Issue - meetings

To approve the draft scope and terms of reference for the review (attached).

It was noted that Joanne McCartney, the Metropolitan Police Authority (MPA) link member for Haringey, had suggested that the issue of quality be added to the terms of reference and agreed that this be incorporated.  It was noted that the Local Criminal Justice Board (LCJB) had overall responsibility for victims and witnesses.  A recent joint inspectorate report had shown an improvement in satisfaction with services but also made a number of recommendations including one that the LCJB take ownership of victim and witness issues.  It was currently unclear as to whether the London board or the local group for Haringey would be taking this forward. Other recommendations covered the need for front line police officers to better identify vulnerable witnesses, referrals to Victim Support, court waiting times and the safety of witnesses. 

It was noted that Victim Support and Hearthstone had both been invited to give evidence to the second meeting of the review, on 2 November.  It was agreed that Victim Support would be asked to provide a profile of victims that come to their attention, including the age range.

It was noted that there would be a need to obtain evidence from the Borough Commander in his role as Chair of the local group of the LCJB, the Court Service and the Crown Prosecution Service.  This would need to be done through an additional meeting being added into the programme.  The Court Service only covered the magistrates court so it would be necessary to investigate whether there was any local jurisdiction of what took place in the Crown Court.

It terms of obtaining the views of service users, it was noted that it was likely to be challenging for Victim Support to persuade victims to participate in a focus group.  However, it was felt more likely that volunteers working with victims would be willing to assist.  Victim Support agreed to explore both these options.   In addition, Members also felt that there might be some constituents who might wish to share their experiences and contribute.

It was noted that the witness satisfaction figures for Haringey, although above the London average, were marginally below the target figure for London and felt that this should be raised with relevant service providers and commissioners. 

It was agreed that Haringey CPCG would be invited provide a co-opted Member to the Panel.  It was noted that this did not preclude other CPCG members attending and participating in meetings if they so wished. 

AGREED

1. That Haringey CPCG be formally invited to nominate a representative to be co-opted onto the Panel.

2. That Victim Support be requested to provide a profile of victims of crime within the Borough that come to their attention, including information on the age range.

3. That the scope and terms of reference for the review, as amended, be recommended to the Overview and Scrutiny Committee.

To approve the draft scope and terms of reference for the review (attached).

The Panel considered the draft scope and terms of reference for the review and made the following comments:

·        Looking at best practice elsewhere would be particularly helpful in view of the good performance that had been achieved by some neighbouring boroughs with similar challenges to Haringey

·        It was suggested that the following additional individuals/organisations be invited to contribute to the review:

Ø      Mike Davis (PSHE/Citizenship/Participation Manager – Children and Young People's Service)

Ø      Adrian Kelly (Regional Teenage Pregnancy Co-ordinator – Government Office for London)

Ø      Exposure, who had undertaken a particular exercise promoting chlamydia screening

It was noted that the GP who acted as the sexual health collaborative lead was likely to require considerable notice before attending a panel meeting and flexibility might need to be exercised in order to accommodate her.  This was due to the need for cover arrangements for her surgery.

It was noted that Cllr Newton was unable to attend the date that had previously been set for the second meeting of the Panel and agreed that an alternative would be sought. 

AGREED:

1. That, subject to incorporation of the above mentioned comments, the draft scope and terms of reference for the review be approved and recommended to the Overview and Scrutiny Committee.

2. That, in consultation with members of the panel, an alternative date be sought for the second meeting of the Panel.

To receive a draft scoping report and terms of reference for panel discussion (Martin Bradford, Research Officer, Overview & Scrutiny)

The panel discussed various aspects of the scoping report and the background data provided within it.  The following provides a summary of some of the issues raised by the panel and others present at the meeting. 

Place Survey

Excerpts from the Place Survey were presented to the review panel.  The panel were interested in the findings from the place survey, particularly those which highlighted the comparative ranking of transport as an issue of most concern in Haringey.  The Panel wished to receive further clarification on the methodology that was used for the Place Survey (there was some concern that this was a electronic survey).  It was agreed that this would be presented at the next meeting.

The panel also expressed a desire to see further comparative data from the Place Survey which related Haringey residents’ perceptions of transport issues alongside other London Boroughs.  It was also agreed that this would be presented at the next meeting.

               Agreed: That further details on the place survey as well as comparative data to be provided to the panel.

               Local Implementation Plan

The Panel noted that Local Authorities would begin to develop Local Implementation Plans in the spring of 2010 (subject to the completion of the Mayors Transport Strategy).  This in effect, is the boroughs local transport strategy.  As part of the preparation process, Haringey would be expected to consult widely with local stakeholders and other local interest groups.  It was noted that the timing of the review could be influential in guiding the development and content of the local strategy (through conclusions developed in the review and recommendations contained within final report). 

The Panel noted that process through which LIP funding was administered was being reformed: to simplify the process funding streams were being reduced from 23 to 5 to reduce; to reduce bureaucracy the requirement for LA’s to provide an annual report has been dropped; to create future certainty and planning more funding would be announced in advance.  Overall, the impact was to give LA’s further flexibility as to how they spend the TfL allocation (in relation to the Mayor’s transport priorities).  The panel noted that funding for Haringey from the Local Implementation Plan for 2010/2011 had been set at £2.8m. 

The panel sought further clarification on how budgets were allocated to LA’s through the LIP. It was noted that each year LA were required to outline bids to TfL relaying their transport plans for the year ahead and how they complied with the objectives of the Mayors Transport Strategy.  The Panel noted that under the new funding process, a funding formula had been developed which aims to recognise local needs and apportion funds accordingly.

Cycling

Proportionally fewer people cycle in Haringey compared to our geographic neighbours and to other comparable boroughs.  It was felt that this could be assessed within the review, to help understand why cycling is not as popular in Haringey and how modal share can be improved.  It was noted that there may be other boroughs which appear  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5