Minutes - draft

These minutes are draft and are to be agreed.

Minutes of the meeting of the Community Engagement and Citizen Focus held on 11 April 2011 at 10 Dean Farrar Street, London, SW1H 0NY.

Present

Members

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

MPA officers

• Jane Harwood (Deputy Chief Executive)
• Natasha Plummer (Engagement & Partnerships Manager)
• Siobhan Coldwell (Head of Policing Policy, Scrutiny and Oversight)
• Michael Taylor (Committee Officer)

Others: John May (LCP2)

24. Apologies for absence

(Agenda Item 1)

24.1 Apologies for absence were received from Richard Hunt (Co-opted Member) and James Tate (MPA Officer)

25. Declarations of interest

(Agenda Item 2)

25.1 No declarations were received.

26. Minutes of the meeting held on 14 February 2011

(Agenda Item 3)

26.1 The minutes of the last meeting were agreed. Briefing notes have been circulated on the consultation with CPEGs on Met Promises, and also on MPS Community Tension Indicators.

27. Community and Police Engagement Group funding 2011/12

(Agenda Item 4)

27.1 Natasha Plummer introduced the report, which outlined the proposed funding arrangements for the Community and Police Engagement Groups (CPEGs); with an equal reduction of 12.5% in the budgets of all CPEGs. Members noted that at the last meeting it was proposed that a range of options for funding allocations be received for consideration. Because this paper recommends an alternative funding model; it was agreed that releasing documentation on possible alternative funding models would be superfluous.
It was confirmed that the indicated funding for 2011/12 is the maximum amount that will be available to CPEGs; although not all of them will wish to utilise the maximum amount.

27.2 Members reaffirmed their support for CPEGs; with the Sub-committee previously championing against a reduction of 50% in CPEG budgets. Members recognised that the MPA holds a moral obligation to offer CPEGs
advice on difficulties arising from a reduced budget; although it was noted that no CPEGs have announced plans for staff redundancies. As some CPEGs have been established as charities or private companies, they have a responsibility to hold adequate funding in reserve to meet statutory redundancy payments. Most CPEGs employ freelance staff on a fixed term basis, and therefore do not require redundancy payments. Jane Harwood confirmed that the MPA will be seeking legal advice on making payments used to cover CPEG redundancies.

27.3 It was also noted that as CPEGs have been aware that their funding was to be reduced, it was their prerogative to make appropriate plans. A budget reduction of 12.5% will encourage more innovative spending of the CPEG budgets, as well as apply for funding from sources other than the MPA. With the transition to the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime (MOPC) scheduled for 1 October 2011, the MPA is providing funding which will allow the CPEGs to continue to operate until the end of the financial year. However, it is not currently known how community engagement will be conducted or funded under the MOPC. It was confirmed that the MPA/MOPC has allocated a budget for five posts in Engagement and Partnerships Team, which is secured for three years.

27.4 John May provided an overview of preparations for the closing down of the London Communities Police Partnership (LCP2); provision has been made for two members of staff who will be made redundant, and LCP2 does not occupy premises. LCP2 can therefore close down with no outstanding liabilities.

27.5 In order to allow CPEGs to fully engage with their communities, members requested that CPEGs conduct a survey of the breakdown of their communities, so that full consultation can take place. This will also enable CPEGs to become more representative of their communities; although it was acknowledged that full representation with all diverse groups will be difficult to quantify. MPA Engagement and Partnership Officers liaise with CPEGs to ensure that relevant community groups are consulted on developing issues. The MPA will also be conducting a profile of each borough to check that each community group is represented.

Action: MPA to conduct a baseline of borough representation; liaising with CPEGs to enable consultation with community groups.

27.6 Members considered the CPEG objectives for 2011/12 and suggested some amendments and clarifications. These included: requirements for CPEG representatives (not necessarily Chair or Vice-Chair) should not be required to attend 100% of seminars, as this is impractical; CPEGs will hold engagement on their borough ICV reports; and will publish minutes, as well as documents of interest on CPEG websites.

Resolved: that

1. Members note the community and police engagement group delivery against the previous year’s objectives;
2. Members approve the community and police engagement group objectives for 2011/12, with the instruction that a baseline assessment of CPEG communities be conducted;
3. Members approve the community and police engagement group funding allocations for 2011/12; subject to a review being conducted in December allowing any under-spend to be reallocated. The total amount should also be ring-fenced for use by CPEGs; and
4. Members approve a final payment of £8000.00 to the London Communities’ Policing Partnership.

28. Metropolitan Police Authority Partnership Fund 2011/12

(Agenda Item 5)

28.1 Natasha Plummer introduced the report, and confirmed that the priorities for the Partnership Fund have already been approved by the MPA Business Management Group (BMG), and that boroughs have been informed of the decision, along with guidelines on what the Fund can be spent on. The new priorities of the London Crime Reduction Board include issues such as violence against women and youth violence; which are already priorities for local authorities. Members requested clarification on whether Committees will still maintain authority during the decision making process.

Action: MPA officers to write a formal letter to BMG on behalf of the Sub-committee, requesting clarification on whether decision making will remain the prerogative of Committees, or the BMG.

28.2 Previously a lump sum of the Fund was provided to each borough at the start of the financial year. Members noted that with the MPA centrally holding the fund, there is capacity to maintain greater clarity on where spending is utilised. The MPA can also ensure that funding is directed to projects which are aligned to MPA priorities. Members agreed to the recommendations, although also noted some reservations.

Resolved: that

1. the 2011/12 priorities for the MPA Partnership Fund be aligned to those of the London Crime Reduction Board.
2. the £1.6m Fund be held centrally by the Authority.

29. Independent Custody Visitor (ICV) Scheme update

(Agenda Item 6)

29.1 Siobhan Coldwell introduced the report, which noted a fall in ICV performance over the last six months, although each custody suit in London is still being visited at least once a fortnight. The main attributing factor in the fall in performance has been issues with the visitor recruitment process, although it is expected that performance will be back on target for the next six months. As part of the work to establish better governance of ICV Panels; visitors who are not meeting performance standards are de-accredited, although this is used as a last resort.

29.2 Candidates applying to join the ICV scheme are required to undergo Criminal Records Bureau and Counter Terrorism Checks, and not all candidates pass these checks. Due to the centralised nature of these checks, employers are not informed of the reasons why candidates do not pass; although the MPA will raise this with the vetting companies. As part of the induction process; new visitors are required to be accompanied by their panel Chair or Vice-Chair for their first three visits; and it takes time for these to be scheduled

29.3 As part of the amended service delivery model; ICV panel meetings are now held quarterly, with all panel members encouraged to attend. An ICV Panel Chair’s meeting will be held on 14 April 2011, which will assess the impact of the new model, although there have no notable negative impacts. The MPS Custody Directorate has developed an initiative to reduce the number of custody suites; although this will be staggered over a three year period. As a result ICV Panels may merge together; as is already being done by Merton and Sutton.

29.4 Members noted the fact that ICV Visitors are volunteers, and commended the good work that they have conducted on behalf of the ICV Scheme. It was confirmed that scrutiny and support of the ICV scheme would be conducted by the MOPC, once the changeover is implemented.

Meeting finished at 11:55

Send an e-mail linking to this page

Feedback