Minutes

Notes of the inquorate Community Engagement Committee held on Monday, 26 July 2004 at 10.00 a.m. at 10 Dean Farrar Street, London, SW1.

Present

Members

• Abdal Ullah (Chair)
• Aneeta Prem (Deputy Chair)
• John Roberts

MPA officers

• Chris Calnan (Community Engagement Unit)
• John May (Community Engagement Unit)
• Tim Rees (Head of Community Engagement Unit)
• David Riddle (Deputy Clerk)
• Elizabeth Turner (Treasury)
• Ruth Hastings Iqball (Committee Services)

MPS officers

• Richard Bryan (DAC, Planning and Performance)
• Jane Wilkin (Consultation Officer)

Also present

• Karim Murji (member) (item 9)
• Sandra Flower (Chair, London PCCG Chairs’ Forum)
• Fayth Rowe (Administrator, London PCCG Chairs’ Forum)

Part 1

1. Apologies for absence

(Agenda item 1)

Apologies for absence were received from Nicky Gavron, Kirsten Hearn and Jenny Jones (Members) and Chas Bailey (Superintendent, Consultation Manager). It was noted that the meeting was inquorate, but members agreed to continue the meeting, noting that no resolutions could be made.

2. Declarations of interest

(Agenda item 2)

No interests were declared.

3. Minutes of the Consultation Committee - 13 May 2004

(Agenda item 3)

The Committee considered the minutes of the meeting held on 17 May 2004.

Recommended - That the minutes of the meeting held on 17 May be confirmed and signed as a correct record.

4. Chair’s, Members’ and Clerk’s update (oral report)

(Agenda item 4)

No oral updates were received

5. Progress report on CPCG funding for 2004/05

(Agenda item 5)

A report was received summarising the progress on implementing funding arrangements for Community Police Consultative Groups (CPCGs) for 2004/05. It also described further development work in line with previous Committee decisions. Members were informed of the various forms of administrative support and overheads provided to CPCGs, and how removal of funding could affect the livelihood of directly funded administrators. A further report was requested on this subject.

Recommended - That

1. the progress being made on the implementation of funding arrangements for CPCGs for 2004/05 be noted;
2. the recommendations as set out in paragraphs 30 – 37 be agreed;
3. a further progress report be received at the next meeting; and
4. a report be received on the overheads and administrative expenses of each CPCG

6. Review of independent custody visiting

(Agenda item 6)

At its meeting on November 2003, the Consultation Committee adopted the recommendation to appoint a consultant to undertake a review of the operation of the Independent Custody Visiting (ICV) Scheme, the ways in which the service was delivered, and the means by which the community was informed of the outcome. A report was received outlining the terms of reference by which the consultant, Ian Smith, Executive Director of the Independent Custody Visiting Association, would carry out the review. The final report would be received in November, with an interim report in the summer.

Aneeta Prem indicated that she would be happy to be lead member for ICV matters when lead membership was considered.

Recommended – That a final report of this review be presented to the Community Engagement Committee in November 2004.

7. Progress report of MPA/MPS consultation on policing plan for 2005/06

(Agenda item 7)

Members received a report updating them on the process and initial findings from the consultation with Londoners around the priorities for the policing plan 2005/06.

Recommended – That the report be noted

8. Presentation from London CPCG Chairs’ forum

(Agenda item 8)

Members heard a presentation by Sandra Flower, Chair of the London Police Community Consultatitive Group (PCCG) Chairs’ Forum. She explained that members of the Forum met four times a year to discuss London-wide issues and was a channel by which Groups could share ideas, concerns and good practice on London policing matters. It was not a policy making body and does not act on behalf of all London CPCGs/PCCGs.

CPCGs have continued to invite guest speakers from the MPS and other agencies to public meetings to keep abreast of strategic and tactical developments to police and community issues. Topics covered included PCSOs and Safer Neighbourhoods, ASBOs, street drinking and 24 hour licensing and reports from borough commanders. Almost all Groups were concerned about anti-social behaviour, gun crime, 24 hour licensing, terrorism, serious crime, future funding for Safer Neighbourhoods based teams and lack of rehabilitation for drug users. Concern had been expressed by some Groups of the lack of involvement in Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnerships (CDRPs) and some groups have had trouble in arranging Service Level Agreements (SLA) difficulties with their local authority

As examples of best practice, Sandra Flower spoke of the outreach work to engage and reach ‘hard to hear groups’ and gave examples of new initiatives. For example, Camden Youth Forum had produced a ‘Stay Safe’ youth video to promote safety in the streets. Central Westminster had a CCTV Observers panel and was extending its success on the One Stop Police Shop in Soho. Lambeth established a mental health and policing sub-group and had continued work on recording Stop and Search data and Trident related work.

The Forum had five main areas of concern with the MPA. These were

• lack of involvement by some MPA link members;
• disproportionate funding levels and support for CPCGs, combined with a similar expectation by the MPA of each CPCG;
• in the latest funding round ‘banding’ and the ‘letter of understanding’ were introduced without consultation or notification;
• ever moving goal posts, for example during the funding process some Groups were told that a workplan and equal opportunities policy were optional, then told they were mandatory;
• Groups felt burdened by the MPA bureaucracy, particularly in financial administration and unrealistic response times;
• a general feeling that the MPA was far from consultative and believed ‘volunteer’ equals ‘amateur’.

Sandra Flower finished her presentation by stating that the London Chairs’ Forum had six recommendations:

• Strategic plans - the MPA should formally state its views on how Safer Neighbourhoods would work in conjunction with Groups and the MPA and what the long-term future held for Groups and how it would affect groups and staffing levels.
• joint conferences should be held every year or so with the MPA.
• link members should regularly attend their link Groups.
• the MPA should arrange developmental courses for Group staff and Honorary Officers.
• groups would continue to work with the MPA on the Good Practice Guide, with a view to publishing later this year.
• the MPA should sort out its finance systems, as they were inefficient and wasted time, and additional funding should be allocated in next year’s budget to resource the research needed to produce this report next years.

Members and expressed their commitment to addressing the issues raised. However, it was noted that there were only 23 members and 32 boroughs, so there would always be problems with members’ involvement in CPCGs. It was agreed the MPA officers would discuss the issues raised with the London Chair’s Forum outside the meeting.

Recommended - That the issues raised in the presentation be discussed outside the meeting.

9. The ‘Safer London Panel’ – MPA’s new citizen panel followed by a presentation from Office of Public Management (OPM)

(Agenda item 9)

Members received a report describing the construction of the new citizen panel (the Safer London Panel), and presenting the findings from the very first panel event, a workshop on policing priorities for 2005/06. Members were informed that the Panel would complement the CPCGs.

Members sought reassurance that Panel membership was representative of London’s population. It was agreed a breakdown of Panel membership be given to members outside the meeting. Members requested they be invited to the next Panel meeting. A member was concerned that Panel members were reaching a consensus informed by nostalgia, not direct experience of the issues involved, and felt consultation should be more precise.

Recommended – That

1. the Office of Public Management report on the findings of the first Safer London Panel workshop be forwarded to the Planning Performance and Review Committee for inclusion in the process of setting policing priorities for 2005/06; and
2. the priorities expressed by a representative group of Londoners in respect of policing in the capital, namely police visibility, preventative approaches to crime, communication and information, working with other agencies, and strengthening relationships with the community, be noted.

10. Involving the public: the role of police authorities

(Agenda item 10)

Members received a report reviewing the main findings and recommendations of the Home Office Report ‘Involving the Public: the Role of Police Authorities’. These would be incorporated into the Community Engagement Strategy to be submitted to the Committee in December 2004

Recommended – That

1. officers undertake a review of the MPA's publicity strategy and report back on how it might better enhance the MPA’s profile with Londoners;
2. strengthen the links with appropriate staff in other police authorities through the Association of Police Authorities and the Home Office led Citizen Focused Policing Practitioner Panel;
3. draw up community engagement good practice guidelines, drawing on the experience of the MPA and the other police authorities that were part of the Home Office research; and
4. incorporate the findings of this research into the development of the Community Engagement Strategy to be submitted to the Committee in December 2004.

11. Terms of reference and objectives of Community Engagement Committee for 2004-05

(Agenda item 11)

This reports proposed key strategic and policy objectives for the Community Engagement Committee for 2004-06 and invited members to confirm its terms of reference and to discuss how they want to operationalise its priority areas. The Chair expressed a desire to bring London community groups to the MPA for consultation events.

Recommended – That

1. the proposed strategic priorities for the Community Engagement Committee for 2004/05 members be agreed;
2. that further progress on the priority areas be brought to the committee on 14 October 2004; and
3. officers consider holding consultation events with Londoners

12. MPS consultation training

(Agenda item 12)

The MPS had piloted a consultation training course. Members received a report describing the content of the course and containing the proposed roll out, course material and reference manual. Members felt the course, at £200 per head, was expensive, but were informed that this was reasonable for such a quality product. The members requested a copy of the course evaluation.

Recommended – That

1. the plan of action outlined in the report be endorsed; and
2. members received a copy of the course evaluation.

The meeting finished at 11.45pm.

Send an e-mail linking to this page

Feedback