Home Secretary since 2009] and has said that the MPA could be a pathfinder if they are in government. If there is no legislation what is plan B then, in the sense of the MPA? Continue on along what you have outlined earlier on?
Kit Malthouse (AM): Yes, as I say, if there is no legislation or no change in London, plan B is to continue as I said, to strengthen the MPA over time and to look at the broad range of skills required. Frankly, within two years we will reach the end of the next independent appointment cycle and what would be nice is to think that we could start then to attract an even wider pool than we got last time of people, perhaps with some different skills to come onto the MPA and we could start to fill some of those gaps which I think frankly we all admit that we have.
Len Duvall (AM): You would not go down with a hybrid model of separating out the executive to the scrutiny as under the current system?
Kit Malthouse (AM): Legally we cannot.
Len Duvall (AM): Fine.
Kit Malthouse (AM): We are bound by Home Office statute, I am afraid.
Len Duvall (AM): Of course the Mayor is involved during the discussions that he has had with Chris Grayling?
Kit Malthouse (AM): Oh yes.
7 Jenny Jones (AM): I would like to go back to this issue of how you see the independents because I am sure you know that the independents actually do carry a lot of the workload of the Metropolitan Police Authority because the elected people do not have time.
Kit Malthouse (AM): Yes, they do. Yes, I am very aware of that. I would like to just be clear I am not talking about the independents personally. I think many of the independents do a fantastic job; I get on extremely well with pretty much all of them and they are extremely valuable. I am personally delighted that Reshard [Auladin] is the Vice Chairman because over the last - whatever it is - 18 months he has done a brilliant job as Chair of the Strategic and Operational Policing (SOP) Committee at the MPA and we work very closely together. So, I do not have a job with the individuals but I do think it is unfair to them, if you like, to sit them in a hybrid organisation in the way it currently is.
Jenny Jones (AM): For example, you talked about them feeling that they had a quasi-mandate through their link borough role. Actually that is of course because they are there at the coalface and actually understand what the problems are as do all the link members because they have to face it.
Kit Malthouse (AM): Yes, I understand that. You are right, Jenny. What I am saying to you is that they perhaps subconsciously yearn for a geographical mandate in the same way that others have. I can totally understand that. Their value as link members is extremely high.
Jenny Jones (AM): You were talking about strengthening the skills of the Metropolitan Police Authority. Now, the only way you can do that, because you cannot throw us off, is to throw some independent members off and change the skill set.
Kit Malthouse (AM): Not necessarily. I think we do not perhaps do enough around training Metropolitan Police Authority members. It would be perfectly possible for us to institute a training programme. As you know, we are for the first time going through a self-appraisal programme over the summer which will look and ask members, effectively, where they think their skills could be enhanced and whether we could bring training on board.
I do think, as we did last time when Len [Duvall] was Chair, last time we had a refresh of independent members we did look for particular types of skills and there were particular members who got appointed because they represented skills that the Metropolitan Police Authority lacked.
Jenny Jones (AM): You do accept, for example, that any police authority, or police board, needs some experience, it needs some skill and training in understanding policing. Policing is not like transport. You compare it with the TfL Board but actually policing is radically different because most of us do not have any day-to-day connection with police officers.
Kit Malthouse (AM): Yes, absolutely; completely. For instance, one of the things that would strengthen the Metropolitan Police Authority from my point of view is if we were able to have representatives from the boroughs on there. We would obviously have an issue with them because they would have to put their geographical loyalty aside. I do think for instance London Councils has a lead member for community safety who happens to be the Leader of Ealing [Councillor Jason Stacey]. I do not understand why he cannot be on the Metropolitan Police Authority as a representative of London boroughs. There are lots of people who you would like to bring on.
Jenny Jones (AM): So, we would train the police board, this selection of elected people, and we would also train all the Assembly Members who sat on a scrutiny committee?
Kit Malthouse (AM): No, not necessarily.
Jenny Jones (AM): How can we do the scrutiny if we do not understand policing?
8
Kit Malthouse (AM): Well, in the same way that those people who do the scrutiny of transport understand transport.
Jenny Jones (AM): You have just admitted it is actually very different, policing and transport.
Kit Malthouse (AM): It is different but politicians build up skills in a number of ways. They build up skills from just their experience of being politicians. You are a councillor; I would imagine that would add to your --
Jenny Jones (AM): Workload?
Kit Malthouse (AM): -- experience about the police and all the rest of it in the same way that me having been a councillor does. So, I do not think it would necessarily disqualify you from doing that. If there was a policing committee of the GLA there is no reason why that policing committee could not go on visits, query officers and go and do exactly the same as you would with any other organisation.
Jenny Jones (AM): So, you would actually have two sets of people doing slightly different work?
Kit Malthouse (AM): No, you would have a board of non-executive directors --
Jenny Jones (AM): You would have to train them all.
Kit Malthouse (AM): Well, not necessarily. You may decide on that board that you wanted former senior police officers, you may decide that you want people who have run large organisations, you may decide you want representatives of London's different communities, you may decide you want representatives of local authorities, you might decide you want representatives of women's groups or a children's charity. So, there is any number of mix because we do not even know how many people would be on it. I am just saying that for me, I think, the separation of the scrutiny and the executive role is an accepted principle across other areas of our public life and I do not see why it should not be with policing.
Jenny Jones (AM): I would also like to take you back to something you said earlier about if the Commissioner were to select his/her own senior officers it would avoid personnel issues that happened in the past. Now, my experience in ten years of panels at all Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) ranks has been that we have never gone against the Commissioner.
Now, I do not know if that is true for everybody but that is certainly true for me. We have never ever gone against the Commissioner. So, actually the Commissioner has a hand in every single appointment in the past ten years - all three commissioners that we have had. So, I am not sure how you can say that any of those personnel issues could have been avoided.
Kit Malthouse (AM): Well, I think there is a psychological issue around who makes your appointment and my experience is that officers look to the MPA as much as they will look to the command structure for their promotional prospects. I would prefer that to be reversed. I would prefer them to look to the command structure to prove themselves to their senior officers that they are worthy and, therefore, be appointed by them. If we are never going to go against the Commissioner then there is nothing wrong with the Commissioner making the appointment. I am just saying that we should be consulted and it should be the other way round. It should formally be the Commissioner's appointment but the MPA should be consulted and do the interviews just the same. I think that would have a beneficial psychological effect in the Metropolitan Police Service.
Jenny Jones (AM): There is also the fact that the Metropolitan Police Authority promotes for the future which a commissioner might not have the same long-term view of.
9
Kit Malthouse (AM): Well, this is why it would be key for the Metropolitan Police Authority to be sitting there in the interviews. All it is is a role reversal. The truth is that if we want a commissioner to succeed then we have to give that commissioner the power to succeed. That includes being able to select in consultation their top team, in the same way that if you were to look at any other large organisation. The chief executive in consultation with the chairman will select the senior executives of that organisation if they are accountable. So, if we are sitting as a group on the Metropolitan Police Authority once a month holding the Commissioner to account, we have to allow him to arrange his affairs so that we can allow him to succeed.
Jenny Jones (AM): Do you accept perhaps that your statement that if he appointed his own staff then we could avoid personnel issues of the past perhaps was not accurate?
Kit Malthouse (AM): No, I do not think it was inaccurate. I think the current appointment process sometimes leads to conflicted loyalties and I think that is what we need to avoid.
Dee Doocey (AM): Kit, I have got a real problem with your police board, but before I tell you how much I disagree with you I would like to tell you I completely agree with you about appointments. The very idea of somebody running a £3.8 billion budget and not having the right to choose their own staff just seems to me to be absolutely crackpot. So, having said that let me tell you about the police board.
I see this as yet another unelected quango. It will have, in my view - and I think in the view of a lot of Londoners - absolutely no legitimacy because it will be people who are friends of the Mayor and friends of friends of the Mayor appointed by the Mayor and to me it just has absolutely all the wrong rings about it.
I just do not understand your points about differing skill sets. I understand the point you are making that it is necessary to bring in different and complementary skill sets. My experience of the Metropolitan Police Service over the last six years has been that they do not always welcome people with skill sets. I think sometimes - and I have observed this - they see people who actually have got skill sets as a threat. I have seen time and time again they do tend to favour members who will just read their 50-page reports that they then spend two hours explaining and will just nod. So, I am not entirely clear how having an unelected quango made up of friends of the Mayor would actually improve performance, which is what you seem to be very keen to do.
Kit Malthouse (AM): Well, I think there are two separate issues there. One is the relationship between whatever body is in place and the Metropolitan Police Service and the other question is the type of body. Using your analogy, at the moment we are, therefore, a semi-unelected quango, which obviously has problems too.
My view is, and I guess I might be in a minority here, that if the Mayor is elected and the Mayor is accountable, then in the same way that you would want the Commissioner to pick a team that would allow them to succeed, you have to allow the Mayor to pick a team that would allow him to succeed. I would hope and have faith - and it may be that in whatever regulations come forward there are requirements on the Mayor about the type of person, much as it is at the moment on the Metropolitan Police Authority about the type of person you may have - two representatives of local authorities and two whatever, but at least then you could start to bring it on.
So, let me give you an example. Dee, you are quite right. You have a particular skill in finance which is rare and we have some difficulty staffing the Finance and Resources Committee on the Metropolitan Police Authority. It is the smallest committee because that skill set is rare and I would personally like - I would say this, I am an accountant! - to see more accountants on the Metropolitan Police Authority. It might not lead to more excitement but it might lead to a bit more financial rigour.
10 So, the ability to appoint those people rather than then - and it is off-putting - having to go through the appointment process and all the rest of it I think would be helpful.
Now, that is separate from the relationship between whatever board is there and the Metropolitan Police Service. I agree with you, to a certain extent, that there has been a defensiveness about the relationship, but that has, I think, often been, as I have said in the past - and you often see this with local authorities - the Metropolitan Police Authority sometimes seems like a kind of minibus full of football supporters who are massive enthusiasts for the team but have put up with so many mistakes and all the rest of it in the past and have become a bit disillusioned. So, all they ever do is shout at the coach when things go wrong and have forgotten that sometimes things go right.
I think as we move into a new commissionership and a new top team that there is a new opportunity there to forge a new relationship which will be less defensive and more open and transparent. I think we are already starting to see some of that. Sometimes progress seems glacial but we are starting to see that and I would like to see that improve in the future whatever organisation is there. As I have said, I hope that as Vice Chairman I have shown a lead on that in terms of being transparent, my door is always open, happy to meet with whoever and deal with their issues as they come up and provide whatever information is required. Dee, as you know, I have championed your requests for information on a number of occasions.
Dee Doocey (AM): Absolutely, thank you.
Kit Malthouse (AM): I am keen to see that improve.
Dee Doocey (AM): Thank you. I am afraid you have not convinced me at all about the police board. I really just do not think it will work; the very idea of having yet another unelected quango.
Kit Malthouse (AM): Well, fortunately for you, Dee, the change is above my pay grade so it will be for others to decide.
Dee Doocey (AM): The other one thing I did want to say, because I think it is quite important to put on record, is you have mentioned on a number of occasions the different roles of the elected members on the MPA and the unelected members, and how there is a feeling of legitimacy with the elected members. I just really would like to put on record that I have never felt myself, and I honestly think that I probably speak for the rest of the members, that there is any difference between any of us and I do not think that sitting round the table and acting as a committee that anyone ever thinks, "Oh gosh, here is somebody who is elected and here is somebody who is appointed." So, I realise that that is something that you feel quite strongly about but I have never seen it come through in any of the dealings we have had with the elected members we have got at the moment.
Kit Malthouse (AM): Well, on a personal level I am always extremely pleased that by and large the current MPA is quite a harmonious group of people and I think that is a tribute to everybody who is on it. It may be a peculiar sensitivity of mine, having spent hours and hours and hours of my life knocking on doors to get myself elected, I kind of value it and I feel honoured and privileged to be elected and I think it confers a certain status on me which is important and I take it seriously. So, it might be a peculiarity of mine but I am trying to be honest about it.
Dee Doocey (AM): Good, let us you put that through to your dislike of quangos so that everyone should be elected to everything.
Joanne McCartney (AM): I have a follow up question from both Dee [Doocey] and Len’s [Duvall] point. Chris Grayling has announced that should the Conservatives win the election in May he wants the Mayor to be a pathfinder for a new policing role and you have just said to Len that you were
11 aware of the discussions that have taken place on that. Does the issue of a police board fit into that model that is being proposed?
Kit Malthouse (AM): I think the model has been floated, yes. Obviously my understanding is the national party are looking at a number of models and we have floated that as an issue - we have also floated no change as an issue - but it would be for them to come back with what they decided and obviously there are iterations between us about what we would recommend. I think given that we are 25% of UK policing, they obviously see us as a valuable resource in terms of just bouncing ideas around. However, ideas are at a fairly preliminary stage in London. I do not know about their plans for the rest of the country.
Joanne McCartney (AM): OK, I would like to ask from your point of view, if there were to be a police board, would you envisage yourself or the Mayor chairing that board?
Kit Malthouse (AM): That would be his decision, Joanne. I do not have a view. I will serve in whatever capacity he decides.
Joanne McCartney (AM): If you are floating this idea that you believe there should be a police board, surely you must have had those discussions with him as to whether he is going to find the time to do it or whether it is going to be delegated to you?
Kit Malthouse (AM): He may do. He may do, definitely. I think it would depend. The truth is if you look at the - and we have the estimable work of Toby Harris [first Chair of the MPA in 2000] - timetable on which the legislation could happen to make the change, it is actually quite a long-term thing. I think the minimum it could be done from today is something like 20 months or something like that, so it is quite a long way off. So, there is a fair amount of thought that will need to go into it. As I say, I am happy to serve in whatever capacity he decides and if he decides he wants to be chair again of indeed this Metropolitan Police Authority that is absolutely fine too.
Jennette Arnold (Chair): OK, before we go to some other areas that we want to explore with you, Kit, I would like to say to you I do not think we have touched on the external issues facing the MPA yet. We have touched a great deal on the internal issues facing the MPA. Then we really must look at the personal attributes that you bring to the role and then I do want a point where, if there are any other questions, we bring that together. We then have got to go into deliberation mode, so I just want us all to be detailed but maybe a little bit shorter in our questions and answers.
I would like to finish this section by just taking you back to something you said. You said, "My door is always open," and you hear this in bad drama, don’t you, with usually a dysfunctional chair or chief executive, "My door is always open," and then somebody goes, "And there's no bugger sitting in the seat." So, I really think you have to now come back and say what are you as Chairman going to do to reach out - and I am not talking about sending them on training - to members of the MPA in terms of developing a rapport or, if you like, some sort of cohesiveness as you as the leader of this body. Do you really think, "My door is always open," is good enough given that that is such a discredited comment?
Kit Malthouse (AM): Well, you may well be right about the cliché but I hope that certainly those Metropolitan Police Authority members who are here will attest - in fact any Member of the London Assembly and any member of the Metropolitan Police Authority who has asked for a meeting with me has got one almost immediately. My diary people know that in terms of priority Assembly Members are first and Metropolitan Police Authority members are second. Those are the top two first slots and should get meetings immediately. So, that has always been the case.
12 I have, as you know, Jennette, held monthly sandwich lunches for Members to attend on a casual basis at which I sit and I am happy to talk about whatever on a Friday lunchtime. Those have been reasonably well attended - Jenny [Jones] and Dee [Doocey] have been to some.
Jennette Arnold (Chair): So, you will continue those as Chairman?
Kit Malthouse (AM): Oh absolutely.
Jennette Arnold (Chair): Well, no, you have not said that before. You were doing that as Vice Chairman, so you will be continuing those.
Kit Malthouse (AM): Yes, I will absolutely continue those as Chairman. As I say, I like to think that the fact that the MPA now is a relatively happy crew is testament to some of that work around our away days that we have had, our general meetings and all that kind of stuff.
I mean you tell me, Jennette - you are a Metropolitan Police Authority member - whether you want to do more social things. I have actually found some of the social events that we have done - admittedly quite a small number - invaluable actually because offline people can say things and express things that they would not otherwise in meetings, but that is for the Metropolitan Police Authority to decide.
Jennette Arnold (Chair): I think that there is always room to meet socially and just to appreciate other organisations who work with you, but let me just say there is also the role that the Chairman has in terms of meeting with, say for instance, local government. Would you continue to invite the relevant members - and when I say relevant members, to date it being the link members - to those meetings when you go and meet either in boroughs or at MPA headquarters, or do you see yourself travelling alone?
Kit Malthouse (AM): No, no, absolutely not. In fact just this morning we have been discussing whether when we have Joint Engagement Meetings (JEM) in the future, which I know, Jennette, you have been to some, whether we should invite Assembly Members along as well as link members. I know there are some Assembly Members who would be quite keen to be there because it is part of their remit. So, no, I am more than happy to include people in some of those meetings. Absolutely.
Jennette Arnold (Chair): You did not talk about it but it is part of transparency. In my ten years as a Metropolitan Police Authority member what I know that has been fed back to me from Londoners is this sense that the Assembly Members - and it is the Assembly Members they have referred to - sitting on that Metropolitan Police Authority bring a transparency that certainly was not there in the previous model when it was a committee. Do you have any insight into that? That is strongly felt.
Kit Malthouse (AM): I hope and believe that I try to be a model of transparency and I believe that old thing about sunlight being the greatest antiseptic. My view is meetings are open; people can come; and I am happy to communicate and talk as honestly as I can. In fact sometimes my transparency gets me into trouble, but if that is the price I have to pay for honesty then fine.
Victoria Borwick (AM): I just wanted to follow up what was said because I am very pleased that you have just asked that question on the briefings. I think the way that we all communicate together is very important. So, perhaps you could just reiterate we are going to continue to have both internal briefings and the meetings that you are going to go on chairing with the boroughs. Are you thinking of any other ways that Assembly Members can get involved or be part of the work?
Kit Malthouse (AM): Yes, I do wonder whether we should. The attendance at our internal briefings has been quite patchy. Some of the most important ones which are about internal structures have not been attended. Some of the ones which are about external, kind of, sexy stuff are well attended and you can understand why. So, I would like to encourage a wider attendance at some of those briefings
13 but we can review that as an Authority together. I do think we could do more communication as a body to non-Metropolitan Police Authority Assembly Members around what we do and how we do it. In particular, I think in this building we could do more communication.
I have become aware that there are members of political offices and others in this building who have no idea what the Metropolitan Police Authority does or how it does its work or what-have-you. So, holding briefings and all the rest of it between the two buildings around what we can do here I think will be helpful. So, yes, we can do that.
Victoria Borwick (AM): This morning by chance I was following up some Crimestoppers' [an independent charity working to fight crime] meetings over at Transport for London talking about their crime prevention. They have now got these teams around all the boroughs. So, would you be able to include those in some of the meetings you are inviting people in? It was not something I knew a great deal about but they are very happy to work with Crimestoppers, but I thought, again, about making sure that Members know about these new community teams.
Kit Malthouse (AM): Yes, I do think we can be better about promulgating information about what we do. Under Met Forward we can use that as a communications tool around the city about what we are doing. So, for instance, you and I both attended the problem solving awards yesterday and there was a communications opportunity there frankly about the MPA which we missed. We had some banners there around Met Forward but there were lots of organisations that had stands there giving out information about their organisation, how it works and all the rest of it. There is no reason why we as an authority should not have that so that people understand that we are here and understand that we are doing a job. So, I am quite keen to see that communications plan pushed out, absolutely.
Victoria Borwick (AM): Thank you.
Jennette Arnold (Chair): OK. I would like to go onto the area now about external issues facing the MPA.
Jenny Jones (AM): I was going to say one small question but it is actually potentially a huge question. We have to be fairly robust with the police and you as Chairman have to be extra robust. Do you think there is anything specific you can do about police corruption?
Kit Malthouse (AM): It is a small question but a fundamental one. It is an issue that has been in my mind recently. We have seen a rash of reports in the newspaper about various issues, both high and low. I am always slightly nervous of drawing conclusions from a series of reports in the newspaper. I do think one of the pieces of work that we might look at in our work plan over the next year is a scrutiny of the structures within the Metropolitan Police Service for detecting and dealing with corruption and fraud. You have slightly caught me in advance of my thinking, Jenny, to be honest - great minds and all that.
Jenny Jones (AM): Have we not just made cuts in the Professional Standards Cases Sub- committee? I thought we had cut that department.
Kit Malthouse (AM): Yes, we would need to look at the last time we actually looked at the structures and effectiveness around what they actually do and whether that is still fit for purpose, how it is developed down to the frontline into boroughs, how we deal with reports and allegations of corruption and whether they actually make it up terribly far into the organisation. I think it would be a piece of work that, from a reassurance point of view, it might be a good time for us to have a look at. As I say, you have caught me slightly in advance of my thinking but it has been on the list for me to discuss with the vice chairs about where we could possibly do some of that work. I do think from a public reassurance point of view it is absolutely vital that we get it done.
14 Jenny Jones (AM): If you had been thinking like this but you still cut the Professional Standards Cases Sub-committee that does seem a little bit confused, because presumably they are going to play a large part in rooting out any corruption.
Kit Malthouse (AM): Well, yes. I am not necessarily sure that the cut to the Professional Standards Cases Sub-committee has been that fundamental but obviously there are efficiency savings across the board. Now, the piece of work that I would like us to do may well indicate to us that we need to either do the Professional Standards Cases Sub-committee in a different way or that it may need more or less resources. I have to say the Metropolitan Police Authority plays a part in this. We have recruited a new Director of Internal Audit [Julie Norgrove] at the Metropolitan Police Authority who has started to develop her plans around what role the Metropolitan Police Authority can play in strengthening the control environment in the Metropolitan Police Service. It is pretty critical actually the change and the balance.
In the past the internal audit function of the Metropolitan Police Service very much saw itself as a kind of forensic Sherlock Holmes. Its job was to catch people, whether it be American Express (AMEX) cards or others, who were doing wrong - it was a sort of police force. Now, that works only so far in that you catch some, you do not know how many you are catching and you do not know what the population is. My view is - and obviously the Director of Internal Audit will develop her plans for approval through the committee system - that our role is to look much more at the structural controls - what accountants call the control environment - those are the checks, balances and controls that will both deter, prevent and detect any kind of fraud and corruption in the system. I think so far our emphasis has been too much on trying to catch people and not enough on structuring the organisation so that it is less likely to happen.
Jenny Jones (AM): I can understand that, but at the same time when hundreds of officers were found to have misused their credit cards, hundreds of them were let off. At some point that decision was made, I do not know, by you or by somebody within the Metropolitan Police Service. Somebody must have had decisions about who was going to let those officers off. It seems to me if you are going to fight corruption actually starting to convict people who have been corrupt might be a very good way of stemming the tide.
Kit Malthouse (AM): Well, as you know, Jenny, the decisions around credit cards come nowhere near the Metropolitan Police Authority; they go effectively --
Jenny Jones (AM): So, you did not have any discussions about that? About the number of police officers that were let off?
Kit Malthouse (AM): Absolutely not. Well, (a), it is well before my time, as you know but, (b), that project is directly with the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC). The IPCC take the decision about who and who not to prosecute.
Jenny Jones (AM): You had no say in that? You did not give your own view?
James Cleverly (AM): Chair?
Kit Malthouse (AM): None whatsoever.
James Cleverly (AM): There is a point I want to make, Chair.
Jennette Arnold (Chair): No. Is it because this was before Kit's [Malthouse] time?
James Cleverly (AM): No, it is about if we are discussing personal interventions in something that is potentially fraudulent or criminal investigations. That is the kind of issue that I think would be very --
15
Victoria Borwick (AM): It falls outside the scope of this Committee.
James Cleverly (AM): Well, or, we should think about whether or not we would want to move into part two if you are going to start discussing personal involvement in these kind of issues.
Jennette Arnold (Chair): No, I think the question was pretty reasonable. Jenny was asking whether --
James Cleverly (AM): Pretty explicitly asking about personal involvement in potentially fraudulent issues.
Victoria Borwick (AM): He said that he was not involved; then we should move on.
Jennette Arnold (Chair): No, I think the issue is Kit [Malthouse] has made clear that the question matter was before his time, so --
James Cleverly (AM): Then we should move on.
Jennette Arnold (Chair): Do you want to take the chair? I am happy to give it to you.
James Cleverly (AM): It is either about personal involvement or it is not about --
Jennette Arnold (Chair): I think we have just reached a nice point where we were going to move on, I thought, because I just was looking at Jenny's body language and I thought she was finishing with this line of questioning.
Jenny Jones (AM): That is quite right, Chair.
Jennette Arnold (Chair): OK, thank you.
Len Duvall (AM): In external relationships with local government you have mentioned how you would like London Councils representation on a future board or whatever. Could you explain to us the background and your thinking about that relationship between the boroughs and policing, and their relationship with the MPS? What is your view on that?
Kit Malthouse (AM): Well, the relationship between the MPS and the boroughs is absolutely critical - completely critical - there is no more vital a relationship that the Metropolitan Police Service can have than with their local authority in my view. We have tried over the last year, where they are not as close as they could be, to match-make them as much as we can through the 32 JEM meetings that we have. I have to say it has been fairly gruelling to do all 32 - James [Cleverly] has chaired a couple for me that I could not make - but it has been a very, very useful exercise to see who is and is not working together and then to see them actually in contemplation of the meeting start to draw up joint plans to deal with some of the issues.
I have very regular meetings with Jason Stacey at London Councils, and indeed Merrick Cockell [Chairman of London Councils], and we are working with London Councils on proposals for a unified London crime reduction board which would bring together all the different strands, as declared in Met Forward as an objective, which would unify all the strands of joint working in London under one structure so that again we have clarity and organisations were not duplicating and doing the same work. I appeared in front of the executive committee of London Councils - I think about a month ago - to talk to them on a cross-party basis about that plan and pleasingly got support from all three parties for taking it forward. So, I would expect over the summer that we would bring everything together - the London Community Safety Partnership (LCSP), all the various parties to that, London
16 Councils, the MPA and the MPS - into one crime reduction board which will help, I think, in giving clarity to priorities across the city.
Len Duvall (AM): That is just a revamped Government Office for London (GOL) Board, isn't it? Take GOL out of it and reassert that, isn't it?
Kit Malthouse (AM): No, not necessarily. One of the concerns that I had about the GOL board is that it was running in parallel to the Metropolitan Police Authority, so the Metropolitan Police Authority thought it was deciding priorities. The GOL board, the LCSP, thought it was deciding priorities. They were not actually the same and in between the Metropolitan Police Service was actually deciding the priorities. I think if we are going to have that clear voice we need to unify the two. Frankly, just from an organisational point of view it makes sense to unify the two. It is not shoving GOL out of the way; GOL are on it, are welcome and we have talked to them about the migration together and they seem positive about it.
Len Duvall (AM): One of the issues that London Councils wanted to pursue with the MPS, and Merrick [Cockell] led those discussions prior to the Mayoral election, was the joint appointment of borough commanders. Where is that in your thinking or is that completely a no-no?
Kit Malthouse (AM): No, no, no. We have taken quite good steps towards that in that candidates for borough commander now go and meet with the leader and chief executive of the local authority before their appointment. There are consultations with them around who should and should not be appointed.
Now, in some circumstances there is only one candidate and obviously in those circumstances the chief executive and the leader, if they have a strong objection, then that would have to be taken into account. There is obviously a personnel management issue but it is now accepted that leaders and chief executives will be consulted and get to meet the candidate or candidates before the appointment of the borough commander.
Len Duvall (AM): Do those leaders and chief executives understand that where they are offered the choice of one that if they say no that you or someone will take note of that?
Kit Malthouse (AM): Yes.
Len Duvall (AM): OK. Why is it that at the last congress meeting, which presumably you attended - -
Kit Malthouse (AM): I did not, I am afraid, no.
Len Duvall (AM): Oh, you did not?
Kit Malthouse (AM): No.
Len Duvall (AM): Oh right, OK. Well, why is it that most of those ideas were rejected and said that was not going to happen because the Commissioner said it was not going to happen? I have not got the minutes in front of me but I have read the minutes for the congress. It was the last meeting that Boris Johnson did some time ago. Is there some confusion out there of what is actually going on and what is reality then?
Kit Malthouse (AM): Well, I think what the Commissioner is being is precise. What the Commissioner is saying is that the appointment is his and that is absolutely right. It has to be given our earlier conversation about the command structure and where people look.
17 Len Duvall (AM): So, where do you lie on this then?
Kit Malthouse (AM): What the Commissioner is saying is that he is content to make those appointments in consultation and after with the borough leader and chief executive, which to me seems very sensible. As far as I am aware, London Councils have accepted that and are happy with that.
Len Duvall (AM): Right; and you think that is going on?
Kit Malthouse (AM): Yes, that is going on. I know it is going on.
Len Duvall (AM): Right, OK.
Kit Malthouse (AM): That happened certainly with the last round. That was the first time that it happened. These processes will take time --
Len Duvall (AM): The last round was when?
Kit Malthouse (AM): The last round was middle of last year.
Len Duvall (AM): OK. Right, thank you.
Jennette Arnold (Chair): OK. Kit, just briefly, do you see your relationship with the Association of Police Authorities (APA) strengthening under your chairing?
Kit Malthouse (AM): Yes. I have slightly protested to the APA because they always hold their meetings on a Wednesday morning which makes it difficult with my Assembly duties to attend on a regular basis. I am actually going, I think, next week to the board meeting. We have a meeting with the new Chief Executive to talk about where the MPA could sit and how we engage and how we can improve that relationship. So, yes, I do think the APA is pretty keen.
Although, having said that, there is a difference of opinion, I think, between us around some issues not least the greater democratisation of governance in policing, in that the APA will be campaigning for no change and I am not sure I, as a member of the APA Board, necessarily agree with that. The vast majority of other stuff we are doing there is useful work, I think, yes.
Jennette Arnold (Chair): OK. When Reshard [Auladin] was in front of us he was quite interested in this area and that might be an area that you would put into his specific portfolio. Have you spoken to Reshard about this?
Kit Malthouse (AM): Yes, we have discussed that; definitely. We have. Again, we come back to the whole issue of independent members. I am acutely aware that of the 43 forces the vast majority are chaired by independents. That means that the APA Board is largely independents so I am quite keen for there to be a political voice on there from all parties frankly. I have to say I have a very good relationship with the Labour chair of GMP [Greater Manchester Police Authority] who is on the APA Board. We are sort of of the mind that there needs to be a strong political voice there too.
Jennette Arnold (Chair): OK, thank you. We have explored a lot of issues to do with the internal challenges facing the MPA. Have Members got any other questions on this area? I would like to take them now.
Len Duvall (AM): I think you were present when we asked the Mayor the question of Safer Neighbourhood Teams (SNTs) and the change to the model. What is your view on the Safer Neighbourhood Teams and the model - I presume - post May?
18
Kit Malthouse (AM): I think the Safer Neighbourhood Teams are absolutely vital and I think the local geographic link and the sense of a territorial control by a Safer Neighbourhood Team is pretty key and we would want to preserve that as much as we can.
Len Duvall (AM): What does that mean? I think the clue in my question was about the model. Where do you stand on the model then, 3-2-1, if you want to preserve it? Are you going to commit yourself that the Safer Neighbourhood Teams' model is OK and it is going to remain in place for the foreseeable future? What is your thinking?
Kit Malthouse (AM): Yes, I think the principle of Safer Neighbourhood Teams is going to remain.
Len Duvall (AM): No, not the model? The principle of Safer Neighbourhood Teams and not the model, 3-2-1?
Kit Malthouse (AM): Well, it depends what you mean.
Len Duvall (AM): Sorry, let me be clear. The model, 3-2-1 - one sergeant, two police officers and three Police Community Support Officers (PCSOs) - is a foundation stone for Safer Neighbourhood policing. In terms of your answer is that what you are committing yourself to for the future?
Kit Malthouse (AM): For the moment, yes.
Len Duvall (AM): Will that change beyond May?
Kit Malthouse (AM): Len, sadly, I wish I had a crystal ball and was able to say what our funding arrangements are going to be.
Len Duvall (AM): I think May is midyear financially, but I am asking you post May is there going to be a change to Safer Neighbourhood policing?
Kit Malthouse (AM): Not post May, no.
Len Duvall (AM): OK. It may well be in future years?
Kit Malthouse (AM): I do not know. I may not even be in the job; who knows. I do not know, we may have the £3.6 billion or we might have £2.6 billion and we might have the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) coming and telling us what to do; who knows. In terms of the current funding round, would we be devoting the same number of police officers to neighbourhood policing? Yes.
Len Duvall (AM): In future funding rounds where would it lie in your priorities of policing that you highlighted in your earlier introductory remarks?
Kit Malthouse (AM): Right up at the top.
Len Duvall (AM): So, you would seek to preserve that model as a basic arrangement?
Kit Malthouse (AM): Oh yes, I would seek to preserve that density of presence across London, yes. I think there can be some questions asked, quite legitimate questions, and often I am asked this by residents about structure. So, for instance, in my old part of London where I was a councillor in Pimlico it is geographically very small but there are three wards with three Safer Neighbourhood Teams. Residents have said to me on a number of occasions, "Why don’t we just have one Pimlico team with the same numbers?"
19
Now, there might be issues around what is a neighbourhood because at the moment we do not have Safer Neighbourhoods actually we have Safer Wards. Whether that is relevant and sensible for residents I do not know - that question is being asked. In terms of the amount of boot leather that is devoted to neighbourhood policing not only do we want to preserve that number, but we want to increase it.
Len Duvall (AM): OK, and if Sir Paul Stephenson comes to you and says, "Look, under operational policing terms something has got to give here. We are coming to a view that it has got to change," what will be your response to that?
Kit Malthouse (AM): Well you are asking a long series of hypothetical questions.
Len Duvall (AM): Well, the Mayor answered it and my interpretation was that he said he would leave it to Sir Paul Stephenson. As I said, I think you were present and I am interested in your answer.
Kit Malthouse (AM): Yes, in the final analysis it is for the Commissioner to decide how he deploys his police officers in an operational basis. He will do that in consultation not only with the Mayor but also with the Metropolitan Police Authority and I would expect to do the same.
James Cleverly (AM): Kit, with regard to the scrutiny function, because we have talked an awful lot about the quasi-executive nature of the MPA, you hinted earlier on about differentials of expertise and that kind of stuff. I wanted to ask you about how you see your role in driving forward quality scrutiny of some of the less high-profile bits of policing, because it strikes me that borough-based Territorial Policing (TP) gets very heavily scrutinised and other areas - the use of resources, finance, IT - get much less heavily scrutinised. How would you drive forward quality scrutiny in those areas?
Kit Malthouse (AM): You are absolutely right, and of course we see that not just in policing terms but in other functional terms - finance and all the rest of it. There are two things. Obviously the business management group that we run is meant to, through the chairs, manage the business and effectively direct what can and cannot, or should and should not be, looked at by committees. I think we need to think as an authority, as we come towards our Annual General Meeting (AGM), whether we are correctly structurally arranged to make sure that we are covering all the bases.
One of the ideas that I have floated and would be interested to hear from Members is whether we need to split Strategic and Operational Policing which largely looks at territorial policing issues, into two. Territorial Policing is well over two-thirds of the Metropolitan Police Service so there is a separate function to scrutinise that and then a different function that can look at some of the more specialist areas in more detail and not leave them neglected. The truth is there are areas of the Metropolitan Police Service that feel neglected because we never go and have a look at them and we do need to address that.
So, from my point of view I think we might need to look at it structurally. We need to think more coherently through the business management group about whether we are covering all the risks. Also, one of the key strands of Met Forward, of course, is the forgotten one at the end which is Met Standards, which is about looking at capability and managing risk, if you like, across the organisation so that we almost have a traffic light system for all the functions we perform which will direct our work. What I am hoping is that we drive that forward over the next year, and that will give us some of that look-through onto the areas which are perhaps neglected by us.
Dee Doocey (AM): Yes, I just wanted to refer back to Len’s [Duvall] question about the numbers of officers in Safer Neighbourhood Teams. As I understand it you have said that there is not going to be a reduction after May in the numbers of officers in any of the Safer Neighbourhood Teams. You refer to boot leather. I just want to be clear, are you including in boot leather Specials or are you saying
20 that it is going to be the same number of fulltime police officers in each Safer Neighbourhood Team as there are at the moment?
Kit Malthouse (AM): Whatever the budgetary outcome over the next two or three years we will strain every sinew to ensure that the same number of fully warranted police officers are devoted to neighbourhood policing as currently stands.
Dee Doocey (AM): So, is that full-time police officers?
Kit Malthouse (AM): Yes, full-time currently warranted police officers. If they can be augmented by the Specials that we are trying to recruit - and I have to say successfully recruiting very, very rapidly at the moment - then fantastic, particularly on a Friday and Saturday night. We will do everything we can, even with the forces of international finance against us to maintain those numbers.
Dee Doocey (AM): Good.
Joanne McCartney (AM): Following on from that I put this quote to the Mayor at the last Mayor's Question Time (MQT): Sir Paul Stephenson gave an interview on BBC Radio 5 on the 04 February where he said,
"I think we've got to be honest about it. Going back many years civilianisation saw the recruitment of skilled but cheaper employees and then we could relocate cops outside on the streets. Those days have gone. If we're recruiting civilians to do a job now that will not be letting a cop go out on the streets. That will be a one-for-one change."
At that same meeting the Mayor gave examples of where officers were doing HR functions and other functions where you did want to civilianise that. How do you reconcile that with Sir Paul's [Stephenson] statement that if you did that you are actually getting rid of police officers and not putting them back out on the streets?
Kit Malthouse (AM): Well, I am not aware of the interview or the context in which it was given but I am more than happy to have a look and see what he said. As you know, Joanne, we have got the civilianisation of custody suites going on at the moment, which is in the end doing both. Overall the reduction of police officers is 900; 450 of those are going out onto the street and 450 of those will be lost through natural wastage and replaced by civilian staff. The civilian staff will then not only have produced an extra 450 officers out there - boot leather - on the street but also, crucially, mean that the turnaround time in a custody suite will drop from something like four hours down to about an hour, which means that there will be more cops out on the street for longer because of that change.
That is the kind of thing that we would like to see coming through. Sir Paul [Stephenson] has a point in terms of where we might get to in terms of the financial settlement. My view is that the financial settlement will be better than we think. I think we should hope for the best and prepare for the worst and I think that will be the case. Nevertheless, there will come a point where if the tourniquet is applied you cut through fat into flesh and then into bone and at that point I think the Commissioner will be right. We just have to hope and fight hard to get the resources to maintain the situation where we are now and try to think imaginatively, as we have done with Project Herald, about some of those replacements.
Some of the early wins on that stuff has been done previously. Under Len's [Duvall] chairmanship the number of police officers in forensics went from 400 to nil; we now do not have any police officers in forensics at all. Was that a loss of police numbers? No, because the job is done just as well by forensic scientists as it was by warranted police officers. So, we can look at that on a case-by-case basis. I will have to look at the context of what he said before I can opine.
21 Joanne McCartney (AM): You also wrote a piece for the Evening Standard recently where you said that the debate on police numbers was in effect not a sensible one. You talked about there being 36,000 warranted officers at the moment on the streets and that is not the right number. What would you think is the right number that you want to get to?
Kit Malthouse (AM): Well, to be honest, Joanne, this is the question that I have posed to everybody else: tell me what number you think is right. To me it is not just about the input; it is about the output. If crime is falling, and at the same time the resources we are required to put in is falling, then we are doing something right. If either is rising without the other falling then we know that that is indicating that we are doing something wrong.
Joanne McCartney (AM): There is reassurance as well and often the two do not go hand in hand.
Kit Malthouse (AM): Yes, there is reassurance and that is why we are very keen to drive as much resource as we possibly can into the boot leather department of being out there. I know I get a fair amount of stick about this, but frankly, this is why I am so keen on Special Constables [part-time volunteer officers who have the same powers as regular police officers]. There is a general claim around Special Constables; people have said, "Oh, they are cops on the cheap; they are not real cops," and all the rest of it. There are two things that are crucial about Special Constables, from exactly what you say, which is a reassurance point of view.
The first is they patrol, they do not do anything else largely other than patrol. They are out there on the street in a stab vest, in a uniform, they look exactly the same as a police officer, have exactly the same powers when they patrol, but secondly, they are members of the community. You and I, when we all get the numbers, will all statistically know a Special. That will start to break down some of the barriers and the gaps between the public and the police that have sadly grown up over the last few years. To me the two together add massively to reassurance and that is why we are so keen on pushing those numbers out.
Jennette Arnold (Chair): Good. I would like to bring in something that we have not heard and touched on and that is really the whole relationship with staff associations. I feel I have to bring it up because when you look at the Stephen Lawrence [18-year-old black British teenager who was stabbed to death on 22 April 1993] murder inquiry recommendations they still have such impact on policing and indeed on our lives.
So, can you just tell us what role you see yourself and the MPA having in looking at those recommendations, making sure that they are being implemented and making sure those lessons have really been learnt? Also, it is in relation to the relationship with one particular staff association which is in the public domain, the Metropolitan Black Police Association (MetBPA). I am sure you would be in my position and welcome their statement of reengagement. Do you see yourself as having a role in ensuring that reengagement stays firm?
Kit Malthouse (AM): Oh absolutely and in fact I met with the BPA only last week to talk about that reengagement. Prior to their boycott I was meeting with them very regularly; during the boycott I did not meet with them, because I did not think that was a sensible thing to do; and the moment that they dropped the boycott the meetings were started again. We had a very, very productive and useful meeting last week, relations are extremely cordial - I get on very well with them - and I recognise their legitimate concerns and worries and will do my best to ensure that they are addressed through the Metropolitan Police Authority as I do with other groups that represent police officers such as the Police Federation and CPOSA (Chief Police Officers’ Staff Association)- I have a regular round of meetings with all of them and maintain good and cordial relations with them - so that we can have a free and frank exchange of views. So, that is absolutely key.
22 Secondly, in terms of the Lawrence recommendations, as you know, I am extremely keen to see rapid movement on diversity and disproportionately issues in the Metropolitan Police Service and through the Race and Faith Inquiry and, indeed, other urgings that I have made I think we are starting to make some progress. I am now keen to see that report out so we can get on with it because there are generations of police officers now who deserve a system that deals with them better and manages their aspirations in a better way and I want to get onto that work now.
Jennette Arnold (Chair): Did the BPA share with you, as they shared with me, their concern about the delay in final document of the Race and Faith Inquiry?
Kit Malthouse (AM): They did and I shared with them my concern about it too.
Jennette Arnold (Chair): Did you tell them when it was going to be produced?
Kit Malthouse (AM): Yes. We are relatively confident that we can get it to either the March or the April meeting; we definitely want it out this spring. It is no secret that I was very keen for the panel to produce the interim findings prior to Christmas because I am extremely anxious that the Metropolitan Police Service should get on with some of the work that is needed. As a result of that interim report we have seen some improvement in some of the specifics that in fact the BPA wanted. In particular they wanted the Deputy Commissioner [Tim Godwin] to take responsibility for diversity, which has happened. We are seeing some changes, in terms of what they do structurally, coming forward. We do need the final report but I am told that a draft is due to go to the panel for their review, amendment or whatever in the next seven to ten days and then hopefully I will be urging for an early production of it.
Len Duvall (AM): Can you tell us what you think the frontline is of policing?
Kit Malthouse (AM): It is a very good question actually. One of the early issues that we talked about was coming up with a different definition in terms of police numbers, something that would measure productivity rather than bare numbers. We did initially talk about frontline crime fighters but again many police officers perform a number of roles, some of which the public might think are frontline crime fighting and some of which they may not, but which are nevertheless crucial to detecting and preventing crime. So, it becomes rather confusing from that point of view.
Ultimately, as I said, success in policing is measured as a kind of output divided by input and if crime is falling and the resources we are applying to it are the same or less then we are successful. We are trying to do some work with the Metropolitan Police Service around developing some indicators of productivity and output, if you like, not least the notion of deployable hours which is an indicator that the Metropolitan Police Service uses.
One of the key things that I have stressed internally is that we need to move away - and I mentioned this in my opening remarks - from the bare examination of performance numbers and more towards finding measures of activity which we can then link to performance outcomes so that we know fundamentally that when the Commissioner is pressing certain buttons back at Scotland Yard it is producing certain results out in the field.
Therefore, we can start to examine the process between the two and what works and what does not work. In terms of frontline police officers I could probably write you a page and a half on it and it would cause as much consternation with those officers who were in and out as otherwise.
Len Duvall (AM): OK. I would like to go back to the Specials issues. Everything you said people would agree with, but do you see them as additional resource or a replacement resource?
Kit Malthouse (AM): Oh, they are additional.
23
Len Duvall (AM): They are additional?
Kit Malthouse (AM): Absolutely.
Len Duvall (AM): We are quite clear about that? So, in the numbers game that will be produced at the end of the Mayor's Mayoralty of what we were going to have in terms of extra cops - I think it was plus 34 or something like that - you see them as additional and not replacement. There is no benchmark and I know you do not agree with the numbers, but we are going to get this other measure that no doubt you will produce with the Metropolitan Police Service at some stage. Therefore, you want to separate those out in terms of warranted police officers. I am not saying they do not do a valuable role, but in terms of fulltime warranted police officers, at the end you would probably stand by the Mayoral figures that were produced in various documents at the beginning of his time or are we chucking those away?
Kit Malthouse (AM): Yes. I recognise we are in a pre-election period and so police numbers becomes a sport for everybody.
Dee Doocey (AM): No, it is not a sport.
Kit Malthouse (AM): It is a sport, Dee.
Len Duvall (AM): Well, I will still be banging on about it after the election has gone. Dee has been banging on about it from the beginning.
Kit Malthouse (AM): Yes, I understand that and I respect that argument. There would be a counterargument to say, "Well, yes, Special Constables only work 25 hours but if you added 8 of them together they become one fulltime equivalent. So, an expansion of 5,000 of them becomes and extra 400," you could do all sorts of maths around it.
I recognise that in a drive for efficiency and greater productivity I am probably going to have to take a few thumps on the chin around police numbers - I might have to do that. Fundamentally for me, it is less about the input and more about the output. If crime were rising rapidly or if there were significant problems or all the rest of it and we were also reducing police numbers significantly then I think there would be a fair point. If those police number reductions - and in the great scale of the number of police officers they are quite modest reductions - are linked to sensible projects like Project Herald --
Len Duvall (AM): So, the reductions we have got at the moment are the only ones that you are going to propose at this moment in time? There are no other reductions in the pipeline?
Kit Malthouse (AM): There are no other proposed reductions in police numbers beyond what you have seen in the three-year budget plan, yes. If they are linked to sensible productivity reductions then that is fine. The reduction over the next three years is linked to three things; we have only talked about Project Herald which accounts for some of it.
Frankly, there is also a reduction in the number of recruits we have at Hendon [Police College, principal training centre for London's Metropolitan Police Service] and that is because in the 1970s there was a big recruitment bulge and they are all retiring now so we have had to have a big recruitment bulge now. So, there have been over 1,000 recruits at Hendon over the last few weeks to fill that gap just to maintain numbers where they are because the numbers who are retiring are disappearing. That is not going to be the case in the next two or three years. So, the number of trainees at Hendon will fall and that will mean that those of you who have been to those passing out parades will get less of an opportunity to celebrate with those families as I have several times.
24
So, those two things are linked. The other thing is there is a reduction in the forecast for the number of Olympic posts - we do not need quite so many officers on the Olympics as was originally planned and so those three together are what the decline is down to. Now, are any of those about boot leather on the street other than in a positive way? No. Maybe you completely disagree with those few things and that we should maintain recruitment and all the rest of it, but I am more than happy to have that sensible political argument.
Len Duvall (AM): The Mayor read out a whole list of additional ones in addition to you and that is why I am a bit sceptic about --
Kit Malthouse (AM): Additional what? Sorry.
Len Duvall (AM): Areas of staff where he was not quite clear whether they would go or whether they would be redeployed back onto the front line wherever the frontline will be.
Kit Malthouse (AM): Well, I think there are some questions we need to ask about some of those police officers. For instance, we have 400-odd police officers in HR. Now, a lot of those are involved in training and we have to ask some questions about how appropriate they are and whether they need to be warranted police officers. It may be they absolutely do but I think what the Mayor was saying was that we have a duty to the taxpayer to examine all those areas. There are 70-odd police officers in Directorate of Information (DOI).
Now, it would just be quite nice to know what they are doing and whether that job requires a fully warranted police officer or if we would rather they were out nicking criminals. It may be that that is not the case; that they are - and I am sure a lot of them are - doing very valuable and skilled work in their place, but I think what he is saying is we need to look at these areas as we come under greater and greater financial pressure.
Jennette Arnold (Chair): OK, thank you. I would like to just ask Members to move on to personal attributes. I think there are issues there, Kit [Malthouse], in terms of time commitment just looking at the number of hats you wear and your CV. Do we have any questions opening up this section?
Tony Arbour (AM): You said earlier when you were talking about the Finance and Resources Committee how much you would like accountants to serve on the Finance and Resources Committee but you suggested it might be a little boring and not very exciting. Under your chairmanship do you want the Metropolitan Police Authority to be boring?
Kit Malthouse (AM): No, not necessarily. I would like all Metropolitan Police Authority members to feel fulfilled and satisfied that the job they are doing is good. As I said, I want a strong MPA that is effective relevant and accountable.
Tony Arbour (AM): Is there not often the argument, as far as boring is concerned, that boring means that there are no crises, there is no undue excitement and that in fact you are delivering a jolly good job? So, is there not a case for boring and accountants?
Kit Malthouse (AM): Well, there is a case for boring, Tony, and, to be honest it would be quite nice to have a reduction in the number of telephone calls and text messages late at night about incidents that are taking place across the city. Sadly, as I have said in other forums, I am learning that policing is not actually about success, it is about degrees of failure because every teenage death - just like the one we had this weekend - is a failure, albeit that the numbers are now less than half of what they were. So, would I like to see a reduction in all of that and time and energy that I have to spend on that? Absolutely.
25 Tony Arbour (AM): Thank you.
Jenny Jones (AM): You also said earlier that you would like the Metropolitan Police Authority to speak with one voice. Does that mean you would like people like me to shut up?
Kit Malthouse (AM): No, Jenny. How can you possibly …
Jenny Jones (AM): Or Dee [Doocey], or Len [Duvall] or Joanne [McCartney] …
Kit Malthouse (AM): Me who has been the champion of your independence and got you things that you wanted and sorted things out for you and all the rest of it. I find that quite hurtful, Jenny.
Jenny Jones (AM): You also called me hysterical on BBC Radio 4.
Kit Malthouse (AM): Well, I have apologised to you for that as well.
Jenny Jones (AM): Under duress.
Kit Malthouse (AM): Well, I was under duress too.
Jennette Arnold (Chair): We should declare these favours that you have granted Jenny so that all Members can queue up for their favours!
Joanne McCartney (AM): I want to follow up some questions about your time and personal interest. It was something that was raised two years ago as well. Certainly looking at the committee schedule of the Metropolitan Police Authority, you are ex-officio on the main bodies which means that you are a full member of those committees. You have said today that you would love accountants on the Finance and Resources Committee and that you are an accountant, yet you have never come to a Finance and Resources Committee meeting.
I am just wondering why you do not because from my perspective, being a Metropolitan Police Authority member, is that often the discussions that take place at those main committee meetings are actually vital to understanding other functions. Although you may get the minutes at the end of the day, they do not really give the full flavour of what the discussions, the debate and what your MPA members are thinking. I am just wondering if you could give an explanation to that.
Kit Malthouse (AM): Yes, Joanne, I would like to make a confession: I have been called many things in my time but I have been quite hurt by the stuff that has been in the papers because, for one, I have never been called lazy before and I like to think that I apply myself extremely diligently to the jobs that I do.
The issues have thrown up an interesting one around our standing orders at the Metropolitan Police Authority because the situation is that I, Steve [O'Connell] [Chair of the MPA's Finance and Resources Committee], Cindy [Butts] [Chair of the MPA's Communities, Equalities and People Committee] and Reshard [Auladin] [Chair of the MPA's Strategic and Operational Policing Committee] are all ex-officio members of every committee.
The reason for that is that we do not have a substitution system. So, if a committee was running light or there was an emergency of some description we could be called upon as ex officio members to make up the numbers and, therefore, allow the committee to be quorate and go forward. So, that being on my attendance record I think is frankly a little unfair.
26 Joanne McCartney (AM): I did not expect you to go to every meeting but, as I said before, I think at those main meetings you do get a flavour of what the debate is about that you do not get if you are just handed the minutes at the end of it.
Kit Malthouse (AM): No, I understand. I do not just get the minutes of meetings, I get the papers before and a precis of what is in the meetings, I obviously discuss with chairs of each of the committees beforehand at the business management group what the business is going to be, what direction they think it is going to take and how it should be handled. In particular on the budget - this is the other thing, to be honest, that slightly wounds me - I spend many, many, many hours over the summer while everyone else in on the beach drinking Tequila Sunsets. or whatever it is. slogging my way through acres and acres of budget papers, as those of you who have been to those budget star chamber meetings will know, to make sure that the budget is in a fit state to present to the Metropolitan Police Authority.
Obviously the budget comes to the full authority for approval and you know because you have been there with me to budget briefings that we have with members and all the rest of it. So, I am content that my involvement in the budget is fairly key and actually at a critical stage. If you are saying that you think I should attend from time to time --
Joanne McCartney (AM): Yes, particularly meetings of Territorial Policing.
Kit Malthouse (AM): -- some of the committee meetings then I think that is a good challenge and I am happy to try to weave that in.
Joanne McCartney (AM): OK. The other is about your outside interests and the time commitments. I know two years ago you were asked by John Biggs (AM) whether you had any outside interests that would be a conflict and you mentioned three business groups. For one of them you said you had stepped down as chief executive, which I think was Alpha Strategic plc [company in the financial services sector].
Kit Malthouse (AM): That is right, yes.
Joanne McCartney (AM): Do you have any other role with that same company now?
Kit Malthouse (AM): No. Since then the company has made an acquisition and I became a director of the new subsidiary that it acquired, but effectively it is all the same involvement and it has not increased. I will say what I said then which is that, as far as I am concerned, my public duties always come first and I think, hope and believe that I discharge them with diligence and with attention.
My other business interests are both businesses which I founded or co-founded and, therefore, I have an ongoing obligation with them and I keep a part-time interest- one is my wife's business of which I am a director. They both have chief executives and teams that run them and modern communications allow me to stay in touch, but they do not in any way interfere with the discharge of my public duties, which absorb all of my working time and a large proportion of my private time too.
I fundamentally believe that being involved in small businesses makes me a better politician and I would be loath to relinquish that for that reason but also because they are businesses which I have founded. They are effectively my family business that I have worked away on for 20-odd years, and they are in the capable hands of others at the moment but I maintain a directorship and an involvement.
Joanne McCartney (AM): Is there any conflict with any of them and the Metropolitan Police Authority?
27 Kit Malthouse (AM): No, neither is in a field that is affected by policing at all. Well, my wife's website is a classical music website and the Metropolitan Police Service does have a male-voice choir that may occasionally feature on it, but other than that no.
Len Duvall (AM): Sorry, I would like to go back. Is your role on your outside business interests one that could be described as an executive role as in managing still, or is it a non-executive type role attending meetings and oversight, or is it much more than that?
Kit Malthouse (AM): It is a combination of both. With one business I am majority shareholder and it is a business I started 15 years ago. I have a staff team that run it and I maintain regular contact with them by telephone. The other business is a listed company of which I am a part-time director and I give them some time around some of my accountancy skills and stay in touch with what they are doing, but it is very much a transaction driven business. So, when there is a transaction to do there is some activity; in four years there have only been two. So, it is a quasi-role in that sense; executive and non-executive.
It does not in any way impinge upon the time I make available or my ability to discharge the job. I hope that those of you who have seen me working over the last - whatever it is - two years will realise that the time I put in is actually not to the detriment of the public or indeed to my business, but it is my family who suffer - as many politicians do - and one of the things I need to think about frankly over the next couple of years is the work-life balance more than anything.
Len Duvall (AM): OK. So, let us just go back to the breakdown of your activities then, we have got the outside interests that you have just talked to us about, we have the MPA core activity which in two years is slightly different but it is still there and then your roles within City Hall, which are not one and the same, are they? They are slightly different. Are any of those roles reducing in terms of level of workloads if you are going to take on the chair? How does that manage? Can you give us an insight into that?
Kit Malthouse (AM): No, there are one or two areas that I and my team have discussed with the Mayor as to whether I should continue to maintain responsibility. So, for instance the London Hydrogen Partnership (LHP) [working towards a hydrogen economy for London and the UK], which I am personally very keen on, I like a lot and does not actually impinge a huge amount in terms of time; there may be some scope for movement there. I am obviously responsible for driving forward Time for Action, the Mayor's anti-violence long-term plan, and there could be a possibility in terms of relinquishing that but the truth is I feel so personally committed to that that it is very, very hard for me to give it up. Frankly, I would rather work harder and put more time in - start earlier and finish later - and get those things done just because I have been in there from the start and want to see them through, than relinquish them for an easy life to be honest.
Len Duvall (AM): I would just like to ask another question going back to Alpha issues. The nature of the business that you do in advising people and the cost to the taxpayer of policing in London; do you pay tax in the UK on all your earnings?
Kit Malthouse (AM): Oh yes, absolutely.
Len Duvall (AM): So, every proper penny that you earn is UK tax-based?
Kit Malthouse (AM): Every single penny I have or have ever earned falls to the UK taxpayer and I have to say it is a point of principle for me.
Len Duvall (AM): Well, thank you.
28 Jenny Jones (AM): I am not aware of anybody who has called you lazy but perhaps somebody has, but whether or not you have time to do everything that you need to do I think is a valid concern for this panel. There is also the issue of whether or not you do understand your MPA members and if you do understand the impact of the budget cuts, for example. All of these things should be a part of your job. How often have you met borough commanders to discuss the budget cuts' impact on the boroughs?
Kit Malthouse (AM): Well, I meet a number of borough commanders on a regular basis. I obviously meet the borough commanders in my own constituency, I meet borough commanders when I go on a visit and I have met the Borough Commander of Ealing [Chief Superintendent Sultan Taylor] just this very morning. So, I have a regular round of meetings. Do I have a regular scheduled meeting with all 32 borough commanders? No.
Jenny Jones (AM): For example, how many borough commanders have you met on a one-to-one or one-to-two basis over the past year?
Kit Malthouse (AM): Well, when you say one-to-one or one-to-two, if I go and visit a borough and I meet the borough commander and he shows me round and we talk about the issues facing his borough does that count as a one-to-one?
Jenny Jones (AM): Yes. How many of those have you had?
Kit Malthouse (AM): Well, I am guessing but I would imagine I have met probably about half to three-quarters. I have met some in wider forums as well where there have been wider meetings and they have been introduced to me, but I have not engaged in a programme of going out to meet borough commanders on a proactive basis. I have gone to meet boroughs for specific purposes. I obviously meet the borough commanders in my constituency very regularly and I have met a number of the new borough commanders when they have been in previous roles. So, for instance, the Borough Commander in Lambeth [Chief Superintendent Nick Ephgrave] I have met in a previous life. To be honest, to have a rotation of meetings with all borough commanders would be quite a heavy workload.
Jenny Jones (AM): It is really about whether or not you understand the impact, say, of the cuts on the boroughs. What about Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnerships (CDRPs), have you attended any? Do you attend your own?
Kit Malthouse (AM): I am going to the Westminster one tonight as it happens.
Jenny Jones (AM): Is that the first?
Kit Malthouse (AM): Well, I have only just become the link member -- no, it is not. I have been to the Westminster CDRPs and I have done a number of public meetings in Hammersmith and Fulham. There is a variety actually. I have not done any CDRPs outside of my constituency, no.
Jenny Jones (AM): What about Safer Neighbourhood Teams?
Kit Malthouse (AM): Yes, I have visited a number of Safer Neighbourhood Teams from Vassall ward in Brixton up to --
Jenny Jones (AM): One.
Kit Malthouse (AM): Well, there is a variety. Jenny, if you would like me to give you a breakdown of the visits that I have done I am more than happy to do that.
29 Jenny Jones (AM): Yes, I would because the Mayor actually told us last year that you had regular meetings with borough commanders but then we could not find any record of that. So, it seemed a curious anomaly; that is all. I would like you to visit Southwark by the way; perhaps you would like to come to my CDRP.
Kit Malthouse (AM): More than happy. We had Southwark in, of course, for a very productive JEM meeting. In fact, there you are.
Jennette Arnold (Chair): Can we do less of the personal favours?
Kit Malthouse (AM): You have now walked me into the answer. I have met every single of the 32 borough commanders --
Jennette Arnold (Chair): At JEMs.
Kit Malthouse (AM): -- during the last year and talked to them about the issues in the JEM meetings; every single one.
Jennette Arnold (Chair): Absolutely.
Kit Malthouse (AM): Sorry, I had forgotten the JEM meetings. So, yes, I have met them all.
Jenny Jones (AM): Fine. One of the areas that I am concerned about is the Borough Operational Command Unit (BOCU) for traffic. Have you actually met them? I know you have worked on dangerous dogs, but it seems to me that it is a fairly minority concern and I would have thought that a lot of people being killed on the roads might be more of a concern for you. I wondered if you have met the Traffic BOCU so that you actually understand what cuts will do for them.
Kit Malthouse (AM): Well, I do not agree with you that the dangerous dogs issue is a minority concern.
Jenny Jones (AM): Compared with hundreds of people dying on the roads?
Kit Malthouse (AM): I think it is an issue of vast concern and I am actually quite surprised that you, as a councillor in Southwark, would say that because Southwark is one of the areas that has a significant problem.
Jennette Arnold (Chair): Jenny, we are going to move forward.
Kit Malthouse (AM): I have met the Commanding Officer of the Transport Operational Command Unit (TOCU), although I will admit that I was due to have a visit with them last year to look around TOCU and they cancelled it.
Jenny Jones (AM): TOCU is not traffic.
Jennette Arnold (Chair): No, I would like to stop this. A much more rounded question will be can you give us any sort of sense of how many days you spend on outside activities, how many days you spend as an Assembly Member and how many days you envisage spending as the Chairman of the MPA? Do you have any idea of that breakdown? You can make it over seven days because if your family do not mind then we certainly do not mind.
Kit Malthouse (AM): Yes. It is quite hard to break it out in terms of hours but I would think I spend between 30 and 40 hours a week on MPA and policing issues, and there is a lot of crossover with the
30 work that I do here; I probably spend the same amount of time as you do on my Assembly Member duties and then I would imagine on my --
Jennette Arnold (Chair): No, you do not; I have got a bigger constituency than you.
Kit Malthouse (AM): Oh, do you? Oh right. Well, I am lucky, mine is geographically smaller which means it is quicker to get around. I have to confess to you one of the big issues for me is that I reckon I spend between 15 and 20 hours a week on public transport, backwards and forwards on the Jubilee line and that is not necessarily a productive use of my travel.
Dee Doocey (AM): Well, do not get a chauffeur!
Kit Malthouse (AM): No, no, no.
Jennette Arnold (Chair): Outside activities?
Kit Malthouse (AM): Well, I would think I probably spend maybe ten hours a week on outside stuff. It depends; there is a huge amount of reading involved in both the MPA and the Assembly and a lot of that is done evenings, early mornings, weekends and all that kind of stuff. So, I have a heavy week but I like working hard.
Jennette Arnold (Chair): I had a question on reading your CV, Kit. Just for the record, what does County Plant and Equipment Sales produce and sell?
Kit Malthouse (AM): Well, actually it does not do anything; it is a dormant company.
Jennette Arnold (Chair): Well, how many more of these are dormant then?
Kit Malthouse (AM): That is the only one that is dormant. You have picked the one that is dormant.
Jennette Arnold (Chair): You do write poetry; that is not a dormant commitment.
Kit Malthouse (AM): Badly.
Jennette Arnold (Chair): You did not say that on your CV. It does not say here, "And I write poetry badly."
Kit Malthouse (AM): I do, but badly I am afraid. It is a way of relaxing.
Roger Evans (AM): Can we have an example?
Jennette Arnold (Chair): We will not have an example; not today. You have to have a one-to-one meeting with him for that. Roger, have you got any questions?
Roger Evans (AM): Yes, thank you, Chair. It was actually quite interesting that Jenny was going onto the dangerous dogs issue because, as you know, I was cast in a rather unlikely role as a defender of dangerous dogs. Personally I would not mind if all dogs disappeared forever; I am a cat person.
Dee Doocey (AM): Shame on you!
Kit Malthouse (AM): Roger, there is the headline.
31 Roger Evans (AM): Well, they have waited for a long time for it! It is only fair to give it to them. I do not see that it is my role as an elected Member to impose my views and prejudices on other people like that. I see myself as quite a libertarian. I just wonder where you see yourself on that philosophical axis. Are you a libertarian or are you an authoritarian? That is quite an important question to ask someone who is going to run our police force.
Kit Malthouse (AM): Yes, in terms of a personal liberty I regard myself as being on the libertarian wing but I am not sure that dangerous dogs necessarily fall into that particular remit. The issue is this, Roger, that we are not talking about Labradors and Pekinese here; we are talking about dogs that have been shown to be consistently used as weapons of intimidation and harm.
Dee Doocey (AM): Bred as weapons.
Kit Malthouse (AM): We have examples where these dogs have been used to restrain victims who are then murdered and where they have been used in robberies. There is a significant problem and if you search the local newspapers on Google, or wherever, rather than national newspapers you will find story after story after story of people who have been attacked, pets who have been killed and sadly in some cases human fatalities from these animals.
So, I come at this very much from a crime point of view and I am starting more and more to see these dogs in the same way that I would see a knife and a gun. I think that there are particular breeds of dog that present particular problems which we have to deal with.
In terms of dogs generally I am relatively liberal, although I have to say in an urban environment dogs are an issue. They have been, as you know, for the French who have quite stringent laws now around dogs in urban areas. As somebody who lives in a very urban part of London, there is a particular person who walks a particular dog past my front door and has caused me particular hygiene problems, shall we say. I am quite keen to see some action from that point of view. In terms of dangerous dogs I think you can separate them out from the others.
Roger Evans (AM): Well, I do not want to argue the whole dogs case not least because, as I say, I am not particularly a dog fan myself and it is rather strange to find myself on that side of the argument. I think you are right to equate them perhaps with weapons or other things we do not want people to have or to do. There are some individuals who if you took their dog off them they would only find another way to make a nuisance of themselves - there are people that if you strip them down to their underpants and left them in a field would still find a way to be a nuisance to other people. Should we not actually be targeting owners and dangerous people rather than trying to restrict liberties across the board?
Kit Malthouse (AM): Well, we should be doing both is the truth, Roger, in the same way that we do with other forms of weaponry. So, if you take guns, for instance, not only does the Metropolitan Police Service target individuals who are violent but they target guns and weapons, and they do specific operations to look for weapons, but also rather smartly they target ammunition. They tell me it is harder actually in London to find ammunition now than it is to find a gun, so that is quite a smart thing to do.
So, while I am very keen for the status dogs unit at the Metropolitan Police Service to be targeting dangerous dogs, that does not mean they should not also be targeting those violent individuals. Also, if there is a violent individual and we have taken their gun, knife and their dog they are less likely to cause harm. They might start thumping people and, if so you deal with too, but taking away these particularly unpleasant instruments of violence is pretty key.
Jennette Arnold (Chair): OK. Right, I think we have exhausted the personal attributes section. Any other questions, Members?
32 Joanne McCartney (AM): It is just to go back to your time commitment. I think the hours you label that you did with the MPA and the role here you said that you had your Assembly role and you did the same amount of hours as we do. If you do the same amount of hours I do you are already well over 100 hours a week.
Kit Malthouse (AM): Am I? Well, you are obviously incredibly diligent, Joanne.
Joanne McCartney (AM): If you say you do 40 hours a week on the MPA.
Kit Malthouse (AM): Yes, I think I do 35 to 40 hours.
Joanne McCartney (AM): You then do almost another full week on Assembly.
Kit Malthouse (AM): Joanne, to be honest it is very hard to say because no week is the same as the last and is that spread over the whole year or is that a particular week? For instance, if I give you an example, this week --
Joanne McCartney (AM): I am thinking of you, Kit, this is why.
Kit Malthouse (AM): Yes, I understand.
Joanne McCartney (AM): To do all these roles there is a massive amount of hours involved. You have said you need to look at your work-life balance for the next two years. I am just wondering how you are going do that.
Kit Malthouse (AM): It depends. This week is a particularly heavy one so I have, I think, four evening events: I have got this event tonight, I was doing a speaking event last night and I have got a speaking event at the Women Against Violence event tomorrow night. Some weeks are very heavy and some weeks are not. Fortunately I am happy to have a heavy week because I had a week off and that means my family are happy with me too.
You juggle it to a certain extent but the thing that I am always clear about is that my public duties come first; that is my primary obligation. As long as they are done to the satisfaction of the Mayor and my electorate then I am happy.
Jennette Arnold (Chair): I think on that point, Kit, I would like to thank you on behalf of the Committee. You have given full and frank answers to the questions put to you. It is not like an interview as you do not now get an opportunity to question us.
Kit Malthouse (AM): I do not get to ask any questions about terms and conditions.
Jennette Arnold (Chair): What you can do is you can stay with us in the gallery area whilst we go into deliberation, because that has to be done in public, and I would want us to reach a decision here. So, no Member is leaving until we get a decision here tonight even though they are looking exhausted.
Kit Malthouse (AM): I will leave you free to be rude about me.
Jennette Arnold (Chair): For the record, Joanna, do you have to say the timescale that we are working to in terms of the letters coming out of our deliberation?
Joanna Brown (Committee Administrator, GLA): A letter must be with the Mayor by Friday.
Jennette Arnold (Chair): So, a letter will be with the Mayor by Friday following our deliberations.
33
Kit Malthouse (AM): Thank you very much indeed.
Jennette Arnold (Chair): Thank you very much.
34 Appendix C
City Hall The Queen's Walk London SE1 2AA Switchboard: 020 7983 4000 Web: www.london.gov.uk
Mr Boris Johnson Mayor of London City Hall The Queen’s Walk More London London SE1 2AA
24 February 2010
Dear Mr Mayor
Confirmation Hearing: Proposed Appointment of Kit Malthouse AM to Office of Chair of Metropolitan Police Authority
In accordance with Schedule 4A to the GLA Act 1999, I am writing to inform you of the Confirmation Hearings Committee’s recommendation with regard to your proposed appointment of Kit Malthouse AM to the office of Chair of Metropolitan Police Authority (MPA).
The Confirmation Hearings Committee questioned Kit Malthouse AM at its meeting on 23 February in relation to the office of Chair of the MPA. The Committee unanimously agreed to recommend that you should proceed with his appointment to that office.
However, in their support for his appointment, the Committee noted Mr Malthouse’s existing time commitments, and asked that you be mindful of this in terms of any further duties that might be given to him.
The Committee would also like to bring to your attention a key area that Mr Malthouse himself acknowledged as important, namely to strengthen the relationship between the MPA and the MPS. We hope that you are able to confirm that this will be identified as a priority of Mr Malthouse’s role.
On behalf of the Confirmation Hearings Committee I should like to wish Kit Malthouse well in carrying out his new role.
Yours sincerely
Jennette Arnold Chair, Confirmation Hearings Committee
Direct telephone: 020 7983 4374 Email: [email protected]