Minutes

Minutes of the meeting of the Metropolitan Police Authority held on 28 May 2009 at Chamber, City Hall, The Queen’s Walk, London, SE1 2AA.

Present

Members

• Boris Johnson (Chairman)
• Jennette Arnold
• Reshard Auladin
• Faith Boardman
• John Biggs
• Chris Boothman
• Victoria Borwick
• James Cleverly
• Dee Doocey
• Toby Harris
• Kirsten Hearn
• Jenny Jones
• Clive Lawton
• Joanne McCartney
• Kit Malthouse (Vice Chairman)
• Steve O’Connell
• Caroline Pidgeon
• Deborah Regal
• Richard Tracey

MPA officers

• Catherine Crawford (Chief Executive)
• Ken Hunt (Treasurer)
• Jane Harwood (Assistant Chief Executive)
• John Crompton (Committee Services)

MPS officers

• Sir Paul Stephenson (Commissioner)
• Chris Allison (Assistant Commissioner)

111. Apologies for absence and announcements

(Agenda item 1)

Apologies for absence were received from Valerie Brasse, Cindy Butts, Neil Johnson and Graham Speed.

112. Declarations of interest

(Agenda item 2)

Chris Boothman declared a personal interest in any discussion on public order issues in that he was a Director of the Notting Hill Carnival Trust

113. Minutes

(Agenda item 3)

Members considered the minutes of the Authority meeting held on 30 April 2009.

Resolved – That the minutes of the Authority meetings held on 30 April 2009 be agreed and signed as a correct record.

114. Chairman/Vice Chairman’s update

(Agenda item 4)

The Chairman reported that there had been another round of senior officer appointments. He was pleased to announce Chris Allison has been appointed Assistant Commissioner for Olympics and Central Operations and Deputy Assistant Commissioner Stuart Osborne has been appointed as Senior National Co-ordinator Counter Terrorism.

The Chairman said he would like to pay tribute to the Commissioner and to all his officers for the continuing highly professional and peaceful operation to police the demonstration by Tamil supporters in Parliament Square.

Resolved – That the report be received.

115 Questions to the Authority

(Agenda item 5)

The Authority, in accordance with Standing Order 2.7, received the following questions from Julie Lawrence:

“Does the MPA have responsibility for the policy on use of the Metropolitan police helicopters, and if so, does this policy require operational staff to take into account the impact on the public in terms of noise when deciding whether to deploy a helicopter?”

The Authority’s Chief Executive responded as follows:

“I am sure that anyone living or working in London, will understand the sentiments expressed by Ms Lawrence. But the balance that she is looking for is a difficult one to achieve. Effective policing is necessarily intrusive in various ways, be it as part of major policing operations, public order policing, helicopter noise or indeed the use of police sirens which can also figure as a source of public concern.

"At both the policy level, which ultimately is the responsibility of the MPA, and the operational level the key question must be whether the deployment of a helicopter will lead to the better (and safer) prevention or detection of crime. The MPS uses its helicopter fleet in a variety of ways, including searches for missing people or suspects, monitoring public order events, and following vehicles involved in crime. All of these are conducted more effectively, and in the case of following vehicles more safely, from the air.

"I know that the MPS are only too aware of the noise caused by helicopters and they are therefore only deployed when necessary. I understand that the pilots try to adopt a flying position that causes the least intrusion and that this is reflected in operational procedures. The MPA was responsible for the procurement of these helicopters in 2005 and a “reduced noise signature” was one of the factors taken into account in the assessment of suitable models, with the result that the current helicopters are indeed quieter than those they replaced.

"It is of course for members to decide whether this is a policy issue that the MPA should look at further, though I would suggest that it is through operational procedures – the responsibility of the MPS – that the balance I referred to earlier is struck.”

Members cited particular examples of noise from helicopters and of the effects of the noise from car sirens both of which was the subject of complaints, especially concerning night-time usage.

The Commissioner said that he would accept that the noise from sirens etc could add to the perception of fear of crime. There was guidance that police sirens should only be used when necessary, but it was the case that all the emergency services used sirens. He had recently discussed the guidelines with Assistant Commissioner Central Operations. With regard to helicopters, these had become more widely used by the police in recent years which to some extent would explain why people were more aware of them.

The Authority, in accordance with Standing Order 2.7, received the following questions from Mr Andrew May, from ‘Defend Peaceful Protest’:

1. Why did the police forcibly advance at the South end of the Climate Camp at around 7pm without warning if it was simply a matter of needing a containment to “prevent disorderly protestors from the Bank of England from joining” and, in particular, why did a line of officers use force to advance on the right hand side when there was access from Great Helens.

2. Given the evidence of Police ID concealment or accidental obscurement of ID at the G20 and subsequent demonstrations, will the Police Uniform review look into placing numbers on the back and front of uniforms and protective gear rather than the shoulder so that Police ID on future demonstrations is more clearly identifiable and less easily removed.

The evidence we speak of here is in the video appendix from our HASC written evidence, within that we have 2 examples of ID at the Bank of England kettle (one new example which does not seem to have been publicised yet)

3. Given the evidence submitted to MPA members prior to this meeting about inconsistencies in police statements, how are we as members of the public, and the MPA members, to feel confident in the facts as presented in Metropolitan Police Briefings thus far?

4. Defend Peaceful Protest are aware of five separate bodies investigating aspects of the G20 protests: The Home Affairs Select Committee, the Joint Committee on Human Rights, the IPCC, Her Majesties Inspectorate of Constabulary and the Metropolitan Police Authority itself. What effort is being made to ensure that all bodies are working together to collate evidence from protestors in order to make an effective inquiry into protesting policing at the G20 as possible.

The Authority’s Chief Executive responded as follows:

“These questions follow on from those Mr May asked at the Authority meeting in April. I hope that he will agree that the discussion and questioning at that meeting covered a lot of ground in relation both to the general and specific issues in connection with G20 policing.

"Starting with Mr May’s fourth question, there is no formal mechanism for co-ordinating the work of the different bodies and they are of course carrying out investigations for different purposes and to different timescales. From the MPA’s perspective, however, I would expect the new Civil Liberties Panel to be able to make a significant contribution, amongst other things, in taking an overview of and learning from the outcomes of those other investigations and reviews.

"Following on from that, my answer to Mr May’s other three questions is that these really relate to ‘work in progress’ and it would not be appropriate or useful to give an answer at this stage. The tactics used during the G20 protests, including the way in which the Climate Camp demonstrators were dispersed, are under review by Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary. The issue of deliberate or accidental concealment of ID was discussed at some length at the last Authority meeting. The MPS have recognised that there are improvements that need to be made in the ways in which ID numbers are attached to police uniforms, providing practical and financially viable ways of doing this can be found. This will be reported back to the Authority.

"Finally, I anticipate that what Mr May refers to as ‘inconsistencies in police statements’ will be addressed by the HMIC review in particular as part of its terms of reference to look at MPS liaison with the media.”

In accordance with standing orders Mr May was afforded the right to reply and asked; ‘ will any specific powers be given to the Civil Liberties Panel to ensure that the Metropolitan Police Service’s actions, proposed changes to policy and tactics around policing have happened?”. Mr May also reiterated the request for a fully independent effective inquiry.

Members felt that the point about co-ordination was well made. The Chief Executive said the need for urgency in investigating this matter was understood, but the investigations had a considerable amount of evidence to assess and there was a need for both thoroughness and timeliness. The Authority had a significant statutory role and was therefore perhaps the best placed body to ensure that there is cohesion between the outcomes of the various inquiries.

In response to questions from members the Vice Chairman said that he was satisfied that the Authority had sufficient resources to support the Civil Liberties Panel in carrying out its work.

Resolved - That the questions from Julie Lawrence and Mr May and the Chief Executive’s responses be noted.

116. Commissioner’s report

(Agenda item 6)

The Commissioner presented a report that summarised the progress of the MPS against the objectives in the 2008-2011 Policing Plan for London. The report covered March and April 2009 with data for individual measures reflecting the 12-month period ending March 2009 where available.

Tamil Protests in Parliament Square

In reply to questions the Commissioner and Assistant Commissioner Central Operations advised members of the extensive efforts that had been made to set up effective lines of communication with leaders from the Tamil community in connection with the protests which had been taking place in recent weeks. Useful lines of communication had been established with a large number of individuals within the Tamil community. However, the community had made it clear that the protest was not being centrally co-ordinated.

The Commissioner said he would readily acknowledge that the effects of the necessary officer abstractions from boroughs had become a matter of concern and the present position could not be sustained. He advised that a detailed report on the financial aspect of policing the demonstration would be submitted to the Finance and Resources Committee at its meeting on 18 June.

The Vice Chairman said he could confirm that there had been dialogue at a political level with leaders of the Tamil community and this included very useful discussions which had been held by Richard Barnes, Deputy Mayor.

The Vice Chairman said it was generally accepted that there were serious deficiencies in the legislation governing the holding of demonstrations in Parliament Square. He had held a meeting with the Speaker, the Minister of State at the Home Office and the Deputy Leader of the House. There was no indication at this stage of what changes might be proposed to the legislation. It was agreed that a report on the issues involved be considered by the Civil Liberties Panel.

Issues raised by members

Licensing Form 696

Jennette Arnold said that there were concerns about certain aspects of this form especially the question about the genre of music to be played. Local authorities were the licensing authority and she did not see why the police were involved.

Christopher Boothman and referred to the opposition to aspects of the form within the music business. Some months ago a question about the ethnicity of the audience had been deleted from the form, yet the question about the genre of music to be played remained and this was seen as discriminatory. Steve O’Connell said he thought that the form had been found to be useful by licensees.

The Commissioner explained that the wording had been drawn up following consultation with Operation Trident. Submission of the form was not a condition of getting the licence in all cases. It was the case that there had been a reduction in the number of violent offences in clubs since its introduction.

The Vice Chairman reminded members of the background of shootings in nightclubs which had led to the introduction of the form in 2005. The form had been welcomed by the music business and premises owners.

It was agreed that a report be submitted to the Communities Equalities and People Committee which reviewed use of the form and suggested possible revisions.

Budget planning

Caroline Pidgeon said that she had been concerned to learn of the possibility of reduced numbers of police officers in boroughs in the context of efficiency savings. The Commissioner said that he assumed that the member was referring to the scenario testing which took place each year when budgets were being drawn up. Borough Commanders were asked to consider the consequences of a range of budget scenarios and these might typically include what would be the impact of reducing the budget by say 5%. It was far too early to say what reductions might eventually be implemented as part of the 2010/11 budget, but the intention remained, as in previous years that any reductions would not reduce operational capability. John Biggs said that the wider question of resources and opportunity costs would also need to be looked at carefully over the coming months.

Numbers of officers

A member referred to paragraph 34 of the Commissioner’s report which stated that the number of police officers had increased to 32,766 but that is actually 517 fewer than in the police plan. It also mentioned that the number of Police Community Support Officers (PCSOs) has increased to 4,627, but that was actually 89 fewer than in the police plan. The member asked for an explanation of the discrepancies in the figures. The Commissioner undertook to provide a note.

Section 58 of the Terrorism Act

In reply to a request from a member the Commissioner said that unless there was an operational reason why it could not be done, arrangements would be made to make public the guidance issued to officers.

Retention of photographs of suspects

In reply to a question from a member the Assistant Commissioner confirmed that following the outcome of a recent court case there had been a review of the procedure and practice relating to the retention of photographs. When it had been established that a suspect whose photograph had been taken had not committed an offence then the photograph would not be retained.

Lap dancing establishments

In reply to a question the Commissioner said that the evidence did not suggest that lap dancing clubs were per se the cause of crime and disorder. However, where there was intelligence which suggested a link between a particular establishment and organised crime and prostitution this would be investigated.

Residential burglaries

In reply to a question the Commissioner confirmed that notwithstanding other pressures on the police, it should never be forgotten that for those affected by it, burglary was regard as a serious offence and had similar characteristics to a violent offence.

Resolved – That

1. the report be received;
2. a report be submitted to the Civil Liberties Panel in due course on the issues involved with regard to the legislation concerning the holding of demonstrations in Parliament Square; and
3. a report reviewing the content and use of Form 696 be submitted to the Communities, Equalities and People Committee.

Addendum to the Commissioner’s report

This report follows up on the actions and commitments made verbally by the Commissioner at the Full Authority meeting on 28 May 2009.

1. The Commissioner committed to provide an update to Members on the following issues:

• Explain the difference between the workforce figures shown in paragraph 34 of May’s Performance Update and the numbers shown in the Policing Plan
• Would the MPS publish the guidance given to officers on Section 58 (Terrorism Act)
• Explain the reasons for the choice of Section 44 (Terrorism Act) review pilot sites; and
• Provide the numbers of people stopped on the Section 44 pilot sites.

Explain the difference between the workforce figures shown in paragraph 34 of May’s Performance Update and the numbers shown in the Policing Plan

2. The workforce figures in the monthly performance report reflect officers and staff in post at the end of each month. The figures in the Policing Plan reflect planned strength by the end of the year provided for in the approved budget. The figure of ‘32,766’ police officers identified in the May performance report was a typing error. It should have read 32,776; this figure includes 1,439 recruits and can be compared to planned strength.

Table 1 – Strength

Would the MPS publish the guidance given to officers on Section 58 (Terrorism Act)

3. Arrangements will be made for the guidance to be published via the MPS website.

Explain the reasons for the choice of Section 44 (Terrorism Act) review pilot sites

4. ‘Activate’ is a new supervision model being trialed. The expected benefits include improved supervision, reduced bureaucracy, improved customer focus, more effective management and deployment of resources and improved status of frontline officers. It was decided to include two of the four ‘activate’ boroughs - Southwark (inner) and Brent (outer) - as part of the pilot. The other two were non-‘activate’ boroughs and were chosen primarily due to the community contacts in these two boroughs. Chris Roffey (Chair of the community monitoring network) and Azad Ali (Chair of the Muslim Safety Forum) expressed an interest and due to the strong community relationship, representation and ability to gain feedback the cementing of the four mentioned boroughs were sanctioned by Commander Craig Denholm.

Provide the numbers of people stopped on the Section 44 pilot sites

5. Details are provided below. For operational reasons, there is a three-month delay in the release of Section 44 data broken down by borough.

Table 2 – Section 44 Searches - Pilot BOCU and MPS November 2008 - April 2009

Table 3 – Section 43 Searches - Pilot BOCU and MPS November 2008 - April 2009

117. The MPA’s member role

(Agenda item 7)

A report was submitted which asked the Authority to agree a new statement of the member role and responsibilities together with proposals for assisting members in that role through assessment and development.

Some members stated that some of detail in the report did not fully reflect the discussion which had taken place at the Away Day and made a number of detailed points. The view was also expressed in particular that the description of the link member role at the Appendix was too prescriptive. Members felt that a better approach would be guidelines for members to work within.

In reply to a question from a member the Chief Executive advised that an Equality Impact Assessment had not yet been carried out.

The Chairman suggested that the report be deferred to enable the points which had been made to be considered further.

Resolved – That the report be deferred

118. To approve the appointment of John Biggs to the Corporate Governance Committee

(Agenda item 8a)

It was noted that John Biggs wished to become a member of the Corporate Governance Committee. The matter was urgent as the next meeting of the Committee was due to be held before the Annual Meeting of the Authority.

Resolved- That John Biggs be appointed to the Corporate Governance Committee.

119. MPA committee structure

(Agenda item 8b)

A report was submitted which asked the Authority to agree its Committee structure so that appointment can be made at the Annual Meeting.

Resolved - That the current committee structure be confirmed, so that appointments to committees can be made at the Annual Meeting on 25 June 2009.

120. Reports from committees

(Agenda item 9)

The Authority received a report outlining key issues that had been considered at recent Authority Committee meetings. The report covered the following meetings:

• Finance and Resources Committee – 23 April 2009
• Strategic and Operational Policing Committee – 7 May 2009

Resolved – That the report be received.

121. Civil Liberties Panel

(Agenda item 10)

A report was considered that set out of the proposed terms of reference for the Civil Liberties Panel which was established at the last meeting of the Authority.

In receiving the report members referred to the fact that the report from HMIC on public order policing was due to be published shortly and suggested that the membership of the Panel be identified before the Annual Meeting so that the first meeting of the Panel could be convened shortly thereafter to consider the HMIC report.

In response to questions from members the Vice Chairman confirmed that the proposed modus operandi would be that the Panel would report to the Authority and it was for the Authority to make recommendations It would have a fixed membership.

Resolved - That

1. the terms of reference be endorsed; and
2. expressions of interest be invited before the Annual Meeting so that the first meeting can be held at the earliest opportunity.

122. Any other urgent business

(Agenda item 11)

There were no items.

The meeting closed at 12.10 p.m.

Send an e-mail linking to this page

Feedback