This resource is from the Committees section. These are the minutes of the 18 Mar 04 meeting of the Consultation Committee.

Sections available here:

• Minutes - draft
  • Present:
• Part 1
  • 20. Apologies for absence
  • 21. Declarations of interests
  • 22. Minutes of the Consultation Committee – 13 November 2003
  • 23. Chair and Members oral update
  • 24. Home Office Green Paper on policing reform directions for community engagement
  • 25. Funding for Community and Police Consultative Groups 2004-05
  • 26. Funding for Independent Custody Visiting Panels 2004/05
  • 27. MPA and MPS Consultation Strategy 2005/06, Policing Plan and priorities
  • 28. Measuring community consultation – update report
  • 29. Consultation on e-policing initiatives
  • 30. Independent Custody Visiting
  • 31. Public Attitude Survey and reassurance policing

Minutes - draft

Please note these minutes are currently draft and are subject to committee approval.

Minutes of the Consultation Committee of the Metropolitan Police Authority held on 18 March 2004 at 10 Dean Farrar Street, SW1H 0NY.

Present:

Members:

• Cindy Butts (Chair)
• Kirsten Hearn
• Nicholas Long
• Noel Lynch
• Eric Ollerenshaw (item 1 - 6)
• Abdal Ullah

MPA Officers:

• Catherine Crawford (Clerk)
• Ken Hunt (Deputy Treasurer)
• Tim Rees (Community Engagement)
• Ruth Hastings Iqball (Committee Services)

MPS Officers:

• Chas Bailey (Superintendent, Consultation Manager)
• Richard Bryan (DAC, Strategic Planning)
• Steve Farquharson (Group Director, Director of Information)
• Betsy Stanko (Senior Advisor)
• Jane Wilkin (Consultation Officer)
• Tony Williams (Head of Information Governance, Director of Information)

Co-opted members: Sandra Flower (Chair, London PCCG Forum) and Kate Monkhouse (Director, London Civic Forum)

In attendance: Richard Barnes, (member) (item 1 - 8).

Part 1

20. Apologies for absence

(Agenda item 1)

No apologies for absence were received.

21. Declarations of interests

(Agenda item 2)

Sandra Flower stated that in addition to being Chair of the London PCCG Forum, she was Chair of Kingston CPCG.

22. Minutes of the Consultation Committee – 13 November 2003

(Agenda item 3)

The Committee considered the minutes of the meeting held on 13 November 2003.

Resolved - That the minutes of the meeting held on 13 November 2003 be confirmed and signed as a correct record

23. Chair and Members oral update

(Agenda item 4)

Kirsten Hearn reported that she had attended a LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender) Pride meeting at the GLA’s City Hall, where a planned rally on 3 July was discussed. She felt the MPA should have a profile at the rally. The Clerk stated that the MPA had had an advertisement in the programme last year, but further involvement could be explored further. Kirsten Hearn had also attended a meeting in Haringey between the police and LGBT community in Haringey.

The Chair stated that she had met the Fulham Cross Youth Group. She had attended a planning meeting for Capital Crime Conference to be held on in December. There she had reiterated the points expressed by the Consultation Committee in June 2003; namely conferences should have a clear purpose, measurable outcomes and the costs be minimised by sponsorship. On 22 March, she would be launching a Peace on the Streets campaign on Choice FM.

Sandra Flower stated that she was working with the MPA on how the London PCCG Forum could inform the Consultation Committee.

Resolved – that the Chair and members update be received.

24. Home Office Green Paper on policing reform directions for community engagement

(Agenda item 5)

Members received a report summarising the MPA’s formal response to the Home Office Green Paper ‘Policing: Building Safer Communities Together’ as it pertained to community engagement, together with those submitted by the MPS and the Association of Police Authorities.

It was noted that Peter Herbert (MPA member) and Lee Jasper (GLA) were members of the Police Reform Support Panel. The Committee requested that the MPA’s Acting Head of Community Engagement brief Peter Herbert, so he could represent the MPA’s view to fellow panel members.

Resolved – that

1. the directions for community engagement indicated in the response to the Green Paper on police reform by the MPA, as well as by the MPS and APA, be noted;
2. the draft Consultation Strategy and Implementation Plan 2002/05 adopted by the Committee at its meeting of 31 October 2002 be reviewed in light of the Home Office Green Paper and consequent discussions, and, in consultation with the MPS, a revised strategy be presented to the Committee for approval in November 2004;
3. the revised Consultation Strategy and Implementation Plan to be submitted in November 2004 should also consider the budgetary implications and a potential growth submission in order to fulfil the MPA’s community engagement commitments; and
4. the MPA’s Acting Head of Community Engagement brief Peter Herbert, so he might represent the MPA’s view to fellow members of the Police Reform Support Panel.

25. Funding for Community and Police Consultative Groups 2004-05

(Agenda item 6)

Each year the MPA allocates a budget to Community and Police Consultative Groups (CPCGs) to enable them to strengthen community involvement in policing in London. Richard Barnes, lead member for CPCGs, introduced a report proposing a budget allocation for 2004/05 for each CPCG. Richard Barnes apologised on behalf of the Authority for the past strained relationship between CPCGs and the Authority and that there had been no opportunity to circulate the report prior to its publication for this committee. In response to concerns expressed by some CPCGs, he stated that though some groups would not be given funding for 12 months in the first instance, money for the remainder of the year was available, and that £14000 had been held back for extraordinary expenses. In introducing the changes, the MPA had tried to equalise the amount provided to each CPCG, whilst at the same time exercising its fiduciary duty in ensuring that money was well spent. It had been recognised that some CPCGs needed further support or time before they could function effectively. Finally, he paid tribute to the work done by CPCGs, recognising that the groups’ work was voluntary.

The Chair of the London PCCG Forum welcomed recommendation 3 but wondered if it would be the Forum’s role to organise and hold training sessions, who would fund them and where the Forum would get the time and resources to do this? Concerning recommendation 4, she noted that the proposed cap indicated that each CPCG would only have three days a week paid staff. Funding for the rest of time would have to be raised by the CPCGs themselves if they wished to have full time staff. She added that the Forum had no control over staffing levels for individual CPCGs. In relation to recommendation 5, the Chair of the London PCCG Forum asked how did the MPA envisaged working with the CPCGs in Band 3 to secure the reminder of their funding? With regard to recommendation 6 and 7 she noted that that the development, production and dissemination of ‘best practice’ models was in hand and that she had already agreed with MPA officers that the London Chair’s forum would give brief reports to the relevant committee and twice a year provide more detailed presentations.

In summarising, she stated that MPA envisaged the Forum would provide the level of support and involvement which was beyond its current capacity, all who served on it were volunteers and it had only had funding for administrative support for two days each week. There had been insufficient consultation with individual CPCGs before the publication of these recommendations, the MPA only running two evening workshops about the format of budget forms. Whilst the Forum welcomed working with the MPA on some of the recommendations it could not assist with others. She reminded members that the Forum did not have executive responsibility for the London’s CPCGs, as was indicated by the title Forum, and not all CPCGs belonged to the Forum. The Chair reassured her that recommendations 3 and 4 were only suggesting consultation with the London Chair’s Forum, where the difficulties outlined by the Forum’s Chair could be explored.

Concern was expressed about what would happen to Band 3 CPCGs in three months time. Members were informed that the MPA’s Community Engagement Unit would provide practical support, whilst at the same time these CPCGs would be expected to cooperate and demonstrate improvement. It was requested that a report go to the next Consultation Committee on the action being taken to assist these boroughs. The Committee went on to discuss the implications for administrative support on the boroughs not getting any funding. This would be addressed further outside the meeting. Members stressed that the CPCGs involvement with equalities and diversity issues was non negotiable, and that MPA officers would with groups, where necessary, to address any shortcomings in this area.

Resolved – That

1. the Committee agree the recommended budget allocation to each CPCG for 2004-05;
2. each group be informed of its recommended funding by post. Any group wishing to appeal their recommended allocation would be able to do so by giving notice of appeal within 21 days of the date of notification of their funding. An appeals panel would comprise two members of the MPA and the Deputy Clerk who would meet as soon as practical in May 2004;
3. officers of the MPA would consult with CPCG London Chairs’ Forum to determine the feasibility of instituting a programme of training and development to assist and strengthen the work of CPCGs with regard to such issues as governance, performance and impact assessment measures and diversity;
4. to achieve a more equitable distribution of funds across London, the officers of the MPA would consult the CPCG London Chairs’ Forum about a cap on the staffing element to be funded by the MPA in 2005/06. The proposed cap would be three fifths of one FTE post pegged to point 33 on the local authority pay scale, plus on-costs of 20% for a total cost of approximately £20,000 per CPCG at 2004 prices. This amount would rise in line with changes to the local authority pay scales;
5. officers of the MPA would consult with those CPCGs where conditional funding was recommended, to address the issues requiring attention within the timeframe identified, and report back with recommendations to the Consultation Committee on the results of this work;
6. in partnership with the London Chairs’ Forum of CPCGs, officers of the MPA would develop, produce and widely disseminate ‘best practice’ models by which Londoners could engage in policing;
7. in fairness to the groups who do meet the application deadline, to ensure the process of assessment could be met within the deadlines set and to ensure that groups receive their funding in a timely manner, officers of the MPA would consult with the CPCG London Chairs’ Forum regarding a proposal that in future years, groups that miss the funding deadline would not be able to be eligible for funding;
8. in order to strengthen the MPA’s relationship with its community partners, and as part of its strategic assessment of public views on policing, bi-annual presentations to the Consultation Committee be establish by the CPCGs, through the London Chairs’ Forum, as part of its regular meetings; and
9. a report would go to the next Consultation Committee on the action being taken to assist those CPCGs where temporary or conditional funding was recommended.

26. Funding for Independent Custody Visiting Panels 2004/05

(Agenda item 7)

Each year the MPA allocated a budget to Independent Custody Visiting Panels (ICVPs) to enable them to undertake specified aspects of work on its behalf. A report proposing a budget allocation for each was presented to this Committee for approval, along with details of a number of smaller budget allocations, including the production of the ICVP handbook. Progress was being made on the initiation of a review of Independent Custody Visiting and this too was reported to the Committee for information. The Chair of London CPCGs stated that the ICVPs had liked the report style of the report at item 6, and wanted something similar for ICVPs.

Resolved – That

1. the recommended budget allocation to each ICVP for 2004/05 be agreed and signed off;
2. a number of related budget allocations, including the production of the ICVP Handbook be agreed and signed off;
3. the fuller training programme for Independent Custody Visitors and Trainers being developed be noted and be the subject of a further report; and
4. the progress being made on initiating a review of the Independent Custody Visiting Panel Scheme be noted.

27. MPA and MPS Consultation Strategy 2005/06, Policing Plan and priorities

(Agenda item 8)

Members received a report summarising the complementary methods by which the MPA and MPS would seek the views of Londoners to inform the 2005/06 Policing Plan. For the MPA this would include the input from CPCGs, analysis of surveys undertaken by the GLA, ALG, etc, other relevant studies relating to policing issues; the results of the first round of consultation with the MPA’s Citizens Panel; focus groups with hard to reach groups and the results of research undertaken for the MPA by the London Civic Forum. Meanwhile, the MPS would implement an approach that included online consultation, youth consultation, the findings of the Public Attitude Survey and early results from Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnerships (CDRP) audits.

Members felt there was a need to measure and evaluate the outcomes of consultation. A further report on this subject was requested in November 2004.

Resolved – That

1. the report be noted and referred to the Planning, Performance and Review Committee for its review and comments; and
2. a further report on this subject be received in November 2004.

28. Measuring community consultation – update report

(Agenda item 9)

A scoping paper was agreed by the Consultation Committee in September 2003 which described the key stages for identifying what community consultation and engagement activity MPS units were currently undertaking. Members received a report detailing progress to date and an implementation schedule for the remaining work.

The MPS explained the decision to run the focus groups in-house had proved successful and that there had been a good participation rate for both focus groups and the online survey. The top line findings of the community engagement survey were that the communities most consulted with were local residents, minority ethnic communities, young people and faith groups, whilst the hardest to reach were refugees and asylum seekers, people without permanent homes and the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people. Consultation was most likely to be carried out by local police officers or CPCGs, however, three quarters of the MPS consultation practioners do not have an allocated consultation budget. Areas so far identified as needing improvement would be highlighted in the MPS’s consultation strategy statement and in training and guidelines for local consultation practioners. An awareness of the importance of standards would be cascaded to these practioners. A report on the full findings would come to the next meeting of the Consultation Committee.

Resolved – That members note progress to date regarding measuring community consultation.

29. Consultation on e-policing initiatives

(Agenda item 10)

Members received a report outlining the proposed MPS approach to engaging in consultation with the public using citizen focussed electronic services. Members felt the report should have distinguished between current and potential e-policing initiatives, and particularly highlighted successful initiatives. Members were informed that 1000 crimes were reported to the MPS each month, more than double that of any other police service. Questions were asked about the accessibility of e-policing initiatives to the disabled or non-English speaking. Questions were asked about how the MPS benchmarked the success of its initiatives. Members were informed that questions would be asked in the Police Attitude Survey. A member highlighted a successful initiative in Lambeth, whereby the borough newsletter was emailed to interested people and posted on the MPS website. Members requested a further report highlighting current, external e-policing initiatives and giving further details of their accessibility.

Resolved – that

1. the MPS approach to consultation on e-policing issues be endorsed, and
2. a further report on e-policing be received at the next Consultation Committee.

30. Independent Custody Visiting

(Agenda item 11)

Following the resignation of Nicholas Long, the Committee was asked to appoint a lead member for independent custody visiting issues. The member appointed would represent the authority on the ICVA Executive Committee. It was agreed that Abdal Ullah would take on this role.

Resolved – That Abdal Ullah be appointed lead member for independent custody visiting issues.

31. Public Attitude Survey and reassurance policing

(Agenda item 12)

Members received a report introducing the work of the Research and Survey Unit, highlighting its major products and the rationale behind the development of the Corporate Surveys. As this report had not been circulated within the required five working days before the meeting, the Chair agreed to accept the report as urgent because of the timescales and work involved. Members also received a presentation on further customer survey work.

Members were informed that the Public Attitude Survey was the largest in the country, with 8000 face-to-face interviews with London residents on a rolling quarterly basis. The survey was aligned to the British Crime Survey and its results would be used as evidence for the Home Office in the MPS’s dealing with crime and disorder issues. The results would be fed back to the MPA six monthly. Members asked whether the information would be shared with other agencies. They were informed that the information could be shared, but the logistics of holding joint surveys with other organisations had proved too complex. It was envisaged that the survey would be used as a management tool as senior officers and police staff would have more confidence in its results than previous surveys.

Resolved – That members note the report and receive the presentation.

The meeting ended at 3:55 p.m.

The following pages on the MPA website are relevant:

• Agenda for this meeting