Independent Custody Visiting Scheme

Report: 6
Date: 29 April 2010
By: Chief Executive

Summary

This report details developments in relation to the Independent Custody Visiting Scheme (ICV) since the last report in October 2009 and Members’ briefing in February 2010.

A. Recommendations

That members note the report.

B. Supporting information

1. This report aims to provide Members with an update of the report presented in October 2009 and the Members’ briefing in February 2010, along with a forward view of expected developments in the scheme. At the February CECF Committee meeting members expressed the wish that reports to each meeting focussed on the ICV Scheme. Of the wider responsibilities of the Custody Oversight Team only the community engagement elements should be reported to this committee.

2. Phase one of the MPA restructure was announced on 31 October 2009. One of the outcomes of the restructure was a shifting of resources away from the ICV Scheme. The ICV team developed a delivery model to continue to support ICV panels which were scheduled to commence on 1 January 2010.

3. An effect of the restructure was that opportunities for career change and development became available. Two members of the ICV Team took advantage of those opportunities and joined other units within the MPA.

4. The reduction in the size of the ICV Team and the departure of two further experienced ICV Coordinators left the team with serious resilience concerns at the beginning of 2010. Phase two of the MPA restructure prevented the recruitment of replacement staff. The team currently carries two full time permanent vacancies and a fixed term contract vacancy. These positions are currently filled by two fixed term contract employees and an agency temp.

5. In January the manager of the ICV Scheme developed a project plan to ensure the continued delivery of the ICV Scheme and fulfillment of the Authority’s statutory responsibility. The plan identified core service requirements to enable ICV panels to continue to recruit, meet and, most importantly, carry out custody visits. Senior management agreed that the ICV Team resources should focus on the core requirements and that developmental and aspirational elements of the scheme would be postponed.

6. The main changes to the scheme as a result of the restructure are; the reduction in the number of panel meetings (for most but not all panels). Each borough based panel meets four times a year; the amalgamation of the two Westminster panels; the introduction of a system of meeting reports and interim reports (at roughly six week intervals, i.e. between the panel meetings) highlighting issues identified on custody visits and recording police responses; standardisation of panel documentation to assist ICV Team resilience; the option to hold interviews at MPA offices where practical or necessary.

Scheme Changes and Panel Performance

7. Although the new ICV Team delivery arrangements have only been in place for one quarter figures for visits, recruitment and retention and meetings have been encouraging (see Appendices 1 – 4).

8. There were 14 resignations between November 2009 and March 2010, seven of whom gave the changes as the reason for their resignation, one of which was in the process of having his accreditation removed. Two others gave the refusal of their panel chairs to discuss anything but opposition to the changes as their reason for leaving.

9. Coordinators have reported no extra difficulties in terms of recruitment. Most interviews are still taking place ahead of the panel meetings but several have taken place at the MPA with the agreement of the relevant panel. Coordinators have conducted the interviews when chairs couldn’t attend. There was a concern that fewer meetings might make it harder to integrate new members but there is no evidence to suggest this is the case. Half the panels now have full membership and of those still recruiting most are only in need of one or two members.

10. In relation to current performance in comparison to fourth quarter of 2009, performance has improved in 13 panels. 11 panels are operating at 100% and seven panels have seen a reduction in performance. Some of those panels with 100% also had 100% in previous quarters. Panel performance forms part of the regular supervision discussions between ICV Coordinators and the team manager and mechanisms for improving poor performance are explored.

11. In terms of comparative attendance at panel meetings, there appears to be no overall change in panel meeting attendance compared with last year, but it may be too early to make a judgement on long term impact. What changes there have been haven’t followed any discernable pattern. The fact that there has been no fall is encouraging, but with fewer meetings the team would hope to see an increase in the long term.

12. Most custody managers have been very cooperative and the level of engagement is improving. They seem to be responding to having a more structured process, which asks them to deliver responses by a certain date. There are a couple where further conversations will need to take place, but they are the custody managers who have a history of poor engagement.

13. All panels have had an interim report and there has been only 1 follow up from an ICV to the police responses.

Scheme Plans for 2010

14. The lack of need for large scale recruitment means that the team has been able to set the dates for initial training sessions at the start of the year. A further diversity training session was delivered in March from which the team has, once again, received excellent feedback. The team was scheduled to deliver two of these sessions this year but because of the demand we may try and run an additional session in the summer. No chairs training has yet been developed or scheduled as the staff who led on that are no longer with the team. However, negotiations are taking place with ICVA about the training modules being developed and the possibility of a chairs training module is being explored.

15. Plans for an ICV conference this summer have been shelved because of resilience issues in the team. There is an MPA conference planned for September and the team hopes to have an ICV element in that. There will be a social event at Christmas along the lines of the summer social held at City Hall last year.

16. All the changes to the handbook are in place but due to staffing issues this has yet to go to the printers. In light of the delays the team will be issuing the new Misconduct Policy and the H&S guidance – which are the two major changes as announced last year – this week.

17. The next ICV newsletter will be issued next month. The team is in the process of collecting articles of interest and has canvassed ICVs for suggestions for content.

18. Although the pilot is complete we haven’t yet been able to review the outcomes. At first glance there does appear to be an improved uptake in visits, but we can’t make any definite decisions on moving forward until we have done the review. This and a review of the HMIC/HMIP inspections are the two strands of work we hope to focus on in the second part of this year.

Issues and Concerns Arising from Visits

19. The vast majority of issues raised on custody visits continue to be addressed at the time of the visit or in the immediate aftermath. Meeting reports and interim reports increasingly identify few if any ongoing or serious issues which haven’t been resolved in the interim. As the meeting and interim reports become, in effect, ‘exception reports’ there is a danger that the good work achieved on the visits is lost. The team is exploring the idea of an additional report listing the number of issues raised and resolved to compliment the reports highlighting unresolved issues. This can also be added to annual reports with the purpose of providing recognition of the success of custody visiting and reassurance to the wider community.

20. Recent visit reports suggest that concerns over cleaning are raised less frequently. Custody staff appear to have an awareness of the procedure for contacting the cleaning contractor regarding any issues. There is also recognition among ICVs of the difference between an environment that may be grubby or unpleasant due to the age and condition of the building and issues of hygiene or cleanliness as a result of poor cleaning standards.

21. There continues to be a concern over the number of detainee interviews which are incomplete due to language issues. An MPS language facility programme board, on which Custody Directorate (CD) is represented, is introducing a series of initiatives to improve the quality and cost effectiveness of language and interpretation facilities. 60% of interpreter requirements are in custody. The developments include;

• A 24hr referral centre at Hendon where staff can be put in direct contact with interpreters or MPS staff/officers with the required language skills;
• A skills audit among staff and officers to identify in-house language skills; Video conferencing technology to restrict the need for interpreters to attend – the virtual courts facilities can be used;
• Video links to hubs allowing an interpreter to attend a hub instead of a custody suite.

22. A member of the orthodox Jewish community raised an issue of two detainees in Barnet who were informed that no kosher food was available. Liaison established that in one case this was an error and custody staff were happy to take advice on where kosher food could be acquired quickly. Panels continue to discuss the level of accommodation that can be made in terms of diversity. There is a diversity handbook for custody on the intranet. CD is happy for custody suites to use extra initiatives to represent their local needs but conscious of the need to maintain a balance. One example is the Protocol for the treatment of Muslim detainees established by Brent custody managers which included input from representatives of the British Muslim Association and the Muslim Police Association.

General Custody Issues

23. A brief to the MPA BMG in March highlighted the lack of an agreed protocol for informing the Authority of a death in custody. Information is received on an informal, ad hoc basis. The Criminal Justice and Custody Oversight Team Leader has suggested the establishment of a process which mirrors the way CD and the Safer Detention Working Party are informed. BMG will decide on the preferred approach.

24. The Criminal Justice and Custody Oversight Team Leader met with HMIC/HMIP leads in March. One of the outcomes was the suggestion of an audit trail of concerns raised by ICVs. As a result that notes of meetings between the Criminal Justice and Custody Oversight Team Leader and CD will be written up and added to the agenda of the Safer Detention Working Party (SDWP) meetings. The idea is that the SDWP would be invited to note this item and raise and discuss any issue where necessary.

25. The roll out of Custody Nurse Practitioners (CNPs) under the Herald Programme is on track. Croydon, Lewisham, Islington, Tower Hamlets and Westminster will be staffed by the end of April. 63 more applicants are now through phase one of recruitment and await interview. The next training is scheduled for May. By the end of May/beginning of June all the gaps should be back filled.

26. A Statement of Community Involvement will be initiated in Croydon on plans for the new Borough Based Custody Suite in the borough. This is the process whereby plans are made public giving the community the opportunity to comment. This will take place after the election and is a pre-requisite for submitting planning applications.

27. The six monthly meeting of ICV Panel Chairs took place at the MPA on 13 April 2010 (see appendix 5). The ICV Team was able to report no decline in recruitment, retention or performance in custody visiting and offer the chairs the opportunity to raise issues. No issues around the delivery of the service to the panels was raised. There were helpful suggestions around feeding back to panels the outcomes of concerns escalated through the MPA.

28. A presentation by Ian Smith OBE, Chief Executive of the Independent Custody Visitors Association (ICVA) highlighted the need to shift the emphasis on visiting from adherence by custody staff to PACE codes, to the upholding of human rights in line with custody visiting’s role as one of the national preventative mechanisms in upholding the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture (OPCAT).

C. Race and equality impact

The ICV Scheme held a diversity monitoring exercise in 2008 which indicated that although the diversity of panels was not always fully congruent with the demographics of their boroughs, no group was adversely affected in recruitment and retention procedures. The exercise is scheduled to be repeated in 2011.

D. Financial implications

The 2010/2011 budget for the ICV Scheme is due to be announced imminently but this information is not currently available.

E. Background papers

None

F. Contact details

Report author(s): James Tate, Criminal Justice and Custody Oversight Team Leader, MPA.

For information contact:

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

Appendix 1: Visits by Borough (Division) 1 October – 31 December 09

Target = 100% of visits undertaken and no less than 90%

Green: panels meeting or exceeding target

Amber: panels 80-89% or panels 74-79%

Red: panels under 74%

• Tower Hamlets: some members lost enthusiasm-being ICVs for long; addressed and will be interviewing applicants on waiting list
• Barking & Dagenham: Several members unreliable; addressed and monitoring
• K &C: Several members unreliable; addressed and monitoring
• North Westminster: members lost enthusiasm due to changes in scheme and resignation of others

Appendix 2

* denotes overflow

+ denotes BTP (counted in figures for Camden & Westminster but not Newham due to infrequency of visits)

Visiting Target = 100% of visits undertaken and no less than 90%

Appendix 3: Visits by Borough 1 January – 31 March 2010

Target = 100% of visits undertaken and no less than 90%

Green: panels meeting or exceeding target

Amber: panels 74-89%

Red: panels under 74%

Issues which may have an impact on performance (ie membership, illness etc.)

Appendix 4

* denotes overflow

+ denotes BTP (counted in figures for Camden & Westminster but not Newham due to infrequency of visits)

Visiting Target = 100% of visits undertaken and no less than 90%

Appendix 5: Draft minutes: ICV Chairs & Vice Chairs Meeting with the MPA

Tuesday 13th April 2010

MPA, 10 Dean Farrar Street, London SW1H 0NY

Present

• John Bailey - Barnet
• Gerry Kirby - Barnet
• Andy Johnstone - Bexley
• Carol Fletcher - Bexley
• Margaret Gubbins - Bromley
• Brenda Rayson - Bromley
• Suzanne Idehan - Camden
• Richard Billington - Croydon
• Jeannine Andre - Ealing
• Dilip Jethwa - Ealing
• Mary Pimm - Hackney
• Carol Bailey - Hammersmith & Fulham
• Sandra - Haringey
• Faiz Nazerali - Harrow
• Stephen Phillips - Havering & Redbridge
• John Hayden - Hillingdon
• Spencer Pawson - Islington
• Mary-Ann Craig - Islington
• Ben Braithwaite - K and C
• Rickard Jonsson - K and C
• Jane Warwick - Lambeth
• Sophie Belcher - Merton
• John Ogunnowo - Newham
• Sally Speed - Richmond
• Nicola Macbean - Richmond
• Avril Jones - Southwark
• Patrick McHale - Sutton
• Peter Tihanyi - Tower Hamlets
• Liz Carboni - Wandsworth
• Sandra Roach - Wandsworth
• Steven Mitchell - Westminster
• Edward Wilson - Westminster
• Prabha Shetty - Kingston
• MPA staff:
  • Siobhan Coldwell - Head of Policing Policy, Scrutiny & Oversight Unit
  • James Tate - Criminal Justice and Custody Oversight Team Leader
  • Jennifer Ankrah - ICV Coordinator
  • Tony Hawker - ICV Coordinator
  • Mike Dodsworth - ICV Coordinator
  • Annette Dhillon - ICV Coordinator
  • Ann Howard - ICV Coordinator
• ICVA:
  • Ian Smith OBE - Chief Executive
  • Anna Jarratt - Executive Assistant
• Apologies:
  • Aisha Ashanti - Brent
  • Joe Aikins - Camden
  • Caroline Berry - Enfield
  • Peter Waterhouse - Enfield
  • Brian Haq - Greenwich
  • Melanie Norton - Hackney
  • Roy Pursey - H and R
  • Natascha Franklin - Haringey
  • Diane McCreedy - Haringey
  • Liam Kenny - Hillingdon
  • Deepa Popat - Harrow
  • Angela Filkin - Kingston
  • Raymond Whittaker - Lambeth
  • Nick Cosin - Lambeth
  • Dionne Lewis - Lewisham
  • Leigh Scott - Lewisham
  • Bushra Khan - Newham
  • Philipa Milward - Southwark
  • Gurpashad Bance - Waltham Forest
  • Elizabeth Davies - Waltham Forest

1. Welcome and Introductions

The meeting was chaired by Siobhan Coldwell. The Chair welcomed everyone to the meeting, and introductions were made.

2. Ian Smith OBE, Chief Executive of ICVA (Independent Custody Visiting Association)

Ian gave a thought provoking presentation on changes to the Codes of Practice, Code H of PACE and HMIC/HMIP (Her Majesty’s Inspectorate Constabulary/Prisons) inspections of police custody suites.

Please see attached handout of the presentation.

He emphasised the need for ICV’s to refocus on the human rights/health and wellbeing of detainees. He also emphasised the importance of recording concerns on visit report forms not just ‘ticking boxes’. He stated that ICVA is now one of the NPM (National Prevention Mechanisms) which underpin the UK’s OPCAT (Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture) protocols.

He gave examples of findings from the joint HMIC/P inspections in London which suggested a police approach of ‘risk aversion’ as opposed to risk management.

There was an opportunity for questions at the end of the presentation, the following questions were asked by ICV’s:

• Can we have a hard copy of the presentation and can the rights and entitlements be painted on the ceiling of the cells?

A copy of the presentation will be emailed to all Chairs and Vice Chairs. Ian Smith said that painting the Rights and Entitlements on the ceiling was a good idea and something that could be looked into.

• ICVs do record issues on report forms, however nothing happens from the MPA when they get the report.

Ian Smith stated that HMIC and HMIP have to do something, and there is a rolling programme over the next 3 years where custody suites are being inspected.

James Tate responded to this concern at the beginning of item 3.

• Will ICVA be involved in guiding the task of redesigning the forms?

Ian Smith stated that there has to be a new form and also retraining in using it.

There has to be clear governance and protocols. ICVA will be one of the organisations to drive it, but ultimately, governance lies with the police authorities.

• Should ICVs follow ICVA’s or MPA’s guidance?

Siobhan and Ian both stated that ICV’s follow the guidance provided by the MPA, with Siobhan stating that the MPA is guided by ICVA.

• An ICV Chair stated that they saw no problems with this as the panel has developed an excellent working relationship with its Coordinator who provides useful support and guidance.
• As a result of the HMIC Inspection in Southwark, there has been a few changes, such as more stakeholder meetings. However, it appears as if there is no proper feedback mechanism to ICV’s from the MPA about issues that have been raised.

HMIC reports are being analysed to see if there are any trends across London, so these can be cascaded back.

3. ICV Scheme update – James Tate.

James commented on what happens when forms are submitted to the MPA. He reminded chairs that this is a two-pronged approach. Firstly, there are the meetings with the police where their responses to concerns and actions are fully minuted. Secondly, unresolved, ongoing or particularly serious issues are raised directly with Custody Directorate at 6-weekly meetings. James stated he takes on board the comment that the feedback process, both from visit reports and HMIC/HMIP inspections, could be better. Currently the MPA tried to feedback through the newsletter and to individual panels, however, if this is not formal enough, the MPA will up its game in the way we respond.

James then went on to say how the ICV team have spent the week gathering information on the impact of changes to how the service to panels is delivered. He acknowledged that it has only been 3 or 4 months so it is difficult to see a pattern. He advised the chairs that if they have specific panel problems to contact their coordinator.

Number of resignations.

Between November and March which is when the changes were brought in, there were 14 resignations. Seven of these gave the changes as the reason, one of which was in the process of having their accreditation removed. Two others gave the refusal of their panel Chair to discuss anything but their opposition to the changes as their reason.

Recruitment, interviews and fitting people into panels with fewer meetings.

Coordinators have reported there have been no extra difficulties in terms of recruitment. Most interviews are still taking place ahead of the panel meetings but several have taken place here at the MPA with the agreement of the relevant panel, these interviews were conducted by coordinators where the Chair was unable to attend. We were concerned that fewer meetings might make it harder to integrate new members but that does not appear to be the case.

Performance stats overall and comparison with Quarter four 2009.

Performance is up in 13 panels, 11 panels have 100% and 7 panels have a reduced performance. Some of those panels who got 100% had 100% in previous quarters.

Overall attendance at panel meetings.

There appears to be no overall change in panel meeting attendance, compared with last year, however, James acknowledged that it may be too early to make a judgement on long term impacts. He also stated that while it is good there has not been a reduction in attendance, with fewer meetings it would be good to see an increase.

Level of police engagement in meetings and interim report

Most custody managers have been very cooperative and the level of engagement is improving. They seem to be responding to a more structured process which asks them to deliver responses by a certain date. There are a couple of boroughs where further conversations will need to take place but they are the ones who have been poor at engaging all along.

Number of interim reports and number of follow up responses from panels.

Almost all panels have had an interim report and there has only been one follow up from an ICV to the police responses. Of those yet to receive an interim report most of them are with the police at present and should be issued in the next week or so.

Training.

Because there has not been a need for large scale recruitment we were able to set dates for initial training sessions at the start of the year. Another Diversity training was delivered, which received excellent feedback again – the original plan was for 2 of these sessions to be delivered this year, but due to the demand we may try to schedule another one in the summer. We have not put together any Chairs training yet, as the member of staff who took the lead on this has left, however, discussions are ongoing with ICVA about the training modules being developed by them, and there may be a possibility of getting something out of that.

There was then the opportunity for questions, the following questions were asked;

• Two incidents that have happened recently in Westminster were raised and it was asked how many custody nurses will custody directorate provide?

New nurses are currently being recruited. If a shift is not covered by a nurse it does not mean there will be no cover – an FME can be called. There is a rolling programme for this over the next 2 years to have one nurse in each borough. It will take time and there will be teething problems. What we should remember is that it is universally accepted that these arrangements will improve the care for detainees, so these teething troubles don’t indicate a reduction in care, simply a hiccup in the improvement.

• It will be difficult to retain new members when panels are only meeting four times a year, there will be no chance to share experiences or have peer group discussions. Why can’t ICV’s meet outside quarterly meetings?

It has never been said that the panel cannot meet with or without the police outside of these meetings. We understand some boroughs have tried this and the police will continue to make their own decision on whether to attend, but we do not have the resources for the MPA to be there. All we can do is monitor it for now, and there will be a review next year – no changes will be made till then.

• There was a concern that the MPA were losing the transparency of the scheme.

One of the things that has been looked at is awareness raising. This is a very important issue for the MPA. The MPA has tried to improve the relationship with the CPEGs, and there is also the need to increase the awareness of the person on the street. It’s one of the things we want to focus on in the medium term.

• An ICV Chair stated that they attend the CPEG meetings and also run informal monthly meetings, which the Borough Commander feels is vital there.
• In order to communicate awareness is it feasible for leaflets to be placed in reception areas of police stations?

It was acknowledged is a good suggestion. Leaflets were put in the receptions of some stations when there was a need to recruit, and previously a member of staff looked at options such as radio adverts and leaflets, however, due to staffing these ideas have gone on the back burner.

• An ICV Chair raised concerns over the numbers of vulnerable detainees on constant watch, an example was given of a shift in Ilford; in a team of seven, three officers were required for constant watches.

Siobhan stated that in her view anybody experiencing a mental health problem should not be put in a custody cell. The problem that the police have is engaging health services to do their job. It is an ongoing struggle, and because the health service has gone through so much change, it is difficult to get them to engage. There are alternative routes however, that can be used to raise these issues.

It was raised that it was people who stated they would hurt themselves if they were locked up.

There is a risk aversion point, 99 out of 100 people would not do anything to themselves but you will get one who will and the risk cannot be taken that someone may hurt themselves. The current government are trying to change the culture of the organisation. Constant watch is easier to do when there is CCTV, however where there is no CCTV it has to be done. No Custody Manager wants to be the one who makes the wrong decision.

4. Custody Visiting Issues/other items – James Tate.

ICV team/staffing.

There are still 2 full time permanent vacancies, which at present recruitment for these is frozen due to the restructure. At present the team has 2 team members on fixed term contracts and 1 agency temp. In terms of numbers there are enough team members to support tall panels but it is anticipated that it will be September before there is a full, permanent team in place.

Recruitment – how many panels still need members

Half the panels now have full membership and of those still recruiting most are only in need of one or two members.

Conference and Christmas social.

There will not be an ICV conference this summer, due to the member of staff who had the lead on planning that has left and there was simply not the resilience in the team to pick that up. There is an MPA conference planned for September and we hope to have an ICV element in that. We will be holding a social event at Christmas and we hope that it will be something like the summer social held at city hall last year.

Handbook.

All the changes to the handbook are in place but die to staffing issues we have not been able to put it together and get it off to the printers. In light of the delays we will be issuing the new Misconduct Policy and the H&S guidance – which are the 2 major changes announced last year – this week.

Newsletter.

The next ICV newsletter will be issued next month. We are very happy to take on board suggestions for content if you have any. Any articles or news please let the coordinators know and we will see if it can be included.

Self introduction pilot.

Although the pilot is complete we have not been able to review the outcomes yet. At first glance there does appear to be an improved uptake in visits but we are unable to make any definite decisions on moving forward until we have done the review. This and a review of the HMIC/HMIP inspection are the 2 strands of work we hope to focus on in the second part of the year.

There was an opportunity for questions about the points James had raised, and the following questions were asked;

• Can we start self introduction in Hackney?

To be discussed with the scheme manager.

• Can we have copies of the HMIC reports?

They are all available on the internet, but coordinators can send these out to the relevant boroughs.

• An ICV Chair suggested a maximum term for Chairs to encourage other members to have a go and prevent a strong Chair from intimidating other members.

This is one for chairs to consider and can be discussed with the scheme manager. The MPA would not wish to impose a restriction without the agreement of panels.

Siobhan thanked everyone for coming and for the points that were raised.

The meeting closed at 20:30pm

Send an e-mail linking to this page

Feedback