Minutes - draft

These minutes are draft and are to be agreed.

Minutes of the meeting of the Community Engagement and Citizen Focus held on 4 October 2010 at 10 Dean Farrar Street, London, SW1H 0NY.

Present

Members

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

MPA officers

• Natasha Plummer (Engagement & Partnerships Manager)
• Fay Scott (Head of Equalities and Engagement)
• Jane Harwood (Deputy Chief Executive)
• Michael Taylor (Committee Officer)
• Hamera Asfa Davey (Oversight and Review Officer)

MPS officers

• Tony Eastaugh (Territorial Policing)
• Ted Henderson (MPS Stop and Search Team)

Others: Jim Toohill (substituting for Richard Hunt, LCP2), Ivor John (Hillingdon CPEG)

29. Apologies for absence

29.1 Apologies for absence were received from Victoria Borwick and Richard Hunt.

30. Declarations of interest

(Agenda Item 2)

30.1 There were no declarations of interest.

31. Minutes of the meeting held on 21 June 2010

(Agenda Item 3)

31.1 Under 27.2, Members felt that the minutes suggested a more absolute outcome than was inferred. Members accepted that two committees could have a legitimate interest in certain items, although reports would only go to one committee for decisions.

Clive Lawton added his apologies for the previous meeting.

Resolved: - that the minutes of the Sub-committee held on 21 June be updated as a correct record.

32. Review of Community and Police Engagement Groups – Ensuring Influence, delivering Value for Money

(Agenda Item 4)

32.1 Although Members anticipate the need to trim CPEG budgets, concern was expressed over the proposed top slicing, feeling that additional research is needed before this proposal could be implemented. In expectation of the upcoming restructure of CPEGs, Members also considered that it would be useful to establish a narrative to define what constitutes good practice for CPEGs, as well as identifying how effectiveness of CPEGs should be judged. CPEG representatives agreed with the need for clear definitions of what is expected of CPEGs, along with a need to monitor efficiency.

32.2 Members noted that at this stage, the report does not help identify areas for potential savings and that additional research shall be required. As well as sustainability, the added value that CPEGs bring, and which cannot be achieved elsewhere, also needs to be considered.

32.3 Although responses to the consultation survey were generally positive, Members raised the issue of the low response rate and felt that it would be useful to contact a selection of Borough Commanders in order to enquire why responses were not received, as well as establish whether received comments were representative. Members were also advised that a consultation meeting with CPEGs would be held on 9 November.

Action:

1. the consultation be reopened in a targeted way, so that feedback can be received from Borough Commanders who had not responded to the initial survey.
2. officers conduct further work in consultation with LCP2 to develop a outline of the model CPEG.
3. an update report should be considered at the next meeting.

33. Stop and Search Community Monitoring

(Agenda Item 5)

33.1 Members raised the issue of the differing standards across boroughs regarding safety precautions taken with the community observers’ scheme. Although Police do have a duty of care to protect observers, members agreed that this should be standardised across London, with an expectation of minimum standards. Members also considered that it would be helpful to have data on how many injuries have been sustained by observers.

33.2 With the new Home Office legislation abolishing the requirement for stop and search monitoring data coming into effect in January, Members expressed concerns over how this would affect the MPS. Some Police forces would continue to record data, whilst others would stop monitoring such data. The MPS are consulting with the Home Office and communities and stakeholders, and are considering the best options for London. Members also recognised the potential challenge of raising public awareness of stop and search rights, if these are not uniform across the country.

33.3 In order to further inform such discussions in future, the committee agreed that the co-chairs of the Stop and Serach Community Monitoring Network (CMN) should be invited to join the committee as co-opted members.

Action: Co-chairs of the CMN to be invited to join the committee as co-opted members. .

Action: that Tony Eastaugh should examine options for standardising protocols and establishing best practice for the community observers’ scheme.

34. Stop and Search Monitoring report

(Agenda Item 6)

34.1 Members received the report and an overview of ongoing projects, including the ‘Next Steps’ project run by the National Police Improvement Agency and Home Office, which is being piloted in Lewisham.

34.2 Members raised concern over the accessibility of the data; requesting that data is presented in graph form, so that it is easier to interpret. It would also be useful to establish a baseline for the number of stops, so that it shall be easier to establish disproportionality. Members also requested that it be made possible to extrapolate separate figures for the number of stop and searches carried out as part of operation Blunt 2. Members were advised that this would require an amendment to the stop and search forms to gather that data.

Action: - that Tony Eastaugh should examine options for the monitoring of Blunt 2 data, and also the reconfiguration of stop and search data so that it is more accessible.

34.3 Members raised the issue of ensuring the integrity of the data collection process, and ensuring that stop and search data was valid. Members were advised that it is cost prohibitive for the MPS to constantly update data systems to accommodate information requests; however officers are working to meet data requirements by adapting relevant forms. In addition, the MPA conducts audits of data and is about to commence an audit of Blunt 2 data specifically.

35. Community Engagement Commitment

(Agenda Item 7)

35.1 Members received the report, which is in draft form pending likely changes to the MPS structure.

36. Citizen Focus – Oral report

(Agenda Item 8)

36.1 Members were advised that a report on the Territorial Policing Development review would be going to the Strategic and Operational Policing Committee. One aspect of the review would be examining the issue of gaps in customer service particularly where front counters in Police stations have either closed or changed lcoation. In these cases, the MPS aims to relocate resources to cover any gaps in service. Following this review and further liaison with Territorial Policing, a report shall be presented at the CECF meeting in December, which shall explore the equality of contact across boroughs.

36.2 Members agreed that the report should focus on recommendations for the quality of service only, not on the location of front counters. This report must also fit into the Policing in the 21st Century pledge, rather than forming its own strategy.

36.3 Ivor John advised that Hillingdon CPEG conducts random visits to front counters in order to check that all displayed information is relevant, and report on the quality of experience that members of the public can expect. Members agreed that CPEGs would be useful to measure the effectiveness of front counters across London, as there is currently no standardisation of service.

Send an e-mail linking to this page

Feedback