Home Office guidance for custody visiting

Report: 7
Date: 28 November 2000
By: Clerk

Summary

This paper is presented to update and inform members of the content of the recently published Home Office draft guidance on Custody Visiting (formerly Lay Visiting) and the APA consultation paper on the same subject. It puts forward a process for agreeing the MPA’s response to the HO and APA consultation exercise. It also argues that someone be engaged immediately to review existing lay visiting procedures and make recommendations for new custody visiting arrangements.

Supporting information

Current administrative responsibilities in London

1. Unlike in many other police authority areas, Lay Visiting in London is organised and administered in widely differing ways. The Authority has inherited a situation in which local Panels are administered locally through local authority staff or local Police and Community Consultative Group (PCCG) staff, or on an independent basis. The MPA has little formal record of the work of these Panels and is not currently involved in recruitment and selection of Lay Visitors. The MPA has no role in the selection or appointment of the individuals who chair these Panels, nor does it have a mechanism for monitoring their effectiveness.

2. The Authority plays a minimal role in the administration of Lay Visiting Panels. This is mainly limited to maintaining records on appointments, matters of recruitment, retention and dismissal and notifications of successful police checks on applicants. The criteria used by boroughs in setting up and running the panels vary widely.

New draft home office guidance on custody visiting

The Home Office is currently proposing to replace the 1991 and 1992 guidelines with a revised and updated version early in the spring of 2001. A copy of the draft revised guidance see Appendix 1. The Home Office has requested comments on the proposed new guidance by 31 December 2000. The APA is looking to produce a coordinated police authority response and has requested that responses to its consultation document (see Appendix 2) be returned by Friday 8 December.

4. Officers will be attending the National Association for Lay Visiting (NALV) conference on 23 and 24 November when the draft will be fully discussed and will therefore have the opportunity to contribute to and learn from the issues raised by other police authorities.

Name change

5. The draft guidance proposes a name change from Lay Visiting to Custody Visiting, in order to reflect more adequately the role carried out by volunteers. Members are asked to support this change. Such a name change could assist the Authority in re-launching the scheme in London, should it choose to do so.

The role of the Police Authority

6. The draft guidance refers to the implementation of the Human Rights Act and the incorporation of the European Convention on Human Rights into British domestic law as the context for the changes proposed. The new draft guidance highlights the importance of custody visiting as “an extremely important aid in fulfilling their police authority responsibility to ensure that policing in their areas is carried out fairly, in accordance with statutory and other rules and with respect for the human rights of all those coming into contact with the police” (HO Guidance on Custody/Lay) Visiting, 2000: paragraph 8).

7. The responsibility of police authorities for the organisation and administration of all aspects of the scheme is strongly profiled throughout the paper. Members are being asked to support this role and the consequent responsibilities, including financial, associated with the changes proposed.

8. There are likely to be substantial financial implications for the MPA if it decides to implement fully the responsibilities outlined in the Home Office draft guidance. Since the guidance is likely to be underpinned by a statutory requirement in the next two years the Authority should plan ahead accordingly.

9. The cost of continuing to support existing arrangements for lay visiting in 2001/2002 has been estimated as £270,000. This cost is based on the previous budget of £250,000 per annum that is managed by the MPS to meet the day-to-day cost of Panels and their current staffing costs and existing MPA officer costs. Discussions are already under way with the MPS for their responsibilities to be assumed by the MPA on 1 April 2001. To take account of the probable increased costs associated with implementing the HO guidance next year, a figure of £365,000 has been included for budget planning purposes. The proposed review (see below) will be expected to produce a fully justified cost/benefit analysis for the preferred way forward.

Organisation and infrastructure

10. The guidelines propose that police authorities will have to take full responsibility for the organisation and support of custody visiting in their force area. In practice this means that police authorities will need to organise their Custody Visiting schemes in a coherent and logical manner. Clear mechanisms for the flow of information between the authority and all panels will need to be in place. This is likely to require the development of standardised processes for a range of areas, including, for example: recruitment and selection of Custody Visitors; training; discipline; management information; and processes for the police authority to receive regular information from visits. The police authority will need to have oversight responsibility for the standard and quality of work and performance of all Visitors and Panels in its area. This may be best achieved through the identification and promotion of best practice and the setting and monitoring of minimum standards.

Administration

11. Good administrative support is vital to the sound operation of custody visiting schemes. The guidance proposes that a suitably knowledgeable and experienced officer should undertake the central administrative support on behalf of the Authority. This officer will act as a point of contact and coordination for panels, offering advice and support to those organising custody visiting at the local level.

In addition to this, police authorities will also need to consider the provision of secretarial and administrative support to local panels.

Recruitment and retention

12. The guidance proposes that police authorities should have responsibility for the recruitment, selection, accreditation and retention of custody visitors. Ideally, and in the spirit of custody visiting, the police authority will need to ensure that Custody Visiting panels are representative of their local community. A clear equal opportunities policy will need to be developed and adhered to; applicants should only become custody visitors if they meet the required standards. The guidelines also advise police authorities to appoint custody visitors for an initial period of three years. Visitors may be able to serve for an additional three years where they continue to meet the selection criteria for the role.

Discipline and grievance procedures

13. All police authorities will need to develop clear and fair policies for dealing with disciplinary and grievance procedures in relation to custody visitors. Police authorities have the power to remove a custody visitor from its accredited list because of either misconduct or poor performance. Where possible, local panels should first try to deal with such matters at the local level. With particular regard to the Human Rights Act, all parties involved in disciplinary and grievance procedures should have the right to appeal and all decisions should be reached in an open and fair manner. The MPA will need to develop clear guidance and procedures to which custody visitors and Panels will be required to adhere.

Training and support

14. The guidance proposes that the police authority should have responsibility for ensuring that all custody visitors receive the appropriate level of training and support. Visitors should receive regular refresher courses and have the chance to meet and share best practice. The National Association of Custody Visiting (formerly known as NALV) currently provides a fairly standardised package of training for most lay visitors in England and Wales. However, each Authority should ensure that this training meets its requirements. The MPA may wish to work closely with NACV to ensure that the training received by visitors in London incorporates the key learning outcomes that it considers are essential.

Removal of visitors and associated procedures

15. As noted in paragraph 13, the guidance proposes that the policy authority has the authority to remove a Custody Visitor from its accredited list either because of misconduct or poor performance. It is proposed that the authority should develop procedures to consider serious complaints that are not resolved at local levels. The police authority should also be responsible for raising concerns and issues identified by visitors.

Monitoring and evaluation

16. Police authorities should take steps to assess and review how effectively their custody visiting arrangements are working. The guidance proposes that all police authorities should collect and review statistics for groups in their area on a range of indicators outlined in its framework. The MPA will need to put mechanisms and processes in place for ensuring that the data and information received from CVs informs its management information, especially where it relates to local issues concerning treatment of detainees.

Insurance

17. It is proposed that police authorities are responsible for ensuring that provision is made for any claims relating to personal injuries or other matters that may arise in the course of a custody visitor’s work. The adoption of this proposal will require separate guidance from the MPA Treasurer.

Guidance for custody visiting

18. The report offers detailed guidance which should be made widely available to custody visitors and the local borough commanders.

Consultation on the draft guidance

19. It is proposed that the following steps are taken by the MPA to ensure that lay visitors, the police and local authorities are consulted on the draft guidance:

1. meetings have been scheduled with Panel Chairs and Administrators on 27 November and Borough Liaison Officers on 29 November. The Home Office and others will be represented. Detailed consultation questionnaires have been developed to ensure that full responses are received - see Appendix 3;
2. where local authorities administer Panels, it is proposed that a linked, but separate consultation is carried out. In addition, letters will be sent to all local authority Chief Executives and the MPS to inform them of the key proposals and seek their views;
3. it is proposed that key issues are extracted from the HO Guidance and these be used as the basis for a questionnaire to be issued to members. This should facilitate the process and help officers to respond by the deadline of 8 December;
4. a meeting has been set up with the MPS (30 November) to discuss the HO guidance, financial management and transfer arrangements from MPS to MPA.

Implementation of new custody visiting arrangements

20. The HO Guidance makes it clear that it expects police authorities to take responsibility for implementing their proposals. The relative newness of the MPA puts it in a good position to take a complete and radical decision about the way in which it requires custody visiting in London to be run. The widely differing practices will make it difficult to achieve central coordination and consistency in achieving minimum standards.

21. The launch of the new guidance in Spring 2001 gives the Authority the opportunity to signify a ‘fresh start’ for Custody Visiting in its area and it is proposed that the Authority uses the opportunity offered by the draft guidance to re-launch Custody Visiting in London. This will require a reasonably detailed analysis of the existing position to compare this against the HO Guidelines. This should then be used to develop options and justify a proposed way forward which we would expect to cover:

• Agreed aims and objectives for London custody visiting
• Pan-London organisational structures
• Central MPA responsibilities
• Minimum standards
• Monitoring regime
• New procedures
• Training programme
• Financial arrangements
• Relationship with consultation strategy implementation
• Relationships with other Agencies
• Proposals for a re-launch

The MPA Support Organisation does not have the resources to undertake such an analysis and produce a suitable report. It will require the appointment of a suitable officer on a short term basis lasting four to six months.

22. The new HO Guidance will be issued in Spring 2001. It would be helpful if a strategy for implementing this guidance in London could be ready by 1 April 2000. If the MPA is to be ready to do this, the new appointee will need to be recruited immediately. The HR Committee has been consulted on this requirement and have approved a fast track recruitment process which takes account of equal opportunities.

Interim arrangement for lay visiting

23. MPA officers are currently administering lay visiting. Requests for policy advice as well written correspondence covering a range of matters are increasingly being received. It is proposed that a member be nominated to take particular responsibility for lay visiting. Officers could then seek advice and support from the nominated member over particularly sensitive issues.

B. Recommendations

It is recommended that members:

1. note the recently published draft Home Office Guidance on custody visiting;
2. agree the process for responding to the HO/APA consultation on the draft guidance, as proposed in paragraph 17;
3. approve the immediate recruitment of a short term appointee to undertake an analysis of existing lay visiting arrangements and how they compare with the draft HO guidance and to provide a report covering options and a preferred way forward;
4. nominate a member to have particular responsibility for lay visiting and help deal with sensitive issues that do not require the participation of the full Committee.

C. Financial implications

There are substantial financial implications associated with the MPA’s decision regarding the level and type of responsibility that it will accept for fully implementing the proposals outlined in the Home Office draft guidance. Bearing in mind that the guidance is likely to become a statutory requirement in the next year or two, the Authority would be wise to plan accordingly.

For budget planning purposes, a financial projection for 2001/2002 of £365,000 per annum has been estimated for administering and coordinating Lay Visiting in London. A more accurate picture of the financial implications resulting from new arrangements to meet the HO guidance will be covered by the proposed review of lay visiting.

The HR Committee has agreed a maximum expenditure of £24,600 for the employment of someone to undertake the proposed review.

D. Review arrangements

The proposed coordination and administrative responsibility will transfer from the MPS to the MPA on 1 April 2001. Approval has already been sought for a temporary post whose role will be to review the current situation in London, and make recommendations to the CDO Committee on the structures that will be required to implement the Home Office guidance.

E. Background papers

The following is a statutory list of background papers (under the Local Government Act 1972 S.100 D) which disclose facts or matters on which the report is based and which have been relied on to a material extent in preparing this report. They are available on request to either the contact officer listed above or to the Clerk to the Police Authority at the address indicated on the agenda.

• Lay Visitors to Police Stations; Metropolitan Police District July 1991
  Ref: POL/901364/1/15
• Lay Visitors to Police Stations Revised Guidance 1992
  Ref: Home Office Guidance no 4/1992

F. Contact details

The authors of this report are Julia Smith and Max Edelstyn.

For information contact:

MPA general: 020 7202 0202
Media enquiries: 020 7202 0217/18

Send an e-mail linking to this page

Feedback