Minutes

27 March 2001

Minutes of the meeting of the Consultation, Diversity and Outreach Committee held at the Assembly Hall, Lambeth Town Hall, Brixton SW2.

Present

Members

• Angela Slaven (Chair)
• Cindy Butts (Deputy Chair)
• Nicholas Long
• Abdal Ullah

Also present: Rachel Whittaker (Chair, Human Resources Committee)

MPA staff:

• Catherine Crawford (Clerk)

MPS staff:

• Brian Paddick (Borough Commander, Lambeth)

In addition, approximately fifty members of the press/public and other MPA/MPS staff were present.

Part 1

81. Apologies

(Agenda item 1)

Apologies for absence were received from Jennette Arnold, Jenny Jones, Cecile Lothian, R David Muir and Assistant Commissioner Mike Todd.

In the absence of the Chair it was agreed that Angela Slaven would Chair the meeting.

82. Minutes: 27 February 2001

(Agenda item 2)

Resolved:
that the minutes of the meeting held on 27 February 2001 be agreed and signed as a correct record.

Arising from the minutes Nicholas Long confirmed that the application for a revised Resource Allocation Formula was unlikely to come into operation on 1 April 2001 and any revision is not likely to come in to operation until 1 April 2002, and that this will be subject to consultation, which will include borough commanders, chief executives and MPs. It was not clear if this consultation would include PCCGs.

83. Questions from the public

(Agenda item 3)

The comments, questions and replies are contained in Appendix 1 of the minutes.

Resolved:

1. questions be received from the public for thirty minutes;
2. officers investigate possible alternative arrangements for the way in which public questions are taken and the format of future CDO Committee meetings.

84. Chair and members' update

(Agenda item 4)

The Chair reported on several current issues relating to the work of the Committee. These included:

Virdi inquiry
information was still being gathered and considered by the inquiry team and their findings were still on target to be published by the agreed date.

Police Stop Conference
the MPA had hosted a successful conference on stop and search.

Pan London Youth
the Chair reported on the pilot schemes in 5/6 London boroughs looking at youth crime and in particular street robbery.

The Crime and Disorder Conference
the Chair and other Members of the Authority attended this conference organised by Office of Public Management.

GLA Consultation on Domestic Violence
the Chair encouraged Members and members of the public to respond to the current GLA consultation on domestic violence.

Cindy Butts reported that she had attended a briefing session on trident summit, attended the funeral of a local Lambeth community leader and attended community race relation training.

Nicholas Long reported on the Mayor's proposal for civilian wardens and possibility of Lambeth being used as a 'pilot' for this scheme and that he had attended several police stations and was concerned with the conditions of facilities at these and other police stations.

Abdal Ullah reported that he had accompanied a police patrol during St Patrick's Day and had been attended a meeting in Tower Hamlets to discuss the effects of crimes committed by gangs in the area.

Following this item Members voted and agreed to suspend standing orders in order to take questions from the public on each of the items on the agenda.

In response to a question relating to concern about civilian wardens and the possibility of this scheme being piloted in Lambeth Nicholas Long advised the Lambeth PCCG to respond to the GLA consultation report expressing those concerns, particularly the point that Lambeth would welcome a more visible police patrol in Lambeth. Brian Paddick, Borough Commander for Lambeth added that following the recent approval of the MPA budget, it was anticipated that Lambeth would be allocated more police officers and that these would hopefully be deployed on the streets.

Following a question relating to the formula for funding PCCG and Lay Visiting Panels, Nicholas Long briefly outlined the allocation process. Cindy Butts responded to the question relating to who evaluates the MPA, by confirming that the Authority would, in part, be evaluated by HMIC.

Angela Slaven agreed that in relation to youth crime and street crime, there needed to be a closer working relationship between the MPA and local authorities and that this was an area that required development.

Members acknowledged the concern expressed by members of the public relating to the current poor facilities at police stations and the effects on the morale of staff.

Resolved:
that the report be received.

85. Police stops – feedback from conference

(Agenda item 5)

The Committee welcomed and received feedback from the recent MPA Police Stops Conference from Fionnuala Gill, Policy Officer from the Association of Police Authorities (APA).

It was noted that the conference had been both well attended and received. Fionnuala Gill informed the meeting that consultation period had been extended until late May and encouraged members of the public to comment. In response to a question from the public, it was confirmed that the APA would receive and formulate all the responses to the consultation, before submitting the results to the Lawrence Steering Group.

Resolved:
that the report be received.

86. MPA equal opportunities statement

(Agenda item 6)

The Committee received a report that proposed the next steps towards codifying the MPA's equal opportunities policy to underpin its equal opportunities statement.

It was acknowledged that the Human Resources Committee should have an input into the oversight of the preparation of a policy, and Members stressed the importance of widening the input to give such a policy further prominence.

Resolved:

1. Members commission further work to produce a comprehensive equal opportunities policy for the Authority;
2. a report be presented to a future meeting of the Co-ordination and Urgency Committee to determine the nominations to take an oversight of the preparation of the policy.

87. Race hate crimes

(Agenda item 7)

The Committee were presented with a report on the recent seminar attended by Peter Herbert, Deputy Chair of the Authority on Race Hate Crimes. Peter Herbert was unable to attend the meeting and Members recommended that the report be deferred to the next meeting of the Committee.

Resolved:
that the report be deferred to the April meeting of the Committee.

88. MPS diversity strategy update

(Agenda item 8)

The Committee received a report that brought Members up to date on the MPS Diversity Strategy update. It was noted that the strategy would be launched at a conference on 24 April 2001.

Resolved:
that the report be noted.

89. Funding of consultation groups and lay visiting panels

(Agenda item 9)

The Chair informed the meeting that as this report had not been circulated within the statutory three days before the meeting it had been withdrawn from the agenda.

In response to questions from the public on the funding of panels, the contribution made by those panel members and the role of the MPA, it was confirmed that the MPA would be fully consulting members of the panels on funding issues. Members acknowledged the contribution of work undertaken by members of the panels and confirmed that the MPA would continue to work with panels, understanding the diversity of each panel area.

90. Action plan for CDO

(Agenda item 10)

The Chair informed the meeting that as this report had not been circulated within the statutory three days before the meeting it had been withdrawn from the agenda.

91. Custody visiting

(Agenda item 11)

The Chair informed the meeting that as this report had not been circulated within the statutory three days before the meeting it had been withdrawn from the agenda.

92. Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000

(Agenda item 12)

The Committee considered a report that informed Members of the implications of the Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000 and the consultation process proposed by the Home Office.

In considering this report Members stressed the need for this Act to be taken account of by the MPA when considering its equal opportunities policy.

Resolved:

1. Members note the timescales proposed in paragraphs 3 and 7 of this report;
2. Members approve the recommendations to set up a working group to give comment on the draft responses to the APA, to be submitted by 4 May 2001; and
3. the Committee note the discussions that are underway with CRE and that a further meeting be arranged with CRE officers and MPA Members and officers to progress this and other key equality matters relating to policing in London.

The meeting closed at 8.30pm.

Appendix 1: Questions from the public

(Agenda item 3)

The Chair, in accordance with Standing Order 33, invited questions from members of the public. It was noted that an allocation of thirty minutes would be made for this item. The following is a summary of the questions and comments put to the Committee:

(a) I'm disappointed that no information regarding the financial future of Police Consultative Community Groups (PCCGs) has been circulated and that the agenda was received late and with several items missing.

The Clerk confirmed that individual funding details of PCCGs and Lay Visiting Panels would be circulated to all chairs as soon as possible and that next year this matter would be better structured. It was also confirmed that those items not circulated with the agenda had been withdrawn. The late circulation of the agenda had been due to MPA staff working at short notice on the police stops conference. It was acknowledged that this was an explanation and not an excuse and the Clerk apologised for the lateness of circulation of papers.

(b) Do you agree that PCCGs should remain independent?

(c) How can Londoners trust the MPA to be independent from the MPS?

(d) A request was made that the concerns about the uncertainty in relation to funding of Panels and the stress that this causes, together with the amount of financial savings they make through voluntary work, be noted. A request was also made that the importance of consultation, particularly in and area like Lambeth, also be to noted.

The work and commitment of those involved in the work of the PCCG and Lay Visiting Panels was acknowledged and valued. The purpose of the consultation process on the future of these panels had been undertaken in order to find out how different groups operated and obtain and disseminate best practice. It was noted that the MPA had inherited many elements of this process prior its inception and the review was being undertaken as part of a best value review to which the MPA had a statutory obligation to undertake. The MPA are striving to make panels accountable and want to work with them to achieve this.

With regard to the issue of PCCGs remaining independent, at a recent meeting with PCCGs chairs and administrators it was indicated that many panels do not have the right tools or knowledge to promote their work or for encouraging people contribute. Additional support and help from the MPA were requested. With regard to funding issues, the Challenge Fund was welcomed by those chairs and administrators. The MPA acknowledged the independence of panels, but also wanted to assist PCCGs and Lay Visiting Panels in order to make them more accountable whilst providing the support they need.

Confirmation was given that while the MPA work closely with the MPS, it would strive to provide London with an efficient and effective police service, which may on occasions bring it into conflict with the MPS.

At the request of the Committee, Sultan Taylor (MPA) informed the meeting that administrators of PCCGs had been assured that of their salaries for the next twelve months. The MPA are currently looking at the recommendations of the best value review of consultation and that the future of PCCGs after the next twelve months had not been decided as yet. It was reiterated that the MPA regarded all PCCGs as a valuable asset in the process of community consultation and that using 'beacon' PCCGs, such as Lambeth was a way forward.

(e) What is the future of lay visiting?

(f) What lessons have been learnt about consulting key stakeholders?

(g) What is the nature of the consultation process taking place now and will it include/take notice of suggestions from PCCGs and will is discuss wider issue other than support?

(h) How will the independent evaluation be carried out?

Lay visiting is separate from PCCGs, in that the Home Office lays down guidelines on how they operate. How these panels develop is very much open for discussion and comments and input are welcomed. Brian Paddick, Borough Commander of Lambeth added that while the funding of PCCGs and Lay Visiting Panels was a matter for the MPA, the police welcomed the independence of panels and saw panels as vital in the continuation of good community relations.

Arising from the initial consultation process it was clear that PCCGs work differently, and that the MPA would like to pilot some of the 'beacon groups', such as Lambeth, as best practice and that the issue of pilots was currently being considered by consultants.

The next round of the consultation process is about to commence. It will be looking to pilot ways of providing professional support, extra resources and sharing good practice. It is acknowledged that not each area/borough needs to operate in the same was and via mutual discussion individual needs will be considered. The MPA has to ensure that funds for consultation are being spent correctly.

There is a need for a strong independent evaluation of consultative groups amongst other issues, there is a need to ensure that good value can be demonstrated. Consultants are currently discussing the issue of piloting with interested groups and they will also consider the evaluation process of the pilot scheme. Any interest in contributing to this scheme would be welcomed.

Send an e-mail linking to this page

Feedback