Minutes

Minutes of the meeting of the Community Engagement and Citizen Focus held on 29 April 2010 at 10 Dean Farrar Street, London, SW1H 0NY.

Present

Members

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

Co-Opted Member: Richard Hunt (London Communities’ Policing Partnership)

MPA officers

• Natasha Plummer (Engagement & Partnerships Manager)
• James Tate (Criminal Justice and Custody Oversight Team Leader)

MPS officers

• Commander Simon O’Brien

Guests in Attendance: Dr John May (London Communities’ Policing Partnership – LCP2)

17. Apologies for absence

17.1. No apologies for absence were received.

18. Declarations of interest

18.1. There were no declarations of interest.

19. Minutes of the meeting held on 22 February 2010

[Agenda item 3]

19.1. The minutes of the meeting held on 22 February 2010 were approved and signed as a correct record.

Resolved:

• that the minutes of the Sub Committee held on 22 February be approved and signed as correct record.

20. Independent custody visiting scheme

[Agenda item 4]

20.1. The committee agreed to receive item 6 at this point to allow the report author to leave the meeting early.

20.2. The committee received a report on the Independent Custody Visiting Scheme (ICVS), which detailed developments since the last report in October 2009.

20.3. The committee was informed that the Home Office had advised that the vetting requirements for Independent Custody Visitors (ICVs) working in custody suites housing counter-terrorism detainees would be increased to the higher level Developed Vetting category. The sub-committee was advised that not only would it be more expensive and time consuming to vet applicants to this level, but it would also be very intrusive for the applicant.

20.4. Members expressed their concerns about this decision, particularly with regard to whether such visits would be suspended pending achievement of the higher vetting levels and also questioned whether it was really even necessary given that those being detained were only under suspicion at that point and may not yet have been charged with an offence. The committee was advised that there had been agreement that Westminster ICVs current visiting those custody suites would be able to continue with their current level of vetting to ensure continuity of service and that in the medium term the ICV team would recruit for this particular purpose and ensure applicants were vetted to the appropriate level from the outset.

Action: a letter to the Home Office to be drafted on behalf of the sub-committee expressing members’ concerns.

20.5. The committee was informed that to date feedback on the changes to the delivery of the Scheme had been very positive and there had been no adverse impact on performance or delivery.

20.6. The committee was advised that there had been a concern raised by some ICVs that issues were being raised, but were not being dealt with in a timely manner due to the new meetings cycle. The committee was informed that these were isolated cases and although they needed to be dealt with they were not matters of high concern and did not therefore require urgent action. However, it was noted that there is need for a process to ensure such matters were feedback to the appropriate levels and dealt with accordingly.

20.7. The committee was informed that one consequence of the new arrangements and reduced ICV team resources was that it would not be possible to deliver the annual ICV conference this year. Members expressed concern about the negative message this might send to ICVs and asked that this be communicated to them to ensure they were aware that the MPA still values their contribution.

Action: This information to be communicated to all ICVs in the next ICV newsletter.

20.8. A member sought more information regarding the management of ICV performance, any action that might be taken with regard to poor performance and the average length of time volunteers stayed in the role.

20.9. The committee was informed that many ICVs stay in the role for many years and while there is clearly a benefit in having some element of turnover to ensure continued enthusiasm and interest in delivering the service, it can be difficult to get people to move on. The age profile of ICVs is shifting downwards and this is mainly due to students wanting to gain experience through volunteering for a year or two and that has a beneficial impact on the ICVS. The committee was advised that there is a formal discipline process in place, but it is seldom necessary to begin formal procedures against an ICV. Poor performance is often managed informally and this either results in an immediate improvement in performance or with the ICV leaving the Scheme voluntarily. Currently approximately 12 ICVs per year leave the Scheme due to poor performance and all ICVs are re-accredited every three years, which provides a further opportunity to remove those who are under-performing

20.10. The members agreed that it is good practice to review ICVs every three years, it was also suggested that the there should be a maximum term for panel chairs and that consideration should be giving to introducing a minimum length of service (e.g. two years) to reflect the Authority’s investment in new ICVs in terms of training and support.

Resolved: - to note the report.

21. Community engagement funding allocations 2010/11

[Agenda item 5]

21.1. The committee received a report seeking approval for the final 2010/11 funding allocations to the community police engagement groups (CPEGs) and to London Communities’ Policing Partnership (LCP2). The committee was informed that the CPEGs had responded well to the closer scrutiny of their spending plans and that further savings might still be identified.

21.2. The variations in the level of funding to different CPEGs was noted and a member asked if those CPEGs on lower allocations were being encouraged to deliver more community engagement projects. It was debated that on one hand yes they should be encouraged to have more projects for the community, but in a low crime area it might be that the community does not feel the need for more engagement with the police and community safety partners.

21.3. Members raised a number of questions about CPEG tenancy arrangements and liabilities and whether they were adequately ensured against such liabilities. Members were also interested to know how many CPEGs were receiving administrative support through service level agreements with local authorities, as well as details about the number of CPEGs that have either charitable status or are companies limited by guarantee. The committee was advised that CPEGs had previously been advised of the need to have in place adequate liability insurance and that this could be funded from their MPA grant. However, officers were aware of the need for further consideration of such matters and this would be pursued with the Authority’s solicitor.

Action: officers to provide details of the number of CPEGs with charitable or limited company status and also details of the degree of funding that goes into service level agreements with local authorities.

21.4. Members asked how CPEGs went about informing their communities of their activities and were informed that CPEGs widely advertise their activities in their newsletters and through the press and local authority publications, but that they also relied on their member groups to cascade such information to their constituent members.

Resolved to: -

1. approve the final 2010/11 funding allocations to the community police engagement groups and to LCP2
2. agree the broad parameters and a budget of £140 000.00 to deliver a programme of additional engagement activities.

22. Community Engagement Innovations Fund 2008/10

[Agenda item 6]

22.1. The committee received a report on the Community Engagement Innovations Fund (2008 – 2010), which was devised to enable the development and delivery of innovation in community engagement projects and to support the dissemination of good practice.

22.2. Members noted the range of projects supported and suggested that as part of the good practice digest it would be helpful to also provide information on the critical success factors of those projects that succeeded as well as details of the potential pitfalls to be avoided.

22.3. In a related matter, members asked for a meeting checklist to be supplied to link members to inform their meetings with borough commanders. Members noted that this would require link members to provide officers with details of planned meetings so that support could be provided in a timely manner.

Action: Officers to formally provide a meeting checklist for link members addressing key issues

22.4. The Committee also noted that there is potentially increasing overlap between the work of the MPA and the Greater London Assembly (GLA) and that this needed to be addressed. The committee was informed that a senior MPA officer is in regular contact with the GLA about such matters.

Meeting finished at 11.55 am

Send an e-mail linking to this page

Feedback