Minutes

Minutes of the meeting of the Community Engagement and Citizen Focus held on 13 December 2010 at 10 Dean Farrar Street, London, SW1H 0NY.

Present

Members

• Clive Lawton (Chair)
• Victoria Borwick
• Valerie Brasse
• Joanne McCartney
• Richard Hunt (co-opted member)
• Graham Speed

MPA officers

• Natasha Plummer (Engagement & Partnerships Manager)
• Michael Taylor (Committee Officer)
• Tamsin Kelland (Engagement and Partnership Unit Officer)
• James Tate (Criminal Justice and Custody Oversight Team Leader)
• Hamera Asfa Davey (Oversight and Review Officer)
• Ben Strange (Financial Benchmarking and Productivity Officer)

MPS officers

• Adrian Hanstock (Safer Neighbourhoods OCU)
• David Reed (Territorial Policing Development)
• Carl Lindley (Territorial Policing Development)
• Alison Versluys (Territorial Policing Development)
• George Clarke (Human Resources)
• Amanda Webster-Robbins (Strategic Relationships)

Others: Elizabeth Beggs (LCP2), John May (LCP2), Carole Atkinson (Richmond CPEG), Anita Jakhu (Brent CPEG), Len Clark (North Westminster CPEG)

37. Apologies for absence

(Agenda Item 1)

37.1 Apologies for absence were received from Fay Scott (MPA)

28. Declarations of interest

(Agenda Item 2)

38.1 Richard Hunt declared an interest in item six, as he is a member of LCP2.

39. Minutes of the meeting held on 4 October 2010

(Agenda Item 3)

39.1 The phrasing of 32.1 was adjusted to better reflect members’ views that the proposed restructure of CPEGs was preliminary.

39.2 The process of monitoring Blunt 2 data and reconfiguring Stop and Search data is ongoing.

Resolved: that the minutes of the Sub-committee held on 4 October 2010 be updated as a correct record.

40. Update on the Review of Community and Police Engagement Groups

(Agenda Item 4)

40.1 Natasha Plummer introduced the report, which updated the committee on further work conducted since the last report in October 2010 and sought to highlight the range of issues and considerations that are likely to impact on this area of work in the future. In introducing the report members were advised of a point of clarification in relation to paragraph 2, which stated that savings of up to £477 000 could be achieved by reducing all Groups to average spending levels. Due to a calculation error, this figure was revised to £215 000. The officer highlighted that further analysis on the non-specified expenditure, which totalled £237 000, identified that much of those funds (£165 000) had been expended in the delivery of specific engagement projects. There was, however, expenditure on training and professional services, which are areas in which the Authority could potentially achieve further savings. Secondly, officers had conducted an exercise to benchmark CPEG administration costs against other voluntary sector organisations, which indicated that one might reasonably expect such costs to constitute up to 30% of the total expenditure, whereas CPEG staffing costs alone represent 66% of total expenditure. In addition, the report also considered future possible funding arrangements and suggested that the Authority develop a compact agreement with the CPEGs and that consideration be given to revising the CPEG allocation formula to allow for differential borough allocations based on need (at present all groups can receive a maximum of £50 000).

40.2 Members expressed concerns about the timing of any changes in terms of the wider landscape, particularly in relation to the advent of police and crime commissioners and how that might impact on the engagement structures needed in the future. In addition, members highlighted current concerns about public sector finance, including the potential impact on policing services, but also in terms of the policing of demonstrations, and the need to maintain effective engagement between communities and the police in those circumstances. In reference to comparisons between the relative administration costs of a CPEG as compared to other charitable organisations there was a general view that unlike other charitable organisations, which would only disseminate funds to other parties to deliver services, CPEGs are themselves directly delivering services to the community. Therefore, any comparison in terms of the costs of a CPEG versus those of a broader charitable organisation needed to be considered in that context.

40.3 Overall, members recognised that the value of some CPEGs outstripped the costs of delivery and they were of the view that there is a lack of clarity about what the Authority actually wants and needs from CPEGs, as opposed to what might be desirable activities. In addition, the point was made that any move towards brigading administration services could run the risk of losing the local perspective in the work of the administration, which is key to providing effective support to a CPEG executive committee.

40.4 In response to a question, officers confirmed that if savings were to be required, then it would ultimately be for CPEGs to manage those savings since they are independent of the Authority, which could not therefore impose a new delivery model. Having said that, if the savings were to be significant, then the only way to achieve them would be through reducing administration/staffing costs and some Groups had already begun to consider and explore ways of sharing such services.

40.5 The Chair suspended standing orders in order to allow members of the public to speak, which included representatives of LCP2 and CPEGs. The general consensus was that CPEGs would form an increasingly important community engagement function in the future and CPEGs would adapt to deliver within the new financial environment. Those present also reaffirmed the view that CPEG administrators perform vital community engagement work and that this should be given consideration in respect of any changes to the delivery model. Members were also informed that the CPEG administrators group has jointly produced a report on their activities, which would be sent to all MPA members in due course.

40.6 Although, somewhat sympathetic to CPEG concerns, the Sub-committee was quite clear that a reduction in the budget was to be expected given the financial context in which we are currently operating. However, Members were concerned about any possible plans to implement any cost savings from 2011/12 given how late in the current financial year the budget decisions would be finalised. Members also made it clear to those present that the Sub-committee would not have the final word on these issues, which would be for consideration and agreement by the wider Authority.

40.6 The Sub-committee was of the view that it was not in a position to note or
endorse the direction of travel in respect of CPEG reform and in respect of recommendation 1, resolved only to note the report.

Resolved: to note the report.

The second recommendation was agreed - and officers will be meeting with LCP2 in January 2011 to draft the agreement.

Resolved: to endorse the development of a compact agreement between the Authority and CPEGs

A further resolution was agreed as follows:

Resolved: that the chair of CECF Sub-committee attend BMG to represent the Sub-committee's views and that the discussion paper to be presented to business management group in January 2011 (see paragraph 8) specifically recommends that given the lateness in the current financial year any reduction in the CPEG budget be deferred to allow for proper management and transition processes to be put in place.

41. Independent Custody Visitor Scheme update

(Agenda Item 5)

41.1 James Tate introduced the report and provided an overview of the ICV scheme. As part of the development of the scheme the aim in 2011 is to change the emphasis of visits away from checking on the observation of PACE and toward the human rights and dignity of detainees. A stakeholder event shall also be held in early 2011 to explore a joint approach between visitors and custody staff. After a year spent consolidating a new delivery model the team would also focus on the long term aim of raising public awareness of the ICV scheme.

41.2 Members enquired how the performance benchmark was set, how performances could be improved, and the potential impact of larger custody suites upon performance. The benchmark is set deliberately high and James’ view is that ICV panels, particularly those who perform well, wouldn’t welcome a lower benchmark. The team acknowledges that stats can be misleading – a couple of missed visits in any quarter could take a panel below the benchmark but could not be considered as poor performance. Based on this acknowledgement the team and panel use a collaborative approach to improve and maintain performance. In cases where members have unsatisfactory performance, it is the panels which request that they be de-accredited. At present the commissioning of large custody suites doesn’t present any problems in terms of the visiting process but the team is aware that future consolidation of custody, which may include fewer, larger custody suites may mean looking again at borough based panels and visit frequency.

41.3 Currently all panels are borough based, in order to represent their communities. In the future (4-5 years), it may become necessary for some custody suites to be brigaded, which would necessitate changes to the panel structure; as some boroughs may no longer have custody suites. The proposed brigaded custody suites may require more visits per week, or for more in dept interviews to take place.

41.4 There is an under-spend in the 2010-11 ICV budget, which James Tate proposed be used to fund awareness raising activities in 2011-12. Members requested details on the under-spend, as well as information on the number of panel members and workload in each borough.

Action: James Tate to provide details of the 2010-11 budget under-spend, and information on the membership of each panel.

42. London Communities Policing Partnership (LCP2) Report

(Agenda Item 6)

42.1 LCP2 introduced the report and provided an overview of LCP2, and the different ways in which CPEGs and Safer Neighbourhood Teams (SNTs) engage with the public to identify priorities. The MPS advised members that the data presented a rather narrow picture of SNT activities and although SNTs engage with their local communities to identify a small number of local priorities, the SNTs are expected to address all community concerns that are raised.

42.2 In relation to the engagement of CPEGs in LCP2 meetings and seminars, LCP2 provided an overview of the rates of attendance of CPEGs at LCP2 events. Members were advised that LCP2 coordinates with CPEGs to identify needs and deliver relevant training courses and also responds to MPA requests for specific issues to be covered, for example a recent equality and diversity seminar was held to meet a need specifically identified by MPA officers. Although LCP2 are not charging an attendance fee for the courses, members did note their support for charging attendees for last minute cancellations, in order to cover costs and make the point that a cancelled place could have been allocated to someone else.

Action: LCP2 to circulate information on the level of engagement of the CPEGs.

42.3 In response to a member question as to whether the MPA could directly provide training for CPEGs, officers advised that this would be possible. LCP2 expressed concern that this would lead to the Authority being increasingly directive and not allowing for any CPEG choice. Officers advised that the way to counter this would be to deliver a programme based on a training needs analysis rather than the MPA imposing particular seminar topics.

43. Cross Border Innovations Fund

(Agenda Item 7)

43.1 Following on from the 2008-10 Community Engagement Innovations Fund, members agreed a further £50,000, be allocated to a cross border innovations fund in 2011/12.

43.2 The fund was widely advertised and in total 62 bids were received. Bids were assessed through a three stage process which evaluated the level of innovation along with projected outcomes. The MPA also liaised with the Princes’ Trust in order to ensure that the bid application form was fully accessible.

43.3 The five highest scoring projects were identified, meeting the MPA objective to involve as many boroughs as possible, as well as maximizing crosscutting of projects. There is also an under-spend of £10,000, which was proposed to be used to fund the sixth highest scoring project, which was a community business bid. Victoria Borwick requested that information on the successful bids be represented in visual form, in the next update.

Resolved: that

1. Members approve the top highest ranking projects to receive funding from the 2010 Cross Border Innovations Fund.
2. Members approve the disbursement of an additional £10, 000.00 to support a business engagement project.

44. Removal of Policing Pledge - Measures of Confidence and Satisfaction

(Agenda Item 8)

44.1 Adrian Hanstock introduced the report and provided an overview of how public confidence in the MPS is measured. Because of the crosscutting links between agenda items 8 and 9, these discussions were amalgamated.

44.2 The MPS recognizes that engagement with the public is the most important factor in maintaining public confidence; the MPS has developed ‘met promises’ which shall restate police values and inform the public on the level of service that can be expected from the police. The promises shall also serve as guidance to MPS staff on the standards that are expected of them. These measures are not intended to replace the Policing Pledge or cause added bureaucracy at borough level, as assessment is conducted centrally.

44.3 Members noted that these promises must be fully promoted to the public in an accessible manner, along with an outline of how public complaints on MPS procedures shall be addressed. Members also enquired whether the work of partner agencies could be incorporated; although the MPS recognises the contributions of partners, the MPS has no jurisdiction to include the activities of partner agencies in its public promises.

44.4 Adrian Hanstock confirmed the MPS’s intention that the promises shall be presented to the public in a fully detailed, yet accessible manner, and that the MPS shall also be conducting acceptance tests prior to their public release. Members requested that Borough Commanders circulate the document to their CPEGs, so that wider consultation can take place prior to MPA endorsement. Members also noted that an Equality Assessment Impact must also be considered. The MPS shall finalise the public document once all comments are incorporated.

Action: That Borough Commanders consult with CPEGs on the development of the promises.

Action: MPA officers to liaise on the development of EIA issues.

44.5 In response to concerns over the potential discontinuation of the Borough Command Unit funds; it was agreed that the Chair shall write a letter to the Home Secretary in support of BCU funds.

Action: Chair of the Sub-committee to write a letter to the Home Secretary in support of BCU funds.

45. MPS update on confidence in policing

(Agenda Item 9)

45.1 Members noted the report; comments on this paper were amalgamated into the discussion of agenda item 8.

46. Update on current provision of front counter services

(Agenda Item 10)

46.1 David Reed introduced the report and provided an update on the review of front counters, which shall examine how the service provision can be effectively maintained, and also meet the changing requirements of the public. Terms of Reference for the review are being developed, and shall be submitted to the MPA in January 2011.

46.2 In order to improve the efficiency of service provision, front counter locations shall be promoted, along with details of how the public can report incidents via phone or by electronic means, rather than attending front counters in person. The locations of front counters are also being reviewed; as some receive high numbers of visitors, whereas others are located in areas inconvenient for the public to travel to. The MPS also recognises the iconic significance of front counters in providing a visible reassurance to the public.

46.3 The balance between the use of MPS staff and volunteers to staff front counters is also being considered; with the MPS recognises the benefits of having police staff available at front counters in order to provide links to MPS corporate services, as well as the important role of volunteers in service provision.

Send an e-mail linking to this page

Feedback