Minutes

Minutes of the meeting of the Community Engagement and Citizen Focus held on 11 June 2009 at 10 Dean Farrar Street, London, SW1H 0NY.

Present

Members

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

MPA officers

• Martin Davis (Head of Engagement and Partnership Unit)
• Natasha Plummer (Engagement & Partnerships Manager)
• Kerry McCelland (Engagement & Partnerships)
• Chris Benson (Committee Services)

1. Apologies for absence

Martin Davis apologised for absence.

2. Declarations of interests

There were none.

3. Minutes of the meeting held on 30 April 2009

It was agreed to defer consideration of the minutes of the meeting held on 30 April 2009 to the next meeting of the sub-committee.

4. Custody issues

Kerry McClelland, ICV Scheme Manager introduced the report that set out the background information on the broader developments concerning custody which inform the ICV Scheme, but did not necessarily directly impact on it.

The sub-committee noted that a number of overflow custody facilities are used to provide additional custody capacity as and when existing capacity was exceeded. The sub-committee was assured that they were adequately staffed to ensure a safe environment.

It was noted that whilst the MPA was not aware of any plans to provide additional custody suite capacity during the Olympic Games it is likely that this is an area which has been looked at by TP. It was noted that the BBCCs which are currently being progressed and in Leyton and Fresh Wharf are located in East London and are due to be completed prior to the Olympics.

It was noted that the Borough Based Custody Centres (BBCCs) were being built to replace the inadequate and not fit of purpose custody suites. The new suites would have a direct impact on the care given to detainees.

The sub-committee considered that given the importance of this programme, the Estates Strategy should be revisited and a greater priority given to this programme.

Resolved

1. that the Finance & Resource Committee to be asked to reconsider the priority given to the provision of BBCC’s within the capital programme.
2.  to note the report.

5. Use of MPA Partnership Funding 2008/09

The Chair advised that due to its late receipt, members had not had the opportunity to consider the report. It was therefore agreed to defer the report the report to the next meeting of the sub-committee.

Resolved accordingly

6. Future Management and disbursement of MPA Partnership Fund.

6.1 Natasha Plummer, Engagement & Partnerships Manager introduced the report The sub-committee noted that In 2003 the Authority created the Partnership Fund, which annually allocates £50 000 to each Borough Operational Command Unit (BOCU). The Fund was last reviewed in 2006, but with the advent of a new Authority, it was timely for a further review of the arrangements. The purpose of the report was to put forward a number of options for the future management and disbursement of the Partnerships Fund.

6.2 The sub-committee was concerned at the apparent lack of accountability and the ineffective role of the MPA link members within the current framework.

6.3 The sub-committee agreed that a review of the disbursement of the fund was now timely. The process had to be more robust, with borough link members being consulted in a meaningful way.

6.4 The sub-committee agreed that consultations should be held on options 2 and 3 as set out in the report.

6.5 It was noted that the results of the consultation would be report to the October meeting of the sub-committee.

Resolved accordingly.

7. Community Police Engagement Groups – annual review

7.1 Natasha Plummer, Engagement & Partnerships Manager introduced the report. The sub-committee received an overview of the Authority’s current provision for community engagement at borough level, which is delivered through the community police engagement groups (CPEGs). It provided information on the development of those groups in recent years and discussed possible future directions.

7.2 It was noted that a review of the 2006-09 community engagement strategy was about to be reviewed and that this would inform further development of the CPEGs.

 7.3 Any new requirements as identified in the strategy review could then be reflected in each group’s SLA, which would define what constituted required core activities. It was suggested that a guidance note, based on best practice should be produced on the most effective use of the budget.

7.4 It was recognised that there was good practice in some boroughs, and less good in others. MPA offices support the cross-fertilisation of ideas between CPEGs and this function is also delivered through London Communities Police Partnership (LCP2). However, members felt that these processes could be strengthened further.

7.5 It was agreed that a strategy had to be developed, based on a broader vision that gave the communities of London an opportunity to engage with, and discuss policing issues. It was noted that Camden CPEG held a face the people event which was well attended and introduced the work of the CPEGs to a wider audience.

7.6 Good practice had to be defined, and areas of duplication identified, supported by a means to build upon identified strengths. It was suggested that each CPEG identify the 10 most successful initiatives undertaken, with results being set out in a matrix format for presentation to the sub-committee.

7.7 Responding to future MPA consultations will be built into the SLAs. The MPA consultation process will take into account the amount of support and ability the individual CPEGs have to make a response.

7.8 It was recognised that the different constitutions of CPEGs reflected the different needs within the individual boroughs - a one size fits all approach was not necessarily the best approach to adopt. It was noted that some CPEGs are limited by guarantee; others are liable for staff and costs.

7.9 The CPEG’s bid for individual budgets up to a limit of £50k. The money was paid in two instalments, with 75% of the allocation being paid at the beginning of the financial year and the remaining 25% being payable at the beginning of the fourth quarter upon satisfactory delivery against the SLA. In this way, if SLA objectives are not achieved, this element of the money can be withheld.

7.10 The sub-committee requested that a chart is submitted to its next meeting that shows how the CPEGs currently operate and their functional and informal links to other bodies.

7.11 It was noted that the MPA would want to encourage members of the Safer Neighbour Panels to attend CPEG meetings and that this is expressed in the MPA’s CPEG handbook. The CPEGs invite senior police officers to attend their meetings and address specific issues. It was noted that some CPEGs had a specific agenda item at their public meetings for an MPA Link Member report and members felt that this should happen at every CPEG as a matter of routine.

7.12 The sub-committee invited LCP2 to nominate a representative to attend future sub-committee meetings to promote joint working and enhance the community engagement capability of the MPA.

Resolved to note the report.

8. Community engagement innovations fund update

8.1 Natasha Plummer, Engagement & Partnerships Manager introduced the report. The sub-committee was advised that the Engagement & Partnership Unit at the MPA, wished to encourage creative and pioneering activities in community engagement and for this purpose the MPA established a Community Engagement Innovations Fund. The fund was intended to enable the development of specific community engagement projects, which encouraged better engagement between the police and local communities, through straight consultation, engagement on specific issues, and engagement through activities to build links and confidence in communities. Each project could apply for a maximum of £5,000 and linked in with their local Community Police Engagement Group.

8.2 The sub-committee noted that this funding would be discontinued as part of the budget reductions exercise and expressed the view that if at all possible, officers should seek ways to continue this project in future years.

8.3 A further final outcome report would be submitted to the next meeting of the sub-committee

Resolved to note this report

The meeting closed at 3:45pm

Send an e-mail linking to this page

Feedback