Minutes - draft

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

Minutes of the meeting of the Metropolitan Police Authority held on 25 May 2006 at 10 Dean Farrar Street, London, SW1H 0NY.

Present

Members

• Len Duvall (Chair)
• Reshard Auladin (Deputy Chair)
• Cindy Butts (Deputy Chair)
• Tony Arbour
• Jennette Arnold
• Richard Barnes
• Dee Doocey
• Toby Harris
• Kirsten Hearn
• Damian Hockney
• Elizabeth Howlett
• Jenny Jones
• Karim Murji
• Bob Neill
• Aneeta Prem
• Murad Qureshi
• John Roberts
• Richard Sumray
• Graham Tope
• Rachel Whittaker

MPA officers

• Catherine Crawford (Chief Executive)
• David Riddle (Deputy Chief Executive, Deputy Clerk and Solicitor to the Authority)
• Ken Hunt (Treasurer)
• Nick Baker (Head of Committee Services)

MPS officers

• Sir Ian Blair (Commissioner)
• Paul Stephenson (Deputy Commissioner)
• Tim Godwin (Assistant Commissioner)
• Keith Luck (Director of Resources)

Also present: David Warwick and Roger King (Government Office for London – Item 7)

134. Apologies for absence and announcement by Chair

(Agenda item 1)

Apologies for absence were received from Nicky Gavron.

The Chair informed the Authority that agenda items 10, 11 and 12, with the agreement of members, would be withdrawn. He added that this would allow him and particular members to meet with the MPS to informally discuss estate matters in further detail, prior to reporting back to the Authority. In doing so, the Chair reconfirmed that the decision made by the Finance Committee on 20 April 2006 in relation to Central London Training Delivery Centre stood.

RESOLVED – That

1. agenda items 10-12 be withdrawn from the agenda; and
2. following discussions between the Chair, other member and the MPS a further report on the estate be presented to a future meeting of the Authority.

135. Declarations of interest

(Agenda item 2)

No declarations were made.

136. Minutes

(Agenda item 3)

The minutes of the meeting of the Authority held on 30 March 2006 were agreed and signed as a correct record.

The minutes of the meeting of the Authority held on 27 April 2006 were agreed and signed as a correct record, subject to the comments made by Cindy Butts (Deputy Chair) being noted.

Cindy Butts requested that the minutes of 27 April 2006 include; in relation to ‘minute 128 Commissioner’s update’, that an analysis would undertaken by the MPS into the use of dogs against other people. In relation to minute ‘132 Homicide and Serious Crime Command’; that the MPS would undertake preliminary discussions with ACPO on the categorisation of homicides.

In response to Jenny Jones, the Chair confirmed that a report on Transport policing, including the prevention of road deaths would be presented to the next meeting of the Authority.

RESOLVED – That the minutes of the meetings of the Authority held on 30 March 2006 and 27 April 2006, subject to the comments raised by Cindy Butts be agreed and signed as a correct record.

137. Questions to the Authority

(Agenda item 4)

The Authority, in accordance with Standing Order 2.7, received the following question from Mr David Mery:

'To be a Londoner these days is to feel one is considered guilty until proven innocent. The overreaction of the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) to the horrific terrorist attacks of last July has resulted in many innocents Londoners suffering from the long-term effects of having been arbitrarily detained and/or arrested. Another consequence of this worsening policing of London is intimidation, increased mistrust and even fear of the MPS. This has not enhanced our security, to the contrary.

What is the MPA doing to ensure that Police powers are more balanced and checked so they are not further abused against innocents Londoners? Is the MPA actively consulting with the innocent Londoners that have been arrested and released without further action? What actions are taken by the MPA so that Londoners can stop being paranoid about which aspect of our behaviour or clothing, or which picture we take will be used as an excuse for detainment, arrest or shooting by the MPS? How does the MPA plan to restore trust in the Police?’

The Chief Executive and Clerk provided the following response to Mr Mery’s question

“The Metropolitan Police Authority (MPA) is fully committed to the principle of innocence until proven guilty. The MPA is also acutely aware of the need to strike a balance between robust counter-terrorist policing, the protection of fundamental civil liberties, and the maintenance of public trust and confidence in the police.

"The MPA does not consider the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) to have overreacted to the horrific terrorist attacks which killed 52 innocent people in London on 7 July 2005 and the attempted bombings a fortnight later. The MPS responded with the seriousness that these acts of indiscriminate murder demanded. Notwithstanding the tragic death of Jean-Charles de Menezes on 22 July 2005, the MPS response in terms of both disaster-management and investigation has drawn respect and recognition from around the world. A MORI survey in September 2005 suggested that 86% of Londoners believe that the MPS responded well to the attacks.

"Recognising the potential which Londoners themselves have to contribute to the safety and security of the capital, the MPA has undertaken to deliver a series of consultative activities in the field of counter-terrorism. The first of these activities was the MPA’s ‘Together Against Terror?’ conference in December 2005, attended by over 150 community members. Planned activities in 2006 include a series of public hearings, focus groups in universities and colleges, and local consultation in all 32 London Boroughs.

"The MPA consults Londoners in order to understand what the public expect from the police. It does then respond to their views. For example, as a result of public feedback, the MPA has secured the agreement of the MPS to publish its statistics on Section 44 (Terrorism Act 2000) stops and searches.

"Separate arrangements, defined by statute, are in place for dealing with public complaints and specific allegations of police misconduct. The MPA works closely with the MPS and the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) to ensure that complaints against the police are handled properly.

"In counter-terrorism, as in all other fields of policing, the MPA remains committed to securing an effective, efficient and fair police service for all of London’s communities.”

In accordance with Standing Order 2.7.4, the Chair invited Mr Mery to respond to the Chief Executive and Clerk’s response and Mr Mery added the following:

‘As ‘The Metropolitan Police Authority (MPA) does not consider the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) to have overreacted to the horrific terrorist attacks’ of last July 2005, and that ‘the MPS response in terms of both disaster-management and investigation has drawn respect and recognition from around the world’ we have an essential disagreement. If the MPA finds the MPS is doing a perfect job in respect to its anti-terrorism response then a discussion on how it can be improved is not possible. This satisfaction can not be shared by all Londoners when there are so many stop and searches under Section 44(2) of the Terrorism Act 2000, and subsequent arrests of innocent Londoners. This does not make us any more secure but does impact the lives of Londoners. Even Sir Ian Blair, the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, appears to disagree with MPA's assessment. He is reported by Bloomberg to have said at the MPA's own 'Together Against Terror?' conference last December: ‘London police have arrested 130 suspects since suicide bomb attacks in July, yet the threat of terrorism continues to increase’.

That's more than all the arrests, whether in connection with terrorism or not, resulting from stop and searches conducted under Section 44(2) during the combined financial years 2003/4 and 2004/5 (the Met arrested 125 persons during this period according to the Statistics on Race and the Criminal Justice System). And that's only for five months. Former Home Office criminologist and visiting professor at Kent University, Professor Marian Fitzgerald mentioned on BBC 1, on 22 January 2006, that ‘under the Terrorism Stop and search [legislation], the arrest rate there is only 1% and very few of these arrests are anything to do with terrorism.’ This shows that that the MPS must work more effectively with more intelligence instead of stopping, searching and arresting Londoners, without reasonable cause, on the basis of a stereotypical profiling. How can the MPA be satisfied that the MPS keeping DNA samples, fingerprints and palm print of innocents forever, and PNC records, including mentions of non-conviction, until the Londoner reaches 100 years old increases our security. The MPA is to be commended on getting the MPS to publish statistics such as the Statistics on Race and the Criminal Justice System. May I suggest the MPA puts further pressure on the MPS for the statistics to be published earlier and to include the number of arrestees being tried and how many are convicted. The MPA's 'Together Against Terror?' conference was I'm sure a very interesting. It is unfortunate that its existence was announced by a press release only three days earlier and that the selection of the over 150 (100 in the press release) community members has not been open and transparent. I couldn't find transcripts or videos of the event, either. Hopefully lessons have been learned from organising this event and the forthcoming events will be more open to Londoners. I am disappointed that your response has not convinced me that ‘in counter-terrorism, as in all other fields of policing, the MPA remains committed to securing an effective and efficient and fair police service for all of London's communities.’

The Chair of the Authority, in response to Mr Mery’s concerns about not being able to find any transcript of the MPA’s ‘Together Against Terror’ conference, directed him to the MPA website. He welcomed Mr Mery’s question and confirmed that the issues he had raised would continue to form part of on going discussions within the Authority and suggested that Mr Mery to attend the Authority’s Stop and Search Review Board where he may make a contribution to holding the MPS to account. The Chair also suggested that he may also want to meet with the Chair of that Board, John Roberts, to discuss his own experiences. This was supported by Jennette Arnold, who agreed with Mr Mery’s opinion that his experiences of the use of additional use stop and search following the events of July 2005, had greatly affected the lives of some Londoners.

A question to the Authority, in accordance with Standing Order 1.6, was submitted from MPA member Tony Arbour, in relation to electoral fraud.

‘How many complaints have the MPS received and from which boroughs, how many are currently being investigated and from which boroughs? What kinds of fraud are being investigated? Are there common features of fraud across London?

The following response was given:

‘The Commissioner gave an undertaking at the April meeting of the Full Authority to report back to members on electoral fraud in the recent borough elections.

The Special Prosecutions Unit (SPU) of Special Branch is currently dealing with this enquiry.

25 -30 offences have been reported to the Special Branch - SPU so far from the boroughs of Barnet, Bexley, Croydon, Ealing, Greenwich, Harrow, Hounslow, Kensington and Chelsea, Lambeth, Merton, Richmond, Southwark and Sutton.

Investigations are also being conducted into Tower Hamlets at this stage focussing purely on the identification of victims and witnesses and the acquisition of useful evidence and intelligence.

It is quite normal for complaints to be received several weeks after the actual poll. The law provides 12 months to bring prosecutions for specific electoral offences.

The MPS will be able to provide further information once investigations have concluded’.

The Commissioner confirmed that work was ongoing in relation to allegations made relating to election fraud and that these findings would be presented, in due course, to the Authority. He would write to members in the interim outlining the types of allegations received to date.

RESOLVED – That

1. the questions from Mr Mery and Tony Arbour be noted; and
2. the Commissioner write to members outlining the types of allegations being made in relation to election fraud.

138. Minutes of committees

(Agenda item 5)

The minutes of the following committees were received for information:

• Equal Opportunities and Diversity Board 6 April 2006
• Finance Committee 20 April 2006
• Planning, Performance and review Committee 24 April 2006
• Strategy and Policing Committee 11 May 2006

RESOLVED – That the minutes of Committee be received and noted.

139. Chair’s update

(Agenda item 6)

The Chair congratulated Abdal Ullah on his recent election to Tower Hamlets Council. In doing so, it was noted that as a result of election, Abdal Ullah would be required to resign from the Authority.

The Authority joined the Chair in thanking Abdal for his contribution to the work of the Authority over the last six years and wished him every success with Tower Hamlets.

RESOLVED – That the Authority’s congratulations and thanks to Abdal Ullah be noted.

140. METROPOLITAN POLICE SERVICE INVOLVEMENT IN LOCAL AREA ARRANGEMENTS

(Agenda item 7)

A report was considered that set out the current position of Local Area Agreements (LAA) and which identified specific implications for the both MPS and MPA. In addition to the report, the Authority received a presentation on LAA by David Warwick and Roger King from the Government Office for London (GoL).

The presentation outlined details relating to LAAs and these included; what is an LAA; benefits of LAA; key features of LAAs; key lessons of phases 1 and 2 and the timetable for phase 3, mandatory crime aspects; and funding issues.

The presentation also provided implication for the MPA: these included:

• An opportunity to contribute to Local Strategic Partnerships (LSP) agenda;
• A chance to engage LAs and others in the police agenda (e.g. safer neighbourhoods).
• A chance to tie in other agenda to crime reduction such as health, education and housing.
• A clear link to CDA review (national standards, new monitoring and inspection, new role for scrutiny committees and community call action).
• A chance to influence both the LSP and the LAA.

Arising from the presentation members raised a number of issues.

Clarification was sought on funding of LAAs and it was confirmed that the funding being provided was additional and would be on a sliding scale, depending on the size of the borough. It was also noted that approximately 20 borough’s had volunteered to take part in phase 2 and that there would be a general relaxing of controls.

There was some concern that as MPA was not represented on all of the local strategic partnerships and therefore it was debatable how the MPA could add value or provide an input in some areas. Members suggested that there was a need for a better understanding of ‘partnership’, as some local authorities felt they were taking the lead and this could be seen as not a true a partnership. In relation to partnership issues, David Warwick acknowledged some of the difficulties raised, but suggested that it was not necessarily about structures, but about partners engaging and bring wider issues to the table.

Members also asked if the shift to local strategic partnerships would detrimental to CDRPs, Roger King reminded the Authority that CDRPs were statutory bodies, but agreed that the issue of representation on local strategic partnerships would need to be looked at.

Roger King confirmed that the criminal justice system was now beginning to engage in the LAA process understanding its importance and in response to members he confirmed that Londoners would see the benefits of agreements by the provision of better services and by better performance. He also suggested that the input of the funding provided by the MPA, if used strategically, would be very beneficial and acknowledged that agreements would have to reflect the diversity of London’s 32 boroughs.

The Commissioner pointed out that the presentation appeared to ignore existing partnership work that already existed throughout London and which the MPS were fully engaged in and suggested that GoL should also be focusing on getting local authorities to more accountable in relation to community safety.

AC Godwin drew member’s attention to paragraph 19 of the report, which outlined the key implications for the MPS. In doing so, he acknowledged that there was further work to be undertaken in relation to balancing targets and commitments as the MPS do not work to a 3-year budget process.

RESOLVED – That

1. the report and presentation be noted; and
2. the guidance to be given to borough MPS staff in relation to Local Area Agreements be noted.

141. CRIME AND DISORDER REDUCTION PARTNERSHIP UPDATE

(Agenda item 8)

Members received a report that summarised developments and work of the 32 crime and disorder reduction partnerships during 2005.

In particular the report summarised the MPA activity with CDRPs in 2005; requested members’ feedback and any key issues in their involvement with partnership’s during 2005; and asked members to consider how future MPA involvement in CDRPs should be delivered.

Members requested clarification on provision of regular reports to their community. Confirmation was given that this would be an annual report. In relation to ward councillors taking particular concerns via the local authority, to CDRPs, this process had yet to confirmed, as was the level of police authority representation on scrutiny committees.

The Chair supported the need for members to discuss the members’ role and the Authority’s strategic role in this process further and suggested that this could be taken forward at the next members’ away day.

RESOLVED – That

1. note the report and advise on how the MPA should take forward its role on CDRPs in 2006/07; and
2. note members’ feedback on their involvement with CDRPs.

142. Commissioner’s update

(Agenda item 9)

Prior to the Commissioner’s update, the Authority, the Commissioner, MPA and MPS staff and members of the public stood in respect and in the memory following the murder of special constable Nisha Patel-Nasri.

The Commissioner reported orally on a number of matters and monthly performance information was tabled.

Performance

The Authority received the monthly performance information for April 2006.

The Commissioner highlighted the reduction in offences in many areas including gun-enabled crime, Trident gun crime, burglary (dwellings) and racists crime and it was noted that the total number of offences was down by 8.5%.

However, the Commissioner his particular concerns at the increase in robbery. He added that many robberies were street robberies and many these were of mobile phones and were committed by young people on young people.

AC Goodwin provided members with details of the increase in robbery, particularly among young people and reminded members of the measures introduced, since 2001 to deal with these crimes, which had often previously not been reported. AC Godwin also outlined the number of robberies that involved theft of a mobile phone and the efforts being made by the mobile phone industry to block stolen telephones.

In response to members concerns about the perception of violent crime, AC Goodwin outlined current work being undertaken by the Violent Crime Directorate in this matter. He also confirmed that he was working with TfL on a number of initiatives, but would take back the suggestion of rescheduling bus timetabling or re-routing buses.

In relation to questions concerning the illegal unblocking of stolen mobile phones, confirmation was given that the national mobile phone crime unit did carry out investigations. In doing so, AC Goodwin noted the particular areas of London raised by members, were this appeared to be prevalent and undertook to investigate those premises that are offering this illegal service.

The Commissioner confirmed that whilst he was promoting concerns about robbery, other areas of performance would remain fully supported.

In response to members’ questions on the perception of racist crime, trends of violent racial crime and what work the MPS was undertaking to reassure communities and boroughs, the Commissioner acknowledged that this was difficult to present in a number format, however, he reported that satisfaction from victims of racist crime and in the service from the MPS had increased from 59% to 72%. In relation to faith crimes, he confirmed that these figures were included in the information provided, when that information was provided. The Commissioner agreed to provide any details of increase in violent racial crime to Aneeta Prem.

In conclusion, the Commissioner proposed that future performance figures should be accompanied with details of satisfaction levels.

Other issues

Shooting in Islington

The Commissioner provided members with an update on the shooting of two people in the Upper Street, Islington area. He confirmed that at this stage it was not believed to be a Trident incident.

Reform ‘think tank’ – dangerousness of cities

The Commissioner drew members’ attention to data provided by the Reform ‘think tank’ on dangerous cities and which London boroughs had been ranked by levels of crime against population. He stated that, with the exception of the data relating to Westminster, which he believed to be wrong, it confirmed the view that crime was linked to urban deprivation.

Safer Neighbourhoods

All teams were in place and there were currently 66 PCSO vacancies, but there were a number of applications in place.

Brian Haw

The Commissioner provided members of details of the removal of the site that Mr Brian Haw had established in Parliament Square, as part of his demonstration against the Iraqi war.

He informed members of the legal background for the removal of Mr Haw’s site and that 78 officers had been involved, he also confirmed that the costs were £7,200 (£3,000 on overtime £4,200 on transport, catering and erection of road signs).

The Commissioner confirmed that Mr Haw’s presence in Parliament Square, following, legal proceedings, was conditional and that those conditions had not been adhered too. The MPS had no discretion to ignore this and his site was removed.

A number of members raised concerns in relation to Mr Haw’s removal from Parliament Square; They were concerned about the right to protest; the number of officers used to remove Mr Haw’s placards etc and the cost of doing so, although some other members supported the removal.

The Chair raised concerns about the communication strategy around this event.

Knife crime

The Commissioner raised his concerns about the increase in the use of knives and highlighted the recent death of Kiyan Prince. In doing so, the Commissioner stated that in his opinion the increases warranted the introduction of a mandatory sentence for carrying a knife. There were members who supported the suggestion as it was felt that this would send a clear message not to carry a knife. However, some members did not support this suggestion. It was felt that some young people carried knives for protection and out of fear and there was a need to understand why they do this. Some members felt that there was a need for further discussion on this issue, in particular the need to better understand why, in particularly young people, are carrying knives or using other things such a dogs as weapons.

The Chair recommended that the Authority needed to have a further debate on this matter and that a report on knife crime be presented to a future meeting of the Authority.

Members joined the Commissioner in their condolences to family of Kiyan Prince following a fatal stabbing.

Nicholas Palmer

The Commissioner provided members with details of the inquest verdict of Nicholas Palmer.

The Commissioner reported that Mr Palmer had been shot following a surveillance operation. The subsequent inquest verdict had found that Mr Palmer had been lawfully shot. The Commissioner drew member’s attention to the comments from the IPCC, which stated that ‘the evidence by the inquest showed that the officer’s actions were professional, proportionate and legitimate’.

In recognised that all deaths are a tragedy, the Commissioner stated that these incidents showed the difficult decisions that had to be taken by officers.

Automatic number plate recognition (ANPR)

The Deputy Commissioner provided members with an up date on ANPR.

The Deputy Commissioner confirmed that ANPR operated on a low a discretional basis and targeted known areas of crime and those who show disregard to road regulations. The Deputy Commissioner also discussed issues around disproportionality and confirmed that the MPA would be kept informed of these.

British Transport Police

In response to Graham Tope’s comments relating to the House of Commons Transport Committee’s discussions on the merger of the British Transport Police, and the alleged contradictory evidence given by officers, the Commissioner reiterated his support for the merger in London and he would look at the record of what was said and would rebutt anything that was incorrect.

The Chair supported the suggestion that the Authority also write to members of the Committee, if the statements made were incorrect.

Comments made by the Police Federation

The Commissioner informed the members of a number of supporting comments he had received following a speech given by the Secretary of the Constable Board Branch of the Police Federation, in which the Secretary had expressed a lack of confidence in the him.

The Chair of the Authority and members stated that they were disappointed at the Federation’s comments. It was felt that the criticisms raised, particularly those concerning ‘Metcall’ and C3i, were unfounded and unfair.

The Chair would discuss the issue with the Federation.

RESOLVED – That

1. future performance figures should be accompanied with details of satisfaction levels;
2. the Authority receives a report on knife crime;
3. the Authority write to members of the House of Committee Transport Committee in relation to the merger of British Transport Police.

143. Update Estate Strategy

(Agenda item 10)

This item was withdrawn

144. Strategic assessment of future pattern of training accommodation provision

(Agenda item 11)

This item was withdrawn.

145. Proposal to create a central London Training Delivery Centre

(Agenda item 12)

This item was withdrawn.

The meeting ended at 1.35 p.m.

Send an e-mail linking to this page

Feedback