Minutes - draft

These minutes are draft and are to be agreed.

Minutes of the meeting of the Community Engagement and Citizen Focus held on 5 December 2011 at 10 Dean Farrar Street, London, SW1H 0NY.

Present

Members

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

MPA officers

• Natasha Plummer (Engagement and Partnerships Manager)
• James Tate (Independent Custody Visitor Scheme Manager)

MPS officers

• Victor Olisa (Stop and Search Team)

Others

• Ivor John (Hillingdon CPCG)
• Linda Chesters (Kingston CPEG)
• Sonoo Malkani (Harrow PCCG)
• Angela Mooh (Harrow PCCG)
• Daisy Cairns (Lewisham CPCG)

1. Apologies for absence

(Agenda Item 1)

1.1 Apologies for absence were received from Valerie Brasse (MPA Member).

2. Declarations of interest

(Agenda Item 2)

2.1 No declarations were received.

3. Minutes of the meeting held on 3 October 2011

(Agenda Item 3)

3.1 The minutes of the last meeting were agreed subject to the amendment to minutes 4.9 and 4.10 to read as follows:

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.

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. Community and Police Engagement Group Funding 2012-13

(Agenda Item 4)

4.1 Natasha Plummer introduced the report and advised members that these matters were being brought to the committee earlier than usual in recognition that there would not be a committee meeting in February 2012 and to facilitate timely initiation of the 2012/13 funding process.

4.2 The Chair welcomed the community members in attendance at the meeting and agreed to suspend standing orders to facilitate community participation in the meeting.

4.3 A member began by commenting that community engagement is going to be very important for the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime and that the ongoing budget reductions were a cause for concern. With this in mind, members expressed a concern about recommendation 3, which appeared to indicate that monies allocated to community and police engagement groups (CPEGs) might be reallocated to other non-CPEG activities under MOPC. It was suggested that if necessary further representations be made to the Business Management Group to ensure the funds are ringfenced for community engagement and if necessary carried forward into 2012/13 to continue to support the work.

4.4 The community members present at the meeting expressed the view that it would be helpful to CPEGs that the budget reduction was being applied as an equal percentage across all boroughs. One member of the community raised a concern about recent events in relation to Harrow CPEG. The Chair acknowledged those concerns and advised that the committee is fully committed to a good system of community engagement in all boroughs. He further advised that a standard template had been developed under the auspices of this committee and members expected it to be applied in Harrow as elsewhere. The chair added that if there are misgivings officers are quite right to review because we have a responsibility to do so.

4.5 Another community attendee raised concerns about how the budget reductions were to be implemented, since they appeared to be based on previous allocations which didn’t always appear to be logical. E.g. Merton’s allocation appeared to be higher than that for Hounslow. The chair acknowledged the concern and advised that to some extent the allocations had been based on historical factors in terms of Groups having decided in the past how much work they were able to conduct on behalf of the MPA and bidding accordingly. Members recognised the potential impact of the difficult financial climate and advised that real flair and creativity would be required for Groups to be able to continue to work effectively. For example, Brent group is now sharing its administrative service with Waltham Forest, which initially seemed odd, but the Chair advised that there is a kind of dispassion from the worker because he’s not from Brent and that he has brought clarity and experience to the Brent group, which is very valuable. The Chair advised that ideally all Groups should be self-financing or at least raising additional funds beyond that granted by the MPA.

4.6 Members of the community raised a point about the cost of local authority –based administrative support, which has been found to be more costly than other ways of securing support. However, other community members countered that provided an effective service level agreement is in place such relationships can be beneficial because of the many benefits-in-kind that are received as part of the service, such as free meeting rooms.

Resolved to:

1. approve the continuation of the current community and police engagement group objectives into 2012/13;
2. approve the community and police engagement group funding limits for 2012/13;
3. note the current underspend and approve the use of this fund to provide additional support to Groups as necessary in managing budget savings; and
4. defer consideration of the reallocation of the underspend until the New Year on the proviso that the funds are ringfenced to support community engagement activity and that additional funds are first offered to CPEGs before being allocated to any other alternative community engagement activity.

5. Independent Custody Visitor Scheme update

(Agenda Item 5)

5.1 James Tate introduced the report and advised that despite legislative charges, the role, aims and objectives of the ICV Scheme will not change although the custody landscape will be different. This is due to the implementation of the custody improvement programme and the consolidation of custody facilities, which means that some boroughs won’t have any dedicated provision and there will instead be a system of area hubs. The precise impact of this change isn’t yet clear because the locations don’t match the current geography, but it is likely that there will be some impact on scheme management processes, e.g. moving to a mixture of borough and areas-based panels, but the MPA has committed to finding places in other locations for those custody visitors who want to remain within the Scheme.

5.2 In relation to paragraph 17 of the report, which referred to the inspection of Hammersmith and Fulham custody facilities, James Tate reported that the local ICV panel have met with the local custody sergeant and Chief Inspector to see how recommendations are being delivered. This usually happens as a matter of course and Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary (HMIC) also usually include ICV panel chairs in their initial discussions with custody managers and also engage ICV panels in managing the recommendations. Members welcomed the involvement of ICVs in the post-inspection process, but asked whether the issues raised had already been identified by the ICV panel; otherwise this might indicate a failing in the ICV scheme. James Tate advised that there is congruence between what the ICVs had been reporting and the findings within the HMIC report, e.g. cleanliness and hygiene concerns. The primary aim of the panel is to ensure the detainee’s needs are properly met and to bring that reassurance to communities. However, in doing so and feeding that back to the borough through their reports, they can add value to the work of the MPS and this has now been recognised in Hammersmith and Fulham.

5.3 James Tate advised that in future, HMIC visits would be unannounced and that the HMIC is now approximately half-way though a 6-year inspection programme and due to resourcing levels it is unlikely that there will be any follow up inspections. There is a recognition that the ICV reports will now have to substitute for that process in some way. Members asked what happened to issues raised by ICVs and how that information is communicated beyond the local police. Members were advised that the formal process is through the CPEGs, which ensures the information goes into the public domain in an annual report. However, there is still a need to broaden the awareness and report ICV findings more widely. Members suggested that an annual press release might be one way to increase awareness.

5.4 A member asked about the diversity training given to ICVs and whether there were other training needs being identified. James Tate advised that four sessions had been delivered this year and there had been positive feedback. Members were further advised that many ICVS had identified the need for a programme of refresher training to ensure all ICVs remain cognizant of the level of commitment required to fulfill the role in terms of regular attendance, participation and reliability. A member asked if this was particularly related to the issue with the retention of student ICVs that had been identified in a previous report. James Tate advised that on the contrary it was more of a concern with some ICVs who had been in the Scheme for a long period of time. Although student ICVs only tended to serve for a year or so, while in the Scheme they were usually very committed and the regular turnover created by their short tenure was actually useful to have. A number of suggestions for how the ICV Scheme could be more widely promoted were discussed, including that perhaps the MPA could publish an annual deaths in custody report and that also the interaction between ICV panels and CPEGs should be strengthened, so for example, making it a requirement that ICV panel chairs attend the CPEG meetings and give regular updates on custody matters in their borough. This would make their work more visible to the public and bring greater recognition for the valuable work they do.

5.5 A member of the community asked whether the ICVs would be able to manage the extra demand that might arise during the Olympic and Paralympic Games. James Tate assured members the ICV panels are experienced in responding effectively to increased demand, for example during the annual Notting Hill Carnival, football matches and large religious events. In addition, the ICV panels had responded very quickly and effectively to the increased demand arising from the summer disturbances, so there were no concerns about this for the Olympic and Paralympic Games.

6. Stop and search

(Agenda Item 6)

6.1 Victor Olisa introduced the report and advised that there were some gaps in terms of the outcome data, which would require reviewing every individual case to extract the information. The number of complaints where the ethnicity wasn’t recorded was a concern, but this could be due to a number of reasons such as the different methods of recording the complaint, i.e. through the internet, the Independent Police complaints Commission or at a police station front counter. In the new financial year the MPS will start asking every complainant to complete a satisfaction survey and the information on ethnicity will enable us to close the gap in our data. In addition, for those complaints that are recorded electronically, the field for ethnicity will be mandatory, which in the longer term will also improve the information on the ethnicity of complainants. Members expressed a concern that the strategies to address the issue of properly recording the ethnicity of complainants seemed to be putting greater onus on the complainant themselves, which might be a further disincentive for people to complain in the first place.

6.2 Members expressed the view that the number of complaints didn’t reflect the level of people’s concerns about the use of those powers. Generally people don’t complain unless they are very concerned about something, so for only 6 or 7 complaints in 1000 to be genuine seems highly unlikely and this suggests a lack of confidence in the system. This is also reflected in the number of complaints that are withdrawn presumably because it becomes too much bother to pursue them any further. Members referred to paragraph 13, which speaks the proportional investigation of complaints. This relates to public- police encounters, but determining the proportional response is problematic because although the complaint might be between an individual member of the public and an officer, the wider issue is about the tension it can cause in the community at large. Members asked what would happen if a particular officer had several individual complaints against them, which individually were of little concern for example, but the volume might suggest a bigger issue. The MPS responded that there is a management intervention scheme, which is triggered when three matters of concern that may not amount to a complaint, are raised against an officer with 12 months. When this happens the officer is seen by one of his/her senior leadership team to find out the reason for the adverse reports and put in place a plan to resolve it.

6.3 A member sought clarification on paragraph 10 in terms of who decides which category of complaint is managed by whom. The MPS advised that the IPCC would decide to whom the complaint would be assigned for investigation dependant on the nature of the complaint and the resources need to conduct the investigation. From past experience, where complaints are investigated by the police service on behalf of the IPCC, the IPCC commissioners do intrusively manage those cases with weekly supervision meetings, for example. The MPS recognised the concern about the MPS’ Directorate of Professional Standards (DPS) investigating MPS complaints investigating, but they are very professional and impartial when carrying out their work.

6.4 A member asked whether it would be the case that most stop and search complaints would come back to the local command unit for investigation. The MPS advised that they would either go to the DPS centrally and then be allocated accordingly, or if a complaint was reported locally it might be informally resolved and wouldn’t then become a misconduct matter at all. Members expressed the view that process didn’t seem to recognise the lack of trust in the system, although another members clarified that local resolution had to be at the agreement of the complainant.

6.5 Members raised a point about the Commissioner’s expressed view that there was a need for a more targeted approach to stop and search. In addition, a number of recent reports have indicated stop and search is still a significant community concern. There is also an ongoing concern about how central officers who come onto boroughs exercise the powers as compared to local officers, which can create community tension. Members asked what is happening with regard to training officers in the use of the powers and if complaints are about incivility how are these dealt with.

6.6 The MPS recognised that there is a lot of ongoing stop and search confidence and reassurance work, which doesn’t necessarily produce the expected and desired increases in community confidence. There are many reasons for this and it is reflected in the relatively low number of complaints received, for example 16-24 year olds fear they may get more trouble if they complain, so perhaps more can be understood about stop and search encounters from feedback rather than actual complaints. With this in mind, the MPS is considering ways to develop effective feedback mechanisms through third party reporting through various organisations, such as Crime Stoppers. There are some potential risks attached to such an approach, but it would be better for community confidence. In relation to the Commissioner’s views about stop and search, the ACPO lead for Stop and Search has developed a draft framework to be discussed with the Commissioner. This includes everything from the community engagement work associated with stop and search, to training and the development of improved tactics. However, the officer reiterated that while there is still room for improvement, the MPS already operates at a much higher level than most other police services. New computer-based training is also being introduced in January that considers revised and updated legislation and powers. In relation to the query about the use of stop and search by central command units on boroughs, the MPS advised that units such as the Territorial Support Group (TSG) had developed a good deal of expertise in the use of the powers because unlike other officers they are applying them on a daily basis and they are also doing a lot of engagement work with young people, which helps to improve practice. In response to a query about the Olympics and the impact of officers from external forces operating in London with different approaches to stop and search, the MPS advised that all forces work to the GO WISELY standard, which is very clear and as is usual practice they would all be briefed on the local areas in which they would be deployed.

6.7 The Chair took the opportunity to thank Superintendent Victor Olisa and his team who have regularly attended this committee to report on stop and search matters. The Chair also thanked all his member colleagues whose work had contributed to the important principle of ensuring the MPS continue to police by consent. The other members of the committee supported this point and expressed equal thanks to the Chair for his leadership. The Chair finally thanked the MPA officers Natasha Plummer, Michael Taylor and James Tate for managing the committee and contributing to its agenda.

Send an e-mail linking to this page

Feedback