Minutes - draft

These minutes are agreed.

Minutes of the meeting of the Community Engagement and Citizen Focus held on 22 February 2010 at 10 Dean Farrar Street, London, SW1H 0NY.

Present

Members

• Clive Lawton (Chair)
• Joanne McCartney
• Valerie Brasse
• Victoria Borwick

MPA officers

• Natasha Plummer (Engagement & Partnerships Manager)
• James Tate (Criminal Justice & Custody Oversight Team Leader)

MPS officers

• Commander Simon O’Brien

Guests in Attendance: Dr John May (London Communities’ Policing Partnership – LCP2)

9. Apologies for absence

9.1 No apologies for absence were received

10. Declarations of interests

10.1 There were no declarations of interest.

11. Minutes: 29 October 2009

(Agenda item 3)

11.1 The minutes of the meeting held on 29 October 2009 were approved and signed as a correct record.

12. Stop and search quarterly brief

(Agenda item 7)

12.1 The Chair explained that this item was being moved forward in the agenda because Commander O’Brien had to leave early. Additionally, it was highlighted that this was the last time that Commander O’Brien would be presenting to the committee as he was leaving to join the Garda Síochána in the Republic of Ireland. He was wished every success by the committee

12.2 Commander O’Brien explained that the appendices to the report provided the committee with the differentials between Q2 and Q3 2009 in terms of Stop and Search. PACE searches had increased, Section 60 decreased slightly, Section 44 TACT and section 43 TACT both decreased and Stop and Account increased. The overall trend was that there had not been large changes in frequency of use of Stop and Search and it remained a key tool with operations such as Blunt II. However, it had been recognised that MPS could lose community confidence if the powers were not used properly. Additionally, Assistant Commissioner Specialist Operations had communicated to all MPS officers that the taking of photographs in London was not an offence and was not in itself usually sufficient to carry out a stop.

12.3 Paragraph 10 provided detail on a recent judgment of the European Court of Human Rights over an occurrence five years ago. The Home Secretary had reported that the judgment would be appealed against. In relation to the use of Section 60 within Operation Blunt II a review was underway to assess whether it was being applied proportionally, based on accurate and recent information and that the operations were being written up and properly used. The result of this would be improvements and the possible implementation of a computer based package to make the powers clear to colleagues.

12.4 The MPS activities within the boroughs had involved many Community Engagement initiatives, and full and frank engagement with the Strategic Stop and Search Group, which meets quarterly and includes members of the community. Commander O’Brien stated that the MPS model was recognised as good practice and was being considered for national roll out. It was important that colleagues were aware of the wider issues arising from the use of Stop and Search and therefore the importance of good evidence and the use of equality impact assessments.

12.5 One member stated that they had read about other police forces using PDAs and queried whether there would be benefits from using these within the Metropolitan Police. The MPS advised that there were 150 – 200 PDAs being used by colleagues. They were believed to be useful tools in relation to Stop and Search activity, one reason for this was that currently there was often a lag between the Stop and Search taking place, being recorded on forms and then entered onto the database. An electronic transfer of the data, possibly including the location, would be extremely useful. The feedback received from the officers using PDAs was that they were good tools, and had uses in addition to Stop and Search. It was suggested that the committee ask the same question in six months when a greater number of PDAs would be in use.

12.6 A member noted that a report published on the national use of PDAs had shown that nearly half of the police forces contacted had not found them useful – a possible reason identified was that there had been a lack of training. The officer recognised that this was always an issue; training could be expensive. The PDA used had been assessed to ensure that they were familiar to the officers and each borough had someone to monitor training requirements. Additionally, the feedback from the officers currently using the PDAs would be fed into any training plans.

12.7 A member asked the timescales for the review. An officer responded that this had been worked on for two to three months and had included face to face interviews with senior colleagues and data capture from all boroughs. It was expected to be finished within two months. It was mentioned by one member that the next committee meeting was scheduled for April. The officer thought this was a viable timeframe. The Chair noted the differentials in the amount of engagement being conducted in some boroughs compared to the rate of stop and search. For example, Newham and Hackney were areas where Stop and Search was taking place, but with relatively little community engagement. Also Stop and Search community engagement activities in Haringey, for example, had increased from 11 in Q2 to 440 in Q3

A member said that within the figures for male stops there were 45,000 white European and 40,000 black, with a roughly similar number of arrests. Each of these sections represented approximately 40% of the total, perhaps indicating a disproportionate number of black male Stop and Searches, it was suggested that proportion of the London population be provided to show more detail. Commander O’Brien suggested that Pennant data might be more useful, although the current baseline is the 2001 census data. Some consideration was also being given to the terminology used in Stop and Search. He suggested that the term ‘disparity’ be used in relation to the figures, rather than disproportionality. One member agreed that the background provided had been helpful and asked what the expectations were. An officer said the original reason had been to reduce the number of people taken to police stations without a good reason. MPS believed that unnecessary arrests had been reduced.

12.9 Another area of success had been in the community monitoring networks where local stop and search data is being scrutinised by members of the community; and borough commanders and colleagues are having to answer for performance in this area. The officer added that a new set of data could be brought to the committee. A member thought that a restatement of outcomes would be useful, as well as work on the disparity between and across boroughs. One suggestion was that in areas where the figures were double the MPS average explanations should be provided on a regular base. The chair asked Commander O’Brien whether this work could be detailed to his successor and emphasised that the individual could take the opportunity to restate or rethink positions and allow assessment of whether the work was successful

12.10One member asked about the strategic Stop and Search work. Commander O’Brien agreed that a meeting could be held at this level and added that work was underway of which this committee could be informed. A member mentioned that the borough statistics were published on the internet, since MPS visited schools it could be an opportunity to mention the availability of this data. An officer agreed that this point could be inputted to the work. One member asked if work had been undertaken to assess the human rights challenges against the methods used in other countries. Commander O’Brien agreed that it had been, countries such as Spain and France had identity cards and it was a common occurrence to be asked to show papers, additionally no account or record was taken of this.

12.11 There was a great deal of accountability in the UK. It was recognised that the individuals involved in the events five or six years ago had not been happy. The officer felt that there had been a lot of engagement with citizens and although the UK could not ‘sit on its laurels’ he thought the European Court of Human Rights might find some of the activities undertaken would negate some of the grievances – they did not recognise the changes that had been made and the context

12.12 The chair reiterated his best wishes to Commander O’Brien, and thanked him for his work and concern for the subject.

Resolved that: -

1. The report be noted
2. A report on the review of Stop and Search under Section 60 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act be presented to the Sub-Committee when completed.

13. CPEG funding

(Agenda item 4)

13.1 Natasha Plummer informed the Sub Committee that there had been a detailed assessment process this year looking at the comparative and budgeted expenditure. The aim was to release the sums initially identified to the groups, less the surpluses and queries – until they were resolved. It was expected that the result of this would be £60,000 to £150,000 retained in budget and used to diversify the Authority’s community engagement work.

13.2 One member said they thought the process was excellent and checked that the money saved would be retained for community engagement, rather than diverted elsewhere. The officer confirmed this would be the case. There was a general discussion about the role and function of CPEGs, including a question as to why some groups were able to generate income of their own. The explanation provided was that there were a number of ways in which this was achieved, including providing engagement services to other agencies, such as CDRPs, and at least one Group sub-let office space. A member queried whether this was a transferable model It was highlighted that differences existed across CPEGs; e.g. appendix five indicated that Sutton had proposed to spend £23,000 and Brent £75,000 in 2010/11. It was explained that the difference could relate to staffing levels as well as to the different approaches to community engagement. A CPEG might, for example, solely run four public meetings per year, whereas another might conduct a wide range of additional activities/events.

13.3 Members recognised that community engagement projects could not always be implemented in one year and that planning for specific events could take months and the outcomes might not be realised for several years. Clearly quarterly milestones assisted in keeping people on task, but what might be missing was the differentiation between short , medium and long-term goals. A member said they thought the important point was that they were supposed to empower people to take their own project forward, the money was not to be used to replicate year on year funding, but as a boost to help particular projects. A member stated that milestones could be included, with footnotes identifying the work as part of a longer term project. One member did not think explicit reference had been made on the form to groups being more entrepreneurial. If this was included it could provide encouragement. An officer explained that this information was gathered elsewhere.

13.4 The officer explained that it had been identified that some groups that had in the past been unable to expend all their funds had been accumulating grant funding in bank accounts, which was an issue that needed to be addressed. A member noted that if Groups did not demonstrate that they could spend their funds they were not making a case for receiving more the following year. However, if a borough had initiated cost cutting measures and then created an effective mid year plan for the surplus to be used in a project then it would be fair to allow that Group to retain the funding.

13.5 The chair stated that he thought the aspiration was for every CPEG to be able to fund as much of its own work as it could. A member highlighted that it would be wrong to give the message that CPEGs would be penalised for income generation. The chair stressed that the CPEG was not intended to accumulate money, but to carry out community engagement work.

13.6 The general aim was for CPEGs to raise the maximum amount of money and carry out the maximum amount of work. An issue raised by another member was that if CPEGs were encouraged to generate income the MPA would not be able to determine what they did with the money. One member noted that CPEGs took the basis of their existence from the MPA.

13.7 LCP2 advised that there was a tension between the goal of standardisation and the recognition that one size did not fit all. Some groups saw themselves as contributors of time and resources to the community, whereas the Authority appears to be treating them as contractors. LCP2 further advised that groups recognised the importance of milestones and the need for delivery, and added that it had been a difficult period in which to fund raise, even with full time professionals.

13.8 LCP2 explained that one year funding acted against forward planning, adding that the Treasury guidance was for multi year funding, which generally meant three years. This made it easier for a group to plan its staffing levels and other expenditure, such as office rental costs. The existing situation was that groups were not informed of how much money they would have until shortly before the financial year. It was suggested that the relationship between CPEGs and MPA could follow the compact structure, with clear control limits and accountability. An officer said that they could bring a paper back to the next committee meeting. One member queried whether LCP2 could offer CPEGs training on income generation. LCP2 responded that they had concluded that it was more efficient to send individuals on fund raising courses. LCP2 highlighted that CPEGs felt strongly that community engagement with police was an important aspect of community safety. Additionally, communication between the police and public was well recognised as an area in which poor service can damage trust and confidence in the police. A member asked whether LCP2 mainly saw the same CPEG members attending training sessions. LCP2 advised that they ran four/five courses a year with the target of each group sending one representative to at least one session and that performance against this measure was high.

13.9 LCP2 advised that in their opinion the public sector tended to be unimaginative in finding funds, whereas those in the voluntary sector tended to be to be more so by necessity. LCP2 also acknowledged that grant receiving was becoming more contractual with ever more attached conditions and that organisations were also providing more support. This balance between conditions and support was important to avoid the grant recipient feeling as though the funding organisation was exercising too much control.

13.10 LCP2 drew members’ attention to the LC3 charts listing the variety of topics discussed across London, which totalled 120, and stressed that LCP2 were keen that MPA took note of what was featured as it represented the emerging concerns of Londoners. The chair confirmed that the commentary on the report had been useful and thought if the Sub Committee saw it more frequently it would provide them with a more subtle awareness. He added that he hoped the information could feature in the members’ information pack. A member proposed that they considered how to weight the importance of the points discussed, although it was acknowledged that they were all fairly substantive topics.

Resolved that: -

1. Members approved the initial 2010/11 funding allocations to the CPEGs and to LCP2 and receive a further paper in April 2010 detailing the full final allocations, and
2. Members receive a report exploring the possibility of the MPA entering into a compact agreement with CPEGs.

14. Independent Custody Visiting Scheme report

(Agenda item 5)

14.1 James Tate explained that the report was on custody issues, and that ICV would be included at the next meeting. ICV was expanding its remit to include criminal justice and oversight work. This process was underway and objectives would be identified. The Sub Committee members were asked whether the information was useful and to provide guidance on what should be included or excluded. Additionally, members were asked to consider attending the Herald Programme board meetings; historically the ICV manager sat on this board and the issue was whether members were content for this to continue.

14.2 One member stated that they were unsure on the principles behind MPA members attending boards and queried whether they should be represented. The response was that the 2008 changes had clarified that the preference was for officers to sit on boards and report back to members. A member then suggested that this was explained to all members. The chair thought members would want to attend areas where policy shifts were taking place. However, when the board was continuing to manage an agreed strategy they would be less keen. It was agreed that this issue would be reported.

14.3 An officer pointed out that the Herald Programme principles were agreed. A member did not think the matters were relevant to the Sub Committee, but that they might be to a different committee. An officer said that they were happy for the report to focus more on the ICV scheme, with brief coverage of the wider custody issues.

14.4 One member said the allocation of work was an important issue, they were aware of Herald Programme updates being provided to SOP which in reality were community engagement issues, and vice versa. A member said that ICV was a community engagement topic and that they felt they should continue to receive reports. Another member raised their concern that the situation could arise where it was relevant to both committees.

14.5 A member said that they had been surprised that that ICV had neither formed part of the inspection nor provided input to Emerald. An officer said that the Emerald Programme was developing, and that ICV was now involved in the inspections. A member questioned whether anything new had arisen from the inspections. The officer responded that there had been clear congruence, but added that the inspection had a wider remit and was more detailed. The ICVs were now informing the inspections and ideas raised would be explored if appropriate.

14.6 The chair queried why the Emerald inspections were not made available. An officer stated that the HMIC and HMIP investigations became public so were available. Partly the belief had been that where Emerald tried to identify issues in advance the staff would be more reluctant if they knew it would be public knowledge. Additionally, there were panels that appeared to be looking for mistakes on which to challenge the MPS.

14.7 The officer continued that there had not been any reluctance from custody managers to open discussions. The chair emphasised that they should make a statement of intent that they wanted to move faster towards openness of investigations. He believed that sharing should be the default setting. The officer replied that as it became more formalised the default position could be that the investigation report was made available. A member asked whether ICV was involved in monitoring the action plans produced. The officer explained that the ICV remit remained the same, but that they would become aware of primary concerns in their borough or in the custody suites and therefore might choose to focus on it.

14.8 A member said they supported this process being made more formal in order for ICVs to pick up on it quicker. Another member agreed that they had to be clearer on what was done post-inspection. The officer explained that hitherto it had been carried out on a case by case basis, but a member said that the ICV panels needed clarity on the issue. The chair thought that if two issues were found the ICV should add it to a list of things to be addressed – if this did not take place within an agreed period then it should be flagged. The officer stated that it was linked to ongoing refresher training modules and that the ICVs were well trained and used to staying within their remit. A member stressed that the issue was what actions the ICVs took when they observed something related to inspections, as opposed to their usual activity.

14.9 The chair said that an issue last year had been the MPA reorganisation, the conclusion that there were insufficient resources to allow panels to meet as and when they chose and therefore the arranging of formal statutory meetings. ICV panels were informed of this and some chairs had stated that they regarded it as an attempt to stop the democratic process. These concerns appeared to have quietened and the ICVs appeared to have accepted the situation. The update noted that there had been 14 resignations from ICVs over the three month period, out of a total of over 400. Obviously, there were usual resignations included in that total and it was believed that seven or eight had not agreed with the new scheme. One member mentioned that others could be waiting to observe the new system before making a decision. The chair agreed that this was a possibility, but added that the result was that they were not short of resources in any specific area.

14.10 The challenge was characterised as not being from a system wide resistance, the majority appeared to regard the change as acceptable. One member said the greatest resistance was from those who had worked in the area before the move to MPA. An officer confirmed that some people were against change. Additionally, there were contingency plans if a lot of resignations occurred – though it was not anticipated.

14.11The chair said that the MPA administration was in transition and their capacity to service the guaranteed meetings was under pressure. However, this was an absolute requirement and a schedule was in place for the transitional period. It was added by an officer that the recognition from senior management was that the priority for the ICV team was that the ICV scheme continued to function effectively.

Resolved – That the report be noted.

15. Members information pack for borough activities

(Agenda item 6)

15.1 Members welcomed the work. The chair asked if there were any specific items that needed to be mentioned or added. One member stated that the borough crime data had to be accurate.

Resolved – That the proposals be approved.

16. Any other business

16.1 The chair highlighted that he had not seen anything about the consequences of the policing pledge and that it would be timely for the committee to receive more reports on the citizen focus agenda.

End of meeting 12.05 pm

Send an e-mail linking to this page

Feedback