Minutes - draft

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

Minutes of the Community Engagement Committee held on 3 February 2005 at 10 Dean Farrar Street, London, SW1H 0NY.

Present

Members

Abdal Ullah (Chair)
Aneeta Prem
Kirsten Hearn
Jenny Jones
John Roberts

MPA officers

Chris Calnan (Community Engagement Unit)
Andy Hull, (Community Engagement Unit)
Tim Rees (Head of Community Engagement Unit)
David Riddle (Deputy Clerk)
Nick Baker (Head of Committee Services)

MPS officers

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

Also present

Edward Rees (Senior Consultant agenda item 12)
Mr Ian Smith, Executive Director of the Independent Custody Visiting Association
Betsey Stanko (Director Strategic Analysis item 13)
Mick Farrant (Interim Chair of the Chars of ICVPs) (Items 5 and 6)

39. Apologies for absence

(Agenda item 1)

Apologies for absence were received from Nicky Gavron, Peter Herbert and Damian Hockney.

40. Declarations of interests

(Agenda item 2)

No interests were declared.

41. Minutes – 2 December 2005

(Agenda item 3)

The Committee considered the minutes of the meeting held on 2 December 2004.

Arising from minute 37 – Safer Neighbourhoods – Utilising the results of Community Engagement, members noted that an update on MPS pilot scheme on the use of technology in consultation would be presented to a future meeting.

Resolved - That the minutes of the meeting held on 2 December be confirmed and signed as a correct record.

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

(Agenda item 4)

John Roberts reported that he had undertaken custody visits in Brixton and raised concerns at the standard of cells and the lack of and standard of provisions. The Deputy Clerk agreed to raise this concerns with the MPS.

Kirsten Hearn reported that she had attended a meeting on community safety with representatives of the Gay, Lesbian Bi-sexual and Transgender community and at which discussion included the perception of young people as victim of crime as opposed to the perpetrators of crime.

Jenny Jones informed the Committee that she had recently attended the showing of a film in Rotherhithe, which focused on the cutting of funding to young people projects, and which suggested that this could encourage crime amongst young people.

Aneeta Prem reported that she had visited Thailand following the Asian Tsunami (at the invitation of the MPS) to assess the input of the MPS involvement in the support operation. She highlighted the need for continuing support for MPS staff in the countries affected and that the issues of resources to be discussed with the Home Office.

The Chair thanked the Community Engagement Unit for the members’ away day, which had proved useful. It was agreed that a further half day session in 6 moths time be arranged.

Resolved - That the oral reports be received.

43. Review of Independent Custody Visiting Scheme

(Agenda item 5)

Members considered a report that outlined the outcomes of the MPA’s review of Independent Custody Visiting in accordance with the Police Reform Act 2002. In doing so, members also received the report of the consultant appointed by the Committee to undertake the review, Mr Ian Smith, Executive Director of the Independent Custody Visiting Association (ICVA).

Mr Smith attended the meeting to present his report to members.

In both reports and in his presentation, Mr Smith reminded the Committee of the MPA’s statutory obligations relating to ICV’s and highlighted key areas of weakness in the delivery by the MPA of an ICV scheme. However, it was acknowledged that by undertaking such a review, the MPA were taking the first steps to alleviate some of the concerns outlined in his report and now needed to address all weaknesses in order for the MPA, not only to meet requirements, but to take a lead nationally on independent custody visiting.

Chair of the Committee agreed that before consideration of the recommendations in the report, members should take agenda item 6 – Response by the London ICVP Chairs and Administrators.

Following which members agreed that recommendation 4 be amended to allow the Deputy Clerk to establish a London ICV Programme Board as soon as possible.

Resolved - That

the Committee, having regard to the MPA’s responsibilities for Independent Custody Visiting in accordance with the Police Reform Act 2002, paragraph 51, welcomed the findings of the Review undertaken by Ian Smith;
members supported a programme of action and reform drawing upon the findings of the Review of ICVPs undertaken by Ian Smith by which the MPA is able to fulfil its statutory responsibilities in ensuring a consistent and effective custody visiting service in London;
officers continue to consult closely with the Chairs, volunteers and administrators of the local Panels across London in the development and implementation of this programme of reform; and
the Deputy Clerk establish a London ICV Programme Board with responsibility to oversee the reform process as well as provide an ongoing oversight body of the ICV service, reporting to the Community Engagement Committee.

44. Response to the Review by the London ICVP Chairs and Administrators

(Agenda item 6)

Following the review of Independent Custody Visiting and in relation to agenda item 5, members received a report which gave a response to the review from the Chairs and Administrators of London ICV Panels. The report was presented by Mick Farrant, Interim Chair of the Chars of ICVPs.

Mr Farrant informed the Committee that the chairs and administrators of ICV panels welcomed the need for a review of custody visiting in London.

Mr Farrant stated that there were three issues arising from Mr Smith’s report and subsequent implementation plan which there was particular concern. These were highlighted as: the viability of the proposed centralisation of administrative structures and its impact on the London’s borough based system; resource allocation to the proposed administrative structure; and the need for an impact analysis of proposed changes.

The Deputy Clerk thanked Mr Farrant for the points that he had raised and acknowledged the weaknesses in the delivery of an ICV scheme by the MPA.

Members were concerned that in order to deliver the proposed implementation plan adequate resources would be required and that there was a need to engage with and acknowledge those who had maintained the services, prior to the review. In doing so, the Committee requested that their thanks to those volunteers who had been delivering the service be recorded.

The Deputy Clerk added issues of resourcing the delivery of all of the proposals in the implementation plan would need to be addressed. However, the MPA had to ensure that its statutory requirements were being met. The Deputy Clerk added that he hoped that an action plan, in consultation with members and partners would be in place a soon as possible. The Committee would also be regularly updated on progress being made.

In response to members, the Deputy Clerk informed members that as part of the review legal advice, particularly, around employment issues, would be sought.

The Head of Community Engagement Unit informed members that there had been a high take up in registering for the London ICV Conference on 12 February 2005 at which it was anticipated that custody visiting could be re launched.

Mr Farrant addressed the Committee on a number of issues in relation to ICV’s including: the role of ICVs and immigration detainees and the recruitment and retention of ICVs.

Mr Farrant also requested further information on deaths in custody and the length of time it was taking for a conclusion of these investigation. It was agreed that a report on this issue be presented to the next meeting.

Resolved –That

the Committee receive and welcome the reports from the ICV Panels Chairs and administrators, as a means of strengthening the ongoing dialogue and partnership with the custody visitors; and
the Committee receives an update report on deaths in custody at its next meeting.

45. Towards an MPA community engagement strategy

(Agenda item 7)

The Committee received a report that presented the draft Community Engagement Strategy for consideration.

Resolved – That the report be received as the basis for further consultation and discussion before considering the adoption of a final Community Engagement Strategy at its next meeting and then submitting it for ratification to the full Authority.

46. Community Engagement Funding 2005/06

(Agenda item 8)

A report was received that set out the proposals for community engagement fund allocated to the community police consultative groups for 2005/06.

Since the report had been circulated, members were informed that both Enfield and Hackney had now supplied the required mandatory information and that it was recommended that the groups should receive funding without condition.

Officers reported that discussion was ongoing with the group in Tower Hamlets regarding the provision of mandatory information and resolution of other issues as outlined in the report. The Committee also noted the ongoing discussion with the London Chairs Forum.

Members welcomed officers’ efforts to arrive at a more equitable distribution of funds across London, and supported officers proposals to provided limited one-off funding to group based projects. In doing so, officers undertook to report back to the Committee on this issue in due course, as well as details on the future of community engagement funding.

The Committee were reminded of the appeals process and that officers’ from the Community Engagement Unit would continue to hold dialogue with those groups where funding had not been recommended.

The Deputy Clerk reported that he had held discussions with the representatives from the group from Ealing and was confident that the group would secure contained funding from the MPA provided that they could meet the criteria required for funding.

Members supported officers who raised concerns that some groups were not making efforts to ensure that their membership and activities were in line with best practice or were not providing adequate information on such issues as ethnicity, gender, age range or disability. Members reiterated that the criteria for funding should be subject to the provision of mandatory data and groups should attempt to be as diverse as the communities they represent.

The Deputy Clerk confirmed that following the Appeal Panel decisions to fund groups could be taken under the Authority’s urgency procedure.

Officers from the Community Engagement Unit also undertook to keep link members informed of decision taken in relation to their boroughs.

Resolved – That

funding to the following groups without condition: Barnet, Bexley, Camden, Enfield, Hackney, Hillingdon, Hounslow, Lewisham, Newham, Richmond, Southwark, Waltham Forest, Wandsworth and Westminster be agreed;
approval to fund the following groups with the condition of the provision of mandatory information before 31 March 2005: Barking, Croydon, Haringey, Harrow, Havering, Kensington, Kingston, Lambeth, Merton, Redbridge and Sutton be agreed;
the specific conditions for funding Tower Hamlets CPCG as set out in paragraph 22 of the report be noted;
the following groups: Brent, Bromley, and Ealing not be agreed;
the withdrawal of the London Chairs Forum bid as set out in paragraph 28 to 29 of the report be noted;
officers’ efforts to arrive at a more equitable distribution of funds across London as out in 35-40 of the report be noted;
a report on the future of community engagement funding (and details of one-off funding of group projects) be considered at its meeting in June 2005; and
the Committee note that the Appeals Panel will meet on 9/10 March and that therefore the grounds of any appeal must be received at the MPA by 5 pm on 25 February 2005

47. Community safety boards

(Agenda item 9)

Members received a report and update on the establishment of two Community Safety Boards in London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham and Islington.

Resolved – That

the Committee note the progress being made in establishing two pilot Community Safety Boards in the London Boroughs of Hammersmith and Fulham and Islington; and
further progress reports on this subject be received at subsequent meetings.

48. Safer London Panel – Report on first survey

(Agenda item 10)

The Committee considered a report that provided feedback from a public attitude survey, undertaken by the Office of Public Management on the Safer London Panel.

Members welcomed the report and the results of the Survey. They requested that where possible future surveys should attempt to be more representative for example to attempt to break data down into more specific groupings of London communities.

Whilst members welcomed the Panel being made available for research by other partners, the Committee agreed that the Panel’s work plan should be presented to a future meeting of the Committee.

Resolved – That

the MPS report to the next meeting of the Community Engagement Committee on the steps they are taking to:
- reduce the time which visitors to police stations have to wait before being attended to;
- correct public misapprehensions about incidents that are “not worth reporting to the police”, especially those where discrimination is involved;
- be more responsive to the policing priorities of local people;
MPA officers be instructed to analyse the survey data in more detail with reference to the above issues; and
before the Safer London Panel be made available for research use by other members of the GLA family and by other public sector bodies, (at cost and subject to the operational needs of the MPA) a further report on the Panel work plan be considered at a future meeting of the Committee.

49. MPS Strategic Consultation Unit work plan

(Agenda item 11)

An update report was considered by members that outlined the MPS Strategic Consultation Unit work plan.

Resolved – That

members note the report; and
members endorse the plan of action outlined in the report.

50. Citizen focussed policing programme - update

(Agenda item 12)

A report was received which provided an update on the MPS citizen focused policing programme.

Resolved - That

Members note the report; and
Members receive regular updates of progress on the Quality of Service Commitment Implementation Plan.

51. Safer neighbourhoods survey and public attitude survey option for development

(Agenda item 13)

Members considered a report that presented options available to the MPS Research and Survey Unit with regards to the development of the Safer Neighbourhoods Survey and Public Attitude Survey. In addition, the report informed members of the history of public attitude surveys, the relationship with safer neighbourhoods surveys, and outlined options, estimated costs and proposed ways forward.

Resolved – That Members noted the report

52. Update on the MPS consultation and community engagement website

(Agenda item 14)

Members were invited to endorse the MPS Consultation and Community Engagement website currently being development. The report gave details on the progress on the five phases of the website, as presented to the Committee at its meeting in October 2004.

Resolved – That

members note the report; and
members endorse the plan of action outlined in the report.

The meeting closed at 4.10 p.m.

Skip Navigation \| Accessible
Metropolitan Police Authority		Accessibility About MPA Contacts Search
Home Committees News Partnerships Reports Issues Events Links Your Views
Committees > Community Engagement > 03 Feb 05 > Minutes
QuickSearch Committees area only Advanced search See also The following pages on the MPA website are relevant: Agenda for this meeting			Views Print Accessible Actions Comment Report crime Report fraud Send
	Page summary This resource is from the Committees section. These are the minutes of the 3 February 2005 meeting of the Community Engagement Committee. Sections available here: Minutes - draft Present 39. Apologies for absence 40. Declarations of interests 41. Minutes – 2 December 2005 42. Chair’s, Members’ and Clerk’s update (oral report) 43. Review of Independent Custody Visiting Scheme 44. Response to the Review by the London ICVP Chairs and Administrators 45. Towards an MPA community engagement strategy 46. Community Engagement Funding 2005/06 47. Community safety boards 48. Safer London Panel – Report on first survey 49. MPS Strategic Consultation Unit work plan 50. Citizen focussed policing programme - update 51. Safer neighbourhoods survey and public attitude survey option for development 52. Update on the MPS consultation and community engagement website Content Minutes - draft Please note these minutes are currently draft and are subject to committee approval. Minutes of the Community Engagement Committee held on 3 February 2005 at 10 Dean Farrar Street, London, SW1H 0NY. Present Members Abdal Ullah (Chair) Aneeta Prem Kirsten Hearn Jenny Jones John Roberts MPA officers Chris Calnan (Community Engagement Unit) Andy Hull, (Community Engagement Unit) Tim Rees (Head of Community Engagement Unit) David Riddle (Deputy Clerk) Nick Baker (Head of Committee Services) MPS officers Richard Bryan (DAC, Planning and Performance) Jane Wilkin (Consultation Officer) Also present Edward Rees (Senior Consultant agenda item 12) Mr Ian Smith, Executive Director of the Independent Custody Visiting Association Betsey Stanko (Director Strategic Analysis item 13) Mick Farrant (Interim Chair of the Chars of ICVPs) (Items 5 and 6) 39. Apologies for absence (Agenda item 1) Apologies for absence were received from Nicky Gavron, Peter Herbert and Damian Hockney. 40. Declarations of interests (Agenda item 2) No interests were declared. 41. Minutes – 2 December 2005 (Agenda item 3) The Committee considered the minutes of the meeting held on 2 December 2004. Arising from minute 37 – Safer Neighbourhoods – Utilising the results of Community Engagement, members noted that an update on MPS pilot scheme on the use of technology in consultation would be presented to a future meeting. Resolved - That the minutes of the meeting held on 2 December be confirmed and signed as a correct record. 42. Chair’s, Members’ and Clerk’s update (oral report) (Agenda item 4) John Roberts reported that he had undertaken custody visits in Brixton and raised concerns at the standard of cells and the lack of and standard of provisions. The Deputy Clerk agreed to raise this concerns with the MPS. Kirsten Hearn reported that she had attended a meeting on community safety with representatives of the Gay, Lesbian Bi-sexual and Transgender community and at which discussion included the perception of young people as victim of crime as opposed to the perpetrators of crime. Jenny Jones informed the Committee that she had recently attended the showing of a film in Rotherhithe, which focused on the cutting of funding to young people projects, and which suggested that this could encourage crime amongst young people. Aneeta Prem reported that she had visited Thailand following the Asian Tsunami (at the invitation of the MPS) to assess the input of the MPS involvement in the support operation. She highlighted the need for continuing support for MPS staff in the countries affected and that the issues of resources to be discussed with the Home Office. The Chair thanked the Community Engagement Unit for the members’ away day, which had proved useful. It was agreed that a further half day session in 6 moths time be arranged. Resolved - That the oral reports be received. 43. Review of Independent Custody Visiting Scheme (Agenda item 5) Members considered a report that outlined the outcomes of the MPA’s review of Independent Custody Visiting in accordance with the Police Reform Act 2002. In doing so, members also received the report of the consultant appointed by the Committee to undertake the review, Mr Ian Smith, Executive Director of the Independent Custody Visiting Association (ICVA). Mr Smith attended the meeting to present his report to members. In both reports and in his presentation, Mr Smith reminded the Committee of the MPA’s statutory obligations relating to ICV’s and highlighted key areas of weakness in the delivery by the MPA of an ICV scheme. However, it was acknowledged that by undertaking such a review, the MPA were taking the first steps to alleviate some of the concerns outlined in his report and now needed to address all weaknesses in order for the MPA, not only to meet requirements, but to take a lead nationally on independent custody visiting. Chair of the Committee agreed that before consideration of the recommendations in the report, members should take agenda item 6 – Response by the London ICVP Chairs and Administrators. Following which members agreed that recommendation 4 be amended to allow the Deputy Clerk to establish a London ICV Programme Board as soon as possible. Resolved - That the Committee, having regard to the MPA’s responsibilities for Independent Custody Visiting in accordance with the Police Reform Act 2002, paragraph 51, welcomed the findings of the Review undertaken by Ian Smith; members supported a programme of action and reform drawing upon the findings of the Review of ICVPs undertaken by Ian Smith by which the MPA is able to fulfil its statutory responsibilities in ensuring a consistent and effective custody visiting service in London; officers continue to consult closely with the Chairs, volunteers and administrators of the local Panels across London in the development and implementation of this programme of reform; and the Deputy Clerk establish a London ICV Programme Board with responsibility to oversee the reform process as well as provide an ongoing oversight body of the ICV service, reporting to the Community Engagement Committee. 44. Response to the Review by the London ICVP Chairs and Administrators (Agenda item 6) Following the review of Independent Custody Visiting and in relation to agenda item 5, members received a report which gave a response to the review from the Chairs and Administrators of London ICV Panels. The report was presented by Mick Farrant, Interim Chair of the Chars of ICVPs. Mr Farrant informed the Committee that the chairs and administrators of ICV panels welcomed the need for a review of custody visiting in London. Mr Farrant stated that there were three issues arising from Mr Smith’s report and subsequent implementation plan which there was particular concern. These were highlighted as: the viability of the proposed centralisation of administrative structures and its impact on the London’s borough based system; resource allocation to the proposed administrative structure; and the need for an impact analysis of proposed changes. The Deputy Clerk thanked Mr Farrant for the points that he had raised and acknowledged the weaknesses in the delivery of an ICV scheme by the MPA. Members were concerned that in order to deliver the proposed implementation plan adequate resources would be required and that there was a need to engage with and acknowledge those who had maintained the services, prior to the review. In doing so, the Committee requested that their thanks to those volunteers who had been delivering the service be recorded. The Deputy Clerk added issues of resourcing the delivery of all of the proposals in the implementation plan would need to be addressed. However, the MPA had to ensure that its statutory requirements were being met. The Deputy Clerk added that he hoped that an action plan, in consultation with members and partners would be in place a soon as possible. The Committee would also be regularly updated on progress being made. In response to members, the Deputy Clerk informed members that as part of the review legal advice, particularly, around employment issues, would be sought. The Head of Community Engagement Unit informed members that there had been a high take up in registering for the London ICV Conference on 12 February 2005 at which it was anticipated that custody visiting could be re launched. Mr Farrant addressed the Committee on a number of issues in relation to ICV’s including: the role of ICVs and immigration detainees and the recruitment and retention of ICVs. Mr Farrant also requested further information on deaths in custody and the length of time it was taking for a conclusion of these investigation. It was agreed that a report on this issue be presented to the next meeting. Resolved –That the Committee receive and welcome the reports from the ICV Panels Chairs and administrators, as a means of strengthening the ongoing dialogue and partnership with the custody visitors; and the Committee receives an update report on deaths in custody at its next meeting. 45. Towards an MPA community engagement strategy (Agenda item 7) The Committee received a report that presented the draft Community Engagement Strategy for consideration. Resolved – That the report be received as the basis for further consultation and discussion before considering the adoption of a final Community Engagement Strategy at its next meeting and then submitting it for ratification to the full Authority. 46. Community Engagement Funding 2005/06 (Agenda item 8) A report was received that set out the proposals for community engagement fund allocated to the community police consultative groups for 2005/06. Since the report had been circulated, members were informed that both Enfield and Hackney had now supplied the required mandatory information and that it was recommended that the groups should receive funding without condition. Officers reported that discussion was ongoing with the group in Tower Hamlets regarding the provision of mandatory information and resolution of other issues as outlined in the report. The Committee also noted the ongoing discussion with the London Chairs Forum. Members welcomed officers’ efforts to arrive at a more equitable distribution of funds across London, and supported officers proposals to provided limited one-off funding to group based projects. In doing so, officers undertook to report back to the Committee on this issue in due course, as well as details on the future of community engagement funding. The Committee were reminded of the appeals process and that officers’ from the Community Engagement Unit would continue to hold dialogue with those groups where funding had not been recommended. The Deputy Clerk reported that he had held discussions with the representatives from the group from Ealing and was confident that the group would secure contained funding from the MPA provided that they could meet the criteria required for funding. Members supported officers who raised concerns that some groups were not making efforts to ensure that their membership and activities were in line with best practice or were not providing adequate information on such issues as ethnicity, gender, age range or disability. Members reiterated that the criteria for funding should be subject to the provision of mandatory data and groups should attempt to be as diverse as the communities they represent. The Deputy Clerk confirmed that following the Appeal Panel decisions to fund groups could be taken under the Authority’s urgency procedure. Officers from the Community Engagement Unit also undertook to keep link members informed of decision taken in relation to their boroughs. Resolved – That funding to the following groups without condition: Barnet, Bexley, Camden, Enfield, Hackney, Hillingdon, Hounslow, Lewisham, Newham, Richmond, Southwark, Waltham Forest, Wandsworth and Westminster be agreed; approval to fund the following groups with the condition of the provision of mandatory information before 31 March 2005: Barking, Croydon, Haringey, Harrow, Havering, Kensington, Kingston, Lambeth, Merton, Redbridge and Sutton be agreed; the specific conditions for funding Tower Hamlets CPCG as set out in paragraph 22 of the report be noted; the following groups: Brent, Bromley, and Ealing not be agreed; the withdrawal of the London Chairs Forum bid as set out in paragraph 28 to 29 of the report be noted; officers’ efforts to arrive at a more equitable distribution of funds across London as out in 35-40 of the report be noted; a report on the future of community engagement funding (and details of one-off funding of group projects) be considered at its meeting in June 2005; and the Committee note that the Appeals Panel will meet on 9/10 March and that therefore the grounds of any appeal must be received at the MPA by 5 pm on 25 February 2005 47. Community safety boards (Agenda item 9) Members received a report and update on the establishment of two Community Safety Boards in London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham and Islington. Resolved – That the Committee note the progress being made in establishing two pilot Community Safety Boards in the London Boroughs of Hammersmith and Fulham and Islington; and further progress reports on this subject be received at subsequent meetings. 48. Safer London Panel – Report on first survey (Agenda item 10) The Committee considered a report that provided feedback from a public attitude survey, undertaken by the Office of Public Management on the Safer London Panel. Members welcomed the report and the results of the Survey. They requested that where possible future surveys should attempt to be more representative for example to attempt to break data down into more specific groupings of London communities. Whilst members welcomed the Panel being made available for research by other partners, the Committee agreed that the Panel’s work plan should be presented to a future meeting of the Committee. Resolved – That the MPS report to the next meeting of the Community Engagement Committee on the steps they are taking to: reduce the time which visitors to police stations have to wait before being attended to; correct public misapprehensions about incidents that are “not worth reporting to the police”, especially those where discrimination is involved; be more responsive to the policing priorities of local people; MPA officers be instructed to analyse the survey data in more detail with reference to the above issues; and before the Safer London Panel be made available for research use by other members of the GLA family and by other public sector bodies, (at cost and subject to the operational needs of the MPA) a further report on the Panel work plan be considered at a future meeting of the Committee. 49. MPS Strategic Consultation Unit work plan (Agenda item 11) An update report was considered by members that outlined the MPS Strategic Consultation Unit work plan. Resolved – That members note the report; and members endorse the plan of action outlined in the report. 50. Citizen focussed policing programme - update (Agenda item 12) A report was received which provided an update on the MPS citizen focused policing programme. Resolved - That Members note the report; and Members receive regular updates of progress on the Quality of Service Commitment Implementation Plan. 51. Safer neighbourhoods survey and public attitude survey option for development (Agenda item 13) Members considered a report that presented options available to the MPS Research and Survey Unit with regards to the development of the Safer Neighbourhoods Survey and Public Attitude Survey. In addition, the report informed members of the history of public attitude surveys, the relationship with safer neighbourhoods surveys, and outlined options, estimated costs and proposed ways forward. Resolved – That Members noted the report 52. Update on the MPS consultation and community engagement website (Agenda item 14) Members were invited to endorse the MPS Consultation and Community Engagement website currently being development. The report gave details on the progress on the five phases of the website, as presented to the Committee at its meeting in October 2004. Resolved – That members note the report; and members endorse the plan of action outlined in the report. The meeting closed at 4.10 p.m. Internal links The following pages on the MPA website are relevant: Agenda for this meeting

Committees > Community Engagement > 03 Feb 05 > Minutes
© Copyright 2002-2009, Metropolitan Police Authority. \| Terms & Conditions \| Privacy \| Freedom of Information