Transcript of this meeting [PDF]

Sir Paul Stephenson (Commissioner, MPS): I think it might be sensible ifLynne [Owens] was to answer that.Lynne Owens (Deputy Assistant Commissioner, MPS): The MPS is committed toproviding the best possible crime data because we know that the public cannot judge oureffectiveness appropriately unless we are putting reliable figures in the public domain.At the moment the data accuracy is based on some very rigid and complex Home Officerecording rules and standards and, further to previous Members’ questions onbureaucracy, we are currently undertaking a review in the MPS of those standardsbecause we think some of the ways that crime is recorded is over complicated.Some of the figures that you saw - which I think was a Private Member briefing inadvance of the last SOP rather than part of a paper that we submitted - and the way thatwe are assessing data accuracy are inaccurate. Commander Steve Rodhouse isundertaking that crime recording review on behalf of the organisation and we will reportback to Members once that review is complete because we think it is absolutely right thatyou get a far better picture of accuracy in terms of data recording.Tony Arbour (AM): Can I suggest some of the reasons why recording might beinaccurate and maybe your interpretation of what the Home Office is asking maypossibly itself be wrong? Firstly, there may well be considerable pressure on thosepeople in boroughs who have to record the data, perhaps to massage the figures, and can Isuggest ways in which this may be done? It may be that, because there is MPS pressureto drive down, for example, the incidents of burglary, burglary might, perhaps, berecorded as criminal damage. It may well be, for example, that the recording of someparticular offences is extremely bureaucratic. I understand, for example, that there are131 pieces of paper needed to record an assault which will include 17 police officersbeing involved in that. Much simpler if assault is recorded as a different kind of crime.Moreover, in our drive for targets, and at the beginning of every Commissioner’s reportthat we get here, we are always told how well we are doing in particular categories.Equally, sometimes, we are told that we are not doing so well in particular categories. Itmay well be that boroughs feel under pressure to alter the figures to suit this. Forexample, it is very easy to get lots of sanction detections going to a student event andmaybe you will be able to find lots of people in possession of cannabis, but each one ofthose offences - I say, maybe, Chairman - as far as crime recording goes, are the same asrecording a murder.Finally, to go back to the point that I originally made about interpretation of the HomeOffice doing this, maybe it ought not to be down to boroughs to be recording this.Maybe it ought to be done centrally, not by front line officers, which will save anenormous amount of officer time and you do as they do in Kent, where the whole thing isdone centrally.Lynne Owens (Deputy Assistant Commissioner, MPS): You have covered a widevariety of ground. If I could start with the last point first? I completely agree with thatwww.merrillcorp.com38