Minutes

Minutes of the special meeting of the Community Engagement and Citizen Focus held on 30 April 2009 at 10 Dean Farrar Street, London, SW1H 0NY.

Present

Members

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

MPA officers

• Natasha Plummer (Engagement & Partnerships Manager)
• Kerry McCelland (Engagement & Partnerships)
• George Fry (Engagement & Partnerships)
• James Tate (Engagement & Partnerships)
• Susan Duran (Engagement & Partnerships)
• Jude Sequeira (Engagement & Partnerships)
• Chris Benson (Committee Services)

1. Apologies for absence

Martin Davis apologised for absence.

2. Declarations in interests

There were none.

3. Minutes from the meeting held on 12 February 2009

Resolved that the minutes of the meeting held on 12 February be approved and signed as a correct record.

4. Matters arising from the minutes

1. Borough Community Engagement Funding and Cross Borough Community Engagement Fund
   Members discussed the two funds and sought clarification on the differences between the two and were advised that a report on the partnership fund would be coming to the next CECF meeting and that a further report on the CE funding would be commissioned to provide clarity on this issue.
2. Community Engagement Conference 2009
   The sub-committee was advised that due to the difficulty in booking speakers the conference would now be held on Saturday 27 June at Dexter House, No 2 Royal Mint Court Tower Hill London EC3N 4QN.

5. Independent Custody Visiting Scheme

1. Kerry McClelland, ICV scheme manager introduced the report that detailed the roles, responsibilities and the current work of the ICV team.
2. The sub-committee was advised of new initiatives used to recruit new custody visitors and promote the scheme. Advertisements had been placed in the Metro and the Evening Standard newspapers and listings have been placed with the volunteer bureaux in London and on the Do-it.org webpage.
3. It was now possible to look at targeted recruitment for panels and over the forthcoming year and action plans will be put in place for those boroughs where targeted recruitment would be beneficial.
4. To raise public awareness information evenings were held in May and November. A radio advertisement was commissioned to raise awareness of the scheme amongst young people, resulting in 104 hits on the MPA’s website during the week long campaign.
5. An ICV recruitment poster was aired on community TV sites throughout Richmond and work is underway to utilise other community TV services where they exist.
6. With regard to the custody visits, it was noted that one unannounced visit was made each week. The sub-committee thought that the one visit per week agreed with the Commissioner should be the minimum with additional visits being made if thought necessary by the local team.
7. The sub-committee asked that for future meeting the chart showing the panel’s recruitment & visit performance should be reconfigured to make it easy to read.
8. It was noted that no data was collected on the number of detainees from the black and minority ethnic communities who refused visits from members of the panel.
9. It was recognised that language could be a problem especially if “self introduction” was being used. It was noted that a translation of the role and purpose of the independent visitors had been printed onto a small card to assist when English was not the detainees’ first language.
10. In addition a small paragraph on the custody sheet also provided Information regarding ICV’s. It was suggested that printouts of the information in a number of languages should made available for download from a pc in the custody suite.
11. The sub-committee sought an assurance that the quality of the visits was being monitored as well as the quantity. The sub-committee was assured that it was, and that panel members escalate any concerns they identify.
12. The sub-committee noted that Independent Custody Visiting became a statutory requirement for police authorities by virtue of the Police Reform Act 2002. Prior to this act the scheme was administered by the Home Office. It was recognised that the MPA had been slow to fulfil this new role, but has since sought to raise the awareness and management of the scheme, and recruit and train panel members to reflect the community. During the period of transition, it was apparent that a number of the panels felt they had lost their independence. Unfortunately a number of individuals still retain this view.
13. 5.13 The Chair thanked Kerry McClelland for the report that highlighted the critically important work of the independent custody visitors and the contribution they made to the criminal justice systems.
14. 5.14 The sub-committee offered its support to ICV team, and the Chair offered to submit a short item for inclusion in the ICV newsletter.

Resolved to note the report.

6. MPA £50K partnership fund allocation process

1. Natasha Plummer Engagement & Partnerships Manager introduced the report that set out the process for the disbursement of the Partnership Fund, which under the auspices of the previous Authority had been specifically kept simple and streamlined.
2. The sub-committee was concerned that the fund was allocated to the Borough Commanders without link members having had an opportunity to adequately scrutinise the applications and without a clear audit trail being established. Members were also concerned that the Authority might also be gaining responsibility for the Home Office's BCU fund and that the Authority would need to have more robust processes in place.
3. The sub-committee noted that a review of the existing process was planned. The sub-committee will receive the annual report on the use of the partnership fund at its next meeting and will at the same time receive a paper on proposals for the review.
4. The sub-committee advised that it would wish the review to address the following issues:
5. Is the Authority statutorily obliged to ensure that a mechanism is in place to allow the development of community partnership, or is it itself obliged to do it.
   • The procedure is redefined in order to allow link members adequate time to comment on applications.
   • That all link members are consulted on the new arrangements and invited to the meeting to discuss

Resolved to note the report.

The meeting closed at 2:30pm

Send an e-mail linking to this page

Feedback