Response to the ICV scheme review from Chairs and Administrators of London ICV panels

Report: 6
Date: 3 February 2005
By: Clerk

Summary

This report with appendices presents the initial response and concerns by the Chairs and Administrators of London ICV Panels to the final report of the Review of the Independent Custody Visiting Scheme. The second appended report outlines other issues of concern raised by ICV Panels as part of a regular reporting to the Committee of emerging issues.

A. Recommendation

That the Committee receive and welcome these reports as a means of strengthening the ongoing dialogue and partnership with the Custody Visitors.

B. Supporting information

1. The final report of the Review of the MPA’s Independent Custody Visiting Scheme undertaken by Ian Smith was distributed to all ICVP Chairs and Administrators for their review and comments in mid-December, 2004.

2. Appendix 1 was prepared following discussions on an initial draft with Chairs and Administrators of all London ICV Panels, together with written comments and a discussion with MPA officers on 11 January 2005. The major issues identified by the Chairs pertain to the viability of the proposed centralised administrative structure and its impact on the existing borough based system, realistic resource allocation to the proposed structure, and the absence of any impact analysis of the proposed changes.

3. Appendix 2 will be accompanied by a presented by Mick Farrant, interim Chair of the Chairs of Independent Custody Visitors’ Panels is part of a regular report to the Committee of issues identified by the ICVPs requiring the attention of the MPA. Items raised in this report include issues of governance, immigration detainees, and recruitment and retention of custody visitors.

C. Equality and diversity implications

Some of the concerns raised by the ICVP Chairs regarding the recommendations of the Review relate to whether they can adequately respond to the complexities and diversity of London’s population. The ICV Chairs are also particularly concerned with ensuring that the human rights of immigration detainees while in police custody are fully protected.

D. Financial implications

Any limited additional costs will be contained within existing budgets and estimates

E. Background papers

• Response to ICV Review - Report from Chairs and Administrators of London ICV Panels
• Report from Chairs of Independent Custody Visitors’ Panels 3 February 2005

F. Contact details

Report author: Tim Rees, Community Engagement

For more information contact:

MPA general: 020 7202 0202
Media enquiries: 020 7202 0217/18

Appendix 1: Report from Chairs of ICV Panels

3 February 2005

Introduction

Elsewhere on the agenda, the chairs have provided detailed comments on the review report. This brief report outlines other issues of concern raised by panels since the October meeting.

Governance

We feel that it is important that there is greater clarity of the relationship between the chairs’ group and MPA members and officers and the new custody directorate. This should be incorporated within the review. It is the intention of the chairs to provide regular written reports to members for discussion at meetings. It was thus unfortunate that, although a written report was produced for the October meeting, this was not circulated to members. We were informed that a copy of the report was tabled on the day of the meeting but the October minutes do not record this. We have now been given assurances that our reports will be circulated in the future and would also like to see them included on the MPA website.

Independent Custody Visitors’ Association Annual Conference

Panel members are grateful for the Authority’s financial support to allow some of us to attend the conference in Newcastle in November. One of our members gave one of the four presentations. This was on immigration detainees and the future role of ICVs. It highlighted the importance of the police authority in bringing about changes (hopefully!) at the macro level. Details are available on the ICVA website. Such events are important for London ICVs as they enable them to gain a broader perspective.

London ICV Conference – 12 February 2005

We have been involved in the planning of what will be a very important event in the re-launch of custody visiting in London. We believe that this presents a golden opportunity to draw a line over the past. The establishment of the Custody Directorate and the enthusiasm of its senior staff augurs well for improvements to the conditions in custody suites for both detainees and the police and civilian staff who work there. We look forward to playing our part in these developments. We hope that members will attend.

Immigration Detainees

We welcome the various pieces of correspondence between the MPA members and the immigration minister Des Browne and the Home Office. This followed the issues of numbers and periods of time spent by such detainees in MPS police custody being raised by ICVs at the May meeting of the committee and the fuller discussion at the MPA July meeting. We hope that the Home Office will supply the authority with information on the numbers of such detainees in custody and length of time in cells since September 2004 so that they can monitor the promised reductions. So far as we are aware, there has been no follow up on the offer of training and guidance from the Independent Monitoring Board offered by the Minister. There continues to be an issue about the role of ICVs in relation to Immigration and Nationality Directorate officers at the local level. So far as we know they have not been given any guidance on our new statutory role or indeed, in some cases, are unaware of whom we are. It might have been helpful if members and officers had sought a briefing from ICVs prior to the meeting with the minister, or perhaps even had an ICV present. We would welcome members’ advice on how a range of system issues, for example problems with transportation, delays in making decisions on detainees, and problems in detainees retrieving possessions, papers and money before removal from the UK can be raised.

One panel has written to their local IND office on such matters but we suggest that this should be done at a more senior level. If members would find it helpful we could collect information and data on IND issues we discover and this could act as the basis for discussions at the senior level.

Recruitment and Retention

As reported elsewhere, we continue to be concerned about the shortfall of ICVs in many panels; the review report suggests that there is around 30% shortage with 85% of the panels providing information indicating that this is a problem. Whilst the review will address this problem it may prove necessary to organise an urgent recruitment drive in some areas. Should this be the case we hope that a relatively small amount of additional funding can be made available.

Appendix 2: Response to Review Report from Chairs and Administrators of London ICV Panels

1. Introduction

This response was prepared following discussions on an initial draft with chairs and administrators of all London ICV panels, together with written comments and a discussion with MPA officers on 11 January. Chairs and administrators had earlier received a copy of the review report from the MPA.

To avoid repetition the term ICVs is used to cover the participants in the above; a further opportunity will be given to other ICVs to comment at the conference on 12 February.

ICVs fully acknowledge the need for a review of custody visiting in London and welcome the report as a contribution to the process of bringing about much needed changes. The programme of work outlined in it is considerable, but essential, if the Authority is to meet its obligations under the 2002 Police Reform Act.

We believe that the way ahead is to develop a service based on a tripartite partnership between custody visitors, the MPA and the new Custody Directorate. To this end we recommend that a small steering group representing all three parties be set up to discuss the action plan (page 87) and timetable and to oversee its implementation. In addition we believe that that it will be necessary to set up a number of small working groups to address specific topics. Unless ICVs are involved in this work it will not be owned by them and many may leave.

ICVs have considerable expertise and experience to offer; much of which has been ignored by the MPA over the past four years. We feel that the report fails to fully acknowledge the considerable contributions made by ICVs and in particular chairs, vice chairs and administrators, in keeping the scheme functioning. MPA members and officers need to realise that ICVs are all volunteers. We calculate that the average ICV, if the recommendations of the report are to be implemented, would need to commit some 75 hours in 30 sessions over a year. Chairs and vice chairs would need to contribute considerably more. It is the view of some ICVs that consideration needs to be given at a future date on how chairs and vice chairs might be compensated for their work.

2. Major concerns

Our major concerns about the proposals at this stage are threefold:

• The viability of the proposed centralised administrative structure and its impact on the London essentially borough based system,
• Resource allocation to the proposed administrative structure,
• The absence of any impact analysis of the proposed changes.

There are a number of factual inaccuracies in the report, for example the numbers of custody suites visited by each panel and the statement that only three panels submitted annual reports. However, these are matters of detail and are no doubt based on information supplied to the consultant.

3. The viability of the proposed centralised administrative structure and its impact on the essential borough based system.

The report fails to fully appreciate the importance of locality based policing. In London, there are some 63 custody suites with policing based in 31 boroughs. Administrators and chairs rely heavily on local knowledge and networks to bring about change; for example contacts with social services where problems occur in relation to appropriate adults. The report lacks clarity about how this will happen in the future and how the proposed coordinators will acquire this knowledge when they have between seven and nine panels each to “coordinate”. The information (p.72) on the role of coordinators suggests that borough issues will be dealt with at a centralised point which is seen as both time consuming and bureaucratic. Further work needs to be done on this role description, particularly in relation to that envisaged for chairs. It is noted that at a time when the MPS is working to a decentralised policing approach with its borough based citizens panels the report is moving in the opposite direction.

The report makes no mention of the role of Community and Police Consultative Groups and the part they play in being the community recipients of reports from ICVs on custody conditions at the local level where the impact is most felt. Such reports to the community, it is noted, have been a central function of the ICV process from its inception in 1983. Whilst we are accountable to the MPA, the local community is a major stakeholder for individual panels.

The report does not discuss issues of governance. We feel that there needs to be greater clarity of the future relationship of ICV panels with members, officers and the custody directorate. This includes the responsibilities of each for the effective performance of the service.

We appreciate that there is a need to standardise a wide range of processes, for example training, probation, recruitment and retention, accreditation. We have no quarrel with this so long as we are involved in developments. However, we have serious concerns that the proposed reforms will undermine the essential borough based system which has done much to contribute to the ongoing success of custody visiting. There must be a balance between the push for standardisation, the differences in conditions in different boroughs, and a viable administrative approach. We do not believe the present proposals do this adequately.

It might be useful if a small number of chairs visited ICV schemes in one or two large metropolitan areas, say Birmingham and Manchester; particularly if the model proposed in the report is in operation there.

4. Resource allocation to the proposed administrative structure

A primary concern is that the resource allocations in the report do not add up and the proposed efficiencies of scale are not practical. Examples are as follows:

• Assuming a coordinator had eight panels and each met 9 times per year this would require 72 meetings per year. All of these would be in an evening. We note that the report finds the median time currently spent on panel administration (page 42) is one day per week, yet the proposals are for one coordinator for nine panels in the North East and eight in the south east (page 71). This suggests an impossible work-load. Condensing the current 25 or so administrative posts into five does not seem to us viable in its present form. This is further substantiated by information on page 19.
• We note that it is proposed that MPA members (p.77) are to be involved in panel interviews. We calculate that some 260 potential individual interviews are needed each year to produce 130 new members (33% turnover of ICVs per year is estimated). This would mean 20 interviews per month probably requiring two or 3 evenings’ work per month.
• Implicit in the model is that ICVs would visit custody suites in more than one borough. Whilst visiting in an adjacent borough is a possibility and indeed has attractions, travel problems across London make this impracticable on a wide scale. Many ICVs have a strong commitment to their local area.
• We note that the report asserts (page 4, para. 1.9) that the current budget is sufficient to run an effective and efficient scheme. It is not clear whether the proposed additional £75,000 is a one off or recurrent increase. We feel that a more detailed costing audit needs to be undertaken to examine this assertion.

5. The absence of an impact analysis of the proposed changes

The report does not, we note, suggest an alternative to direct MPA administration. There could be value in considering contracting out the administration or exploring a more effective borough based approach with, for example, smaller groupings of panels. Concern was expressed by the administrators and chairs that decisions had already been taken by the MPA before consultation; for example that the new administrators would begin replacing existing administrators by September.

Changes to the present system need sensitive and thoughtful handling. If mishandled, this could easily lose the service long standing volunteers. The fact that many administrators now feel that they will be out of a job from September may mean that many leave for new jobs as soon as they are able. It needs to be appreciated that it is the administrators who keep the panels going particularly in terms of continuity as chairs change from year to year. Without them the system will collapse. A primary concern is that unless new staff administrators are in place, and a detailed change plan with transitional arrangements is developed, some of the panels will cease to function. If the administrative support is withdrawn from panels then it is likely that ICVs will also leave, particularly chairs as they will not be prepared to take on additional work. The report notes that there is a shortfall in ICV numbers of around 30% (page 30) and some 85% of panels for which data is available reported a shortfall. There is thus not an over supply of ICVs at the present moment.

Some of the current administrative arrangements involve CPCGs and the withdrawal of ICV funding is likely to put their future viability at risk. In some cases there may be claims for redundancy payments.

It is possible that some administrators might wish to apply for future posts on, perhaps, a job share basis. This would ease the transition process. The report does not indicate what the involvement of ICVs will be in drawing up future job descriptions and person specifications for coordinators and/or their selection. We suggest that it is important that they are involved.

Any administrative changes will need to be phased in and a possible approach might be some form of “pilot project” so that problems can be identified.

We believe the proposed timetable (page 87) is unrealistic and there has already been slippage. This will need considerable revision and must be underpinned by a change plan. The plan also needs to differentiate between “urgent” and “important”.

6. Moving forward

We fully acknowledge that changes need to be made to the current scheme and value the importance of using the MPA’s influence to bring about changes at the macro level, for example issues related to immigration detainees and the Home Office. We are optimistic that the changes since earlier in 2004 (for example, a much improved administration, a willingness to enter into dialogue, ICV reports to members) together with the formation of the custody directorate, augur well for the future. The proposed re-launch of custody visiting at the February conference will be central to future developments. If, as the report suggests, London custody visiting is again to be a UK leader, the MPA must consult with its ICVs, provide adequate resources, and ensure a carefully devised and adequately monitored change process.

The report lists a large number of areas (for example, recruitment and retention, publicity, training, reporting, guidelines, individual and panel performance assessment etc.) where development work is needed. Many of these are relatively straightforward (indeed ICVs have been pressing for improvements for a long time). On the basis of a quick audit these could be identified together with good existing practice and work This will not only require resources but the involvement of ICVs if they are to own the much needed and sought after developments. Work could then start relatively quickly. This could result in some early wins.

Finally, we think that it is important that we draw a line over the past four years and work constructively together to meet the real challenges of conditions in custody suites.

7. Summary

• Further consideration needs to be given to the future administrative structure particularly in relation to the roles of coordinators, chairs and the importance of a continuing borough basis.
• The proposed resourcing proposals need to be revisited; they are not adequate.
• An impact analysis of the proposals, or alternatives, needs to be made and a proper change plan and feasible timetable need to be drawn up.
• Formation of a tripartite steering group and working groups to oversee developments.
• Consideration of governance issues.

Send an e-mail linking to this page

Feedback