Minutes

Minutes of the meeting of the Metropolitan Police Authority held on 22 February 2007 at 10 Dean Farrar Street, London, SW1H 0NY.

Present

Members

• Len Duvall (Chair)
• Reshard Auladin (Deputy Chair)
• Tony Arbour
• Jennette Arnold
• Richard Barnes
• Dee Doocey
• Toby Harris
• Kirsten Hearn
• Peter Herbert
• Damian Hockney
• Elizabeth Howlett
• Jenny Jones
• Joanne McCartney
• Karim Murji
• Bob Neill  (items 1-9)
• Aneeta Prem
• John Roberts
• Richard Sumray
• Graham Tope

MPA officers

• Catherine Crawford (Chief Executive)
• Ken Hunt (Treasurer)
• Nick Baker (Head of Committee Services)

MPS officers

• Sir Ian Blair (Commissioner)
• Paul Stephenson (Deputy Commissioner)
• AC Andy Hayman
• DAC Alfred Hitchcock
• Commander Rod Jarman
• Martin Tiplady (Director of Human Resources)

106. Apologies for absence

(Agenda item 1)

Apologies were received from Cindy Butts (Deputy Chair), Nicky Gavron and Rachel Whittaker.

107. Declarations of interest

(Agenda item 2)

No declarations were declared.

108. Minutes

(Agenda item 3)

Members considered the minutes of the Authority meeting held on 25 January 2007.

Members requested that the minutes include further commentary to minute 95 Question from the Public (Teddington Custody Centre).

Arising from the minute 95, the Authority was informed of assurances previously given to local residents of White Heron Mews (which is sited next to Teddington Police Station) that the remaining land adjacent to both the Mews and police station would not be used for any future major development. The Commissioner was asked when residents could be expected to be notified that this remained the case.

The Commissioner undertook to provide to members and local residents a timetable/criteria on the future use of this particular piece of land as a matter of urgency.

Following enquiries from members relating to the releasing of the criteria for choosing sites for proposed custody centres to local residents; the Chair reiterated the decision of the Authority in January to do so and requested that this be done. It was also agreed to circulate to members’ details of properties, London wide, that are under consideration for possible use as a custody centre.

Resolved – That

1. the further commentary to minute 95 be made and the minutes be re-submitted to the March full Authority meeting for consideration;
2. the MPS immediately send to local residents’ groups its criteria for considering a site for development as a custody suite and the timetable in respect of Teddington ; and
3. the MPS circulate to members details of properties, London wide, that are under consideration for possible use as a custody centre.

109. Minutes of committees

(Agenda item 4)

The minutes of the following committees were received for information:

• Equal Opportunities and Diversity Board – 11 January 2007
• Planning Performance and Review Committee – 15 January 2007
• Finance Committee – 18 January 2007
• Co-ordination and Policing Committee – 1 February 2007

Resolved – That the minutes of Committees be received and noted.

110. Chair's update

(Agenda item 5)

With the agreement of the Chair, agenda item 8 - Update on the planning process 2007/8 - was deferred to the Co-ordination and Policing Committee on 1 March 2007

111. Counter-Terrorism: The London Debate

(Agenda item 6)

The Chief Executive introduced a report that informed members that as part the Authority’s statutory duty to hold the MPS to account for its performance of its national and international functions, including counter-terrorism, a panel consisting of the Home Secretary’s appointee to the Authority Toby Harris, the two Deputy Chairs of the Authority, Reshard Auladin and Cindy Butts, and Professor Tariq Ramadan from the University of Oxford, had consulted a diverse selection of over 1,000 people who live and work in London on policing and counter-terrorism. An appendix containing the analysis and recommendations following that consultation supported the report. In presenting the findings of the consultation, the Chief Executive stated that whilst some of the comments and recommendations were not necessarily the views of the whole Authority, but those of Londoners, it was now the intention to take them forward and develop them with partners.

The Chair of the Authority welcomed the report and its recommendations. In doing so he thanked Reshard Auladin, Cindy Butts, Toby Harris and Professor Tariq Ramadan, together with MPA officers for their work in this matter. He also thanked the MPS for their participation and contributions in engaging in an often-difficult debate. The Chair invited Toby Harris to provide a summary to members on the consultation process and to highlight any particular findings. He then suggested that the MPS comment and then the debate be opened to members to provide their feedback.

Toby Harris commended the report and its findings to the Authority. He reminded members that the process had started over a year ago with a pan-London conference attended by representatives and individuals from London’s communities. This was subsequently supported by a series of specialised meetings with faith groups, young people, Asian men, local government representatives, women and representatives of the business community amongst others, with a key aim being to reach those who have not engaged in such a consultation process before.

Toby Harris reiterated that policing must be undertaken by consent and whilst acknowledging the difficulties policing counter terrorism can bring, that policing had to be undertaken correctly. He informed members of the formats for the meetings and that they had stimulated lively debate and comment which, whilst not always being the views of the panel or the MPS, but of Londoners had resulted in the draft recommendations outlined in Appendix 1 to the report.

He added that the debate had also highlighted a profound support, across all communities, for the police’s counter terrorist work, but there was a degree of fragility to the public trust in authorities and it was important for the MPS to harness the support and recognise this fragility.

Turning to the recommendations within the report, Toby Harris highlighted the importance of community policing and that counter terrorist operations were planned and handled with care in order to maintain community support and trust. With this in mind, the debates had highlighted a growing distrust, anger and confusion relating to the use of Section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000. Many of the groups and individuals referring to Section 44 felt that it was being misused and therefore was undermining community support.

In relation to Operation Kratos, groups felt there was still a need for further explanation of the methodology of this operation. Some groups had highlighted the need for better guidance on what to do if they felt some activity was suspicious and on how to train staff to identify suspicious activities. Toby Harris drew members’ attention to the need for the police to review what information could be placed into the public domain, in order to provide both information and reassurance i.e. the need to review sub-judice laws. He added that there were also degrees of confusion relating to threat-levels; as many people did not either understand them or know how they should be reacting to them.

The discussions had also highlighted the communities’ firm belief that when mistakes are made apologies should be given and that investigations into any such mistakes carried out efficiently, but quickly.

Toby Harris then drew attention to the recommendations relating to the media. The findings had indicated that there was a need for clear and balanced reporting relating to counter terrorism. There was also some concern about the use of ex-police officers who were interviewed as experts but had been out of the service for a number of years.

In conclusion, Toby Harris thanked his colleagues on the Panel and the MPA officers, particularly Andy Hull, for their work and MPS for their contribution. He also thanked those Londoners who had contributed to the discussion.

Reshard Auladin stated that he believed that the recommendations would make a difference and sought assurances from the MPS that they would be acted upon.

The Commissioner welcomed the report and reiterated his views on the importance of engaging in such a debate. He confirmed that the MPS would be looking at the recommendations positively and echoed the comments that communities can help defeat terrorism. On some of the specific points raised in the introduction of the report by Toby Harris, the Commissioner accepted that there was a strong message rising from the debate on Section 44 and whilst confirming the need to have every methodology available to the police in tackling terrorism he would be reviewing its use. He added that he also agreed that there was work to be done in relation to the dissemination of information to communities, but added there had been some development on this citing a recent court case in which the Crown Prosecution Service and Judiciary had allow information to be disseminated.

Assistant Commissioner Andy Hayman, who had attended several of the hearings, also welcomed the report and its recommendations and stressed the importance of taking the recommendations forward. He added that he felt it was important that those who had attended the meeting received feedback on the implementation or development of the recommendations.

The Chair invited members to make comment on the report.

John Roberts sought clarification as to what criteria officers used when deciding whom to stop under Section 44. He added that he had serious concerns that Section 44 was being misused and asked that figures of those arrested and released within a few hours be made available, in order to reassure the public.

Aneeta Prem highlighted the recommendation for the need for careful, sensitive terminology around terrorism and following feedback from many community groups within the Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, Jewish and Christian community suggested that the MPS avoids the use of the term ‘Asian’ in the counter terrorism context, as this caused a great deal of hurt and discrimination.

Peter Herbert supported the need for Section 44 to be reviewed expressing the view that it was being misused and was wasting police time. He welcomed the recommendations, even if they were not all the views of the MPA or MPS. He supported AC Hayman’s comments on the need to provide feedback to those who attended the meetings.

Damian Hockney drew attention to the recommendations relating to the media, which he felt had to report incidents as they saw them, even if not fully briefed by the police. He was concerned that the report, which had been embargoed, had been discussed on radio prior to the embargo being lifted. He added that the Authority needed to have an opportunity to look further at all the recommendations.

Kirsten Hearn agreed that communities have to play an important part in defeating terrorism but requested details on the components of achieving or delivering this. She was concerned that hate crime figures did not appear to reflect the anecdotal concerns raised by the Muslim communities. In relation to radicalisation issues, she suggested there was more work to be undertaken with women and mothers and particularly engaging with Muslim women. Kirsten Hearn added that she believed there was a need to increase the number of Muslim officers, particularly in counter terrorism, and for further work to be undertaken with the disabled community regarding resilience and counter terrorism.

Richard Barnes suggested the report’s recommendations should be noted at this stage in order to provide members with an opportunity to consider them further. He raised particular concerns about the practicality of recommendation 38, which seeks to assign a local safer neighbourhood officer to each place of worship in London. In addition, he suggested that neither the report nor its recommendations appeared to consider the issues of ‘aggressive conversion’ that takes place at some educational institutes.

Richard Sumray, in welcoming the report, suggested that there was a need to look at the recommendations, separating them out and having a timetable for developing them. For those directed at other agencies or bodies he suggested officers needed indicate how the Authority could take these forward with them. He supported the need to provide feedback to those who took part in the debate and he suggested that those that refer to the MPS should be debated further by the Authority, not necessarily in a committee. In relation to the media, he also supported the need for further debate on the reporting of incidents.

Tony Arbour suggested that the foreword to the recommendations which stated that the MPA/MPS ‘have no higher priority than protecting Londoners and the citizens of the United Kingdom against terrorist attack’ should be amended. He added that whilst acknowledging there was merit in many of the recommendations, they should not be approved until such time as members had had an opportunity to further consider them.

Jenny Jones, in welcoming the report, sought clarification on its status and if the Authority were in a position to update it. She welcomed the clear language used in the report and in doing so, drew attention to recommendation 48 which did not refer specifically to the United Kingdom’s presence in Iraq as a key factor in driving international terrorism in this country, which she believed had been stated at hearings. She also sought clarification on the total costs outlined in the report of counter terrorism and raised concerns about trying to dictate to the media what to say or print.

Elizabeth Howlett was concerned that the BBC had broken the embargo on the report. She agreed that members should have further time to look at the recommendations. In relation to recommendation 25, the public would be better informed by a specialist officer with up-to-date and specialist knowledge in order to promote more confidence from the public. In addition she felt that there was a need for a tightening up of some of the terminology. She did not feel that recommendation 57 related to counter terrorism, and felt that recommendation 72, which drew comparisons of terrorism activities in the 1960/70s, had no relation to the terrorism currently being experienced and should be removed. She also felt that the recommendation relating to safer neighbourhoods teams engaging with places of worship was unworkable. She supported the need for the Authority to consider developing engagement with woman, particularly those from the Muslim community, but in conclusion, felt that the report had too many recommendations and therefore lost gravitas.

Graham Tope supported the recommendations and stated that he felt this was a valuable report and did not represent the end of the process, but the start. He also supported the need for a timetable review of Section 44 and questioned the validity of the figures provided on these stops. In relation to the recommendations on the media and counter terrorism he urged caution and the need for constructive discussions, particularly on language use. In relation to former officers giving interviews or commenting following incidents, he suggested that this was because they were in a position to do so and that serving officers should be freer to speak.

Jeannette Arnold welcomed the report, but could not support the recommendation to approve it at this stage as she felt the Authority needed to consider its recommendations in further detail. Jennette Arnold raised a number of concerns including reference in the introduction to counter terrorism being the highest priority and, having attended some of the hearings, that there was direct reference to Iraq and not just general foreign policy. As some of the recommendations lay with other people or agencies, she felt the Authority needed to be clear how these would be taken forward. She supported a review of Section 44, and particularly the need to ensure that people had a better understanding of its use. Jennette Arnold agreed with that assigning a local safer neighbourhood officer to each place of worship would be impractical. Finally, she supported the need for the Authority to develop a role for woman from its membership engaging with woman from communities.

Joanne McCartney stressed the importance of providing feedback to those that had taken part in the hearings and suggested that there may be future scope for seeking further information and advice from them when policy decisions are being considered.

At the Chair’s request, Toby Harris concluded the debate. Toby Harris disagreed with the comments made in relation to the foreword of the document, he also did not feel that recommendation 48 failed to reflect comments made at the hearings and drew attention to page 68 of Appendix 1, which was specific in that the conflict in Iraq was an instrumental driver for international terrorism. He fully supported comments made by members in relation for the need to keep those who attended the conference and hearings informed on the progress on the implementation of the recommendations. He also supported the need for a better understanding within and outside the media of the use of inappropriate terminology and the difficulties that this can cause within communities.

He agreed with members that the recommendations needed to be looked at before being taken forward and that this was the beginning of that process. In relation to the concerns raised both by members and those who had attended the hearings, he suggested that the MPS needed to undertake an urgent review of the use of Section 44. He suggested that as well as taking on board comments made by members, the review needed to demonstrate the deterrent effect of its use, why there was an wide spread use of Section 44 and not other stop and search legalisation, as well as details on how officers are trained and briefed on its use.

He also agreed with members that there is a need for a clearer understanding of ‘threat levels’, dissemination of information to communities following an incident, somehow developing people’s perception into hate crime figures and developing links with women within communities. In relation to safer neighbourhood teams and places of worship, he agreed that there was a need to be realistic, but also a need to build up relationships.

The Chair of the Authority confirmed that the Authority’s views would be considered by the Panel that attended the hearings and it was agreed that the MPS should take forward developing the recommendations within the report, reporting back to the Authority in June. In relation to the Section 44 review, it was agreed that in conjunction with the Authority’s portfolio holder for stop and searches, a report be presented to the Co-ordination and Policing Committee on its outcomes and proposals. The Chair added that the review of Section 44 should include the views of British Transport Police and City of London Police. In conclusion, he agreed that at this stage the recommendation within the report should be noted and proposed that thought should be given to a ‘feedback’ event in the autumn 2007 or early in 2008.

Resolved - That

1. the recommendations for the Metropolitan Police Service listed in the executive summary given at Appendix 1 to the report be noted;
2. the advice for other bodies listed in the executive summary of Appendix 1 to the report be noted;
3. officers, in consultation with the Home Secretary’s appointee to the Authority, devise an appropriate monitoring mechanism for the implementation of the recommendations approved for the Metropolitan Police Service;
4. officers, in consultation with the Home Secretary’s appointee to the Authority, communicate the advice approved for other bodies appropriately to those other bodies;
5. the Co-ordination and Policing Committee receive at its April meeting a report on the MPS review of use of Section 44 of the Counter Terrorism Act 2000; and
6. the Authority receive at its June meeting a report on the development and progression of the recommendations arising from the policing and counter terrorism debate.

112. London’s European office

(Agenda item 7)

Following an increase in European Union policy on policing and security, members considered a report that set out proposals and options to formalise a partnership with London’s European Office with a planned programme of collaborative work, including support for funding bids, for 2007/08.

Following a vote, 11 in favour 4 against it was:

Resolved - That

1. an application be made to join the Joint Venture Agreement that forms London’s European Office, with the Mayor of London, Greater London Authority, Transport for London, London Development Agency, London NHS and London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority;
2. a joint subscription with the MPS for option 2 the extended work plan version be pursued;
3. a joint MPA/MPS officer-led oversight group for the development of funding bids to the European Union be agreed; and
4. the virement of £50,000 to support the proposal (see paragraph D.2 of the report) be noted.

113. Update on the planning process 2007/08

(Agenda item 8)

In order for further work to be undertaken on the planning process and policing plan it was agreed to defer the report to the Co-ordination and Policing Committee meeting on 1 March 2007.

Resolved – That the report be deferred to Co-ordination and Policing Committee meeting on 1 March 2007.

114. The tasking and co-ordination of Safer Neighbourhoods Teams

(Agenda item 9)

A report was received on the tasking and co-ordination of safer neighbourhood teams.

Members sought more clarification on prioritising of policing within wards. The Commissioner outlined priorities for high volume crime and reiterated that ward safer neighbourhoods officers would not be moved out of their wards. He acknowledged that a review needs to be undertaken, and noted the example of the situation within Waltham Forest, but asked the Authority to allow the teams to be embedded into wards for longer before a review is undertaken.

It was agreed that members should receive a briefing note that further outlined safer neighbourhood teams’ priorities and how priorities are decided and delivered.

Resolved – That the report be noted and members receive a briefing note on safer neighbourhood teams’ priorities.

115. MPS equalities scheme

(Agenda item 10)

Members received a report that presented the status of the MPS equality scheme, which when completed would achieve equality across the six diversity strands. Members noted that the first phase had been published in December 2006 and provided activities that are common to all strands and specifically those required to meet the disability equality duty. The report also set out how the scheme was being developed and how it would be monitored.

Resolved - That the Disability Specific version of the Scheme and the approach adopted by the MPS in relation to achieving equality in other areas of diversity be approved.

116. Commissioner’s update

(Agenda item 11)

Performance issues

The Commissioner presented performance information, comparing the period April 2006 – January 2007 with April 2005 – January 2006.

Shooting in SE London

The Commissioner provided members with an update on the recent shooting incidents in south-east London that had culminated in three young men being killed.

He confirmed that he had held a meeting with colleagues in the three boroughs concerned and that the police were working with partners in the areas of the shooting. He had held discussions in relation to a review of the mandatory sentence for 17-21 years olds who carry a firearm. Some members were concerned that reducing the mandatory sentence could be counter productive in that guns would be used by younger children.

Arising from the discussion, members made a number of other points including: the need for the police and other agencies to fully understand the culture of children and young people and the reasons why they felt the need to carry weapons; to look at existing good practice in and around London possibly through an MPA scrutiny and the work and problem solving undertaken by safer neighbourhood teams; listening and talking to young people on what they needed to take them off the streets; the need to tackle the source of guns; to develop a ‘young people violence strategy’; engaging with mothers and women within the community and acknowledging that gun crime is often linked with drugs; for the Government to act in partnership with African Caribbean and Asian communities whose young people are at most risk; for appropriate agencies to develop a national curriculum that encourages teachings of parental skills and encourage schools to develop after school activities; and for the proceeds of crime to be re-invested in to the areas of London that need it.

Some members also called for an urgent review of the sale of replica guns.

The Commissioner supported many of the suggestions and views put forward by members and acknowledged that poverty and deprivation was a key issue.

Employer of the year

The Commissioner reported that MPS had been awarded ‘employer of the year’ at the Working Families Employer Awards. The award was in recognition of excellent work-life balance practices such as flexible working options, subsidised holiday play schemes and children’s vouchers.

Resolved - That the report be received.

117. Exclusion of Press and Public

(Agenda item 12)

A resolution was put to exclude the press and public from the meeting during remaining items 13 and 14 on the agenda as it was likely to disclose exempt information as described in Schedule 12(a) (para 4) of the Local Government Act 1972 (as amended).

Resolved - That the press and public be excluded from the meeting during discussion of items 13 and 14 on the agenda.

Summary of exempt items

118. Counter terrorism

(Agenda item 13)

The Authority received a report that updated members on-going discussions about counter terrorism at a national and international level.

119. Governance and accountability of counter terrorist policing

(Agenda item 14)

Following a revision of national structures for counter terrorist policing, the Authority received a report that outlined the governance implications for the MPA and police authorities in England and Wales

Resolved - That

1. the report be noted; and
2. the continued work of the Chair, lead members and the Chief Executive (in consultation with the Chair of Planning, Performance and Review Committee PPRC), to develop a governance framework with the APA, Home Office, MPS and ACPO TAM be endorsed and the Chief Executive asked to present an update report in May 2007 be agreed.

The meeting ended at 1.40 p.m.

Send an e-mail linking to this page

Feedback