Meeting with May Day demonstrators

Report: 4a
Date: 26 July 2001
By: Clerk

Summary

A meeting was held on 13 July 2001 to hear and discuss the concerns of people who had attended the May Day demonstrations. A note of that meeting see Appendix 1 to this report.

A. Recommendation

That the Authority notes the issues considered at this meeting and takes these into account in its discussions on May Day.

B. Supporting information

1. Following public questions on the policing of the May Day protests to the last meeting of the Authority in June, the Chair agreed to provide an opportunity for people to express their views on the way the event was policed, recognising that the formal Authority meetings are not an appropriate vehicle for this.

Invitations were extended through Lois Austin and Samantha Dias, who put the questions to the June meeting. The meeting was held on 13 July 2001.

A full note of that meeting - see Appendix 1.

2. In summary, the demonstrators at the meeting asked for clarification of the MPA's role, particularly in terms of decisions about how major demonstrations such as May Day are policed. The Chair explained that the MPA has responsibility, for example, for the police budget and for setting policing priorities. Its remit does not extend to involvement in specific operational issues (such as tactics to be used in policing May Day) which are the responsibility of the Commissioner. This does not, however, preclude the Authority or its Members from talking about such operations and from providing a platform to encourage the MPS to talk more publicly about their approach.

3. The demonstrators were concerned that the MPS are increasingly using containment of demonstrators as a matter of policy, which they saw as a step which will make lawful protest more difficult. They argued that if this was the case then it became a strategic matter which should be of concern to the MPA. They referred to the containment in Oxford Circus and the numbers of people who were not engaged in violent protest but who had been prevented from leaving for a number of hours. As no firm evidence of this happening had so far come to the Authority's attention, they were invited to provide details in writing.

4. The Chair confirmed that the MPA upheld the right to legitimate protest. However, there had been real concerns about the potential for violence at May Day, not least because the police were unable to establish a dialogue with any organisers in advance of the demonstrations. It must be valid to consider whether the proportionality of any police response can be seen as reasonable compared to the problems that are thereby avoided.

5. In conclusion, it was emphasised that the MPA cannot issue instructions to the Commissioner on operational matters, but could exert influence through setting policing priorities, through the policing plan and its budget decisions.

C. Financial implications

None.

D. Background papers

None.

E. Contact details

The author of this report is Simon Vile.

For information contact:

MPA general: 020 7202 0202
Media enquiries: 020 7202 0217/18

Appendix 1: Note of meeting held on 13 July 2001 to discuss the policing of the May Day demonstrations

Present

MPA Members

Toby Harris, Lynne Featherstone, Jenny Jones, Nicholas Long, Angela Slaven and Abdal Ullah

On behalf of May Day protestors

Lois Austin, Chez Cotton, Mick Gordon, Kieran Roberts, Fiona Raymond and Oliver Wulscaitz

Catherine Crawford (Clerk to the Authority) and other MPA officers were also present.

Toby Harris introduced the meeting by explaining that the Members were there to listen. While the possibility of litigation remained they would not be able to go into detail of how the operation was policed on the day. Indeed, the MPA’s remit does not extend to involvement in specific operational policing issues, which are the responsibility of the Commissioner.

He explained that the Metropolitan Police were not attending the meeting because it would in their view be inappropriate to do so while there is the possibility of litigation. However, they had asked that concerns be conveyed back to them so that these can be taken into consideration when planning for next year’s event. However, the MPA does have a role in working closely with the Met to review the lessons learned and to develop best practice that can be incorporated into future May Day strategies.

Lois Austin asked for clarity on the role of the MPA, particularly in relation to tactics for individual events. From MPA press releases before and after the event and, for instance, from the fact that recent National Front demonstrations had been discussed at the Authority meeting, it would seem that the MPA does have some power over operational policing.

Toby Harris responded that the MPA has a statutory responsibility to set policing priorities but it is prevented by statute from giving operational orders to the Commissioner. However, this does not preclude MPA Members from talking about such policing operations and indeed the MPA is encouraging the MPS to talk more publicly about what they are doing, to increase public accountability.

Lois Austin commented that, judging by the press statements, clearly there had been discussions before the event so surely the MPA is involved in determining operational policy. Toby Harris replied that in the last analysis the Commissioner could tell the MPA what he was going to do. However, the Commissioner could brief Members in advance and the MPA does have a responsibility in terms of public information. He also commented that before May Day there were real concerns that violence would occur at the demonstrations.

Nicholas Long also stressed that MPA Members are not involved in discussing operational tactics. Members do need to be informed about such events, not least because of the financial issues around the cost of policing operations. Lois Austin felt that Londoners would be concerned to learn that the MPS is not held to account by the MPA and that the MPA has no role in helping to determine what the police do on a day to day basis. Toby Harris replied that no-one should be under the mistaken impression that the police are directly controlled by the MPA in this way. However, the MPA does have authority over the police budget and priorities and provides the platform for public debate and questions about policing issues.

Lois Austin asked whether the MPA had ever disagreed after the event with the way a demonstration etc had been handled and had been able to change the future approach. Toby Harris commented that the MPA has only been in existence for a year so the opportunities for this have been limited. However, as an example, Members have highlighted concerns about aspects of the Notting Hill Carnival arrangements. What the MPA cannot do is to tell the MPS how to conduct such operations in the future. There was to be a further report on May Day to the next Authority meeting. The MPS also no doubt reviews its own operations. He invited those present to submit their own observations in writing as part of this process. Jenny Jones commented that the MPA’s role is in creating a framework. It is only after the event that Members are able to judge the extent to which this broad framework has been followed.

Nicholas Long said that he would welcome the opportunity for the MPA to be the vehicle for public debate on public order policing to create a framework for it. He emphasised that the MPA is sympathetic to public concerns and if it seems slow to respond it is only because of the huge pressure of work on the Authority and its Members across the range of policing issues.

Lois Austin suggested that a general approach should be that the police should not hem in lawful protestors for a number of hours, including a range of people from schoolchildren to mothers and elderly people. Toby Harris and Nicholas Long said that no firm evidence of this happening had come to the Authority’s attention and invited those at the meeting to provide details in writing.

Chez Cotton asked for an explanation of the role of the MPA and the Police Complaints Authority (PCA), particularly in relation to complaints against the police. Catherine Crawford explained that an individual who wishes to complain should write to the Commissioner, who may decide to involve the PCA. The MPA has a statutory responsibility to oversee how complaints are handled by the MPS, but not to investigate individual complaints. The explicit reason why police authorities are not responsible for operational issues is to avoid political control of policing. She suggested that if individuals wished to make a complaint to the Commissioner, these could be sent via the MPA, so that the MPA could have an overview.

Lois Austin said that a lot of evidence could be provided of people suffering distress because of the containment at Oxford Circus. She felt that part of the problem was that there was no-one in charge there to whom demonstrators could talk. She was concerned that the Chair’s press release on the day after May Day had commended the police and said that the operation had been successful, without taking into account the experiences of the protestors.

Toby Harris responded that he considered that it had been successful in avoiding the mayhem of the previous year, a general view which he believed was shared by most Londoners. He pointed to the distinction between May Day and other demonstrations in that there had been no communication between the organisers and the police to establish ground rules and lines of communication, despite police efforts.

Lois Austin commented that there had been other demonstrations where there had been negotiations and people had still been hemmed in. With regard to May Day she said that a number of people had tried unsuccessfully to meet with the police. She was concerned that what she saw as a policy of containment is making it harder to protest lawfully. In her case she had asked on several occasions to be allowed to leave to pick her daughter up from nursery. Mick Gordon commented that people were not even allowed to leave the containment area to go to the toilet.

Lois Austin understood that the Home Secretary had visited the control room on the day, and she asked whether Toby Harris had. He confirmed that he had, at 10.30 am, following a routine meeting at New Scotland Yard. Chez Cotton asked whether detaining 2,000 people was a strategic or operational matter. Toby Harris replied that it was still an operational decision. MPA Members had not been consulted on the policy of containment and only briefed on the general approach, such as the numbers of police to be deployed. He and Lynne Featherstone commented that a judgement would have to be made if it could be demonstrated that containment was being regularly used as a matter of policy.

Jenny Jones asked whether there had been any reports on the smaller containment in Holles Street. Some people had said that the containment there lasted five hours, but she had been present and was aware that people had been allowed to leave on a regular basis.

Lois Austin suggested that the police had put people’s health and safety at risk by moving protestors into an already overcrowded containment in Oxford Circus. Chez Cotton suggested that tannoys were already in place there, and so the containment operation had been pre-planned.

Toby Harris commented that the question of proportionality came into account. For instance, an issue was the proportionality of the police response compared to the problems that were thereby avoided.

Lynne Featherstone said that it would be valid before next May Day for the MPA to ask what lessons the MPS had learnt from this year and how they proposed to address issues such as an exit strategy and the provision of toilets. Toby Harris commented that the MPA upheld the right to legitimate protest. He could only remember one other occasion - Grosvenor Square in 1968 - when people had been told in advance not to come to a demonstration. But May Day had been different because of the organisers’ lack of co-operation and concerns about potential violence.

The meeting concluded with Toby Harris and other Members emphasising that whilst the MPA could not instruct the Commissioner on operational matters, they would expect their views to be taken into account. Clearly, the MPA was also able to exert influence through setting policing priorities, through the policing plan, and its budget decisions.

Toby Harris thanked all for attending.

Note prepared by Simon Vile

Send an e-mail linking to this page

Feedback