A liitle bird tells me that Sir Paul Stephenson, the Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis, is apparently impatient with – if not irritated by – some of the tone of recent meetings of the Metropolitan Police Authority.  He feels that the questions he is asked by some members of the Authority are hardly strategic or are nit-picking in tone and certainly fail to acknowledge the overall good performance of the Met.

I am told he is particularly infuriateddelighted by a number of the questions tabled for tomorrow’s meeting of the Authority.

His particular favourites include:

“Can the Commissioner provide details of the Diversity Training that individual members of the MPS Management Board have received in the past 3 years.” (tabled by Chris Boothman)

And this:

“According to press reports:  ‘Police are to take a more relaxed approach to children cycling on pavements after Boris Johnson secured support from the Met Commissioner.  Sir Paul Stephenson is backing the Mayor’s suggested change.’  Is it true that Sir Paul is backing this move?  If so:  What does Sir Paul feel might be the equality implications of this policy change?  Has an equality impact assessment been done on it?  If so, can we see a copy? If not, will one be done before the policy change comes into effect?” (tabled by Kirsten Hearn)

(It is, of course, true that people cycling on the pavement is hazardous for frail pedestrians or those with disabilities.  Although it is also true that young children would be in danger cycling on busy roads.)

But the question that has provoked the most (so far) private invective is this one relating to Sir Paul’s highly regarded Police Foundation lecture:

“In your speech to the Police Foundation you talked about the devastating impact that organised crime has on the economy, and the problems that you have in tackling this problem. I think it’s regrettable that we need to read about this in the press. Do you not think that this is an important issue which it would have been appropriate to discuss with members of the MPA at the Full Authority?” (tabled by Dee Doocey)

I am sure that, as usual, Sir Paul will behave impeccably at the meeting and that the mask of civility will not slip.  But privately, he will be looking forward to this month’s White Paper that is expected to confirm the coalition Government’s plans to abolish police authorities.

I was one of the few non-Kurds present at a meeting tonight organised by Kurds for Labour in support of David Miliband’s campaign to be Leader of the Labour Party.

About two hundred (or at least that’s what it felt like) supporters packed into the tiny but excellent Troia restaurant (just opposite the old County Hall) to hear David Miliband outline his vision for the future of the Labour Party, deliver a ringing endorsement of the diversity of London and praise the success of the London Labour Party’s community campaigning in winning so many Councils in May.

He rightly received a warm and enthusiastic reception and this was echoed by those diners in other nearby cafes and restaurants when the event spilled out into Belvedere Road after David’s speech was over.

An excellent sign of the depth of David Miliband’s support.

Earlier this evening I heard Sir Paul Stephenson, the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, deliver the Police Foundation Annual Lecture (given each year in memory of Lord John Harris – no relation).

Sir Paul’s lecture, entitled “Fighting Organised Crime in an Era of Financial Austerity”, was insightful and thought-provoking.

And the thought it provoked in me was how does tackling serious crime fit into the Coalition Government’s agenda?

The answer, if you listen to Sir Paul (although he was much too polite to say it so explicitly), was that it doesn’t.

The lecture spelt out the impact that serious organised crime has directly and indirectly on communities and its financial and economic cost to the country.  And Sir Paul then pointed out that, despite the significant improvements in recent years:

“The specialist resources devoted by the police service to addressing the threat from organised crime remains uncoordinated.  ….  the  service has no organised crime strategy, no established national tasking process and no meaningful performance measures.”

He didn’t say – although he could have done – that the Coalition’s Programme for Government doesn’t mention serious organised crime in the chapter on “Crime and Policing” and the closest it gets to a mention anywhere in the document is in the chapter on “Immigration” which promises to:

“create a dedicated Border Police Force, as part of a refocused Serious Organised Crime Agency, to enhance national security, improve immigration controls and crack down on the trafficking of people, weapons and drugs. We will work with police forces to strengthen arrangements to deal with serious crime and other cross-boundary policing challenges, and extend collaboration between forces to deliver better value for money.”

Refocussing SOCA on immigration hardly solves the problem Sir Paul was describing.

He did, however, reveal that the Government is now drafting a paper on organised crime – so I suppose that must be progress.  However, before we get our expectations too high, he warns that this:

“must not be a collection of fine words and generic statements.”

…. perhaps he’s seen the draft.

And he concluded with a stark warning:

“I wonder how many Chief Constables across the country are going to be able and willing to balance the very proper desire and requirement for local community policing, with the challenge of maintaining at least existing capability to deal with the high end but often less obvious demands of serious organised crime.  And is the situation about to get even more complex?  Will the new accountability and governance model for police forces, incorporating directly elected local individuals, lead to the unintended consequence of further eroding existing limited organised crime capability?”

And, if the Coalition omits tackling serious organised crime from its programme for crime and policing, what will happen with directly elected police chiefs?

I hope we don’t have to wait for a Sicilian-style breakdown of civic authority before tackling organised crime reappears on the Coalition’s priority list.

I very rarely try to catch TV or radio programmes in which I have been interviewed, but after a couple of people mentioned how good the programme was, I did make an exception and tracked down the broadcast from last Monday afternoon.

So I have only just listened to the Radio 4 feature programme “The Summer That Changed London“.  As an evocation of London and, in particular, the impact of July 2005 (the month of Live8, the declaration of London as the venue for the 2012 Olympics, the 7/7 bombings, the 21/7 failed bombings, and the shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes) on London and Londoners, it is brilliant.

But don’t take my word for it, listen – you can disregard the clips from my interview.   But hurry, you only have two days before it comes off the web-site.

Val Shawcross AM, the Labour Group’s transport spokesperson on the London Assembly, has put forward an eminently sensible response to the Mayor of London’s interminable consultation on his favoured pet scheme of the abolition of the Western half of the Congestion Charge Zone.  She has proposed that the current Zone be split into two separate Zones – each with their own charge.

Her proposal would turn the western extension into a separate zone with its own rules, operating times and charging structure.  West London residents would not have to pay to drive in the new zone but would lose the discount they currently enjoy for driving into central London.

She quotes Transport for London figures that show that the Mayor’s proposals would produce a 15 per cent increase in traffic levels as a direct consequence of removing the western extension zone and up to £70m of revenue lost every year.

When Mayor Ken Livingstone first proposed extending the Congestion Charge Zone to the West, I tried to persuade him to create two separate Zones then, so it is good to see Val Shawcross reviving the idea now.

It always seemed barmy to me to allow the residents of Kensington and Chelsea – some of whom are extremely wealthy – to drive in the original Congestion Charge Zone with a residents’ discount when they had previously had to pay the full Congestion Charge.  It was in effect a subsidy to the already well-off.  And, as I suggested to the then Mayor, hardly an egalitarian thing to do.

The present Mayor now wants to stop the residents of the Western Zone getting this subsidy.  I would support that if it were not for the loss of revenue that will make TfL’s budget problems even more difficult.

Val Shawcross is now offering the sensible way forward: the well-off residents in K&C etc will only get a resident’s discount when they drive in their own part of the Zone, but would have to  pay the normal Congestion Charge when they drive in the other part of the Zone.

So her proposal is fairer, generates a lot more revenue for TfL to invest in the capital’s transport system, and would also further reduce congestion and improve air quality.

It is such a good idea, maybe the current Mayor will pinch it.

I am not looking for any recognition, as you know these things don’t matter to me at all and I am profoundly disinterested in where this blog comes in the annual Total Politics ranking of political blogs, so I really am not asking for you to vote for me or my blog ……..

but ……..

should you be so inclined (and I repeat I really, really don’t mind one way or the other), this is what you have to do:

The rules are:
1. You must vote for your ten favourite blogs and rank them from 1 (your favourite) to 10 (your tenth favourite).
2. Your votes must be ranked from 1 to 10. Any votes which do not have rankings will not be counted.
3. You MUST include at least FIVE blogs in your list, but please list ten if you can. If you include fewer than five, your vote will not count.
4. Email your vote to toptenblogs@totalpolitics.com
5. Only vote once.
6. Only blogs based in the UK, run by UK residents or based on UK politics are eligible. No blog will be excluded from voting.
7. Anonymous votes left in the comments will not count. You must give a name.
8. All votes must be received by midnight on 31 July 2010. Any votes received after that date will not count.

So I’m not asking you to do it, but I really won’t mind if you do……

Ten years ago today the Metropolitan Police Authority assumed its functions taking over from the Home Secretary the role of police authority for London.

I have found a speech I made at the time and it is interesting to see what my vision was then as the Authority’s first Chair and also to note how much some things have changed since then (although some remain the same).

Ten years ago I said:

“For the first time since Sir Robert Peel, the then Home Secretary, founded the Metropolitan Police over 170 years ago, a new Metropolitan Police Authority has taken over the responsibility for overseeing the Metropolitan Police Service from his successor, the present Home Secretary.

This Authority, working with the Commissioner, is dedicated to ensuring that the Metropolitan Police Service delivers its present mission, to make London safe for all its people and in doing so treat everyone fairly, by being open and honest, and by continually seeking to improve the service provided to the public.

There are enormous challenges facing the Metropolitan Police. Whilst burglary rates are falling, street crime is rising. Clear up rates are perceived as too low, police priorities are not always what local communities feel they should be in their respective areas and too often we will still hear people saying that the police are nowhere to be seen when they are needed.

When the report of the inquiry into the death of Stephen Lawrence was published, it seemed to confirm what many people then felt: the Police were seen too often as being incompetent, insensitive and unintentionally racist.

The respect that too many Londoners had for the Police was probably then at an all-time low. I believe it has improved since then, given the enormous effort by the Police Service at all levels to respond positively to the criticisms levelled at them. And it is, of course, the case that the Police are more highly regarded by and large than say politicians or local councils!

In recent times, police numbers have fallen and the Metropolitan Police’s recruitment drive has not even been keeping pace with the number of officers who are leaving the Service.  A substantial shortfall has been anticipated and there have been fears that the Police Service will be below the strength required to police London effectively by the end of this year. This is a reflection of pay that was unattractive, given the high cost of living in London.  According to the Met’s follow up of people interested in a career in the Service they were being put off by the high cost of housing and transport.

That, of course, is the bad news. But let us be clear, every Londoner wants the Metropolitan Police Service to be successful and effective – everyone that is except the criminals, the vandals and those who enjoy causing disorder.

The new Metropolitan Police Authority (MPA) has a heavy responsibility.  The over-riding task of the new Authority, together with the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, must be to make sure that London gets the Police Service that it deserves – a Service that is effective in tackling crime and disorder and winning the confidence and the support of all those who live and work in this wonderful, diverse, vibrant city of ours.

This will mean, in particular, cutting street crime drastically and reducing drug-related incidents significantly.  It will mean making our streets safer and making all of us feel more secure in our homes. Indeed, I believe that this Authority’s success or failure will be judged on whether crime in London is reduced and the Metropolitan Police achieves its stated objective of making London the safest major city in the world.”

I also said – and this was long before neighbourhood policing or the Policing Pledge (now abandoned by the Coalition Government):

“The public have got to have confidence in their Police Service and the way to achieve that is through mutual respect and partnership. The public have got to feel that the Police, like any other public service, is there to help them and ready to respond appropriately. And that means individually, every police officer has got to show respect to individual members of the public, regardless of race, gender, colour, creed or sexuality.

But in turn, tackling crime has got to be seen as a partnership – a partnership between the police and the public and between the police and other agencies, such as local councils. Local communities know where local crime hot spots are and have a fund of information. The public need to tell the police when they see something suspicious and need to have the confidence that what they say will be acted on seriously, sensitively and effectively. They need to know who their local beat officers are and how to contact them. I believe these beat officers must be at the centre of London’s policing – men and women who understand the local area, are seen as part of the community, and who are accessible and can stop trouble before it gets started.”

Ken Livingstone’s campaign to stand as Labour’s London Mayoral candidate in 2012 is attracting an increasing number of Labour leading figures in London Government.

According to Labour List who are keeping a tally, he now has the support of six of the eight Labour members of the London Assembly: Len Duvall (Leader of the Labour Group on the Assembly), Nicky Gavron, Joanne McCartney, Murad Qureshi, Navin Shah and Val Shawcross.

He is also supported by six Labour Council Leaders (including the three women Leaders – Ann John in Brent, Claire Kober in Haringey, and Catherine West in Islington; along with Liam Smith in Barking and Dagenham, Julian Bell in Ealing, and Peter John in Southwark).

They are joined by four Labour opposition leaders (Croydon, Hammersmith and Fulham, Hillingdon, and Westminster) and another 35 Labour Councillors around the capital.

It is a pretty impressive cross-section – all of whom know how important it will be to have a strong and effective advocate for London as Mayor after the 2012 elections.

The farce of the encampment on Parliament Square has been going on far too long.

It is unsightly and creates an appalling impression for the thousands of foreign visitors who visit the Square each day.

Potentially it poses a significant security risk – who really knows who is there and what they’ve got inside their tents?

I don’t even want to think about the sanitory arrangements ….

And it RESTRICTS the right to protest, as other potential demonstrators are squeezed off the Square by the tented ones.

So the news that Mayor Boris Johnson’s legal action in the High Court to have the so-called Peace Camp campaigners evicted from Parliament Square has been successful is a welcome breath of common sense.

The Metropolitan Police Authority is meeting today at 10.00am in City Hall.  Unfortunately, I will not be there to report on the body language of the Chair and Commissioner and other matters of like importance (I have the dreadful misfortune of having to speak at a conference on the evolution of global security just outside Nice in the South of France – someone’s got to do it).

And a possible major row is brewing.  There is a report on the agenda in the name of the Commissioner enticingly called “Update on a proposed new model of recruitment and training for police officers“.  This is suggesting that the normal route by which someone can become a police officer in London would be by first being trained and serving as an – unpaid – Special Constable.  This is not an uncontroversial idea – it raises all sorts of issues, such as whether it discriminates against those who are not able to give their time free and the impact on those who had been told they had been selected for training at Hendon Police College and now are being told that they will have to put themselves forward as Special Constables instead.

But the row will be about the report’s recommendation which is “That Members NOTE the contents of this report”.  The report clearly raises strategic policy issues and can hardly be said to be just about “operational” decisions of the Commissioner.  It should therefore have appeared as a report with recommendations for the Authority to consider and approve (or otherwise).

I am almost sorry to be missing the discussion and in particular the body language.