Minutes

Minutes of the meeting of the Metropolitan Police Authority held on 26 April 2007 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
• Faith Boardman
• Dee Doocey
• Nicky Gavron
• Toby Harris
• Kirsten Hearn
• Peter Herbert
• Damian Hockney
• Elizabeth Howlett
• Jenny Jones
• Joanne McCartney
• Karim Murji
• Bob Neill
• Aneeta Prem
• John Roberts
• Richard Sumray
• Graham Tope
• Rachel Whittaker

MPA officers

• Catherine Crawford (Chief Executive)
• David Riddle (Deputy Chief Executive)
• Ken Hunt (Treasurer)
• Simon Vile (Head of Secretariat)

MPS officers

• Paul Stephenson (Acting Commissioner)
• AC Tarique Ghaffur and AC Stephen House

136. Apologies for absence

(Agenda item 1)

Apologies for late arrival were received from Reshard Auladin and Nicky Gavron.

137. Declarations of interest

(Agenda item 2)

No declarations were made.

138. Minutes

(Agenda item 3)

Resolved – That the minutes of the Authority meeting held on 29 March 2007 be confirmed and signed as a correct record.

139. Minutes of committees

(Agenda item 4)

The minutes of the following committees were received for information:

• Finance Committee, 15 February 2007
• Planning, Performance & Review Committee, 15 March 2007
• Corporate Governance Committee, 22 March 2007
• Coordination & Policing Committee, 5 April 2007

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

140. Chair's update

(Agenda item 5)

There were no issues to report.

141. Review of public order policing

(Agenda item 6)

The Authority considered a report on the progress of the review of public order policing. As part of the presentation, members were shown video clips of public disorder situations and the tactics used by the police to respond. In presenting the report and responding to members’ comments, AC Ghaffur and Commander Broadhurst emphasised that the report had not been written in such a way as to recommend the future deployment of water cannon in London. The current water cannon were more sophisticated than previous models and were Home Office/ACPO approved. However, a significant public debate was needed before any decisions were taken one way or another. That debate needed to take account of the fact that the MPS has a duty of care both towards its own officers and those taking part in public order events.

Some members were neutral on the question of water cannon as a potential tactic if, for instance, it could be demonstrated that it represented a way of tackling disorder and keeping police and protestors apart in a way that was less harmful to the public than other options. Options such as water cannon or baton rounds had not been used in the past not because of technological shortcomings but because of tactical considerations – it would be necessary to understand in what way those considerations had changed. Other members were opposed to the deployment of water cannon. It was argued that it might affect community cohesion and confidence because it would be a ratcheting up of tactics. The danger was that once a water cannon was acquired it was likely to be used. It would be important to know what Londoners wanted when this issue was next considered because the use of water cannon produced very emotive reactions. Commander Broadhurst reported that the Patten Group were evaluating other pieces of equipment that might receive Home Office approval. He suggested that it might be appropriate to delay a further report and discussion until the MPS could report on a range of potential options. He also suggested that members might wish to visit the public order training facilities at Gravesend. Some members considered that a review of the equipment available for public order policing should importantly include baton rounds and CS gas in the debate.

Members discussed the tactical aspect of the review. Whilst the review appeared generally to confirm that current tactics were fit for purpose, there was concern that the video clips of the Countryside Alliance demonstration in particular had shown batons being swung rather than poked, which seemed to be not in line with ACPO guidance and likely to cause more injuries. A question was asked about how tactics could cater for the possibility of someone with a disability being in the crowd or, for instance, a parent with young children. There had been a discussion on related issues at a meeting of the Equal Opportunities and Diversity Board and it was hoped that an equalities impact assessment of the review would help to bring out the range of issues. Commander Broadhurst and AC Ghaffur accepted that it was often difficult for police officers to pick individual people out from the crowd to identify any potential issues around disability. They would consider what learning had followed from the discussion at the Equal Opportunities and Diversity Board. It was also agreed that further work was needed on community engagement aspects such as community debriefings and this could perhaps be taken forward through Cindy Butts’ citizen focus and community engagement portfolio.

Commander Broadhurst referred to gender imbalance amongst senior officers trained in public order policing. At present there were no female officers of superintendent rank or above who had received the training. The MPS was keen to correct this, but it would take time to train those at Chief Inspector rank.

Members suggested that an important learning point from previous demonstrations such as May Day was how the police communicated with the demonstrators as a great deal of frustration was caused by crowds not knowing what was going on.

Members also commented on the MPS’s role in giving permission for demonstrations. It would be useful to have a public discussion and understanding on how the MPS reaches its views and what happens when organisers or demonstrators have not cooperated with the police. AC Ghaffur responded that the MPS worked on the presumption that it would agree to lawful demonstrations but the reality was that conditions on the day could change very quickly. A member also commented on the requirement of the Serious Organised Crime and Policing Act that the MPS must give permission for demonstrations in Parliament Square. This had resulted in large numbers of applications being made, many of them frivolous. For instance, there had been 2,500 applications in the preceding two weeks all to demonstrate on the previous Saturday, perhaps as a way of showing opposition to the legislation.

Members commented favourably on the significant achievement in bringing down the amount of abstractions in relation to public order events. It was noted, however, that the exception was abstractions for jury protection, which had risen by 228% in 2006/07. Members suggested a further report on the reasons for this increase including, for instance, what proportion of the work was in supporting other forces, the extent of cost recovery and whether this increase was for particular one-off reasons or represented an upward trend.

The meeting also discussed cost recovery issues and it was agreed that an update report be made at the appropriate time on the work in relation to charging for the policing of events. AC Ghaffur commented that there were good relations and co-ordination between the blue light services and some initial discussion had taken place about charging issues, particularly as a pre-cursor to the Olympics. Members also made reference to the London stage of the Tour de France and were concerned that there had been agreement, without reference to the Authority, that it would be policed at no cost to the organisers. The Chair commented that as there was a policy to charge private sector organisers this had been a mistake. Dee Doocey asked for information to be provided for her on how many events in the previous one year and five years the MPS had recharged for and how much of this recharge was outstanding? She also asked whether there was a calculation for the number of officers allocated to an event based on the expected number of people attending. Jenny Jones asked for information to be provided for her on the policing costs for the Excel Arms Fair and what proportion of this was borne by the organisers.

Members commented on the importance of developing the MPS’s community tension monitoring work. A further report would be useful at the appropriate time, including an assessment of whether this method was effective in actually reducing community tension.

In conclusion, members welcomed the report and the debate it had stimulated. It was timely in that in the absence of any major incidents at the present time meant that the issues could be discussed without the danger of that being seen as a knee jerk reaction. In the light of some members’ comments, the Chair emphasised that the MPS had wanted to bring the report to the full Authority for an open debate and he thanked them for doing this. This had always been intended as a first take on the issues and further reports would be necessary. He himself had asked them to provide video clips of actual public order situations to provide a context for the discussions. It was

Resolved - That

1. the report and the main finding of the Public Order Review be noted;
2. the continuation of work into the five strands and the associated recommendations be approved;
3. that a further report be produced for Co-ordination & Policing Committee on widening the debate on public order issues, including the deployment of specialist equipment;
4. that a report be prepared on jury protection work, particularly in relation to the apparent trend of increasing abstractions for this work;
5. that an update report be prepared at an appropriate time on charging for the policing of events; and
6. that the Chair would consider how best the MPA could address the issues around community tension monitoring and a framework for engaging more widely with partners and other on public order policing.

At this point, the Chair left the meeting and Cindy Butts took the Chair (12.10 p.m.)

142. Commissioner’s update

(Agenda item 12)

The Acting Commissioner presented performance information and figures, comparing the year 2006/07 with 2005/06. The figures were very encouraging with, for instance, total notifiable offences falling by 6.3% (62,000 fewer offences) – the fourth year in a row that they had fallen - and sanction detections at 21.1% of total notifiable offences exceeded the MPS target of 20%. However, there was no room for complacency. There were problems, for instance, with cash in transit robberies with a worrying trend for high value snatch thefts. Operation Vanguard, introduced in response to this, was starting to have an effect. There were links into youth crime particularly through young people involved in street crime. The MPS was producing a youth crime strategy that would bring together the operational and preventative measures to provide better synergy. Members commented on the need to be convinced that with regard to cash in transit crimes the industry was doing as much as it could on preventative measures. AC House responded that the MPS worked closely with the main companies in London and they were looking to develop their technologies to design out crime.

In response to members’ comments, the Acting Commissioner agreed that it could be seen as indicative of the success of Safer Neighbourhoods that a focus on tackling robbery had not led to other areas of policing suffering as a consequence. He cautioned, however, against placing too many expectations on Safer Neighbourhoods. Giving an update on Safer Neighbourhoods, he said that the top priorities included antisocial behaviour, vehicle crime and drug dealing. As a measure of the extent of public involvement, during the year 12,500 meetings had been held attended by 190,000.

In respect of comments about the underreporting of some crimes, the Acting Commissioner said that it was very difficult to quantify unreported crime but he knew of nothing that affected the performance figures before the Authority.

The Acting Commissioner’s attention was drawn to a motion recently passed by the London Assembly calling for the repeal of Sections 132 to 138 of the Serious and Organised Crime Police Act. He said that he would make the Commissioner aware of this. The Acting Commissioner was also asked whether there would be an investigation into recent reports of leaks about anti-terrorism operations to exclude the possibility that the leak had come from an MPS officer. The Acting Commissioner responded that all leaks were disappointing and, in high risk areas potentially catastrophic. Any information or material that warranted an investigation would be investigated. The Chair commented that the IPCC had indicated that they might investigate and the Authority should wait to learn their intentions.

Members also suggested that the issue of CO² emissions and the Mayor’s Climate Change Action Plan should be higher up the MPA / MPS agenda. It was reported that a report on environmental sustainability was due to be presented to the Authority shortly.

Resolved - That the report be received.

143. Pan London Lesbian, Gay, Bi-sexual and Transgender (LGBT) Strategic Group

(Agenda item 7)

The Authority received a report on the formation of this multi-agency strategic group which had accountability for developing a London strategic and operational response to key areas affecting MPS (and criminal justice system) service delivery to LGBT people living, working or visiting the capital.

Members welcomed the report, which demonstrated how the MPS approach had changed greatly over a period of years, and thanked the officers concerned for their work.

In response to a member’s question Commander Jarman said that third-party reporting was a contentious long-term issue. The MPS felt that it was more effective to build relationships with communities so that they could engage through mainstream reporting channels.

Resolved – That

1. support the work of the multi-agency pan London LGBT strategic group (and the accompanying sub groups) be continued; and
2. that Members receive a guidance note on the management of public sex environments.

144. MPA Disability Equality Scheme 2006–09

(Agenda item 8)

The Authority considered the MPA’s proposed Disability Equality Scheme.

Resolved – That

1. the MPA 2006 – 2009 Disability Equality Scheme be approved;
2. the MPA Corporate Equality Plan 2004 - 2007 be replaced and superseded by the MPA Generic Equality Scheme and the MPA Disability Equality Scheme; and
3. the revised Equality and Diversity Policy be approved.

145. MPS Corporate Volunteer Programme

(Agenda item 9)

The Authority considered a report proposing a new MPS approach to volunteering, particularly in the light of the need for volunteers to support the London Olympic and Paralympic Games in 2012.

In response to members’ comments and questions, the Acting Commissioner commented that the organisation had to make a step change in its approach to volunteering. He recognised that there were other volunteers, such as members of Independent Advisory Groups or Community Police Consultative groups, but for the purposes of this programme he was keen not to lose the focus on what the programme was intended to achieve. He agreed that it was worth considering whether there was any scope for developing initiatives for police officers and staff to volunteer, although he pointed out that many already did.

Resolved – That support be given to the principle of a Corporate Volunteer Programme and the approach agreed by the MPS Management Board.

146. MPS Drugs Strategy

(Agenda item 10)

The Authority received the proposed MPS drugs strategy for 2007-10. It was agreed that as the MPA’s Drugs Scrutiny report was due to come to the Authority’s next meeting consideration of the Strategy should be deferred to that meeting so that the two could be considered together.

In response to suggestions that more innovative approaches were needed to drug abuse and its relation to criminal activity, the Chair suggested that Peter Herbert, Richard Sumray and AC House might wish to meet to discuss this in advance of the next meeting. She also asked if the report could include information on the implications for the eleven boroughs that would not be receiving Drug Intervention funding.

Resolved – That consideration of the strategy be deferred to the May Authority meeting.

147. Morris inquiry – recommendation 34 – Operation Helios review

(Agenda item 11)

The Authority considered a report in relation to the recommendation of the Morris Inquiry that there should be an independent full case review of Operation Helios.

The Deputy Chief Executive reported that the Professional Standards and Complaints Committee had considered that report that was before the Authority and had unanimously recommended that no further action should be taken as the investigation of complaints carried out by Essex Police under the oversight of the Independent Police Complaints Commission should be treated as fulfilling this recommendation.

In response to a member’s question about complaints of phone tapping as part of Operation Helios, the Deputy Chief Executive said that agreement had been reached between the National Black Police Association and the MPS on mediation to settle the outstanding issues. There might be a report back to the Authority following that mediation if there were learning points. The Chair suggested that if so this was a matter for the Professional Standards and Complaints Committee.

148. Items for information

(Agenda items 13 and 14)

The Authority received the following information reports without discussion:

• Reform of police misconduct procedures – Taylor Review
• Urgent action taken under delegated authority

The meeting ended at 1.25 pm

Send an e-mail linking to this page

Feedback