Minutes

28 November 2000

Minutes of the meeting of the Consultation, Diversity and Outreach Committee held at the Edward Woods Community Centre, London W11.

Present

Members

• R David Muir (Chair)
• Cindy Butts (Deputy Chair)
• Angela Slaven (Deputy Chair)
• Jennette Arnold
• Jennifer Jones
• Nicholas Long
• Cecile Lothian
• Abdal Ullah

MPA staff

• Ian Gaskell (Deputy Clerk)
• Colin Balkman, (Deputy Treasurer)
• Philip Powell
• Julia Smith
• Sultan Taylor

MPS staff

• A Wheeler
• Commander Roberts
• Chief Supt S Wills (Borough Commander, Hammersmith and Fulham)

Plus 20 members of the public.

Part 1

39. Apologies for absence

(Agenda item 1)

An apology for absence was received from AC Dunn.

40. Comments from the Chair

The Chair of the Committee welcomed everybody to the meeting, the third Consultation, Diversity and Outreach Committee meeting to be held externally. The Chair informed the meeting that the object of the meetings was to engage the public. The Chair concluded by inviting the Committee and MPA/MPS staff to introduce themselves.

41. Minutes

(Agenda item 2)

Resolved:
that subject to the correction of the spelling of Jennette Arnold on page 9 the minutes of the Consultation, Diversity and Outreach Committee meeting held on 24 October 2000 be signed and agreed as a true record.

42. Questions from the public

(Agenda item 3)

The comments, questions and replies are contained in Appendix 1 of the minutes.

43. Chair’s update

(Agenda item 4)

The Chair presented an oral report on the following items:

Stephen Lawrence settlement
The lawyers for the Lawrence family were considering the final offer made by the MPS.

Gurpal Virdi inquiry status report
The Terms of Reference had been finalised. The Inquiry Team had met twice and a programme of hearings was arranged until March 2001.

TELCO
A report had been issued about violent attacks by young people on other young people. This was an interesting initiative and the findings of the report would be considered at future MPA meetings.

Lindo Inquiry
A report into the circumstances surrounding this case would be published shortly.

Roger Sylvester - Death in Custody
The Chair of the MPA had issued a press release. A MPA member had recently been appointed to look into the complaints system processes used.

MPA Equal Opportunities Policy
Members of a working group have been considering an Equal Opportunities Policy for the Authority and a report would be submitted to the next meeting.

Resolved:
that the report be received and noted.

44. Best value review on consultation

(Agenda item 5)

The Committee considered a report which sought approval for the consultation strategy and the recommendations set out in the Best Value Review of Consultation Report.

It was noted that a rationale for the key recommendations in the executive summary had been circulated since the despatch of the agenda.

The Project Manager gave a presentation and she and the other team members answered questions arising from Members. The Committee generally supported the proposals apart from the rebranding of PCCGs as proposed in recommendation 5. It was also felt that there needed to be further clarification on the role of the Community Consultation Officers.

The Committee noted that the PCCGs were due to meet on 4 December to discuss the review. In welcoming the report the Committee felt that there should be an opportunity for any comments coming from the PCCG meeting on 4 December to be taken into consideration before the final decisions were made by the MPA.

Turning to the implementation of the proposals, the Committee asked to be involved in drawing up the work programme for the Implementation Team. It was agreed that a case for the recruitment of the Implementation Manager including a job description should be submitted to the next meeting.

Resolved:

1. that the recommendations in the executive summary be approved in principle apart from the proposal in recommendation 5 that the PCCGs should be rebranded;
2. that the draft Consultation Strategy be approved in principle;
3. that comments from the meeting of the PCCG Chairs should be taken into consideration before any final decisions are made by the MPA;
4. that the recommendations that have been approved in principle should be put to the Full Authority on 14 December 2000;
5. that the draft PCCG model, the implementation issues and the costings be noted;
6. that a case for the recruitment of an Implementation Manager be submitted to the next meeting.

45. Young people in London

(Agenda item 6)

The GLA has set up an officers’ working group to consider how the GLA and each of the functional bodies, including the MPA, engages young people. The Committee received a report which informed members of the initial work of the working group and sought support for officers’ involvement in progressing this area of work.

Several members reported on a seminar they had attended earlier that day which had been convened to discuss youth crime and diversion. The meeting had been chaired by the Commissioner and had been attended by representatives of the Youth Justice Board , Crime Concern and other organisations.

Commander Roberts said that the seminar had been extremely useful and interesting and would provide a good foundation for future initiatives in this area. Further to paragraph 7 Commander Roberts reported that there were three strands to the current MPS engagement with young people. (Further details are attached to the minutes):

• In schools
• Getting young people back onto the tracks - through Youth Offending Teams etc
• Building stronger communities

Resolved:

1. that the proposed policy development on engagement with young people by GLA and other functional bodies be noted and full participation by the MPA in this initiative be supported;
2. that a high level generic audit be undertaken by the MPS and MPA to identify specific activities, programmes and budgets that are targeted towards youth engagement in order to identify London’s youth population;
3. that the MPA assists the working group in the achievement of the stated objectives of developing a Youth Strategy for London.

46. Custody visiting

(Agenda item 7)

The Committee received a report which informed members of a recently published Home Office draft guidance on custody visiting. In London, lay visiting is administered locally through local authority staff or via the PCCGs and the MPA therefore plays a minimal role in the administration of Lay Visiting Panels. The new Home Office guidelines are due to come into force in spring 2001. They propose that police authorities will take full responsibility for the organisation and support of custody visiting in their force area.

With regard to recommendation 2 it was noted that the paragraph referred to should read paragraph 19 and not 17 as shown.

It was noted that the deadline for the receipt of comments from London had been extended to the end of January 2001. The Committee agreed that consideration of the MPA response should be deferred accordingly. In the meantime the other recommendations should be adopted. It was necessary however to seek approval from the Human Resources Committee for an increase in the salary of the short term appointee referred to in paragraphs 21 and 22 as the expenditure approved by the Committee of a maximum of £24,600 related to an annual salary. It was felt that when applied pro-rata for a short fixed term appointment it would not be sufficient to attract applicants of sufficient calibre.

Resolved:

1. that the draft Home Office Guidance on custody visiting be noted;
2. that the process for responding to the HO/APA consultation on the draft guidance as proposed in paragraph 19 to be changed to reflect the recent decision by the Home Office to put back the date for the London response to the end of January. A draft MPA response will be put to the January CDO meeting;
3. that a short term appointee be recruited to undertake an analysis of existing lay visiting arrangements and how they compare with the draft Home Office guidance;
4. that Jennifer Jones and Cecile Lothian be nominated to have particular responsibility for lay visiting and help deal with sensitive issues that do not require the participation of the full Committee;
5. that the Human Resources Committee to be asked to raise the maximum cost of recruiting someone to review lay visiting to a level that would allow the recruitment of someone of sufficient calibre.

47. Response to guide to stop and search

(Agenda item 8)

At its meeting on 24 October the Committee considered the draft MPS guide to the use of stop and search. An Initial response had been sent to the MPS following the meeting. The report considered by the Committee advised Members of the interim response and invited Members to make any further comments to the MPS.

The Deputy Clerk said that paragraph 5 should be amended by the insertion of the following bullet point after the first bullet point:

"The Home Office has acknowledged that the community would see value in implementing the recommendation, provided those officers fully explained the purpose of the record. However, public trust and confidence is primarily based on being treated fairly, with respect and given a good reason for the stop or search rather than any changes in procedure."

Nicholas Long referred to the forthcoming publication of the Lindo Report and suggested that the response should await the publication of the Report as the findings were likely to be germane and would help to inform the MPA response.

It was also agreed that future reports on the subject should address the Human Rights Act considerations.

Resolved:
that the interim response be noted and any further decisions be deferred pending publication of the Lindo Report.

The meeting ended at 8.30pm.

Appendix 1: Questions from the public

(Agenda item 3)

The Chair, in accordance with procedural Standing Order 33, invited questions from members of the public. It was noted that an allocation of thirty minutes would be made for this item. The following questions were put to the Committee:

(a) With regard to the meetings of the Consultation, Diversity and Outreach Committee:

• would it not be possible to split the thirty minutes allowed for questions from the public to be divided into two sessions so that there was a second session at the end of the meeting?
• In order to allow people who work to attend the meetings, could they be held at 7.00 pm?
• are you aware that I only heard of this meeting through the local PCCG and I saw no other publicity for the meeting.

The Chair said he was grateful to the questioners for making these comments and suggestions. He hoped that everyone would recognise that the Committee was still in its evolutionary stage and such feedback was very useful in deciding how the meetings would operate - for example, following a request made at the last meeting, arrangements had been made for refreshments to be provided at meetings. The points raised tonight would be borne in mind when the Committee reviews the arrangements for its meetings early in the new year.

(b) With regard to the MPA more generally can it be noted that there is concern that certain administrative tasks are not being carried out as efficiently as they should be. This makes it difficult for the PCCGs to carry out their duties. Can we be assured that this problem will receive the attention of the incoming Clerk?

(c) Can something be done to ensure that Committee papers are put on the web-site more promptly than has been the case recently.

(d) Can I please be supplied with details of the terms of reference for the Consultation, Diversity and Outreach Committee - I was unable to find the information on the website.

Your comments are noted and the need to get information to interested parties in an effective and timely manner is accepted . We are not aware that the website is not functioning and this will be investigated. Arrangements will be made to provide the questioner who required the terms of reference for the Committee to be sent a copy.

(e) With regard to the review of PCCGs:

• How much consultation was carried out and was there any consultation with British Transport Police (BTP) and the Royal Parks Police?
• What is the anticipated implementation period for the review?
• Does the review take account of the differences between the PCCGs?
• If the system of Community Consultation Officers is introduced where will control over matters such as what appears on the agenda for a PCCG meeting lie - with the PCCG or with the MPA?

There has been extensive consultation during the process and a meeting with the Chairs of PCCGs was held to outline the findings of the review. Regrettably, not all the papers had been available in time for the latter meeting. The review process included some consultation with British Transport Police. A letter had been sent to the Royal Parks Police inviting them to participate but no response was received.

The anticipated implementation period for the new arrangements is at least 18 months. It is fully recognised that each PCCG is different and there is no intention to impose a template which is unworkable in a particular area. The Community Consultation Officers would work with PCCGs, Borough Liaison Officers and Community Liaison Officers. They will not have management control of PCCGs and the PCCGs would continue to be responsible for such matters as setting the agendas for their meetings.

(f) I note that at the last meeting the Committee discussed violent attacks by young people on other young people. Has the MPA considered instigating some research into this problem?

The Chair confirmed that at its last meeting the Committee had heard from members of the public about an initiative from Norlington School concerning violent attacks on school pupils. The School had now issued a report on this initiative and the MPA would assist in publicising its findings. Commander Roberts confirmed that the theft of mobile phones was the reason behind many of the violent attacks on young people and it was noticeable that the thefts increased immediately after Christmas. New models would contain a modification which would make them more difficult to be re-chipped when sold on and hence less attractive to muggers.

(g) As a local resident I have some concerns about the community police officers in Hammersmith and Fulham and would ask whether it would not be right for people in the community to have a say in how their duties are allocated. For example why are the community officers sometimes required to carry out other policing duties and when will they have line managers?

The Borough Commander for Hammersmith and Fulham explained that there was one community officer per ward. He confirmed that it was occasionally necessary for community officers to carry out other duties when the need arose eg: in the event of a major football match. As regards supervision, the community officers reported to team Inspectors who in turn reported to the Chief Superintendent so there was therefore effectively a line management structure.

Send an e-mail linking to this page

Feedback