Minutes - draft

These minutes are agreed.

Minutes of the meeting of the Community Engagement and Citizen Focus held on 3 October 2011 at 10 Dean Farrar Street, London, SW1H 0NY.

Present

Members

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

MPA officers

• Fay Scott (Head of Equalities and Engagement)
• Natasha Plummer (Engagement & Partnerships Manager)
• Tamsin Kelland (Engagement and Partnership Officer)
• Bennett Obong (Hate Crime and Stop and Search Policy Officer)
• Michael Taylor (Committee Officer)

MPS officers

• Victor Olisa (Stop and Search Team)

1. Apologies for absence

(Agenda Item 1)

1.1 Apologies for absence were received from Victoria Borwick (MPA Member), who was unable to attend due to the meeting being held during the Conservative Party Conference.

2. Declarations of interest

(Agenda Item 2)

2.1 No declarations were received.

3. Minutes of the meeting held on 13 June 2011

(Agenda Item 3)

3.1 In reference to minute 34.1, members requested that any analysis of CPEG administration functions consider the outcomes as well as the costs. On point 34.3, members asked that the minutes reflect the agreement that proposals would be brought forward at the next meeting for the re-allocation of any underspend against the CPEG budget. Members were also advised that officers had yet to fully resolve some issues related to 11/12 CPEG funding and that a further report would be received in December 2011. In relation to minute 35.2, MPS officers clarified that MPS crime reduction initiatives occur in areas of high Black and Minority Ethnic (BME) populations, which may account for the disproportionality of stop and searches conducted on members of the BME community. The requirement for the MPS to present stop and search data in percentages was added as a formal action.

4. Stop and Search update

(Agenda Item 4)

4.1 Victor Olisa introduced the report, and outlined that as a result of the public consultation held on stop and account, the Commissioner has decided that the MPS will continue to record stop and account. Members noted that the MPS initially indicated a preference to discontinue recording, and were glad that the public support for recording was taken into account when the decision was made.

4.2 Members noted that the Commissioner has indicated that stop and search operations will be more ‘targeted’ and intelligence led, and enquired what operational changes this would require and what the anticipated results would be. In this case ‘targeted’ refers to specific areas of high offending, rather than specific individuals. This pilot is expected to result in fewer stops being conducted, but a higher proportion of these achieving successful outcomes.
Current MPS policies and Standard Operating Procedures are sufficient for these operations. The Commissioner is aware that his phrasing may have been misinterpreted by the public, and is in contact with the stop and search team to clarify the MPS position on stop and search.

4.3 Under normal circumstances, Section 60 searches are authorised by Superintendents. Two boroughs, including Southwark, will shortly be conducting a pilot scheme which will place the emphasis on Inspectors authorising the use of Section 60 searches rather than relying predominantly on pre-planned Superintendent authorities. This will allow them to have greater operational control during ground operations. Because Inspectors will only have locally allocated resources, they will only authorise section 60 searches when there is a high probability of success. Inspectors will also be given advice in order to achieve a consistent approach to identifying situations which warrant the use of a section 60 search. Borough Commanders are supportive of the pilot, and have also raised the need to achieve consistency.

4.4 Members recommended that the objectives and success criteria and timescale for the pilot should be identified at an early stage. MPS officers advised that although the MPS has not yet determined how long the pilot will be conducted, an analysis will be made on the number and proportion of successful stops being conducted during this period.

4.5 Members enquired on the level of detail provided to Area Commanders on Operation Pennant. Previously Area Commanders were only provided with general information; however dedicated stop and search meetings are now being scheduled for Area Commanders.

4.6 Members noted that Lambeth and Westminster receive a high number of complaints relating to stop and search, and are also known to conduct lower levels of community engagement. This suggests a correlation between the two factors. Although the MPS has also noted this correlation, and will be providing a presentation on stop and search to Lambeth officers, there are other factors contributing to a higher number of complaints, such as a higher level of anxiety in some communities. The MPS also works closely with the Lambeth Community Monitoring Group to observe stop and search operations. Westminster is also monitoring the use of stop and search and is conducting community engagement activities.

4.7 Members noted that some boroughs have a high proportion of complaints which are unsubstantiated, which suggests that the public misunderstand the expected behaviours of MPS officers, and the acceptable grounds for complaint. Members recommended that the MPS conducts additional engagement specifically with those whose complaints are not upheld, especially in light of the fact that they will spread their dissatisfaction to their communities. All complainants are fully informed of the reasons why they were stopped, and are advised of the opportunity to appeal and also refer complaints to the Independent Police Complaints Commission. Members requested that the MPS provide a report at the next meeting providing a breakdown of the number of unsubstantiated complaints received by ethnicity, so that any disproportionality can be identified.

Action: MPS to provide a report at the next meeting providing a breakdown of the number of unsubstantiated complaints received by ethnicity.

4.8 Members noted that the number of stop and search complaints does not necessarily increase in proportion to the number of stops carried out in the boroughs, and enquired as to the main cause of complaints. The behaviour of the officers conducting the search is a main factor for complaints, although the communities of some boroughs are also more prone to raise complaints than others. In some cases, such as in Lambeth, boroughs also utilise methods other than stop and search to achieve a reduction in violence, which will account for a lower number of searches. Members requested that details on how the MPS investigates complaints arising from stop and search be incorporated into the next stop and search report.

Action: MPS include details on how complaints arising from stop and search are investigated in the next report on stop and search.

4.9 Members noted that Haringey received a low number of complaints, which raised the possibility that the community engagement conducted in the aftermath of the disturbances may have been effective in reassuring the public. Members requested that the borough breakdown of the number of complaints be circulated to all Community Police Engagement Groups (CPEGs) for their information.

Action: MPA to circulate the borough breakdown of the number of stop and search complaints to CPEGs.

4.10 Bennett Obong advised that there is a lack of trust between communities and the police with the public feeling that complaints will not be followed up, which may account for the low number of complaints being made. The Haringey Stop and Search Monitoring Group has also identified a lack of police engagement with young people on stop and search issues, the need for which is especially important in the aftermath of the disturbances. Haringey police have reaffirmed that they are open to receiving complaints from the public, although the complaints process is not actively promoted.

4.11 Members noted that the complaints process should be publicised in order to reassure the public that complaints are investigated, and enquired how the complaints procedures are promoted. Community and Police Engagement Groups (CPEGs) in some boroughs also promote the complaints procedure, with Lambeth CPCG also providing advice to members of the public submitting complaints. The Community Monitoring Network also engages with young people, as they are generally reluctant to utilise the complaints procedure, feeling that making a complaint will lead to victimisation from the police. Young people are encouraged to either make complaints through a third party, or to provide general feedback on stop and search.

4.12 Many young people are discouraged from complaining about stop and search due to the length of time required to submit a formal complaint to the MPS. In order to encourage young people to provide feedback on stop and search, the MPA and MPS are working with young people to develop an I-Phone application which can be used to provide feedback on stop and search in an accessible way for young people. The application will utilise a five-star rating system, and a Global Positioning System feature will enable the locations of the stops to be mapped. Members requested that details of wider community engagement activities relating to stop and search be incorporated into the next report.

Action: MPS to include details of wider community engagement activities relating to stop and search in the next report on stop and search.

4.13 Members enquired what steps are taken in cases where multiple complaints are received against a single officer. In instances where an officer receives three complaints a year, they are invited to a meeting with the Borough Commander, in order to discuss the reasons for the complaints. Officers accept that complaints will arise due to the nature of the job, and understand the necessity for transparency. Members commended Victor Olisa and Bennett Obong for their work coordinating the Stop and Search monitoring Network.

5. Community Police Engagement Group (CPEG) performance management update

(Agenda Item 5)

5.1 Tamsin Kelland introduced the report, which outlines the agreed CPEG objectives for 2011-12 and advised that although it is relatively early in the implementation of the new performance management framework, it is anticipated that all objectives will be achieved. The MPA is also liaising with CPEGs to clearly define what is counted as ‘engagement’, and the roles and functions of CPEGs in conducting this. Three boroughs have yet to submit a satisfactory Service Level Agreement due to a number of factors and MPA link officers are liaising with these boroughs to address the relevant issues.

5.2 During the recent disturbances, CPEGs were proactive in conducting community engagement, particularly with young people, and in relaying MPA reassurance messages to their local communities. Other examples of activities conducted by CPEGs included: holding emergency meetings to circulate key information and to support community reassurance and representing local community views to the media. Borough Commanders also liaised with CPEGs to share intelligence on the developing disturbances, such as Hounslow establishing regular meetings to update partners. The Chair of the MPA was pleased with the reassurance activities conducted by CPEGs during the disturbances and sent a letter of thanks to all Groups.

5.3 Members were pleased to note that this demonstrates that CPEGs are effective mechanisms for conducting community engagement and that this should be promoted. Members requested that a comparison be made between community engagement work conducted by CPEGs and MPS Independent Advisory Groups (IAGs) during the disturbances. By using the disturbances as a specific case study, the MPA will be able to ascertain whether CPEGs or IAGs have greater capacity to conduct community engagement. It was noted that a full comparison will have to take the overlapping membership of CPEGs and IAGs into account.

Action: MPA and MPS to provide a briefing note comparing community engagement conducted by CPEGs and IAGs during the disturbances.

5.4 The MPA has identified that a large proportion of CPEG costs are spent on the administrator functions, and that there is potential to achieve savings in this area. Although the MPA has identified core functions of the administrator role for different CPEGs, due to the fact that CPEGs are given autonomy for spending their budgets the MPA can only offer advice, and not implement changes. In some cases, CPEG engagement activities are also conducted by CPEG chairs and local volunteers, as well as by the CPEG administrators.

5.5 Members noted that some CPEG administrators only provide administrative support, whilst others coordinate the majority of their engagement activities. Members noted that a single administrator is working for both Brent and Waltham Forest, and enquired whether there were other occurrences of cross-borough working. No other CPEGs share administrators; in this case, this is due to the administrator being recruited to work for two separate CPEGs on a part time basis.

5.6 The MPA is currently collating information on the diversity of the membership of CPEGs and will also assess how frequently different ethnic groups attend meetings, although some CPEGs are reluctant to provide this information. It was confirmed that the MPA has no plans to transfer management of CPEGs to local authorities. This misconception arose from a desire to ensure that CPEGs do not duplicate the work of local authorities.

6. Cross border Innovations fund - monitoring report

(Agenda Item 6)

6.1 Tamsin Kelland introduced the report and outlined how project leads are using their contact lists to bolster the circulation for future MPA consultation work. Where appropriate, the GLA Project Oracle system is used to monitor and evaluate projects, such as the ‘Independent Academic Research Studies’ project.

6.2 Members enquired why all projects are not being monitored through Oracle, noting that utilising a single database would enable a consistent method for evaluating projects. Although all projects have the option to upload information to Oracle, many project leads choose not to do so due to the length of time it takes to register projects on the Oracle database. In addition, some project leads are reluctant to have their unsuccessful projects accessible for review through a centralised Oracle database.

6.3 Members enquired whether project leads are provided with training on issues such as contingency planning, promotional activities, risk assessments and providing adequate training for staff. The MPA does provide support and training to projects as necessary; although members noted that there is capacity to identify training parameters in the early stages of project planning.

Send an e-mail linking to this page

Feedback