Minutes

Minutes of the meeting of the Community Engagement and Citizen Focus held on 29 October 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)

MPS officers

• Steve Bloomfield
• Dave Reed

1. Apologies for absence

No apologises for absence were received.

2. Declarations of interests

Richard Hunt advised the Sub-committee that his organisation was funded by the Authority.

3. Minutes of the meeting held on 30 April 2009 and 11 June 2009

3.1 The minutes of the meeting held on 30 April were approved as a correct record subject to the following amendment.

delete paragraph 5.6

3.2 The minutes of the meeting held on 11 June were approved as a correct record subject to the following amendment

paragraph 7.8 last line insert “companies” between limited and by guarantee;

Resolved that the minutes of the Sub-committee, as amended, held on 30 April and 11 June be approved and signed as correct record.

4. MPS use of Stop and Search powers

4.1 Dave Reed introduced the report that provided an update of the MPS use of Stop and Search powers.

4.2 The MPS was confident that the position was better than it was 6 months ago but accepted there was still a long way to go.

4.3 The Sub-committee noted that the ethnicity of those stopped and searched was not self defined but was based on the police officers judgement.

4.4 It was noted that details of the individuals stopped and searched was recorded, was the data ever used to identify those individuals subject to numerous stop and searches.

4.5 The Sub-committee was advised that the report did not provide separate data as to the stop and searches relating to Operation Blunt 2. Blunt 2 maintained its own records and the stop and search data base could not provide a breakdown from it.

4.6 it was noted that the mps was unable to provide data relating to persons charged subsequent to a stop and search because the National NSPIS custody comport system and the MPS stops database are incompatible.

4.7 It was noted that more work had to be done to increase the communities understanding of the use of the stop and search powers.

4.8 In was recognised that the attitude of the young people to stop and search had subtly shifted. Stop and search was no longer seen as a form of protection but more of a hindrance. Young people understood the need but wanted the powers to be implemented with respect.

4.9 The message had to be refreshed that stop and search had a beneficial impact.

4.10 It was noted that a document based on the recommendations arising from the work carried out by John Roberts had been submitted to the editorial board and will be submitted to the Sub-committee in due course.

4.11 The Sub-committee was advised that blunt 2 was continually under review including the youth survey, the results of which will be reported to the youth scrutiny panels.

4.12 The majority of boroughs had a mechanism in place to monitor stop and search. used. Individual observer the stop and search process, but unfortunately there did not seem to be any youths observing the stop and search process. It would be very potent if they did.

4.13 Barking and Dagenham had an initiative that involved local school children designing leaflets regarding the use of knife arches.

4.14 Whilst welcoming the initiative it was recognised that knife arches much easier to understand than stop and search. Stop and search was much more personal and potentially more confrontational. The Sub-committee asked to be advised of all such initiatives.

Resolved - To note the MPS stop and search update in response to the MPA Standing Quarterly Brief.

5. Use of MPA partnership funding 2008/09

5.1 Steve Bloomfield introduced the report that provided an overview of the distribution of the MPA Partnership Fund for the 2008/09 financial year and provided an account of the use of this Fund in the areas most of interest to members.

5.2 The Sub-committee was advised that the funding was highly valued and used by Borough Commanders to support community initiatives and to “oil the wheels” of community engagement. As such the guidelines for the use of the fund were flexible and required minimal bureaucratic support. The checks and balance for the system was provided by the MPA’s link members.

5.3 The Sub-committee was concerned that there had not been any true evaluation of how the fund was used. There was a wide range of spending with some Boroughs appearing to use the fund to support core business and make donations to charity that fall outside of the sprite of the fund.

5.4 A concern was expressed that the MPA’s link members did not have adequate information or training to scrutinise the allocation of the grants.

5.5 To effectively challenge the decision a check list had to be produced for all link members. This would explain what is expected of link member, what issues have to be discussed and the time table for that discussion.

5.6 The Sub-committee recognised the wish to minimise bureaucracy and not to impose rigid guidelines. However it considered that a greater justification of the expenditure was required.

5.7 Link members will want to know how the grant will be used is it for a new innovative project, pump priming purposes, or a continuation of an existing one. Is it a one off application, or expected to be repeated next year?

5.8 Good practice had to be identified and shared amongst Borough Commanders and link members.

5.9 The process had to be managed to ensure accountability.

Resolved to note the distribution of the MPA Partnership Fund across the 32 London Boroughs.

6. Future management and disbursement of the MPA partnership fund

6.1 Natasha Plummer introduced the report that advised members of the outcome of the consultation on the future management and disbursement of the Partnership Fund. This report also sought agreement on the new management process that will be introduced in the 2010/11 financial year.

6.2 The Sub-committee was advised that the consultation process had supported the members preferred option one.

6.3 Whilst noting the MPS concerns about levels of bureaucracy it was recognised that adequate systems had to be put in place to provide an audit trial.

6.4 It was suggested that the draft grant application proforma could be streamlined, to match the amount of information requested to the size of the grant applied for. The larger the grant the more information would be required.

6.5 The form also needed to cater for innovative applications that did not fit into the unusual boxes.

It was agreed that

• the process had to be simple and straight forward, based on the priorities of the MPS partnership work. It cannot be overly bureaucratic
• the process should try to be an intuitive exercise, designed to encourage creative applications
• projects/applications should have a time table with milestones etc against which performance can be assessed
• the performance of the project to monitored and monies released /withheld accordingly
• a brief explanation had to be given as to why the application was successful.

6.6 The availability of the grants is not advertised as such but the Borough Commander will advise the community groups.

6.7 Ideally the MPA would be in the position to monitor the business plans before any money was released. However it was noted that applications are submitted throughout the year. Link members will need to have an effective dialogue with the Borough Commanders and will expect to be consulted on all expenditure from this fund in a timely manner. Flexibility to plan and allow variations in the allocations of the grants had to be maintained.

6.8 It was agreed that the role of link member within this process should be set out within the check list for link members previously requested.

Resolved that -

1. members formally endorse the preferred option – Option 1 - identified in Appendix 1 to take effect from the 2010/11 financial year;
2. members agree the process detailed in paragraphs five to eight for identifying priority areas for use of the partnership fund;
3. members agree that any necessary transitional arrangements are negotiated on a borough-by-borough basis as part of the 2010/11 SLA process;
4. members were of the view that the Authority should retain responsibility for the partnership funds.
5. members consider and adopt the proposed guidance and that officers develop the relevant paperwork to support the new process.

8. Assessment of MPA Role on Crime Disorder Reduction Partnerships (CDRPs)

8.1 Natasha Plummer (Engagement & Partnership Team Manager) introduced the report that provided a snapshot of the MPA’s current role on CDRPs when compared with the APA’s guidance for police authorities, ‘Contributing to Crime & Disorder Reduction Partnerships’ The role of police authorities (June 2009). The outcomes of the performance scan were coded using a traffic light system of green, amber and red.

8.2 The Sub-committee was concerned that under the restructuring of the MPA and the realignment of resources had resulted in the numbers of link EPO’s being reduced from eight to five and sought an assurance that the section was adequately resource to provide effective support.

8.3 The Sub-committee agreed to review the situation following the implementation of the reorganisation.

Resolved that

1. the Sub-committee note the current assessment of the MPA’s role on CDRPs;
2. officers produce an action plan to address any identified areas for development and report back to this committee following implementation of the reorganisation

Resolved to note this report

9. Independent Custody Visiting Scheme

9.1 Kerry McClelland (ICV Team Manager) introduced a report that detailed developments in relating to the Independent Custody Visiting Scheme (ICV) since the last report to the Sub-committee in April 2009.

9.2 The Sub-committee was concerned to note that following the reorganisation of the MPA, the ICV team would not be able to provide the same level of training.

9.3 The Sub-committee asked for a paper on the impact on the training for the ICV volunteers and how the scheme will function from 2010.

9.4 The Sub-committee did not agree the recommendation that ICV Scheme reports to the Strategic and Operational Policing Committee (SOP) from January 2010, in line with the repositioning of the ICV team within the Policing Policy, Scrutiny and Oversight Unit.

9.5 The Sub-committee expressed its concern that too many of the authorities responsibilities were being placed within the remit of the
Strategic and Operational Policing Committee.

9.6 The Authority had to decide if the Independent Custody Visiting scheme was to provide a scrutiny or a community engagement function and allocate adequate resources.

Resolved that

1. members note the developments.
2. members note that the MPA restructure and reduction of resources to the ICV team will have an impact on how the scheme functions from 2010, with a review following implementation of the reorganisation.
3. members did not agree the recommendation that the ICV Scheme reports to the Strategic and Operational Policing Committee (SOP) from January 2010, in line with the repositioning of the ICV team within the Policing Policy, Scrutiny and Oversight Unit.

The meeting closed at 4:30pm

Send an e-mail linking to this page

Feedback