College of Policing
Title of meetingCollege of Policing Independent Advisory Panel
Date10th February 2015 at 12:30
VenueCollege of Policing, St Paul’s/Tate Rooms, Riverside House,
2a Southwark Bridge Road, London SE1 9HA
AttendeesPanel:David Carrigan (Chair),John Azah, Laura Costello, Laurence Gouldbourne, Keith Kerr (Deputy Chair),
Maqsood Ahmad via audio link
College:Rob Beckley, Giselle Lockett, Anne Taylor,Vaughan Willmore, Rachel Claughton
Linda Harpley, Mary Maddocks
ApologiesPanel:Gurvinder Sandher.
1.Welcome and Introductions
1.1The Chair welcomed attendees and introductions followed.
1.2Following discussion, the Chair requested that information be obtained on the use of technology to enable Panel members to join the meeting either through video conferencing or via the Lync system. Mary Maddocks had already investigated the use of video conferencing – this is possible with the provision of an IP address and enough notice for the BT link to be arranged. Giselle Lockett undertook to bring this up with Malcolm Cornberg at the forthcoming Tier 2 meeting.
Action 1:Giselle Lockett to enquire about the use of the Lync system for external participation at meetings.
2.Minutes and Actions and Matters Arising from 11th November 2014
2.1Item 2.4.1 – amendment to minutes - it should be emphasised that the College Ethics Committee (CEC) was solely internally focussed.
2.2Item 2.5 – The CEC had met on 12th January. Five volunteer representatives had been recruited from College sites to ensure a diverse range of opinion was drawn from all elements and levels within the College. At that meeting it proposed that a member of the Panel attend the CEC in order that the Committee encompassed truly independent views.
2.3Item 2.6 – amendment to minutes - David Harris had departed from BAE Systems – Joe Stone was the new contact.
2.4Item 4.4 – amendment to minutes -this should read ‘McKinsey Report’, not McKenzie report.
2.5.1Actions 1, 2 and 3 – Review of Police Leadership
Aidan Melling had agreed to send general updates to the Panel. As this had not yet been received, Giselle Lockett agreed to take the action forward by supplying the latest Presentation slides, which would give an overview of the draft Recommendations,together with a narrative.
2.5.2The Panel had submitted one hypothesis for consideration and Aidan had said that this would be covered.
2.5.3The first draft of the Equality Impact Assessment of the draft Recommendations had just been written and would be sent to the Panel once Giselle had looked at it
2.5.4The Report was in the process of being written and the Panel was requested to conduct a critical read of this once Rob Beckley had checked the timing of that with the College Chair and the CEO.
Action 2:Giselle Lockett to let the Panel have the Leadership Review Presentation slides, and a narrative, together with sight of the EIA work on the recommendations.
2.6Action 4 – Board Review questionnaire – this had been completed by the Panel and returned to Anne Taylor.
2.7The minutes were accepted as a true record, subject to the above amendments.
3.Recommended Way Forward for the IAG – Anne Taylor
3.1Speaking to previously circulated papers, Anne was seeking the views of the Panel to the proposed next steps. General points raised were:
3.1.1The seeking views of local communities and creatingregional connections. The College did not have a regional strategy at the moment. There was a possibility that this could be encompassed within the development of a Members’ Committee, which would be an advisory group to the Board, with the possibility of seeking representatives from across the county.
3.1.2The remit of the Panel was to act as critical friends and to give independent advice to the College, not to act as a national Advisory Group for local IAGs but informal links would be of benefit in gathering issues at a local level.
3.1.3The Panel sought assurance that it would be used effectively and that issues and actions arising at Panel meetings would be taken forward appropriately. The assurance was provided by Rob Beckley, Chief Operating Officer.
3.2Terms of Reference as circulated– agreed.
3.3Action Plan as circulated – names and timescales would be agreed between Anne Taylor and Vaughan Willmore within the next three weeks – agreed.
Action 3:Anne Taylor and Vaughan Willmore to add names and timescales to the Action Plan within the next three weeks.
3.4Name of the Panel – Independent College Advisory Panel (ICAP) – agreed.
3.5.1Recruitment of New Members – it was agreed that the best number of Panel members would be between seven and eleven, with no more than eleven.
3.5.2Skills required of new members to be drawn from the analysis of Annex B.
3.5.3An appropriate brief encompassing equality, diversity and human rights, to be given to the recruiters.
3.5.4Interview panel to be made up of the Chair of the Panel, a member of the Executive team plus an independent interviewer, to ensure transparency.
3.6Remuneration for the Panel – the Nomination and Remuneration Committee would be meeting on 18th February 2015 and would be considering the remuneration of all of the committees.
4.Business Planning 2015/2016 – Vaughan Willmore
4.1The Business planning paper was well received at the Board meeting on 27th January and the 2015/16 Business Plan will be presented to the Board on 24th March. This will have a five year outlook. Referring to Item 4.6 on the IAG Review paper, it was felt the Panel may want to have an input or to have a standing item on the agenda around the Business Plan on what is planned for the next six to twelve months. This will allow Panel to influence activity at an early stage.
4.2The Grant in Aidfrom Government would not be known until after the Board meeting. Assumptions were being made and senior managers were made aware at Business Planning Workshop held on 3rd February; there would be a further Workshop on 12th March.
4.3Points arising were:
4.3.1The need to be mindful of what customers will need in 2020 and how technology and energy might impact on demand.
4.3.2With regard to income by diversification, would the products offered meet the shortfall between income and the grant? If many products were being delivered free of charge, how would that impact upon the budget? There was a question to be asked about whether the College continued to provide products that had little take-up. It was possible that the College would not want to continue with certain products - how would that impact on trust? Continuous Professional Development is new to the service and it was yet to be seen how that would impact on the products offered. The detailed list of products was still being considered.
4.3.3From a general perspective, would the College be able to influence decisions made on the front line and how they impact upon local communities, such as the decision not to police demonstrations in certain areas.
4.3.4In the ‘Working with Partners’ section, only chief constables are mentioned, the rest of the police service are also partners. The National Police Chiefs’ Council would also be an important player.
4.3.5New commissions were regularly coming in, which impacted upon effective business planning.
4.3.6The culture of the College would be embedded in one of the key streams of the Operating Model - Rachel Tuffin would be leading on Building the Organisation and there was a slide available that could be shared with the Panel. The Staff Survey results are about to be published andwill be shared with the Panel. Focus Groups and Staff Roadshows would be taking place over the next month.
Action 4:Rob Beckley to share the Staff Survey with the Panel and Linda Harpley to obtain the Building the Organisation slide from Rachel Tuffin.
5.Stop and Search Briefing Paper – for awareness and comment
5.1Rob Beckley was disappointed that Nick Glynn had not been invited to the meeting as the paper did not do justice to the work that was being undertaken by Nick and felt that the Panel would have greatly benefited from his input. The Chair had taken the decision to limit the agenda items in order to concentrate on the way forward for the Panel.
5.2Comments from the Panel:
5.2.1Policing needs to be conducted with consent. Culturally people need to understand that they need to change behaviour on the street so that less stops would occur, be compliant and ask for a docket.
5.2.2Rob Beckley commented on the purpose of the work was to determine the extent that S&S was an effective method for fighting crime. It also aimed to determine if public support for S&S was high and a factor in its use creating confidence in community
5.2.3It is the impact of the encounter that is important. The tool needs to be used intelligently. The greater debt rests with the service to manage the interaction. Nick Glynn would be interested in your views on how effective it can be when the service does not represent the subjects who are stopped and searched.
5.2.4The work being undertaken on Unconscious Bias would give a broader picture. Many groups do not understand what they are doing and their behaviours.
5.3The Stop and Search Project was one of the College’s five key products and was working in partnership with the EHRC.
5.4A query was raised as to whether the Next Steps tool, which was produced under the NPIA was still being utilised.
Action 5:The EDHR team to query with Nick Glynn on whether the Next Steps tool was still being used.
5.5The National Policing Curriculum Consultation on Stop and Search was taking place on 17th February and the Panel was asked whether a member wished to be involved in that or any other aspect of the project. Keith Kerr agreed to see whether he would be able to attend.
Action 6:Linda Harpley to provide Keith Kerr’s details to Nick Glynn.
6.Any Other Business
6.1The next College Ethics Committee was taking place on 9th March. Meetings take place quarterly for two hours and Rachel Claughton asked whether one of the Panel would like to attend.
Action 7:Rachel Claughton to send details to the Chair, who would contact Panel members to see who would be able to attend.
6.2The College was complimented on its publication of its analysis of National Demand. The data had been gathered from different forces, there may be other questions to ask that the Panel may be interested in. It was suggested that Nerys Hughes or one of the RAI team be asked to say how we got where we are with the methodology.
Action 8:EDHR team to enquire from Nerys Thomas regarding the methodology on the Analysis of National Demand. Reponse is added to the minutes Appendix A
7.Date of next meetings
The next Board meeting was taking place in June. The next meeting of the Panel would be arranged for Tuesday 9thJune and the schedule for the following year will be set in line with college board meetings if possible.
Venue: College of Policing, 2a Southwark Bridge Road, London SE1 9HA
Time 12.30 – 16.00
College of Policing
Appendix A
Action 8: Response from Nerys Thomas regarding the methodology used in the National Demand report:
The methods used:
- Analysis of national sources of data on demands on the police to identify current demands and trends over time. The sources included data collected by the Home Office, Department of Health, Ministry of Justice and third sector groups.
- Analysis of 5 years-worth of incident data from 4 forces to identify the nature of incidents and trends over time.
- Analysis of a data return from 12 forces on specific areas of policing with limited national data; and
- Presentation of local analyses on particular areas of demand supplied by forces following a request for information.
Let L harpley know if you need anything more.