This resource is from the Committees section. This is report 10 of the 30 November 2006 meeting of the MPA Committee and updates on the work to remodel the London Independent Custody Visitors (ICV) Scheme.

Sections available here:

• Independent Custody Visiting
  • Summary
  • A. Recommendation
  • B. Supporting information
  • C. Race and equality impact
  • D. Financial implications
  • E. Background papers
  • F. Contact details
  • Appendix 1
  • Appendix 2

Independent Custody Visiting

Report: 10
Date: 30 November 2006
By: Chief Executive and Clerk

Summary

This report is an update on the progress of work to remodel the London Independent Custody Visitors (ICV) Scheme.

A. Recommendation

That

1. progress on implementing the change programme be noted; and
2. a further report on the Operating Structure and governance of the scheme be submitted to Co-ordination and Policing Committee.

B. Supporting information

1. At the meeting of Co-ordination and Policing Committee on 6 July 2006 the proposals to reform and remodel the London ICV Scheme were approved with a view to the new arrangements coming into operation in April 2007.

2. A draft new Operating Structure for the ICV Service was issued for consultation with ICV panels. Over the summer, the MPA lead member, the Deputy Chief Executive and the ICV Scheme Manager met with a number of panels to explain and discuss the proposed changes. It became clear that there were elements in the draft that caused concern for ICVs, and panels were assured that their feedback would be considered.

3. There were constructive discussions about the direction of the London ICV Programme at the meeting between panel chairs and administrators and the MPA on 11 October 2006. The MPA stated at that meeting that in the light of the feedback from panels and individual ICVs on the first draft proposals, changes would be made in a number of areas to address concerns expressed by ICVs. These would in particular clarify the role of panel chairs and vice Chairs, and the role of the ICV co-ordinator, remove any time limits on tenure as an ICV and as panel chair, and recognise that existing panel meeting arrangements should continue until there is agreement on change in frequency. MPA representatives also emphasised that it will continue to be ICVs who will raise issues with police following visits, and ICVs who alone will decide if the police response is satisfactory. The MPA did not propose to make any changes to these key functions that are central to the independence of independent custody visitors.

4. The elected ICV representatives stated that they acknowledged the role of the MPA in the development of the London Scheme, and they confirmed that ICVs were seeking to work with the MPA to make all aspects of the London Scheme fit for purpose, and to improve conditions in police custody. They too were looking to move forward in a positive spirit on the basis that there would be an appropriate process for future communication and discussions between the MPA, ICVs and their representatives, and that the expertise and experience of ICVs would be both acknowledged and used.

5. At a joint meeting with Home Office officials on 7 November 2006, there was a shared objective to improve communications, discussions and consultations with ICVs at panel, sub-regional and regional levels, so as to assist cross panel learning, information sharing and support, as well as to demonstrate commitment to a unified London Scheme. There was a joint intent to work together to enhance MPA contact and communications with visitors themselves and to promote a collaborative approach to implementing change successfully.

6. Building on these fruitful consultations, work continues on the development of the new operating structures and on the overall framework for governance. Further discussions will take place with ICV representatives at a meeting on 8 December 2006 with a report to the Co-ordination and Policing Committee in early 2007.

7. Staff recruitment for the team of ICV co-ordinators is under way. Appointments have now been made to 6 of the 8 posts (subject to vetting in some cases) and the equivalent of 1 post is likely to be covered by TUPE transfers from existing panel administrators. A training and induction programme will take place in February 2007, supported by the National ICVA. Co-ordinators will start to arrange handover from existing administrators in early 2007. In a few cases co-ordinators will take over the secretarial support of panels earlier than April, to cover for staff movements.

8. TUPE consultations are still taking place. From the first round of consultations it appeared that very few administrators would transfer to the MPA. While formal consultations are ongoing, it appears at this stage that the equivalent of one co-ordinator post will be covered by TUPE transferees.

9. In the meantime, MPA officers are engaged with ICV representatives to take forward at a strategic level a number of issues relating, amongst others, to Appropriate Adult Services, Medical Care in custody, smoking facilities for detainees, and Health and Safety.

10. The process of vetting for ICVs has caused some problems during the summer, but there is now a protocol between MPA and MPS relating to ICV vetting, including provision for a senior member of MPA staff to be involved in any appeal by an ICV who is refused vetting clearance.

11. A joint statement prepared after the meeting with the Home Office is at Appendix 1. ICV representatives have prepared a paper on current issues of interest to them, which is at Appendix 2.

C. Race and equality impact

An objective of the reform programme is to ensure that the work of ICVs is promoted across the diverse communities and that ICV Panels are as representative as possible of the local community.

D. Financial implications

The change programme is expected to be achieved within budget.

E. Background papers

None

F. Contact details

Report author: David Riddle/ Kerry McClelland, MPA

For more information contact:

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

Appendix 1

Working together to strengthen Independent Custody Visiting in London

Joint statement by MPA and ICV elected representatives

There were very constructive discussions about the direction of the London ICV Programme at the meeting between Panel Chairs and Administrators and the MPA on 11 October 2006.

The MPA stated then that it had considered carefully the feedback from Panels and individual ICVs on the first draft proposals for a new operating structure for the London Scheme, and that it intended to make changes in a number of areas to address concerns expressed by ICVs. The changes will in particular clarify the role of Panel Chairs and Vice Chairs, clarify the role of the ICV Co-ordinator, remove any time limits on tenure as an ICV and as Panel Chair, and recognise that existing Panel meeting arrangements should continue until there is agreement on change in frequency.

MPA made it clear that it will continue to be ICVs who will raise issues with police following visits, and ICVs who alone will decide if the police response is satisfactory. The MPA does not propose to make any changes to these key functions of independent custody visitors.

The elected ICV representatives tabled a statement of their own at that meeting in which they acknowledged the role of the MPA in the development of the London Scheme, and confirmed that ICVs were seeking to work with the MPA to make all aspects of the London Scheme fit for purpose, and to improve conditions in police custody. They were looking to move forward in a positive spirit on the basis that there would be an appropriate process for future communication and discussions between the MPA, ICVs and their representatives, and that the expertise and experience of ICVs would be both acknowledged and used.

It was agreed at that meeting that it was imperative for ICVs and the MPA to work productively together. There was a shared objective to improve communications, discussions and consultations with ICVs at Panel, sub-regional and regional levels, so as to assist cross panel learning, information sharing and support, as well as to demonstrate commitment to a unified London Scheme. The new operating structure will result in more effective marketing of the London Scheme and recruitment processes, and more investment in training for ICVs and panel chairs. The new operating structure will also underpin more effective arrangements for overall governance of the London Scheme in the future, which will allow the expertise and experience of ICVs in the local visiting task to be acknowledged and utilised.

Representatives of ICVs and the MPA met with Home Office officials on 7 November for a joint review of progress. The meeting agreed on the present direction of travel for the London Scheme, and expressed firm intent to work to resolve any differences in future through dialogue. From now on the objective should be to have consistent, positive, and unified communications about the change programme, to build a stronger London Scheme in which all ICV’s – and the community – could have confidence and pride.

Alan Brown, the Head of the Police Powers and Community Confidence Team, Police Leadership and Powers Unit, Home Office said at the meeting

“The independence of the custody visitor is a key element in bringing people from the local community into the area of police custody and providing the ability to hold the police and the police authority to account. Custody visiting is an important safeguard under PACE in terms of both helping ensure that detainees have access to their rights and entitlements and in contributing to the provision of effective custodial care.

The delivery and management of Independent Custody Visiting schemes are matters for individual police authorities. Section 51 of the Police Reform Act 2002 places a statutory duty on every police authority to make arrangements for detainees to be visited by persons appointed as independent custody visitors. The legislation also requires police authorities to "keep those arrangements under review and from time to time revise them as they think fit".

The arrangements in place for custody visiting in London is a matter forthe MPA. I very much welcome the MPA's aim to put in place effective and robust arrangements which ensures that visits are carried out, suitable training is in place and that visitors are able to operate freely and independently. Custody visitors must be free to raise any concerns that arise and the police authority must be accountable for ensuring that those concerns are addressed. That is an important balance to maintain”.

The MPA, the ICV Representatives and the Home Office all recognised that maintaining that balance requires a mutual understanding and mutual respect for the different roles and responsibilities of the custody visitor, the ICV Co-ordinators and the ICV Scheme manager, the police authority and the police.

In that spirit, the MPA and the ICV representatives declared their intent to work together to enhance MPA contact and communications with visitors themselves and to promote a collaborative approach to implementing change successfully. Together these will be key components of effective working that will give due recognition to the commitment, effort and contribution that independent custody visiting can and does make to the welfare of detainees and public confidence in the police.

• John Roberts - MPA Lead Member
• Samuel Wynter and Len Clark - ICV Representatives on Programme Board
• Alan Brown - Home Office

Appendix 2

Report from the ICV Programme Board representatives to the MPA Full Authority Meeting, November 2006

We thought it might be helpful if we outlined to members the considerable amount of work custody visitors have contributed over the past year over and above our actual weekly visits to custody suites.

• Following considerable problems in one panel, we worked jointly with the MPA to devise a strategy to address the issues. A chair from the neighbouring panel took over its running and other panels members have stepped in to ensure that visits of the appropriate standard are resumed.
• Our members worked closely with the MPA to organise the London ICV conference and we provided a detailed report, which was published in the MPA, ICVA and our own newsletter.
• We published a series of 8 protocols for special situations (including death in custody, visiting detainees in hospital and detainees held under anti- terrorist law). This provides much needed guidance to panel members.
• In draft are guidelines on bail to return custody suites, health and safety issues for ICVs and immigration detainees.
• We revised and considerably improved the visit report form to make it more user friendly and more fit for purpose

The above are highly practical guidance and we are willing to give time to this aspect of our work since it does much to improve the standard of custody visiting across the MPS.

However, what we feel is lacking are digests of legal and regulatory changes which affect our work as well as briefings on such matters as the possible implications of greater collaboration between different inspection regimes. Most recently we received from the MPA a 160 plus page copy via the internet of the July changes to the PACE guidance. We feel that the MPA should be providing us with synopses of changes (including those from earlier in the year) to assist us in our work. We, as volunteers, do not have the time to time to plough through these documents and select those parts that are relevant to our role. We hope the MPA will consider providing us with these for we are not always sure that the fact that we are volunteers is fully appreciated.

At the Independent Custody Visitors 2006 Conference (see below) we were reminded of the importance of issues raised during visits being brought to the attention of the police authority. This is particularly important at the present time when nationally there are major changes in the guidance related to custody and the care of detainees and within London a major building programme to improve the custody estate. Our particular concerns at the moment are:

• Medical care for detainees – there are currently two deaths in custody from 2002 (Hackney and Camden) where a report from the coroner and hopefully the IPCC are about to be published making recommendations
• The role of the MPA, as discussed at the full authority earlier this year, in monitoring investigations into deaths in custody
• Provision of appropriate adults and other social services support when a person is detained in a custody suite outside the borough in which he/she resides
• Immigration detainees being detained in police cells and in particular their access to their possessions.
• The impact of prisoners being detained in police cells under operation safeguard
• Conditions in custody suites, in particular the supply of blankets

Many of the problems encountered can and should be solved at the borough level but there are those, like issues related to immigration detainees, medical care and the provision of appropriate adults which can only be tackled authority wide. The MPA has been receiving visit reports since the beginning of this year and we look forward to discussing with officers the major trends which are emerging. We also suggest that all panels follow the practice already adopted by some panels that they have on their agenda an item “Matters to be raised with the MPA”. We also hope that at each future committee meeting there will be a joint report of our concerns together with information on how these are being addressed. Similarly there should be jointly agreed section as part of the MPA’s annual report.

A number of ICVs from London attended the ICVA annual conference in Cambridge. Such conferences are important and this one in particular drew our attention to the changes that are in train over the next three or four years. We produced a conference report ahead of the more detailed one which will appear later on the ICVA website. This has been circulated to all panels. ICVA is a very important organisation for us and it is a matter of concern that it has been suffering difficulties over the past year with the possibility, at one stage that it might be wound up. We understand from the conference that this threat has now receded somewhat. ICVA is governed by an executive committee, which comprises about half ICVs and half police authority members. We understand that there may be plans to remove ICVs from this executive. If this means ICVs would no longer be are able to contribute to policy and have a say on how our organisation is run this would, in our view, be a very retrograde step. Other police authorities are represented by an ICV and in London we have elected our own member, one of the three MPA representatives.