2nd London Independent Custody Visitors conference

The Metropolitan Police Authority (MPA) held a conference for all London Independent Custody Visitors (ICVs) on 4 March 2006. The main theme of the conference was ‘the health of detainees in police custody’. There were speakers from different health perspectives; FME, nurse, drugs referral worker, mental health workers as well as the Head of Custody Directorate. There were also representatives from the IPCC (Independent Police Complaints Commission), ICVA (Independent Custody Visiting Association), MPS Custody Directorate and MPA members amongst others.

Post conference report - Answers to the questions that were not taken on the day

Key:

• CD: Custody Directorate
• KM: Kerry McLelland, MPA Independent Custody Visiting Scheme Manager
• JG: Julia Green, Senior Practitioner of the Drug Intervention Programme’s Arrest Referral Scheme
• MK: Dr Michael Knight, Force Medical Examiners and Occupational Health Adviser, Suffolk
• MS: Mr Mark Sergeant, Criminal Justice Mental Health Liaison Team Manager, Mersey Care NHS Trust
• BF:Bruce Frenchum, Inspector, Metropolitan Police Service Mental Health Project Team
• JM: John May, Conference Planning Committee Chair

Session 1: Custody Directorate presentation

CD: general comment on the additional questions:

“We are happy to try and answer the questions for Independent Custody Visitors (ICVs). However some of the questions appear to cover local issues, which are best resolved locally. The Custody Directorate would encourage effective working relationships between ICVs and custody staff / officers responsible for the station. Dialogue and responsiveness at these levels is the foundation of the whole system. The Custody Directorate thanks you for all your hard work and dedication and looks forward to working with you in future.”

1. Who is responsible for the well being of custody staff, given the huge task and decisions they have to take, and what are they doing about it?

CD: Borough Commanders have responsibility for custody staff on their Borough. The role of Custody Manager was created in December 2004 to support custody staff. All Boroughs have a Custody Manager, albeit it is not their sole responsibility. As staffing structures are different at each Borough your local police contact will be able to answer this question in more detail.

2. If drugs and alcohol users are regarded as very vulnerable and dangerous why are they kept in custody? Should they not be on 15 minute or ½ hour watch?

CD: Each detainee is subject to an individual risk assessment and risk management plan, as defined by [PACE] Code C 3.6 to 3.10. All the factors mentioned above would be taken into consideration when the Custody Officer completes this process.

JG: It is often the case that a drug user is on a 15 minute or half an hourly watch for their own safety and there has been the odd occasion that as a duty Drug Worker I have advised the custody staff that a person is vulnerable due to drug issues and that person has been put on a watch as a precaution.

3. What is being done to improve the cleanliness of custody suites? This is a recurring issue for ICVs.

CD: Cleaning in custody suites has been identified as a strategic priority in the MPS Property Services (PS) Department. Discussions between the Custody Directorate, Custody Managers and PS Supplier Management are identifying new working practices, different equipment and materials, which are on trial in various police stations around London. Early results are promising but will take time to implement across the MPS estate.

4. Ditto the provision of good shower facilities.

CD: Where the current custody facilities allow, there are shower facilities for detainees. However, good shower facilities will be provided in the Borough Based Custody Centres. These shower facilities will also meet our statutory requirements under DDA (Disability Discrimination Act) legislation.

5. With dedicated custodial centres surely the role of ICVs will become much broader as we will have to monitor the broad welfare of detainees?

CD: The Custody Directorate cannot interfere with the role of ICVs, this would clearly compromise your independence. The role would remain as legislated under paragraph 51 of the Police Reform Act 2002, unless this legislation changes.

6. How can [ICVs] participate in the setting up of the centres?

CD: ICV Programme Board members [which include 4 ICV representatives] are updated regarding the progress of Borough Based Custody Centres. They will be able to provide you with information and actions regarding the Borough Based Custody Centres.

7. Will these dedicated custody centres be privately run or run by the police?

CD: The police will run the Borough Based Custody Centres.

8. What will their manpower structure look like?

CD: We are at the very early stages of this project. It is not possible to answer this question at this stage. Again each site will come under the responsibility of the Borough Commander so this will be a decision, in consultation with the Custody Directorate, for the Borough Commander to make. Economies of scale will be achieved in resourcing these larger facilities by having one Borough Based Custody Centre as opposed to two or three smaller custody suites per Borough.

9. Is there sufficient funding for the new centres without having to reduce expenditure on recruiting?

CD: All funding needs to be agreed centrally and this decision is made after balancing all the other requirements on the MPS. We are currently in the process of negotiating funding for the initial Borough Based Custody Centre sites. Funding has been approved by [MPS] Investment Board for the first five builds to date.

10. What is the maximum number of detainees which can be held at a borough-based custody centre?

CD: Again we are at the very early planning stages for Borough Based Custody Centres. At present the intention is to build sites that accommodate on average 30 cells. Wood Green, however, has been identified as requiring 40 cells in total to meet the Borough’s needs.

11. Where will immigration detainees go when the new centres are in place?

CD: The Custody Directorate is currently working with the Immigration Service on a Memorandum of Understanding in relation to immigration detainees held in MPS custody suites. We are looking to reduce this as much as possible. This will be the same position for the Borough Based Custody Centres.

12. Will the new centres have separate areas for juveniles? (After charge instead of secure accommodation)

CD: No - the provision for accommodating juveniles after charge is legislated for under Section 38 PACE. Juveniles should be accommodated in Local Authority care after charge, whether in secure accommodation or otherwise. This does not happen in a lot of instances, as the Local Authority cannot provide this care. The MPS cannot build facilities that go against this legislation; we need to encourage Local Authorities to provide the necessary accommodation.

13. Bearing in mind that juveniles and mentally vulnerable people are detained the longest at police stations, is there any plan or consideration being given to setting up Appropriate Adult voluntary schemes service wide?

CD: As with the Independent Custody Visiting process, Appropriate Adult Schemes are required by law to be independent of the police. The police cannot be responsible for the provision and management of Appropriate Adult Schemes. Currently this provision is decided at a local level by the Local Authority and the Youth Offender Teams (YOTs), resulting in variations on each London Borough. However, all schemes should comply with minimum standards set by the National Appropriate Adult Network (NAAN). The Home Office is currently conducting a comprehensive review of the provision for Appropriate Adult Schemes. The Custody Directorate has ensured that all Borough Commanders were able to express their concerns and influence this review. Although it will be a period of time before the Home Office review recommendations are made and implemented.

14. What are you doing about unacceptable delays in the attendance at custody suites of FMEs, Appropriate Adults and Interpreters?
Custody Directorate Unacceptable delays by FMEs that are reported to the MPS Linguistic and Forensic Medical Services (LFMS) are investigated and action appropriate to the cause of the delay is taken. LFMS are keen to improve the service provided by FMEs, including response times, and changes are being made to the number of police stations covered by some FME Groups aimed at creating more equitable workloads which should have the desired effect. In addition a detailed analysis of FME working patterns over the past 5 years has been commissioned which could lead to significant changes to the FME Group structures.

LFMS is working hard to chart the optimum numbers of interpreters in the languages required by MPS officers, so that there will be fewer delays in identifying interpreters and then waiting for them to travel to the police station. We are doing this through a targeted recruitment campaign, which takes into account the relative availability and retirement plans of existing MPS ‘official’ interpreters (i.e. those vetted and assessed to MPS standards) and the needs of Boroughs and HQ branches, as evidenced by the proportion of work in each language, which is covered by non-MPS (‘unofficial’) interpreters.

In addition to this, we are exploring other ways of improving communication with non-English speakers, prior to the arrival at the police station of an interpreter, such as wider use of telephone interpreting in appropriate circumstances, which would free-up interpreters for face-to-face work.

15. What are you doing about detainees with English as a second language who need to communicate with custody staff about health matters?

CD: A detainee can communicate anything to the custody staff through the interpreter, as the interpreter is bound by a professional and ethical duty of confidentiality. If an interpreter is not present in the police station at the time the detainee wishes to communicate, this can be achieved through telephone interpreting, as above.

16. Are Panel Chairs informed of detainees being taken to hospital?

CD: Detainees taken to hospital are not covered in either the ICV Codes of Practice or ICV National Standards. However this is covered in the ICV Protocols for Special Situations, which has been developed by ICV Programme Board Members. In essence, at the beginning of a visit the custody officer should inform the ICVs if any of the detainees currently held in police detention have been taken to hospital and give a brief explanation of the reason.

17. What will be done with the Official Act forms already signed by ICVs? Will Visitors be released from that obligation?

KM: We do not have access to these individual pieces of paper after they have been sent to the Personnel Security Group for vetting. On the second point, Independent Custody Visitors - like everyone else - are bound to obey the law of the land. This includes a duty to abide by the Official Secrets Act, whether or not an individual Visitor has signed the Act.

18. How committed is the Met to allow a possible over-funding in setting up multi-disciplinary teams in the first year, bearing in mind that Primary [Health] Care Trusts (PCTs) are not prepared to fund this?

CD: I assume this question relates to multi-disciplinary custody teams, including Custody Nurses. Medical care of detainees is of the utmost importance. Multi-disciplinary team processes will be piloted to ensure that any new methods of medical care for detainees are appropriate. FMEs and current custody staff provide a good service at the moment and any future plans must ensure we maintain these standards.

19. Will all the work that is done by multi-disciplinary teams be a waste of time if no statistics are being recorded/fed back?

CD: The work of the Custody Nurses based at Charing Cross has been evaluated. This evaluation is based on qualitative as well as quantitative feedback. We do not feel that the work of the Custody Nurses at Charing Cross is a waste of time and value the contribution they bring to staff and detainees at Charing Cross. All further multi-disciplinary custody teams will be appropriately evaluated.

Sessions 2 and 3: Roles of FME and nurse

1. Who is responsible for detainees who have medical problems, e.g. diabetes, sickle cell or heart disease? Is there a support worker for this group?

MK: These detainees are the responsibility of the Healthcare Professional, in
addition of course to the Custody Officer. There is no support worker for
this group.

MS: If I understand health partnerships correctly and it is also my view, the care given to any detainee should be multi disciplinary. The detainee should get the correct specialist for a given disorder whether physical or mental health or drug and alcohol. It is clear that nurses will not be able to replace doctors exclusively and nor should they and the safer custody document does identify some key roles.

2. Who is responsible for following up mental health/drug or alcohol support after detainee leaves custody? Surely the ideal is for every detainee (especially prolific offenders) to be given a mental health/drug or alcohol assessment when in custody? Then this should be followed up in the community or in prison. Does this happen on Merseyside and who is responsible for the follow up? What will be done in the meantime?

MS: I do not feel everyone who enters the police station should be assessed for mental disorder or drugs unless it is identified or disclosed. I do not feel this would be a good use of what are limited resources, although I am mindful that these groups are well represented at police stations. I would like the opportunity to have the resources to be on site at each station and then a triage or filtering system could be feasible. The Criminal Justice Liaison Team in Mersey Care [NHS Trust] do not provide follow up in the community or hospital and has never been part of our remit. We are well integrated into the local teams and it is their responsibility to act as care co-ordinators and provide follow up which works well.

3. Will custody nurses replace FMEs?

MK: There will always be a need for FMEs for specific tasks such as mental health assessments. I see the future as a skill mix appropriate to the custody centre in question, which may have two or fifty cells. The best policy is one of multidisciplinary team working, as opposed to "replacement".

MS: There are many different models nationally and if I understand it properly health partnerships plan is to scope the most appropriate. It may be that there is an increase in custody nurses though again I cannot see them replacing doctors completely as many aspects of a doctor’s role are not within a nurse’s scope of practice.

CD: The nurses that are already based at Charing Cross Police Station will start to take on roles that are currently undertaken by FMEs. The Custody Directorate are currently liaising with FMEs, nurses and the Home Office to take this forward. This ‘pilot’ will be evaluated and it is anticipated that a business case will be made to expand the pilot elsewhere in the MPS. There is always likely to be a role for FMEs and the balance between nurses and FMEs is yet to be determined.

4. Are police cells the appropriate place for detainees with mental, physical and addiction problems? Should these problems not be dealt with prior to an investigation for a criminal offence?

MK: Whether or not police cells are the best place for this group of detainees
depends on the degree of their problem Some may need acute hospital
admission, others can be safely managed in custody. If they remain in custody, then the PACE clock will determine how much can be done prior to the investigation; if they are transferred to hospital, then of course the PACE clock stops. The nature and seriousness of the offence will also be a factor, for example the assessment of Huntley in Broadmoor as part of the investigative process.

MS: Where ever possible treatment will take place in the community and not in police stations. However where offences committed are a greater priority than a person’s treatment needs then access and services into police stations need to be commissioned. The overriding priority should be public safety and many health needs can be addressed in custody.

5. Is the nursing programme being extended beyond Charing Cross Police Station to other boroughs?

CD: The answer to this question is linked with the answer to question 2.3. Custody Nurses at the Charing Cross 'pilot' will start to take on roles that are currently performed by FMEs. The concept will need to be evaluated and proved before a business case can be made to expand the 'pilot' elsewhere in the MPS.

Session 4: Drugs

1. Are there plans to add alcohol abuse to the drug workers’ remit? And if not, why not?

JG: There are no plans to add alcohol abuse to our remit that I am aware of as yet. There has been a great deal of money spent (well into the millions) on
designing and setting up the Drug Intervention Programme(DIP), which is
basically treatment options specifically for drug users caught up in the
criminal justice system and until that DIP has been monitored to see if it
is value for money and working nationally according to government targets it
would seem unlikely that the government will give more money with a view to
addressing alcohol issues within the Criminal Justice (CJ) system.

Statistics have shown that there is a strong correlation between criminal
behaviour and drug use and I am not sure that such a strong a link joins
alcohol use to people in the CJ system. Partly because alcohol is legal and
a person wouldn't be breaking the law merely by possessing it and also because the crimes that people commit under the influence of drink tend to be in the nuisance behaviour category rather than that of acquisitive crime that
attracts the attention of the media and has a more detrimental effect on
other people’s lives. I would add though that this is just my opinion and I
am sure there are many more reasons why alcohol workers are not yet present in custody suites. I do hope however that if the DIP proves successful in crime reduction then alcohol use will be addressed in the future.

2. Although no statistics are available, it is our impression that there are an increasing number of detainees who are having a violent reaction to illegal drugs. In some cases this results in fits. What training is provided to custody staff to recognise and deal with this?

JG: I would not agree that an increasing number of people are suffering
different types of reactions to drugs and having fits than they have in the
past. I would say that maybe there is more variety of obtainable drugs which
are being used more often by a wider spread of people, particularly party
drugs. As for the training of custody staff, I am obviously not sure what
their training involves to do the job of a custody sergeant or DDO, but the
Drug Workers in the stations do take part in the borough training rounds and
also with new staff on the borough. I am aware that every new detainee is
seen by the FME as a matter of course and a drug worker is always on hand in the station (or if not contactable by phone) if the police need any advice.
I have been working in police stations as an Arrest Referral (AR) worker now for five years and so far have not seen any drug users being treated poorly or denied medical help when it is needed and I have yet to witness a drug induced fit that hasn't received the attention that it deserved.

Session 5: Mental health of detainees

1. Does being an immigration detainee affect whether and how someone is referred to, and dealt with by, the mental health services?

BF: There should be no difference in the way that such services are delivered to a person detained at a police station. If an immigration detainee is detained at a police station, and appears to be suffering from a mental disorder, the custody officer must, as with any other detained person, obtain the services of an appropriate health care professional – in London this will be a Forensic Medical Examiner (FME). If the FME advises that the person needs a Mental Health Act assessment this will be arranged.

2. Re Section 136: the somewhat vague diagnostic processes under this heading prompt me to wonder if there is any forward thinking in differentiation or definition in such conditions, for example, as mentally disordered, personality disorder or even ADHD as some detainees will require hospitalisation and some not. I ask as a point of precluding the “falling through the net” syndrome.

BF: Section 136 is a power given to a constable to deal with a person in crisis in a place to which the public have access, where it appears to the constable that the person is ‘suffering from mental disorder’ and is in need of care or control. It is not for the constable to diagnose the precise mental disorder being experienced by the person in crisis, nor will he or she have the expertise to do so. The purpose of the power is to enable the constable to get the person to a place of safety where those with the necessary skills – a registered medical practitioner and an approved social worker - can carry out a diagnosis and determine how best to meet the needs of the individual. The Eleventh Biennial Report, 2003 – 2005, of the Mental Health Act Commission quotes figures for a London hospital showing that of those detained under Section 136, 99.5% were admitted to hospital either as formal or informal patients.

3. Is the care of mentally vulnerable people really a matter for the Police? Surely other statutory agencies should take more responsibility for those who are mentally vulnerable or ill?

BF: The reality is that some people go into crisis either in a place to which the public have access or in their own home. Police are often the first agency to respond to such events. In these situations police need to attend to the needs of the individual, which may mean detaining under Section 136 Mental Health Act 1983, arresting for an offence, or if in private premises, calling mental health professionals to the scene. The MPS is keen to work with mental health services – particularly through the sharing of information on behaviour coming to the notice of police - to ensure that services are provided to those in need before their condition deteriorates into one of crisis.

4. If we have all these services available when a person enters the criminal justice system is there a danger that people will get arrested in order to access the services?

BF: If this means, will a person wishing to access mental health services be tempted to commit an offence, I am unaware of any evidence to support the contention. If, on the other hand, the question is about the intentions and actions of police officers, Section 136 of the Mental Health Act 1983 is used – legitimately - for the very purpose of accessing, speedily, mental health services for a person in need of care or control.

Session 6: Update on the London ICV Scheme

1. Why does MPA keep changing the report form?

KM: In the summer of 2005 the MPA purchased a software package from ICVA to enable us to record information on custody visits taking place and to track issues emerging from those visits. The new report form was introduced to correspond with this database.

2. How is MPA dealing with the various issues raised about the new reporting form?

KM: Comments on the report form are being collated by Mick Farrant (Chair of Camden ICV Panel) and will be fed back to the MPA. As far as possible changes will be made to the form to accommodate suggestions, however it may not be possible to make all the suggested changes as the form needs to remain in line with the database. With 400+ ICVs, it is unlikely that we can agree on a form that everyone is happy with, but it is important that everyone is using the same form. Once the new form is finalised everyone will be expected to use it without exception, so if you do have a strong opinion on it, please make sure that you use the appropriate channels to feed in your views and suggestions.

3. Who receives the information on the report form, and what do they do with it?

KM: Currently the information is entered on to the Visits database by our temporary administrator. The object of the exercise is to ensure that the pattern and profile of visits made is tracked, and that issues raised by ICVs are collated to influence the way the custody service is provided. The idea is to print off general reports quarterly and share these with all Panel Chairs. Reports on the work of individual Panels can also be produced. Parts of the reports will also be shared with the Custody Directorate and can be used to monitor and address recurring and thematic issues in individual boroughs or throughout London. We should have the first report for the Programme Board meeting on 11 May and it can be distributed to Panel Chairs along with the minutes.

4. Why does vetting take so long? The delays are interfering with the smooth running of the service in London

KM: The vetting process follows national police guidance. There have been serious delays in vetting across the board but the situation is improving. The problem has been worsened by the high level of recruitment by MPS to provide police and PCSOs for the Safer Neighbourhoods Programme. If an applicant was born or has lived outside of the UK, this also takes longer. The MPA is working with the MPS to find a solution to the problem as it affects ICVs.

5. Is the MPA considering a fast track vetting scheme for ICVs?

KM: We will discuss whether this would be possible with the vetting department.

6. The removal of the requirement for ICVs to sign the Official Secrets Act is welcomed, however we have heard that the vetting procedures may be about to be made more complicated (or more intrusive). Will this not put off people from volunteering?

KM: A new version of the existing standard form has been introduced by the vetting department. The new version asks for information on personal finances and spouse/partner details. The MPA is currently in discussion with the vetting department about an alternative to the new form, whilst also trying to ensure that we are in line with Home Office and ACPO national guidance on vetting. We acknowledge that having to go through vetting, particularly what are perceived as quite rigorous checks, may put people off volunteering. The MPA will seek to ensure that the level of vetting is proportionate to the ICV role and we also need to do some work to ensure that people are aware of the requirement at the point of application.

7. We have heard that in other Police Authority Areas the vetting of ICVs is less onerous – is this true?

KM: At the moment some Police Authorities have individual vetting arrangements, which are less strenuous. However many of those Police Authorities are increasing their requirements in line with ACPO guidance which aims to harmonise vetting standards within all 43 police forces by setting out the minimum vetting standards for the Police Community.

8. Is there a central funding pot for any future partnerships between MPA and PCTs? There should be centralised places of safety paid for by all boroughs used by all boroughs.

KM: The recent joint scrutiny of Mental Health and policing carried out by the MPA and the Health Service in London will lead to increased investment in places of safety over time, and MPA will work with the Strategic Health Authorities and PCTs to ensure that pressure is kept up to secure the funds.

9. Does next year’s budget include the finance for a 3rd London conference?

KM: No, but that does not rule out having a conference in the next financial year, i.e.: post March 2007.

10. Can we have clarification of the insurance position of ICVs please?

KM: Yes, questions on the policy have now been answered by the Insurers and a meeting has been arranged between the MPA and the ICV Insurance lead (Bernard Hanks, Chair of Bexley Panel) to go through these. A summary statement clarifying key points will be sent out after this meeting.

11. There has been talk about a London ICV handbook, procedures etc. Should this not be a country-wide scheme?

KM: At the moment each Police Authority has operational responsibility for the ICV Scheme in their area and a certain degree of autonomy to set procedures. All schemes are governed by the ICV National Standards and the Home Office Codes of Practice. It is possible that the way in which the scheme operates will change on a national level over the next few years, but for the moment it is the responsibility of each Police Authority to issue operating procedures that govern how their individual scheme is run.

Other Questions/Comments

1. What was the flipchart paper doing on the table?

JM: To provide somewhere for conference delegates to write notes, thoughts, comments and questions on. In the event they did not prove necessary.

2. If we feel that our Panels need more information on a certain subject will the MPA help us to try and identify a speaker to attend Panel meetings?

KM: Yes, we are happy to try to help you to identify suitable speakers where we can.

3. Given the amount of legislative change under way, e.g. joint inspectorate, Police and Justice Bill, merger of police forces, can we expect fundamental changes in organisation and role of custody visitors throughout the UK?

KM: There may well be a move to secure closer working between all those involved in the protection of human rights of detainees – that is ICVs, Members of Prison Independent Monitoring Boards and Appropriate Adults. This will be a matter for the Home Office initially and the MPA is not aware of any specific current proposals.

London ICV Conference 2006 – evaluation report

Summary

• 93% of respondents said the 2006 London Conference met or exceeded their expectations;
• compliments about the event outweighed criticisms by more than 3 to 1;
• the focus on health (both physical and mental) was widely welcomed;
• the conference format was also praised
• as were the venue (despite the cold in some parts) and the catering;
• participants were less enthusiastic about the session updating the London ICV Scheme Review;
• future conferences might be slightly more training oriented, for example covering the rules applying to custody of Immigration detainees.

Introduction

In this report and its associated Tables (in the Appendix) the percentages are of the number of participants who answered the particular question. This number varied from one question to another. In some cases participants made more than one comment each so that percentages can add to more than 100. Full numerical details in the Tables.

The conference was attended by about 180 people, just over half of whom (92 participants) returned evaluation sheets.

Overall, 93% said that the conference met (87%)or exceeded (6%) their expectations (Tables 1 and 1A).

Most and least interesting and useful aspects of the day

Overview

Participants were invited to say what they had found to be the most interesting and useful aspects of the conference, and what had been the least interesting/useful. 73 people (79%) answered the first question, but only 27 (29%) answered the second, a ratio of 2.7 people with compliments to every one person with a criticism (Tables 2A and 3A).

In terms of the numbers of comments made, the participants awarded just over three times as many compliments as criticisms: 122 to 38 (Tables 2A and 3A).

Because some aspects of the conference attracted both compliments and criticisms, Table 4 presents the net interest/use rating, derived by subtracting the number of criticisms from the number of compliments for each broad grouping. It shows that the focus on health attracted the highest net rating at + 69% of the comments made, while the most heavily criticised aspect of the conference was the Update on the London Scheme with a net rating of - 9%.

Detail

Taken individually the most interesting and useful aspects of the conference (Table 2A) were judged to be the FME’s presentation (29% of the compliments); the mental health presentations generally (27%); the drug referral worker’s presentation (26%); and the table discussions (23%).

When grouped together (Table 2B) the most interesting/useful aspects were judged to be the focus on health (including drugs but excluding mental health) which was the subject of 74% of the compliments recorded; the conference format itself (42%); and the mental health presentations (36%).

The least interesting and useful individual aspects (Table 3A) were judged to be the Update on the London ICV Scheme (30% of the criticisms), the “predictable positions” [1] which some speakers were felt to have adopted (26%); the Custody Directorate presentation (11%); the lack of an afternoon break (11%); and the table discussions (11%).

When grouped together (Table 3B) the least interesting/useful aspects were judged to be the conference format (37% of the criticisms); the guest speakers as a whole (33% of the criticisms); the Update on the London Scheme (30%); the focus on mental health (15%); and the Custody Directorate presentation (11%).

Venue and catering

Participants were invited to rate both the venue (The Congress Centre, Russell Street) and the catering. 98% of them rated the venue as ‘Excellent’ or ‘Good’, but only 84% rated the catering as ‘Excellent’ or ‘Good’ (Tables 5A and 5B).

A few participants also passed comment on the venue and/or catering. The most frequent comment (made by 4 people) was that the venue itself was cold. More details in Table 6C.

General comments

Never at a loss for something to say, 69 of the conference participants took advantage of the evaluation sheet to make suggestions for topics to be discussed at, and the format of, future conferences. They also commented on this year’s event and a number of other issues. Details are in Tables 6A to 6D.

Topics for future conferences

Table 6A shows that there was a wide range of topics suggested for future conferences, some of which might actually be better handled in ways other than a full dress conference – such as briefing sessions for Panels or a written statement.

The most frequently mentioned topic was the rules applying to the custody of Immigration and Nationality Directorate detainees. There are also indications that future conferences might have rather more of a training component.

Format of future conferences

As has already been seen, the format of the 2006 conference was generally judged a success. However, there was some feeling that next time there should be an open forum for questions and answers (Table 6B).

Comments on the 2006 conference not included elsewhere

A gratifying 42% of the general comments on the 2006 conference were non-specific compliments (Table 6C).

The most frequent criticisms (6% of the comments in this section) concerned the low temperatures in the public parts of the venue (Table 6C).

Other issues

Some participants used this section of the evaluation sheet to raise other issues. In 16 cases these took the form of further questions to the speakers or to the MPA. These have been passed on to the appropriate people for reply, together with the questions from the table discussions for which there was no time at the conference itself.

Appendix 1

Notes: A total of 92 people completed evaluation sheets; percentages are of those answering question(s)

Table 1a: Was the conference what you expected?

91 people answered this question

Table 1b: In what way different to expectation?

12 people answered this question

Table 2a: Most interesting and useful parts of conference

73 people answered this question

Table 2b: Most interesting and useful parts of conference - grouped

73 people answered this question

Table 3a: Least interesting and useful parts of conference

27 people answered this question

Table 3b: Least interesting and useful parts of conference - grouped

27 people answered this question

Table 4: Interest/Use net score

75 people answered one or both questions

Table 5a: Evaluation of venue

90 people answered this question (score of 8.0 on scale of 1 to 10)

Table 5b: Evaluation of catering

91 people answered this question (score of 6.7 on scale of 1 to 10)

Table 6a: Topics for future conferences

69 people answered this question

Table 6b: Format of future conferences

69 people answered this question

Table 6c: Comments on the 2006 conference

69 people answered this question

Table 6d: Other comments

69 people answered this question

Send an e-mail linking to this page

Feedback