Contents

These are the minutes of the 15 September 2011 meeting of the MPA Committee.

Minutes

Warning: This is archived material and may be out of date. The Metropolitan Police Authority has been replaced by the Mayor's Office for Policing and Crime (MOPC).

See the MOPC website for further information.

Minutes

Minutes of the annual and ordinary meeting of the Metropolitan Police Authority held on 28 July 2011 at City Hall, The Queen’s Walk, London, SE1 2AA.

Present

Members

Kit Malthouse (Chairman)
Tony Arbour
Jennette Arnold
John Biggs
Christopher Boothman
Victoria Borwick
Valerie Brasse
Cindy Butts
James Cleverly
Dee Doocey
Toby Harris
Kirsten Hearn
Neil Johnson
Jenny Jones
Clive Lawton
Joanne McCartney
Caroline Pidgeon
Amanda Sater
Graham Speed

MPA officers

Catherine Crawford (Chief Executive)
Bob Atkins (Treasurer)

MPS officers

Bernard Hogan-Howe (Commissioner, Designate)
AC Lynne Owens
AC Steve Allison
AC Mark Simmons (item 12 only)
Anne McMeel, MPS Director of Resources

Also present: Karen McConnell (Audit Commission)

21. Apologies for absence and announcements

(Agenda item 1)

21.1 Apologies for absence were received from Reshard Auladin, Faith Boardman, Valerie Shawcross and Steve O’Connell, Tim Godwin (Acting Commissioner) and Jane Harwood (Deputy Chief Executive).

22. Declarations of interests

(Agenda item 2)

22.1 No declarations of interest were made.

Resolved – That

the list of memberships of functional bodies and London Borough Councils, as set out in the table above, be noted;
the gifts and hospitality received by members, as set out on the Authority’s gifts and hospitality register, be noted; and
all members declare any other personal or personal prejudicial interests in specific items listed on the agenda over and above items listed in the table above and including any interest arising from gifts or hospitality received in the last 3 years or which are not at the time of this meeting reflected on the Authority’s register of gifts and hospitality.

23. Minutes: 28 July 2011

(Agenda item 3)

23.1 Members considered the minutes (Part 1) of the Authority meeting held on 28 July 2011.

Resolved – That the minutes (Part 1) of the Authority meeting held on 28 July 2011 be agreed and signed as a correct record.

24. Statement of accounts for year ended 31 March 2011 and annual governance report 2010/11

(Agenda item 6)

24.1 In order to allow representatives from the Audit Commission to present this report to the Authority earlier in the meeting, the Chairman, with the agreement of members, brought forward agenda item 8.

24.2 The Treasurer introduced the report to members and was pleased to confirm that report was positive and included a reference to the MPA/MPS being good value for money. He informed members that the reports indicated a lot work had taken place this financial year highlighting the IFRS (International Financial Reporting Standards) and he wish to record his thanks to MPS Director of Resources, Anne McMeel and her staff for the work they had undertaken in this area. He added that the report did raise some minor issues, but they were minor and presentational and underlined the real work that has had to go on in order to implement IFRS very successfully.

24.3 The Chairman introduced and invited Karen McConnell, Senior Director of Audit, Audit Commission to formally present the report to the Authority.

24.4 In presenting the report, Ms McConnell informed members that she was extremely pleased to present her first annual governance report to the MPA. She informed members that its financial statements were an important means by which the MPA account for the stewardship of public funds. She reminded members that although members do rely on officers for all the technical matters, these financial statements themselves are members’ responsibility, so it is right that she report the Authority before she concluded her audit and issue an opinion.

24.5 As already highlighted, she confirmed that she proposed to issue an unqualified audit opinion on MPA accounts and conclusion to secure value for money. The Authority had responded well to the challenge of a fundamental change in the basis of its financial reporting, IFRS, and had prepared, on time, a well supported set of accounts on that new basis. She therefore had concluded that she could rely on systems of internal control including the internal audit function.

24.6 Members were also informed that the report did make a number of recommendations. These included some relating to the assurance over systems operated by third parties and on the development of benchmarking, but also stated that there were both financial and corporate governance arrangements in place and these were well placed to take the Authority through future legislative changes.

24.7 Members were informed that there was a further appendix to the annual governance report that would be circulated to members after this meeting. However, this only related to presentational items that officers had addressed when they had been raised. Members were asked to therefore endorse the letter of representation which management would sign.

24.8 Ms McConnell concluded by thanking both officers of the MPA and MPS officers for their courtesy and assistance during the course of the audit and, particularly in this first year of IFRS.

24.9 In thanking the Senior Auditor for her report the Chairman asked that at paragraph 19.12 of the report there was an indication of £427,000 of donated assets, did we know who had provided these and did we know what kind of income it was. The Director of Resources, MPS agreed to provide the Chairman with the details of these donations.

24.10 The Chairman also asked Ms McConnell about changes to the Audit Commission and arrangement for future reports. Ms McConnell informed members that the audit practice was being outsourced from the Audit Commission and that these changes would take effect from 2012/13.

Resolved – That

The Statement of Accounts for 2010/11 be approved:
the Audit Commission’s Annual Governance Report be noted;
The letter of representation (as appended to the Annual Governance report) be approved; and
The Annual Governance Report action plan (as appended to the Annual Governance Report) be agreed.

25. Chairman’s update

(Agenda item 4)

25.1 The Chairman provided members with an update on key successes and meetings since the last meeting of the Authority.

25.2 He congratulated and welcomed Bernard Hogan-Howe as the new MPS Commissioner. The Chairman stated that he was one of several highly impressive candidates who had appeared before the MPA panel for interview last week and that he was confident that his clear vision and resolve for taking the MPS forward would serve Londoners well.

25.3 The Chairman then asked that his thanks be noted to the MPS senior management team for their leadership during the disorder in August. He stated that he was sure members would join him in thanking Acting Commissioner Tim Godwin for his dedication in leading the MPS through the testing and chaotic period during the summer. He added that a number of officers were honoured for their courage whilst serving on the front line during the disorder at a commendation ceremony last week, and that he would like to extend his personal thanks not only to these officers, but to each and every officer and member of staff who supported the operation in some way. The Chairman stated that he had no doubt that the dedication of the officers and staff of the MPS was the key factor in enabling control of the situation to be regained and what they would be vital in ensuring justice was brought to all those involved in the disturbances. He informed members that following the disorder, he had been particularly pleased to have had the opportunity to visit some of the boroughs that were the worst affected and see firsthand the community support for the police.

25.4 The Chairman also informed members that he would also like to pay tribute to AC Ian McPherson, who will, regrettably for London, retire from the MPS at the end of the year. The Chairman added that AC McPherson had provided a focused and innovative leadership of Territorial Policing and had achieved significant crime reduction and increased value for money. He wished him well for the future.

25.5 Members’ attention was drawn to Appendix 1 of the Chairman’s report which provided a list of the meetings that he had attended as Chairman of the Authority.

25.6 Among these the Chairman drew attention to the extraordinary meeting of the London Crime Reduction Board in August following the disturbances. The Mayor at this meeting had brought London’s partners together to assess how services were responding to the impacts caused by the violence and disorder. The Board heard how local authorities and the police service were central to the work involved with communities in clearing up, supporting victims and restoring order. At the same time the prosecution and courts service were responding in a concerted way to deal with the surge in demand for processing those arrested, swiftly and robustly. He informed members that the Board discussed key plans for going forward from this point. He also confirmed that a recovery co-ordination group would be carrying out impact assessments of victims needs and devising assistance packages. An anti-gangs strategy would escalate the work to take action against the individuals who cause the most harm to communities. A community plan was also being devised to ensure London is equipped to deal with the numbers of people being convicted and to provide a range of community justice provisions to ensure no-one involved with criminality during the disorder gets away with it. On the whole it was felt that London had the right measures and capability in place, but that in some instances a new focus and re-invigoration was required.

25.7 The Chairman confirmed that the budget process was well underway. He had held three budget scrutiny meetings with Specialist Operations, Olympics and Territorial Policing commands and was due to meet with all other members of management board in the next month. He confirmed to members that following discussion with the Mayor, it has been agreed that there will not be an interim budget submission in September. Instead the budget submission would be made in November. This would provide time for the implications of the recent disturbances and their funding to be fully understood and addressed in the submission. With regard the recent disturbances, he confirmed that discussions were ongoing between MPA/MPS officers and officials at the Home Office who continue to stress the need for 100% funding. The Chairman also confirmed that he had appeared before the Home Affairs Select Committee last week with the Mayor to answer questions on the disorder.

25.8 Members were informed that the bill had finishes its path through both houses of Parliament on the previous evening. The Bill would become law today subject to obtaining Royal Assent He confirmed that development of significant secondary legislation would be needed to take place before the MOPC can come into being. He added that work on a planned December implementation for the new arrangements in London were continuing; however, a revised timeline would be developed following Royal Assent and discussions with the Home Office.

25.9 The Chairman concluded his report by reporting that he had attended the first MPA anti-corruption scrutiny steering group meeting at the beginning of the month to discuss progress being made.

25.10 In addition to the reported items members wanted to thank the chairman for writing to the Members of Parliaments (MPs) and the Home Secretary in support of the family of Daniel Morgan supporting the request for a public judicial review into his death. Members asked the Chairman that in light of forthcoming changes to policing governance in London would he continue to give that support to the Morgan family and supporters. The Chairman confirmed that in addition to his initial letter to the Home Secretary, he had written again recently reiterating that in the light of some of the revelations that had come out of the News of the World investigation that consideration should be given to a review in this case.

25.11 Members, in relation to the Policing and Social Responsibility Act asked what proportion of the secondary legislation was required to go through the House was by negative resolution as opposed to positive. The Chief Executive stated that she did not think there was anything that requires positive resolution. As already confirmation that for some of the provisions, such as the protocol and the strategic policing requirement, it was desirable that these were in place, but it was not essential in order for there to be progression. The Chairman also confirmed that the MPOC in London could be in place by early January 2012.

Resolved – That the report be received.

26. Commissioner's report

(Agenda item 5)

26.1 The Chairman again welcomed the new Commissioner Bernard Hogan-Howe to the meeting and invited him to present his report.

26.2 The Commissioner in thanking members for their welcome stated that following his appointment he was both proud and honoured to have been selected as the new Commissioner of the MPS.

26.3 He asked that both the MPS and his thanks be noted to senior colleagues, particularly to Acting Commissioner Tim Godwin who, over the last 10 to 12 months had been faced with numerous challenges and had carried these out to a very high standard. The Commissioner wished to also record his thanks to Assistant Commissioner Ian McPherson who would be retiring in December. The Commissioner regretted that AC McPherson would not be part of our team into the future.

26.4 The Commissioner then turned to his vision for the MPS over the coming years. It was his aim to make the MPS as the best police force in the world. However, in the first place it was an ambition to make the MPS the best performing police force in the country.

26.5 The Commissioner then moved on to talk about how this could be achieved and he referred to his recent time in Merseyside where that force had adopted a policy of ‘total policing’. He explained to members that this was about being robust on crime, having a total care for victims and it was about being totally professional in that process. He added that some people had been concerned that a robust ‘war on crime’ meant that you needed to be aggressive and confrontational. He did not believe that that was necessary. He reminded members that whilst Chief Constable of Merseyside, it had the lowest number of complaints per head in the country. He informed members that it was not about being confrontational; but about confronting criminals and dealing them professionally, making sure that you did not ignore crime or the prevention of crime. He added that it was what also important to make sure that the organisation committed to fighting crime.

26.6 The Commissioner was keen to highlight that a fundamental purpose of the police was to make sure that crime does not happen, but added that If a crime does happen then it must be a the ambition to catch the person responsible and put them before the courts. He added that if the police could not manage that then there was a need to help the victim and a need for that to undertaken in a professional way.

26.7 In order to achieve this the Commissioner suggested that a key area was to be innovative and make sure that proven technology was maximised, with an aim of reducing crime or catching the people committing crime. He added that it was important that it was ‘technology for a purpose‘, not just ‘information technology’ to create lists.

26.8 The Commissioner informed members that he had three main aims which were consistent with what the Authority has been asking for: to cut crime and cut costs, and to create and continue to develop the MPS culture.

26.9 The Commissioner stated that regarding costs the MPS had to ensure that public money was being used efficiently and effectively and to be aware of the current final climate. Regarding diversity the Commissioner stated this was about the approach and values. He was keen that any values were about humility in the way that the MPS deal with people, and about integrity, as this is not something that should be part time, He also referred to transparency, which he saw as important in the MPS being held to account.

Disturbances in London during August

26.11 The Commissioner commented on how the MPS were addressing the consequences of the disorder which took place across London in August.

26.10 He confirmed that the MPS had agreed to undertake an internal review and that the broad outline of the review had been provided to the Authority. He felt that the review was important to understand exactly what happened at every moment in time on those days and it was vital to establish the facts. He informed members that he felt that it was important to know what happened at any particular time, what actions were taken based on that information and then the impact of those actions. He added that it was important that the review indicates if anything should have been done differently.

26.12 The Commissioner informed members that it was his intention that the MPS considered its initial thoughts within 30 days and assess if there were any urgent actions that the MPS needed make to ensure that there was no repetition of those events. He said that it was important that the MPS understood what happened and importantly, if there should be any repetition, how the MPS would deal with it and mobilise as effectively as possible. The Commissioner added that within eight weeks there would be an interim report which would be shared with the Authority, with a final report in December.

26.13 The Commissioner also drew members’ attention to the Government’s announcement to also hold a review of the disorder and that this would be lead by Darra Singh, Chairman, Communities and Victims Panel. He confirmed that the MPS would be supporting this review and would clearly be interested in its findings.

26.14 The Commissioner added that despite the disorder the decision was taken to continue to hold the Notting Hill Carnival and he was pleased that this event had taken place and had gone well. Members were informed that there had been 245 arrests, and that this was down on previous years.

Performance issues

26.15 In terms of general performance, the Commissioner highlighted some challenges, particularly around robbery and around burglary. Regarding robbery, the Commissioner stated that this was at the moment nearly a third lower than its high point in 2002. However, during the last year, in the period from April to August, offences were 21% higher, so it was around a fifth higher. This meant that 2,779 more people were robbed.

26.16 In terms of this increase the Commissioner stated that it would appear that the increase was being driven by high value electrical items and the rising cost of gold, which would make items such as jewellery more attractive to steal. The MPS were actively encouraging people to do their best to do anything they can to keep themselves safe. As part of this, the MPS had launched a ‘street robbery campaign’, highlighting the simple steps that people can take to protect themselves.

26.17 Turning to burglary offences, the Commissioner reported that there was an increase in offences from this time last year with burglaries of people’s homes up by nearly 10%, which was just over 2,000 more victims. Members were informed that the operational response to both burglary and robbery was being driven through Operation Target which was coordinating action across the MPS, but particularly in those boroughs which were more affected by those crime types.

26.18 The Commissioner added that there was an effect after the disorder in August, which seems to have at least stabilised the crime pattern. He suspected there are two reasons; more officers out on the street and some of the people arrested had been frequent offenders.

26.19 The Commissioner was pleased to note that offences where a knife is used to injure are down by about 3%, which is 60 fewer offences.

26.20 However, in light of the disorder, the Commissioner added that he felt it may be disingenuous to overplay the reductions as there were a lot of officers still working on the outcome of the disorder with suspects being arrested and put before the court. This process was being supported by people being identified sometimes by CCTV, sometimes by press footage and sometimes by people informing the MPS who committed the offences. However, there remained a lot of work to be undertaken in this area with the MPS having to devote significant resources to this.

26.21 Turning to teenage homicides, the Commissioner regretfully reported that there had been three additional young people who have been killed since the last Authority meeting: Thomas Ward: Kelvin Chibueze; and Leroy James The Commissioner reassured members and the public that it was his aim to do all he could to prevent these deaths, added that there were big challenges.

26.22 The Commissioner highlighted Lord Justice Leveson’s public inquiry and the challenges the MPS face over the coming months and years. Members were reminded that Elizabeth Filkin (a former Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards) was working within the MPS to advise on the ethics of what should sit behind the police and press relationships. The Commissioner confirmed that she had been meeting with many people within the Authority and the MPS and that she was, as part of her HMIC role, working on a national piece of work around the country with the 43 forces looking at the relationship between the press and the police and the integrity issues that this may involve.

26.23 Members noted that part of her work touched upon the guidance that sets out the parameters of relationships with the press and that MPS standard operating procedures would be updated following the findings of review. A final report was due in January and the MPS would act on any initial findings.

26.24 The Commissioner concluded his report by confirming that he was pleased that the MPS had now published on line a register of gifts and hospitality. He added that in the future it was the aim to ensure that the register was updated within 24 hours of the event, but at present IT issues meant that this may not be possible, but this was being looked at with an option of following the GLA systems.

Issues raised by members

26.25 Members had submitted a number of questions in advance of the meeting.

Unrest in London during August

26.26 In light of the number of questions received from members which were related to the unrest across London in August, the Chairman agreed that these questions should be considered first. An extract of the transcript of the meeting outlining members’ questions and responses from the Commissioner and AC Lynne Owens are attached as Appendix 1 to these minutes.

Expenditure on legal advice

26.27 In March this year a request was made for details of the amount that the MPS/MPA has spent on external legal advice relating to defamation actions involving ACPO and non ACPO rank officers, this year and in each of the last five financial years. The response received from the MPS was that approximately £1,175 had been paid in March 2011 in relation to ACPO Officers. Members asked if this was correct.

26.28 Following on from this members asked was this the only expenditure incurred by the MPS/MPA in the last five years on external legal advice relating to defamation actions and whether there has been any further expenditure incurred since March 2011.

26.29 The Commissioner confirmed that all applications (from ACPO officers) for financial support in legal proceedings are approved by the MPA. Police authorities are able to authorise this support if officers have acted in the course of their duties, have acted in good faith and exercised their judgement reasonably. He added that in March 2011, £1,175 was paid and in April 2011, a further £6,000. He confirmed that this was part of the terms and conditions of ACPO officers. In terms of non-ACPO officers there were no payments.

26.30 The Chairman added that he had written to the Chairman of the Home Affairs Select Committee because, when he appeared in front of them he was asked this question and gave the answer that the MPA had authorised expenditure on a particular matter up to £1,500. It appears that that cap was not adhered to and that has resulted in further payments in the following financial year. The Chairman confirmed that he had asked for an urgent inquiry as to why his decision to cap that expenditure was not adhered to what can be done to prevent that happening in the future.

MPA gifts and hospitality

26.31 Members welcomed the announcement that the MPS had now established a gifts and hospitality register and that this was on now on-line. However, members asked the Commissioner to comment on the matter of senior officers accepting hospitality from organisations who they were investigating.

26.32 The Commissioner stated that in his view you do not accept hospitality from people whom you are investigating. He added a caveat that large organisations, including Governments, needed to maintain a relationship across Governments with local authorities and with many people who, from time to time, either are complainants or, alternatively, suspects. He suggested that the challenge was to try to make sure that you can carry on in a professional manner whilst still dealing with some very complex organisations.

26.33 The Chairman added that he had discussed with the Commissioner the qualitative difference between having a relationship with somebody for example in the media where you need to understand each other’s context and that being done in the context of a business meeting at the Yard over a cup of coffee as opposed to in a hospitality environment. Both could achieve the same objective, but one might be more appropriate.

26.34 The Chairman also informed members that he had been recently interviewed by the HMIC integrity review that was being lead by Sir Denis O’Connor (Chief Inspector of Constabulary) and which had been looking at this issues. The Chairman was asked what kind of product should come out of that review and his view was there should be a fairly rigid code of conduct that comes out that is appropriate for the special and different status of being a police officer as opposed to being a businessman or a politician.

26.35 Members asked the Commissioner to comment on the fact that the MPS has got private dining facilities for senior officers and would there be a similar system so that anybody who is provided with that facility that is also recorded. The MPS Director of Resources confirmed that the provision of corporate hospitality is covered in exiting policy, but added that from the exercise that has been undertaken in terms of publishing the information over the last three years, different parts of the organisation are interpreting the policy in slightly different ways and there is an inconsistency. The review of the policy would be making sure that there is consistency of message and that the MPS had a consistency of reporting.

26.36 The Commissioner added that the system has not changed and there was a register that everyone signs when they go in, which had been there for several years. Unfortunately, he added that at present this is not it is not IT friendly but the information was there. Members suggested that if the last three years could be produced so that there are parallel systems of declarations in operation that would be useful.

Contracts awarded by Director of Public Affairs

26.37 Members asked for details for the last five years of all contracts personally approved by the Director of Public Affairs and Internal Communication for the Metropolitan Police, with a value of £5k or over.

26.38 The Commissioner informed members that at present it was difficult to provide that information but would do so as soon as possible. He added that as members were aware a significant programme of work has been implemented and continued to improve compliance and value for money in respect of the MPS’ procurement activity. That recently included an Authority report that mandated the use of the ‘CompeteFor’ contracts between £500 and £50,000. The Commissioner informed members that it was, however, difficult to extract information on a historical basis, making it difficult to respond in detail to the question. However, he informed members that all contracts over £50,000 are dealt with by the procurement service in liaison with the relevant sponsoring directorate and procurement with a value of less than £50,000 is dealt with by the relevant business group. A problem identified around this was that this information was stored in separate places. The Commissioner added that he had been informed that, over the past five years, the Director of Public Affairs and Internal Communication was personally involved in the sourcing of two local projects which were awarded to Chami Media Limited and Alternative Genius. .

26.39 In light of the recent allegations and given the apparent complex issues in trying to seek this information, members asked the Commissioner if the MPS were reviewing all of the contracts approved by the Director of Pubic Affairs and possibly referring them to audit for further investigation. The Commissioner informed members that an audit was being carried out, but did not have full details and agreed to provide those to the Authority.

Screening out burglary and theft

26.40 Members were pleased that the MPS was screening out far fewer cases than ten years ago. However, there was some concern that recently uncovered figures reveal that, in the last twelve months, 72.9% of theft or handling cases and 25.9% of burglary cases were still being ‘screened out’ of a full investigation. Members asked should these kind of crimes, which are seemingly ‘minor’ but can cause a great deal of distress and fear, take greater priority

26.41 The Commissioner informed members that in terms of screening out cases there was a decrease, but overall this remained too high. In his view there is a practical problem which was there are 800,000 victims of crime in London each year and with the associated impact on officers time lead him to his point which was that he would prefer, not ignoring the prevention element, to also focus on victims of crime. He again drew comparisons with work undertaken in Merseyside which, whilst not leading to any different screening out, did lead to a different spirit which was the police responding to victims’ needs and not to what was believed was the professional response to a particular problem.

Gang intervention work

26.42 The Commissioner was asked if he was concerned about the potential loss of local authority funding for gang intervention work that runs alongside Operation Connect in Waltham Forest.

26.43 The Commissioner stated that he felt that Operation Connect carried out in Waltham Forest was a good approach. He informed members that he felt that this operation had built up some best practice internationally and also within this country. In outlining the operations purposes he added that it was essential that partnership structures were in place, but he was aware of the challenges facing all public services and the need for resources to be prioritised. With this in mind, he added that he was keen to see all partners and particularly the police, continue to prioritise gang work. He confirmed that he would over the next few months take forward how he thought the police could develop Operation Connect work across more boroughs He stated that he saw this as a high priority to make sure that the MPS are addressing the gangs issue within London.

26.44 Members noted the Commissioner’s comments about Operation Connect and suggested that there were discussions to be had at Government level to ensure that central funding of the operation was made available as local authorities may not be able to sustain it appropriate levels of funding.

Road safety

26.45 Members asked if the reductions in the road safety budget and officer/staff numbers had an operational impact and gave the example, had there been fewer ANPR operations in 2010 than previous years.

26.46 The Commissioner confirmed that there had been a reduction in ANPR operations, but suggested that there could be further change as there was some good work around ANPR. Once this initial work had been undertaken he aimed to bring back details to the Authority.

26.47 Regarding ANPR he was confident that it can achieve better things including keeping criminals off the road. He added that one success in Merseyside was to take a large number of vehicles off the road, approximately 1,000 this was in comparison with 2,500 in London. He informed members that Merseyside had 12% of the resources of the MPS and that proportion seem odd and therefore this need to be looked at. The Commissioner outlined the benefits of ANPR which included 80% of the people who had their cars taken were criminals and not for relatively low level crime such as non payment of road tax. The system seriously impacted on the mobility of criminals. The indirect benefits also included seeing people who are criminals who drive are five times more likely to have an accident and therefore to cause more damage.

Stolen Vehicle Unit

26.48 Members sought further details from the Commissioner on the proposal to close the Stolen Vehicle Unit, following the loss of its pro-active team. Members suggested to the Commissioner that as an alternative to closure, given the high levels and sophistication of organised motor vehicle crime and the unrivalled technical expertise and national/international reputation of the unit, would he agree to review this decision. They suggested possibly with a view to repositioning the team within the service and to further develop and encourage its valuable partnership work with the motor vehicle and insurance industry?

26.49 AC Lynne Owens informed members that the Stolen Vehicle Unit was made up of two parts; a part that liaises with vehicle manufacturers and the insurance industry and development of crime prevention measures, and a separate part which was the proactive team. AC Owens added that in considering the current significant budget pressures that the MPS faced, SCD had looked at the smaller element of the Unit, the proactive team. There has been no decisions taken as yet and she confirmed that she was awaiting a business case before taking a view about where and how this Unit should operate within the MPS business.

26.50 AC Owens agreed with members that there had been a rise in vehicle crime, so it was important to make sure the MPS could act proactively against organised criminals involved with vehicles. However, she added that she would need to look at the structure on how to do this. Members in noting the reply suggested that members should receive a briefing on these issues.

Written responses to questions

26.51 A number of questions were also submitted to the Commissioner to which members were content to receive written replies to. These were as follows:

Health Care and Custody Suits
Metropolitan Police Horses
Public disorder in August
Safer Neighbourhood Team Sergeants (SNT)
Rehabilitation of offenders
Risks from smoke inhalation to Police Officers
Gang intervention work
Deaths in Police Custody
Metal theft
Update on phone hacking

27. Reports from committees

(Agenda item 7)

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

Standards Committee – 13 July 2011
Strategic and Operational Policing Committee – 14 July 2011
Finance and Resources Committee – 21 July 2011

Resolved – That the report be received.

Members received a report that provided details on action taken by the Chief Executive under delegated authority on the grounds of urgency.

Resolved – That the report be received.

28. Action taken under delegated authority

(Agenda item 8)

28.1 Members received a report that provided details on action taken for the Settlement of an Employment Tribunal by the Chief Executive under delegated authority on the grounds of urgency.

Resolved – That the report be received.

29. Any other urgent business

(Agenda item 9)

Claims made under the Riot (Damages) Act 1886

29.1 Members received the above mentioned report that provided details on action taken by the Chief Executive under delegated authority on the grounds of urgency.

29.2 The grounds for receiving this report as urgent were given as that a robust process of claim-handling must be agreed upon, prior to the deadline for applications for compensation under the RDA being reached, in order to enable claims to be determined in a consistent, proportionate and timely fashion.

Resolved – That

the report received by the Strategic and Operational Policing Committee on 8 September 2011, attached at Appendix 1 to the report be noted; and
members ratify the processes for claim handling agreed by the Strategic and Operational Policing Committee on 8 September 2011, as outlined at paragraphs 5 - 9 of the report, namely:
1. Members agreed that, for claims with a value up to £500,000 (whether insured or uninsured), authority is delegated to the Commissioner (acting through DLS) to investigate the claim, determine whether loss or damage was caused by a riot, and to fix the just level of compensation payable under the RDA.
2. Members agreed that, for claims with a value of £500,000 or more (whether insured or uninsured), DLS will investigate and report to the Authority, and the Authority will determine whether loss or damage was caused by a riot, and fix the just level of compensation payable under the RDA.
3. Members agreed that, for claims with a value up to £500,000 (whether insured or uninsured), an appeal against the determinations of the Commissioner (acting through DLS) may be brought to the Authority on the basis of: whether loss or damage was caused by a riot; and/or the just level of compensation payable under the RDA.
4. Members agreed that, in accordance with MPA Standing Order 3.1.5, a panel composed of no fewer than three members of the Strategic and Operational Policing Committee, is to be established. The terms of reference for this panel will be to exercise all of the powers of the Authority in relation to: (1) claims made under the Riot (Damages) Act 1886; and, (2) appeals against determinations by the Commissioner of claims made under the Riot (Damages) Act 1886.
5. Members agreed to delegate to DLS the authority to reject claims where they do not fall within the terms of the Riot (Damages) Act and associated regulations.

30. Exclusion of press and public

(Agenda item 10)

Resolved - That under section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972 the press and public be excluded from the meeting for the following items of business on the grounds that they involved disclosure of exempt information as detailed in paragraphs 1, 5 and 7 of Schedule 12A to the above Act.

Part 2

31. Olympics/Paralympics update

(Agenda item 11)

31.1 A report was received that provided members with an update on the Olympic and Paralympic safety and security planning.

31.2 As part of the presentation of the report members were informed that in developing the safety and security operation there had been a number of planning principles which included:

There is a consistent national approach.
The Games are a ‘blue games’ – that is they will be policed by the British police service, predominantly unarmed, and working with the consent of the community. It was added that there would be niche support activities that would be delivered by the military as a part of the Safety and Security operation.
The treat level from terrorism would be at severe
The plans are being built on the basis of the existing systems, processes and guidance that successfully deliver events on a daily basis across the country.
While the Government expects forces to flex existing asset to meet the Games policing requirement, it has made up to 600m available to pay for additionality.

31.3 The report also provided members with an update on the new National Olympic Coordination Centre and other national units created to assist in the delivery of the Games. Members were also provided with details of the command structure in London.

31.4 AC Allison also provided members with a brief background on the roles and responsibility of the London Organising Committee for the Olympic Games (LOCOG) and details of already established operations that were in place to prevent crimes in the both the preparation for, during and after the Games. He also provided some detail on stakeholder engagement that was taking place.

31.5 Members were also provided with details related to the risks to the Games which included: terrorism; protest/disorder; serious organised crime including fraud, ticket touting and counterfeit tickets; and natural incidents including flooding or heat wave.

31.6 Turning to previous discussions with the Authority on using the preparation and policing of the Games as an opportunity to develop and enhance opportunities for BME, female and staff with disability, he reported that 68 people had been selected for command roles for the Games at this current time, with 84% male, 94% full time 100% were white 70% heterosexual with 4% having a disability. He added that whilst it was important that the command was properly resourced with experienced people, there was ongoing work to address the shortfall in BME, female and staff with disability. With up to 250 command roles needing to be filled, it was hoped to attract colleagues form these areas and that fact that there is a pool of people that can be drawn from, which is wider and more diverse it is hoped this would result in a more diverse command team.

31.7 AC Allison drew attention to the input and work of members of the MPA through the Olympic/Paralympic Sub-Committee, which had been heavily involved in the approvals process, oversight of the planning being undertaken and extensively scrutinised key business cases. He asked that his thanks to the members of that Sub-Committee be recorded.

31.8 Members welcomed the report and in turn wished to record their thanks for the work undertaken by the MPS in engaging through the MPA Olympic/Paralympic Sub-Committee on the preparation of the Games.

31.9 In noting the security arrangement outlined in the report and presented by AC Allison, members raised concerns that around the security responsibility that LOCOG have. Specifically, members had concerns that LOCOG seemed not to have in place robust security planning for the areas they were responsible for and the MPS would therefore need to also be planning for possible incidents in areas not initially responsible for. In addition there was concern that there was lack of MPS representation on the LOCOG Board to address this matter.

31.10 Some members also expressed some concerns around the capability of Airwave and current processes for security clearance of contractors.

31.11 Members also suggested that there was a need to assess the need for associated events around the Games and whether these would be to resource intensive.

31.12 A number of members were disappointed that the MPS had not been successful in taking the opportunity to develop and enhance opportunities for BME staff in the command and whist acknowledging that there remained opportunities they encouraged the MPS to be robust and proactive in developing these opportunities.

31.13 Members also asked that discussions take place with LOCOG about linking up with other partners around the issues of violence against women and trafficking.

Resolved – That the report and update on the Olympic and Paralympic safety and security planning be received.

32. Review of the MPS response to Barber Ahmed investigations and Judicial findings

(Agenda item 12)

32.1 Members received a report that outlined the MPS responses to recommendations arising from an internal review into the events surrounding the arrest of Barbar Ahmad in December 2003 and the subsequent judicial process and findings that resulted from his complaint against the police.

31.2 DAC Simmons in presenting the report provided an overview of these events. These included details pertaining to the arrest of Mr Ahmad in December 2003, an overview of the incident and allegations made by Mr Ahmad during his arrest, civil action and criminal trial and the CPS criminal review and the MPS internal review.

31.3 A key element of the review was to outline the chain of events that led to the collapse of the civil action and resulted in the MPS admitting liability and paying costs.

31.4 The report also informed members that the arresting officers’ details had inadvertently been disclosed by the IPCC following the outcome of the misconduct investigations. Members in noting this misfortunate event asked, what if any, were the current concerns of those officers and where were they in terms of the current process. It was confirmed that the officers concerned had submitted an application to an employment tribunal and that this was currently on-going.

31.5 The Chief Executive, in welcoming the report, informed members that it had always the intention of the MPA have a report on this matter which could be made public. She asked the MPS to consider producing either a report that can be published in public on the findings or a redacted version of the current report.

31.6 The MPS informed members that currently following advice from Counsel, they could not publish the report in public on the grounds that there could be breach of legal privilege and significant risk of defamation. There was also concern that a redacted report could prove to be a meaningless product. Nevertheless, they would take away the Chief Executive’s request.

Resolved – That

the report be noted and the response of the MPS to recommends and learning that has arisen from the event outlined in the report; and
the MPS consider producing a report on this matter that can be published publicly.

32. MINUTES: 28 July 2011

(Agenda item 13)

32.1 Members considered the minutes (Part 2) of the Authority meeting held on 28 July 2011.

Resolved – That the minutes (Part 2) of the Authority meeting held on 28 July 2011 be agreed and signed as a correct record.

Appendix 1

Extract from the transcript of Metropolitan Police Authority meeting held on 15 September and which relates specifically to members question and responses from the Commissioner on the riots that took place during August 2011.

Kit Malthouse (Chairman, MPA): Thank you very much. Members will have noted a small victory for those Members who have been pushing for some years in terms of publication on the internet of those expenses and gifts and hospitality yesterday afternoon.

Right. We have had a lot of submitted questions on a number of themes. What I am going to do is group them by theme this time and we are going to start with discussions, no surprise, about the riots. There are a number of Members who have submitted questions about that and then other questions but what I am going to do is take all those questions together and then come back to Members in order on their sundry other questions if that is all right with everybody? We are going to start with the Assembly Member for the area, Joanne [McCartney].

Just to explain, we have got Lynne Owens and Chris Allison here. During the whole period Lynne and Chris worked together - Lynne doing evenings and nights and Chris doing mornings and days - around the disorder themselves both in the control room obviously and at the Yard as the Assistant Commissioners involved. Therefore we had full 24 hour coverage. Bernard was obviously pretty much there throughout as far as I could see in the Yard along with Tim [Godwin] but in terms of the detail of what happened we have got a good team to give you the actual detailed blow by blow account if that is what is required. OK. Joanne, we are going to start with you.

Joanne McCartney (AM): Thank you. I actually did put these questions to the Acting Commissioner last week at the Plenary so I have got some answers but I think it would be useful in future if we could have a timeline from the police point of view of exactly what happened and whether that is part of the report or whether that can be done sooner would be very useful.

My initial concerns go back to Thursday, 4 August 2011 and the shooting of Mark Duggan in an Operation Trident operation. The main concerns that I have, apart from the shooting itself which is obviously an independent investigation, is about the communication and liaison with the family and then the wider community. It seems that the MPS and the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) have been here before where there has been a high profile incident and there has been criticism and a lot of anxiety about how the police or the IPCC communicated immediately and whether better communication may actually have calmed a lot of tension down if that had been handled appropriately.

My questions really are about that. What was done or not done? Who was responsible? Talking to the various parties it seems that the IPCC and the Directorate of Professional Standards (DPS) - all of which have family liaison officers - and there seems to be a lack of clarity as to who should actually take the role of liaising with not just the immediate family but the wider family as well. I would like some answers to that. I am glad, Commissioner, that you said that if there are things that can be done straightaway, rather than waiting for an outcome or a report, that they would be done. I would think that clarity around communications is one that has to take priority. That is my first set of questions.

My second are around intelligence that was given to the police about possible unrest on the Saturday. We had a peaceful demonstration by the family wanting answers. There were concerns about that, that that was not handled appropriately; there was not a senior enough officer to talk to them. Also there have been community voices saying that they warned the police and the police should have been better informed. I wanted your views on that please.

Bernard Hogan-Howe (Commissioner Designate, MPS): Sorry, Lynne [Owens], I wanted to mention one of the things that Joanne mentioned about early actions. One of the things that certainly I did two weeks ago, subsequent to Mark Duggan’s death was to meet with the IPCC to explore that very point about communication with families. We both agreed that there is something to learn there. What we are agreed to do is to sit down and work through who did what and what might have been done differently. We have not got a final piece of work on that. DAC Mark Simmons is going to work together with the IPCC and make sure that should, unfortunately, this happen in the future, a death after contact with the police, you have got a far clearer protocol of how we deal with things.

To be fair, from my reading of it, everyone was trying to be honourable and not tread on someone else’s toes in sharing information, but the consequence did not work out as everyone would have intended so I think there is a piece of work to do there.

Joanne McCartney (AM): I think it is important that the agencies are able to challenge each other as well and they have to have the confidence to do that.

Bernard Hogan-Howe (Commissioner Designate, MPS): Yes. Sorry, Lynne.

Lynne Owens (Assistant Commissioner for Central Operations, MPS): Starting at the beginning of your question, Joanne, in terms of the timeline we have prepared a headline timeline that I thought had gone to Members and London Assembly Members?

Joanne McCartney (AM): It has but I suspect, as you are working through what actually happened, there will be extra information that will be added. It would be useful --

Kit Malthouse (Chairman, MPA): Is what you want quite a granular timeline that effectively starts from the shooting, including what meetings were held by whom and who was likely to be there? I know that work is ongoing. OK. Fine.

Lynne Owens (Assistant Commissioner for Central Operations, MPS): The other briefing note that we have circulated of course is what my review entails and it is a very broad ranging review but the first point on that list is a timeline. We want to get to the place where we do have a very detailed understanding of what happened when, where, how and numbers etc from the very beginning and, of course, we will be happy to share that at the time that we have it.

In terms of the family, the fundamental point to make is, regardless of what the review throws out, Mark Duggan’s family feel that they were let down by us and that can never be an acceptable situation. As a result of that Mak Chishty, who is one of our commanders, has been to see the family and has apologised for that.

I think, as Mr Hogan-Howe has said, there clearly was, whether it be a lack of understanding or a lack of clarity, between ourselves and the IPCC in respect of who was going to do what. It is one of the detailed parts of work. As the boss has said, Mark Simmons is leading that on our behalf and it will report into the review.

My current understanding - and I am sorry I have to caveat all my answers with that dreadful phrase but that is the whole point of a review; that you are trying to get to stages of detail but in the interest of openness I want to answer as fully as I can. On my current understanding, on the night in question, some of our family liaison officers from the Directorate of Professional Standards did engage with two members of the family. They did not engage with the parents and there are some reasons for that that we need to talk through with the IPCC. The IPCC took responsibility for the role of family liaison on the following day, on the morning, and it was not until the public announcements through the media that we were aware that the family was unhappy with our involvement and it was at that point we apologised.

As I say, we need to get into some more detail. We cannot get away from the fact that, no matter what way you look at it, the Mark Duggan family feel let down, and that can never be acceptable.

In respect of intelligence - you have heard us say this before but intelligence is a much over used word. We think there was information that there was going to be a peaceful vigil at Tottenham Police Station on Saturday. There were a number of meetings with different members of the community during that day and we had different feedback. On our current assessment the main feedback we were getting at that meeting is that there was anger towards the police but there was a feeling that that would not necessarily move into disorder. As I say, that is an early indication and what I need to have is a far deeper debrief than I currently have about exactly who said what to whom and when and, as a result of what was said, what action was taken. I do know that 23 members of key individual networks were spoken to. What I do not know is what question they asked and what response they gave so it is that level of detail that I need to get into.

Joanne McCartney (AM): Thank you. Can I ask then about Saturday, 6 August? I think there is concern locally that adequate resources were not deployed soon enough. I know we have heard you are reviewing your mobilisation plan but I just wondered whether you have got any early indications as to whether that was the case and whether extra resources there quicker could have stopped the disorder?

Lynne Owens (Assistant Commissioner for Central Operations, MPS): In terms of the numbers that were available the original borough policing operation required this to be a local low key operation. We have had vigils, regrettably, at police stations before and, generally, we have found that is the right response. If you deploy significant numbers of territorial support group in the early stages there are occasions where that has escalated anger so it was very much a locally based operation. They had asked for a considerable number of reserves to be on standby, the Commissioner’s reserve was on standby for the operation and was based locally but I think it is difficult, at this stage, to say had we engaged earlier with more public order tactics whether that would have quelled the disorder quickly. What we do know is the fact that two police cars were attacked, it became an iconic event and violence did spread quickly.

One of the points you made earlier which I forgot to pick up on, Joanne, was the point about chief officer presence at the scene. There has been a lot of misreporting in this regard. There was a chief inspector present at the scene, Adi Adelekan, who is a very experienced public order commander and a very good member of the borough command team. He was there at the police station and was engaging with the family. At that point the family took the view that he was not a senior enough person and we called another person out, but to say there was nobody of any rank there is actually inaccurate.

Joanne McCartney (AM): Thank you. I have got a couple of further questions but they relate to afterwards and the aftermath.

Kit Malthouse (Chairman, MPA): Carry on. Let’s get it done.

Joanne McCartney (AM): One is about Operation Kirkin which I believe you have some 30,000 hours worth of CCTV coverage that you are looking at. I believe that that is actually going to be passed back to the boroughs to deal with and to look at and I understand that about 20,000 hours of that may relate to Haringey. Obviously there is then the question of resources that that borough will have to actually continue the investigation. It is about what extra resources are able to be given to those boroughs who are having that great wealth of information but it will take great investigative time and resources to deal with.

Lynne Owens (Assistant Commissioner for Central Operations, MPS): Commander Steve Rodhouse is leading the post investigation now. He is an experienced Commander in Territorial Policing. He has already reviewed the resources. There is a paper coming to Management Board tomorrow which will detail the level of resources that each of the boroughs will need to undertake that work.

The best place for the work to happen is within individual boroughs but they will need additional resources to do that work on their behalf and it will be the decision of the Management Board in terms of how we split that resource requirement across the organisation. There is not an expectation that all of the resources are only supplied from within the individual boroughs because we know that some boroughs had more disorder than others and we need to look at our units like the Specialist Crime Department and the Specialist Operations who might support the broader operation.

What I would say is that we should not forget that this investigation takes place in the context of other big events, Operation Elveden and Operation Weeting, so there are a number of significant inquiries in place in London at the moment and it is our responsibility, as a Board, to make sure they are all appropriate resourced.

Kit Malthouse (Chairman, MPA): It is also worth adding of course that there may well be a bit of duplication in that some of those people who were involved in the rioting may well be of interest to the borough anyway. Given what we know about 75% have a previous conviction and some of the gang involvement there may be some overlap there that current investigations could benefit from in the borough anyway.

Joanne McCartney (AM): I am just concerned about the level of resource that they are going to need and the level of resource they need to put out on the streets to regain public confidence; it is going to be great.

My final question was then on the cost. Have we got assurances from the Home Office that they will cover all costs relating to these operations?

Kit Malthouse (Chairman, MPA): That negotiation is underway. The indications thus far are positive but there is no ink on the dotted line yet.

Joanne McCartney (AM): Will you keep us informed, Chairman, of that? It would be quite useful.

Kit Malthouse (Chairman, MPA): As I always do, Joanne.

Joanne McCartney (AM): Thank you.

Kit Malthouse (Chairman, MPA): OK. Kirsten [Hearn] next.

Kirsten Hearn (AM): Some of these have been touched on already so I will not ask any ones that have been dealt with.

I am very aware that there are investigations going on at the moment, and inquiries as well, which may make it sometimes difficult to explain everything at once but what was the pre-agreed objective and outcomes sought behind the operation which led to the shooting of Mark Duggan. That is my first question. Shall I ask them one by one or shall I do the lot? What do you want me to do, Chairman?

Kit Malthouse (Chairman, MPA): Do them all together.

Kirsten Hearn (AM): OK. Fine. That was question number one. Second question was any equality or community impact assessment done prior to the operation going live? Second one. If so, what did it raise? What, if any, community reassurance strategy was put in place in the borough after the shooting of Mark Duggan. The fourth question. Who from the police was present at the critical incident meeting on 5th? I think actually I might have got the wrong date there but any of the critical incident meetings in relation to that. Which members of the community warned the police about the anger that was being felt in the community? I would like to know who was at that meeting from the police? Five. To who were the issues about community disquiet raised by people at those meetings with the police? Number six. What action was taken as a result of any messages coming from those meetings? Number seven. What police contact was made with the family of Mark Duggan after the shooting? You have partly answered that but I would like more information. Number eight. The objective of the strategy for the policing of the demonstration by Mark Duggan’s friends outside the police station on 6 August? Finally, in the absence of the borough commander, who was in overall charge of Haringey police? I think you have answered that by saying that a chief inspector was but you might clarity that more. Those are my questions. I know you might have answered some bits already but if you could have a go at them that would be lovely.

Lynne Owens (Assistant Commissioner for Central Operations, MPS): I will start at the beginning, Kirsten. In terms of the original operation it was a Trident SCD8 led operation, a targeted operation that involved the support of the CO19 firearms team. As you know, that operation is now subject to independent police complaints investigation so it is a little tricky to say any more about it other than that at this stage. What I can confirm though is that a community impact assessment was completed as part of SCD8 Trident as part of the planning and as part of the authorisation process for that operation.

In terms of the community meetings that took place in Haringey there was a gold meeting chaired by a commander that did not take place in Haringey, it took place at the Yard, on the morning after the shooting. Community reassurance and the requirement for a community engagement and reassurance plan was actioned at that meeting and my review will look at the outcome of that plan and its success or not.

In terms of who was present at the community meeting at Haringey there was a superintendent that chaired that meeting and there was wide ranging membership across the borough.

In terms of the contact made with the family of Mr Mark Duggan I think I have probably answered that as much as I can, albeit it will be covered in more detail in the review.

Your final question was, in the absence of the borough commander, who was in overall charge, I should just stress Chief Inspector Adelekan was responsible for the policing of the peaceful vigil; he was not the officer in overall charge of the borough. That was the Area Commander Mak Chishty. That is quite an unusual decision for us when somebody goes away; to put the responsibility up in the organisation rather than down - you normally would have a superintendent acting on its behalf. Territorial Policing, recognising the significance of this event, made the decision that responsibility would move up in the change to Mak Chishty, rather than down to a superintendent. So, at the time of the disorder, Commander Mak Chishty was responsible for policing of the borough; he was the area commander in which that borough sits.

Kirsten Hearn (AM): OK. I have a follow up question actually to ask. What ongoing conversations are you having with community representatives in the borough? How are they being involved in the ongoing work to re-establish relationships?

Lynne Owens (Assistant Commissioner for Central Operations, MPS): One of the conversations we had yesterday is that, actually, it is quite tricky to do the review at the same time as carrying on business as usual. So, as a result of the meeting that I chaired yesterday, Commander Mark Simmons, who is leading the work on engagement and community impact, is going to be liaising with the area commander and the borough commander to make sure we join those two things up properly. At the moment Mark has a team that is intending to go and speak to those people but we also need to make sure that we do not disempower the borough to carry on business as usual and any relationship issues that have arisen out of this incident are rebuilt and rectified urgently.

Kirsten Hearn (AM): Are there any early learnings that you can tell us about in relation to community liaison and these incidents?

Lynne Owens (Assistant Commissioner for Central Operations, MPS): No, is the headline. The main areas that we have picked up urgent learning on relate to the deployment of resource quickly but in terms of community engagement that is a broader piece of work because, actually, we could draw our own conclusions based on our own documentation but that would be wrong; we should not be drawing any conclusions until we have had an opportunity to debrief members of the community concerned. We have done some of that but not as much as we need to do yet.

Kit Malthouse (Chairman, MPA): OK. Thank you. Jenny [Jones]?

Jenny Jones (AM): I have been to Tottenham twice and went to a really very large meeting there where people expressed a lot of anger about stop and search and they made the link between this and some of the anger that was expressed in Tottenham. I know that Jo has had similar and dissimilar experiences. I am just concerned that you do evaluate the benefits and the disbenefits of stop and search. Are you planning to do that?

Lynne Owens (Assistant Commissioner for Central Operations, MPS): Yes, we do and we will continue to do that. One of the things that we need to look at within the review is whether the evaluation drew the right conclusions in this incident. Every borough has a stop and search scrutiny panel. At the moment those panels are held quarterly. One of the questions that we have asked is whether quarterly is frequently enough in the context of this current debate.

Haringey borough holds meetings with its independent advisory group and its consultative meetings and it has what it calls a community police consultative group meeting which is meeting on 21 September specifically to discuss the impact of stop and search in relation to this incident.

The other thing that we have asked the review work to look at is whether Operation Target and any activity as a result of Operation Target could have had any consequences in Haringey as a result of this exercise.

Jenny Jones (AM): OK. I look forward to seeing that if we are still around. This is meant to be a helpful question because there is a lot of paranoia about what the police said and did. Can you confirm that the police did not call for bail to be denied to all those arrested in connection with the riots?

Lynne Owens (Assistant Commissioner for Central Operations, MPS): The short answer is, yes. The bottom line is, to secure both justice and to make sure that disorder did not continue, we asked officers to be clear that, when they examined evidence, if they could lay early charges in negotiation and discussion with the Crown Prosecution Service, they should.

One of the positives that came out of the disorder was that we had some really good responses by our criminal justice partners and, as the courts were sitting on extended hours, the recommendation was made that those cases went from custody through those courts to ensure that the case was dealt with quickly, justice was done and we could restore to normality. It absolutely was not a blanket ban. It cannot be, legally, a blanket ban. We have to consider every case on its own circumstance and in the circumstances in which it occurs.

The other thing, can you confirm that the MPS did not ask for more powers in relation to managing and shutting down social media platforms?

Lynne Owens (Assistant Commissioner for Central Operations, MPS): I can absolutely confirm that, yes. That was not a consideration. What happened on the night on question - and I think this commentary is as a result of Mr Godwin’s appearance before the Home Affairs Select Committee. What he said there was that when we were in the control room in the midst of the disorder and we could see that social media was being used, we had talked about whether shutting it down would be effective but we very quickly dismissed that because of the benefits in terms of intelligence and the fact that you could see that people were self-policing through the use of the networks.

But one of the themes of work coming out of the review is that we do need to work more closely with social media companies, looking forward, in terms of how we work with both intelligence and the reality if those methods continue to be used.

Jenny Jones (AM): Thank you. Could I just go back to the stop and search because this is something that I have just loathed ever since it has been used so widely? For me the concern is that you are not actually really getting any benefits from it, that you are stuck in a groove and it seems to be some way that you can actually monitor what is going on and get a feel for things but it does not actually have any real outcomes in terms of arrests of dangerous people.

Bernard Hogan-Howe (Commissioner Designate, MPS): It is one of the things that I am interested in. The power of stop and search is very important to us but there are challenges in its use. There are two things I would like us to develop in the future - one of which I think the Authority is thinking about too. What I think we need to do is target more people who have already previously been convicted of or found to have knives or guns. Already have been found on stop and search, for whatever reason. We need to make sure that we are targeting them when they are out on the streets, rather than just a generic stop and search.

The second thing which I feel strongly about, which I think the community will tell us, is who carries knives and guns. If for no other reason than if they are out with them for the night they are probably feeling as worried about it too. We have to establish a mechanism whereby, whether it is Crimestoppers or some kind of major exercise, we get into the public’s mind, “If you ring this number, tell us who has got one, tell us where they are, tell us which car they are driving, what Tube they’re on and we’ll do the rest”. That moves it away from searching in an area towards searching for a person. The more we can do that. I think it is a smarter way of doing it. It stops targeting the people who do not need to be targeted. Both have their place and I think we would have to do far more about being smarter in our application of it, and I am sure we can.

Jenny Jones (AM): How soon are we going to see that different targeted stop and search?

Bernard Hogan-Howe (Commissioner Designate, MPS): I am going to have to say by December aren’t I? It is a bit difficult on your first few days to give you an exact date. My assurance is that I think the two things I have just mentioned could be established very quickly. If you are talking about getting a campaign out for eight million people to hear I do not think it is that hard actually but you have to be clear about the message and get a mechanism to take the message when they ring and I think there are people out there who are prepared to work with us.

I am just trying to respond, Jenny, to your concern because I agree with you but I think we have got to be smart about how we respond, and I think we can do that.

Kit Malthouse (Chairman, MPA): OK. Caroline Pidgeon?

Caroline Pidgeon (AM): Yes. My question is about emergency calls to the MPS on 8 and 9 August. What were the estimated number of abandoned calls from members of the public seeking to make contact with the police via the 999 number and the non-emergency number?

Kit Malthouse (Chairman, MPA): This is your question about the riots, yes?

Caroline Pidgeon (AM): Yes, it is about emergency calls on those dates.

Kit Malthouse (Chairman, MPA): Sorry, absolutely.

Lynne Owens (Assistant Commissioner for Central Operations, MPS): On 8 August we received in excess of 42,000 calls. Of those 3,821 calls to 999 were abandoned which is 18.2% and 15,984 calls to the 101 system were abandoned. That is 73%. The following day, on 9 August, we received in the region of 31,000 calls. Of these there were 119 calls to 999 which were abandoned, which is 1.2%, and 8,515 to 101 which were abandoned which is 39.6%. On an average day, so a normal day in London, about 1% of 999 calls will be abandoned and on 9 August the level was back to this normality and by 11 August, across every 999 and 101, we were back to what we would normally experience.

Caroline Pidgeon (AM): I appreciate it was unprecedented, what was going on, but it is what learning you have from this for the future that if there are such incidents going on, such huge things, how you resources this because obviously abandoned calls, particularly to 999, is worrying. When I was working home somebody was on the phone trying to report something going on in Camberwell, just near where Jenny [Jones] and I live, and they could not get through and they were getting very stressed by it. It is what extra resources or systems you need to put in place to be able to try to soak up those additional calls in the future.

Lynne Owens (Assistant Commissioner for Central Operations, MPS): The Commissioner has made it absolutely clear that it is his strategy to provide a total service to victims and, clearly, any incidents when people try to contact us and they cannot it fails in that regard. As part of our review work for this we are examining the force mobilisation plan. In historic terms that has generally been about numbers of uniformed officers on the street. In the context of this learning we are also asking the question about how we better support some of the back office functions that have frontline contact such as dealing with 999 and other calls.

I think where we are ultimately going to get to in that review is making it do what it really says on the tin which is to be a true force mobilisation plan, rather than a subset of the organisation mobilisation plan. It may be that we are asking people to have some secondary skills for occasions when things like this occur.

Caroline Pidgeon (AM): That is lovely. Thank you.

Kit Malthouse (Chairman, MPA): OK. John [Biggs]?

John Biggs (AM): I wanted to say something first and then I have a question. What I wanted to say was yesterday the Mayor’s Office appeared to have made an allegation to a national newspaper that I was involved in handling stolen goods following the disturbances. This is a malicious allegation which I think has no foundation. It seemed to be issued immediately after I had raised a question which the Mayor and other people found unpleasant and unhelpful to him. I just thought I would say that because it would obviously bring in question my fitness to serve on this Authority and people should not make such allegations unless they have some foundation for them.

I had two written questions. I understand the point that Mr Hogan-Howe made about work in progress but I wanted us to be clear both from the MPS and the Police Authority about the timeline we are working to because the rest of the world, politicians in particular, have come up with all sorts of theories and explanations as to what has happened and we need to have an evidence based approach to understanding from our side which will help inform and to assert perhaps a better informed version of events. I do appreciate we need to be thorough but I would hope, for example, by the next Police Authority, we would have a clear statement where we could debate some of the issues.

I think also, for you as Chairman of the Police Authority, it might be helpful if you were to outline the work as an Authority we are carrying out to understand better from the Police Authority’s side what we did, what we could have done and what we might learn in assistance to that.

Kit Malthouse (Chairman, MPA): OK. We are all slightly foxed about your statement yesterday --

John Biggs (AM): So am I. I spent most of yesterday trying to respond to this allegation but it has not appeared. We will talk about it another time if necessary. I thought I should bring it to the Authority’s attention because, if it is true, then obviously I should be helping Mr Hogan-Howe with his inquiries and not be here.

Kit Malthouse (Chairman, MPA): OK. It is like Agatha Christie. You also --

John Biggs (AM): For the record, it is not true.

Kit Malthouse (Chairman, MPA): You also had a submitted question?

John Biggs (AM): Yes. There are two questions submitted in my name about the disturbances. I was being helpful on that question. The question is about what we have learned from the recent unrest. I realise we have not reached final conclusions on that but I would like to understand the process by which we are going to and whether we will have something at the next Authority. From you, Chairman, your understanding of what we will, as an Authority, do to get on top of this issue.

Kit Malthouse (Chairman, MPA): OK. All right. Thanks. We will do that. Tony Arbour?

John Biggs (AM): I think, when people ask a question, they generally sort of quite like the idea of there being an answer, Chairman.

Kit Malthouse (Chairman, MPA): Sorry, I am misunderstanding you. It might be that I am being a bit thick. I had assumed that what you were saying was that your question was going to be answered with the report that comes through because your question is a broad one about the lessons that need to be learned --

John Biggs (AM): No, no, no.

Kit Malthouse (Chairman, MPA): -- and that there had been an indication earlier that that work was ongoing in terms of clarifying what those lessons were in the short, medium and long term.

John Biggs (AM): You have not got your listening head totally attached to your body today, Chairman. It was a question for Mr Hogan-Howe to clarify to the meeting that something would be available by the next Police Authority, and for you to clarify what you think, as an Authority, we will be able to usefully do on this matter.

Kit Malthouse (Chairman, MPA): OK.

Bernard Hogan-Howe (Commissioner Designate, MPS): As I said, the 30 days was an opportunity for AC Owens and myself to sit down and work out what are the quick things - which I think is the point that John makes - and then we have an interim report by the end of November, which is a further six weeks on from that, with a final report by Christmas effectively. So whatever we have at whatever stage I am quite happy to share.

The only caveat - and I think you acknowledged this, John, in your first point, was that we want to present you with something that we can stand behind; not something we have to review and refresh. What is vital is that if there are things we need to do now we do them now and do not wait four months to implement them. I think both can happen in parallel but we will share and be transparent with whatever we have at the time we have it.

John Biggs (AM): I know you have trouble understanding questions, Chairman, but what work are you initiating, through the Authority, on this?

Kit Malthouse (Chairman, MPA): Our job is, effectively, we are a scrutiny body and there are a number of inquiries that will be ongoing into this, not least the Home Affairs Select Committee and there is obviously the internal inquiry too. I am conscious that the efforts involved in both - and there is significant effort going to be involved in both - means that it is not necessarily the sensible thing for us to reproduce much of that effort. I think what we need to do is to wait for the police to do its job and then have a look. That is fundamentally what we do.

I think there is a bit of work that we could do about what the Authority did or did not do during the period. Obviously there was an attempt to try to convene an Authority meeting shortly thereafter. We were unable to be quorate so that meeting did not happen. What utility that meeting would have had at the time I do not know. I think there is some work we could possibly do around community engagement and intelligence because I did not get a call from a single Authority Member saying, “Something’s going to kick off” and I certainly did not get a call from any councils or local politicians about something kicking off so I am concerned around our intelligence antennae and what that might look like. Fundamentally, I think the most important work is the work that the police will be doing.

John Biggs (AM): OK. My only supplementary to that then is to ask whether there is a question about the decision making and lines of decision making and the interplay between the Police Authority and the MPS and Downing Street and the Home Office. I think we all understand that it was a rapidly moving series of events and that people were expected to make statements and various people were not here. I think there are some lessons to be learned from that which would be useful if this Authority continued into the future but would be usefully learnable for the new arrangements as well, Chairman.

Kit Malthouse (Chairman, MPA): I agree. OK. Tony [Arbour]?

Tony Arbour (AM): This relates to lessons learned and the first lesson learned chimes in with the new Commissioner’s opening statement. He said that he wants a war on crime. It is quite clear that immediately after the riots there was such a war on crime and I would like to suggest to the Commissioner and to you that wars are best fought for forces and not by services. If he wants to, and indeed you want to, learn a lesson from what has happened we should behave like a force, which we have done, and maybe we should call ourselves a force. I would be very interested to know the new Commissioner’s views on that particular point.

The second thing that I believe was learned which was a positive thing was that one of the things most likely to discourage crime and riotous behaviour and things of that kind was the belief amongst prospective rioters that they would be met by a large number of serving police officers whom they would only see if they were wearing uniform. Certainly on my patch in outer London every conceivable police officer who was entitled to wear a uniform, whether he or she be a special, a detective or a Police Community Support Officer (PCSO) who is out on the streets. People saw them and they were deterred. In the light of that, ought it not be something that we have learned that it is policy that, where possible, police officers should be wearing uniform and, in particular, on their way to and from work?

Kit Malthouse (Chairman, MPA): That is not actually the question that Tony submitted but …!

Tony Arbour (AM): No, it is not but I thought that we were still dealing with lessons from the riot.

Kit Malthouse (Chairman, MPA): We are. You submitted one about riot training which we will perhaps come to in a minute. Do you want to just comment on that?

Bernard Hogan-Howe (Commissioner Designate, MPS): In terms of high visibility I agree with Tony the fact that obviously the more officers we can have out in uniform the better. I did see quite a few of the police support units that were detectives and it was amazing to see that some of their uniform still fitted which was good to see! I think, broadly, that is a good idea.

I am a bit more careful about the to and from work. Not least one of the reasons is, for the MPS officers, some of them live substantial distances outside the Metropolitan Police. We have to think about that carefully and it is something that if we were going to do that I would want to discuss. Overall, the more officers we can get out in uniform the better it is. We saw some great things but when you have got 16,000 officers you can spread them round far better than when you have far fewer thousands which is the normal period. We saw some exceptional times and we saw some exceptional response but I think if you want to implement that all the time we ought to think about it carefully.

Tony Arbour (AM): So far as the submitted question is concerned which relates to the costs relating to training riot police, I have been told - and perhaps Lynne [Owens] could confirm this - that the contract which we have for training riot police is currently limited to a specific number of police officers and were we to wish to train any more we would have to pay substantially more than the current rate. Is that in fact so?

Lynne Owens (Assistant Commissioner for Central Operations, MPS): Yes.

Tony Arbour (AM): Are we going to renegotiate that because, given the plans that we have heard for increasing the number of serving officers who are riot trained, this is going to present us with a very considerable bill unless we do something about it?

Lynne Owens (Assistant Commissioner for Central Operations, MPS): The piece of work that we are currently doing in the review is looking at how many public order officers we currently have. There are three levels to which public order officers are trained so all officers are trained up to level three, including specials. Another chunk of officers are trained at level two and another chunk are trained at level one against nationally agreed standards.

One of the things we are looking at as part of the review is whether those levels are the right levels and what numbers we should have at each level. Once you have drawn the conclusion from that, we will then go back into the contract to see whether we can deliver the required numbers against that contract. If we do not then we will have to come up with some different options that may involve using other forces or outsourcing but the first step in the process has got to be to define the capability and the capacity that we need. Once we have done that we will then decide how we are going to train it.

Tony Arbour (AM): A fortnight ago Tim Godwin said it would cost approximately £8 million to have the appropriate number of officers who are properly trained. Does the figure that he gave take into account what you have just said?

Lynne Owens (Assistant Commissioner for Central Operations, MPS): The figure of £8 million is the basic cost of delivering the training for those officers so it presumes that it can be done within contract and it does not include any of the on costs such as abstraction, which is an opportunity cost, but also the equipment that they would have to come with. We believe, if we were going to double the numbers under the current regime, it would be a significantly higher number than that now that we have done further work. That is why I say it is important first we define what the capability is that we need and then properly cost it.

Tony Arbour (AM): Do we believe that is to be a high priority? Perhaps that is a question really for you, Chairman. Is this a very high priority?

Kit Malthouse (Chairman, MPA): Yes. Obviously the Commissioner and I will have to discuss it but this all relates to a private finance initiative (PFI) scheme which was signed when the Authority was green and inexperienced back in the early part of the last decade around Gravesend which has been, I think it is fair to say, a bit of a running sore financially latterly and is enough to put anyone off PFI. I am pleased to say I have never signed a PFI scheme and never would. Nevertheless it is one we have inherited and we are struggling with. Subject to some of those constraints obviously we will have to have a discussion about prioritising it.

Tony Arbour (AM): Thank you, Chairman.

Kit Malthouse (Chairman, MPA): OK. Jennette [Arnold]?

Jennette Arnold (AM): Chairman, thank you. I am a bit confused. Can I make a comment and a question to the Commissioner Designate before I raise my question about riots because he said something in his opening remarks?

Kit Malthouse (Chairman, MPA): Sure.

Jennette Arnold (AM): Let me start by welcoming Bernard [Hogan-Howe] back to the MPS and I am sure that you will be given every support in your role by those of us who represent Londoners.

You said that clearly you would not be working in the medium to long term with the Police Authority but you will know that the Assembly has that scrutiny role. Have you given any early thoughts about your relationship with the Assembly? Will we have to summons you and will we have to go and stand outside your office asking you to come or will you be a willing attender at scrutiny meetings of the Assembly?

Bernard Hogan-Howe (Commissioner Designate, MPS): Interestingly I was talking to Caroline [Pidgeon] before we started. I understand Joanne [McCartney] is carrying out a cross party piece of work which is how the Assembly is intending to manage its new responsibilities. I would be happy to work with that group to see how we can best meet the needs of the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime (MOPC) and the GLA. What I do understand is that it is a complex arrangement and everybody will have to get used to a new set of arrangements.

I said at the beginning that we are here to be held to account and we will work with whatever governance arrangements are put in place. The only thing I ask is that we reduce any bureaucracy that might involve us as much as possible and what we do not want to do is get trapped between competing demands, but that is the nature of the job so no doubt we will. I am happy to make arrangements with whatever is possible.

Kit Malthouse (Chairman, MPA): I was due to sit down with you tomorrow. Unfortunately, due to a personal commitment elsewhere, I cannot, but that is going to be rescheduled and I think we will sit down and work through what is going on.

Jennette Arnold (AM): I welcome that statement in public because it is good that we will be having that open conversation and hopefully that ongoing relationship between your office and the Assembly because that will be so important within the new structures.

You heard me talk earlier to the Chairman about this ongoing case, one of the longest outstanding murders, and one of the worst I think. Will you agree to meet with me and Alastair Morgan and his family so that they can update you in your new role as Commissioner when you start formally because I think the family would appreciate that?

Bernard Hogan-Howe (Commissioner Designate, MPS): I will certainly consider it. My only slight hesitation - it is only a slight one - is that, in my Deputy role, for a short time, I have been running Operation Weeting and there is a link in that inquiry, as you obviously know, over to that case. I just want to make sure that I do not cause any problems so if you will allow me some time to work my way through that but, in principle …

Kit Malthouse (Chairman, MPA): Obviously previous meetings were held with John Yates as AC Specialist Crime Directorate (SCD) which is where the investigation sat and it might be that an initial meeting with Lynne [Owens] who has got responsibility for SCD might be more appropriate in the short term. I know the family are keen, given the changes, to get in as quickly as possible so that might be a sensible way forward.

Jennette Arnold (AM): It is based on that imperative so that the family get that sense of continuity. Can my office organise that on their behalf? I would really welcome that and they would as well. Thank you for that.

Bernard Hogan-Howe (Commissioner Designate, MPS): Jennette, just to reassure you and the family that I take that as a very serious matter for all the reasons you are aware of; it is a long running criminal inquiry that has not led to the murderer being convicted and all the other issues that go with it involving police corruption. It is vital that we get to the bottom of it. The fact that very senior people are getting involved in that liaison is very vital for me.

Jennette Arnold (AM): The family will be reassured and I am sure Alistair is watching on the webcast so we will work through that.

To the riots. As Members know and you will know, Commissioner, because we talked during that period, the boroughs I represent, three of them were heavily attacked by the criminals who were on our streets. I just wanted to say that is there a way that you can put some context to this because others and I believe, if we had not been involved in really positive strong partnership working and if we had not had particular operations that have been ongoing at least for a year previously, those three boroughs would be in a worse state. It was bad enough. I think that we must put that in because, unless you are involved with those three boroughs, you would not know. For instance, there was an area that was not touched at all which people were surprised about - Leyton - because of the Connect programme. That is a very targeted programme. It is a very expensive programme. It seems to me, the fact that the thing passed over them, suggests that something is happening there. I do want your assurance that the context is as important as the activity, otherwise we will miss a lot.

In addition to that, during that time what happened I think was a sea change in terms of the relationships that were made locally and the alliances that I saw formed and the activities were absolutely things that I dreamed of seeing happening. It was elders, the church, you, everybody working together, the police working together, Welsh police, everybody working together. Can you assure me that proper thanks will be given locally - it will take a while - so that people will be gathered locally and thanked for that and that you will be able to give the boroughs the support so that they can capture all of that support and then build that in to the community cohesion programmes that they have at the moment? It is so important. If that is not recognised, acknowledged and given support then that is going to be lost and we will not have the base, should this happen again.

Lynne Owens (Assistant Commissioner for Central Operations, MPS): One of the things that I think London should be really proud of post these events is how communities and partners have come together to rebuild. When you look at events that have happened in European cities, days and days and days of rioting and then a long while to rebuild cities, many, many people injured, vast swathes of town centres shut down for long periods of time, that is not what we saw here and that is great credit to London and its people. We are very, very grateful for the support that our staff have had, many of whom have worked unbelievably long hours. So, absolutely, Jennette, we are grateful and will continue that support.

Jennette Arnold (AM): Two other points. Kirsten [Hearn] has raised the equality impact assessment (EIA). It would be good see that but also any reports that you produce. Can we absolutely have the black and minority ethnic (BME) profile in that because we have got to hit on the head this myth that this was BME led or that the BME community was disproportionately represented within the activities? That does not seem to be, from my experience, the case. Similarly that is the profile around young people. They were vilified and are still vilified yet we know it was adults that were really at the heart of this. Will you include that sort of data because I do think it important?

The other thing is transport which we have not heard a lot of. I would like a set piece in your report about transport. It feels to me that, in some areas, it was a bit slow. The Victoria line where people were carrying away the product of their looting. I do not know how quickly they responded from their CCTV. Couldn’t more buses have been stopped from coming into centres, especially around the Hackney centre, the night bus services and stuff like that? It was then I think we should have an explanation about that.

Lynne Owens (Assistant Commissioner for Central Operations, MPS): Just in terms of the analysis and the data, we are collecting it on a daily basis, we are analysing it on a weekly basis and I have asked, personally, for monthly reports. The reality is it changes every day because we arrest more people every day based on their criminality. I am very happy to give you some figures now in terms of those questions that you have just asked. As of 12 September - so, as I say, it changes on a daily basis - we had arrested 2,555 people of which 1,470 had resulted in charges.

In terms of ethnicity 33% of those arrested were white, 56% of those arrested were black, 8% of those arrested were Asian and 3% were from other backgrounds. In terms of age group 4% were 14 and under, 37% are in the age group 15 to 19, 30% in the 20 to 24 age group, 13% in the 25 to 29 age group, 7% in the 30 to 34 age group and 9% 35 plus.

Jennette Arnold (AM): Thank you. The transport piece you will pick up?

Lynne Owens (Assistant Commissioner for Central Operations, MPS): Yes.

Kit Malthouse (Chairman, MPA): OK. Finally on this, James [Cleverly], you had a question about surge capacity.

James Cleverly (AM): Yes, thank you, Chairman. Hopefully you have the written submission but it is just to ensure that, of the full capacity of the MPS, one of the reasons against more civilianisation is the requirement to have officers available in response to this. What plans are in place to ensure that all warranted officers are able to be deployed in response to public order incidents like this?

Lynne Owens (Assistant Commissioner for Central Operations, MPS): Currently - and this data needs more clarification - we do have around 500 people in non-operational roles currently who are able to be brought forward who are public order trained for these sorts of incidents. As I said earlier, our review is looking at what a force mobilisation should look like so those who can put on uniforms be public order trained and go on the front line but also those who back fill very vital jobs - whether that be running the control room for these events and special operations room or whether it is back filling the telephones or doing any other vital work the MPS needs to follow.

James Cleverly (AM): Thank you. The reason behind this is that, speaking to borough commanders particularly in suburban London, one of the concerns was that when the disorder broke out their officers were abstracted - which, understandably was the case - but that then denuded them of the mobility to respond to admittedly significantly smaller pockets of disorder but, nonetheless, still significant and concerning. Whereas all police leave was cancelled he had people coming in off leave unable to then proactively be involved. The logic would be, if we could keep more borough officers on borough and then back fill that additional requirement from non-geographically specific warranted officers, then that would actually enable us to have that more complete picture across London in terms of response capability.

Lynne Owens (Assistant Commissioner for Central Operations, MPS): I completely agree with that analysis.

James Cleverly (AM): Happy with that. Thank you.

Kit Malthouse (Chairman, MPA): OK. Is there anything else that anybody wants to ask on the riots? Cindy [Butts]?

Cindy Butts (AM): Chairman, I thought that you should have, just before we started this discussion, made an acknowledgement that Members around this table had an opportunity to meet with officers and talk to them about the riots because we had two emergency briefings. That might be good for the public to understand; this is the first time we as an Authority are talking about these issues. I think that is really important that we say that. Therefore a lot of us have obviously had an opportunity to make comments, ask questions and to actually inform the important review that the MPS is carrying out. I think that is really important to say.

Kit Malthouse (Chairman, MPA): Yes. Deficient as always.

Cindy Butts (AM): Two things from me. Firstly, something you said in response to John Biggs’ question which was around what lessons could be learned particularly from an Authority’s perspective - or should we say a scrutiny governance perspective given that the MPA is soon to go. You mentioned that maybe there is an important issue around community engagement and the fact that not one Authority Member or politician had called you up to say that they thought that trouble was brewing. For me that shows a really poor understanding of some of the issues that the organisation is facing. I think you should be more concerned that something close to 44,000 staff that are in the MPS did not pick up that important community intelligence that trouble was going to happen to happen. I think that would be a very important area for you, moving forward, to examine around community intelligence. How was it sought? When it was there what was done with it? How was it analysed and examined and, more importantly, acted upon?

The only other point I wanted to make was in your opening statement you quite rightly recognised the very positive things that could come out of the riots and I would like to support you and endorse you in wanting to see those positive things emerge, particularly this ground swell of individuals and communities who see a place for themselves in helping the police service to deliver a safer London. You should also be acknowledging - and I would like to hear what you have got to say about - those communities who feel incredibly let down - rightly or wrongly, whether it is due to perception or not - by the police service and their lack of actions during the riots. I think it is important to recognise that there are those who feel let down and there will be a need to restore trust and confidence in particular communities, not least young people, if we see them as a community, and of course the black and minority ethnic community as well. Just a reassurance that you will see the importance of that as an issue.

In a sense I would like you to cast your mind back to three meetings ago when, through the tears and the snot, I represented my frustrations about what I see as the MPS losing the important lessons that it learned in the past and I think it is really important that the organisation understands that it cannot afford to disengage from particular members of communities. Lessons were learned in the past and I get the sense that there is this complacency developing where the organisation does not really see the importance of engaging with disaffected and isolated communities unless it is forced to do so. I think it is a real danger if the organisation only engages with particular communities at a time of extremes; it has to be ongoing, it has to be constant and it has to be daily.

Kit Malthouse (Chairman, MPA): Toby [Harris]?

Toby Harris (AM): On that specific point my concern is not that the MPS has just given up on all of this but that it has become complacent.

Cindy Butts (AM): That is the word I used; complacency.

Toby Harris (AM): Your gloss was slightly different from the gloss I am about to put on it! I think that one of the difficulties is, because the MPS has now set up various engagement processes, it feels that that is the end of the picture. My worry is that those constantly need to be refreshed but also the easy thing to do is to lapse into engagement with people with whom it is comfortable to engage, rather than those who are necessarily challenging. It is important for very senior officers to be seen meeting communities, even if that means they perhaps have an uncomfortable hour or two in terms of the nature of the challenge. It is part of that process of being seen to reach out and never feeling that you have got it right because you have got various groups in place because I think groups fossilise and people who regard themselves as representative may no longer be representative after just a few months.

Cindy Butts (AM): I said the same thing.

Toby Harris (AM): Just slightly differently.

Bernard Hogan-Howe (Commissioner Designate, MPS): To respond to that. There are two things to me. One thing I would reflect is, for the MPS or any police service, we have to check on our representation, making sure it is senior enough and people are keeping to that commitment that they have given to lead, whether it be boroughs or other parts of the organisation. The second part is representation from the community and making sure we are talking to the people. It is difficult to say the right people. How do we define right? If we are not talking about democratically elected people, how you identify the right point of contact can be quite hard at times. What you have to always have is the ambition to keep trying and not, as both of you said, be too comfortable with the arrangements you have. What I cannot say is whether that contributed to this but it is one of the things that we want to know; whether the people we talked to represented a good account of what people are feeling in, for example, the Tottenham area, or not. That would also apply to different parts of London. It is a good opportunity to pause and make sure that the things that we think are happening are happening in the way that they started many years ago.

Kit Malthouse (Chairman, MPA): OK. Clive [Lawton]?

Clive Lawton (AM): First of all I want to associate myself with Cindy’s comments about people feeling let down. While I fully share your view that many people feel very good about how the police performed eventually, in the first instance not only the black community and youth but also quite a lot of shopkeepers and property owners were shocked and still do not fully understand - kind of get it but don’t get it - as to why the police seemed to stand back and let their shops go up in smoke, or their flats or whatever. I think there is a whole lot of stuff about police tactics and practicalities and realities which are not widely understood. This is just in conversation with folk. I think it is a shame because I think the police have a decent story to tell on this and it is not being told as effectively as it might.

I think it is well known that I am very interested in the issues of community engagement. A deep frustration that I am not going to be associated with these matters going forward as I think this really has exposed this area. It is a critically important area. There is still a huge tradition of thinking that engagement is about an opportunity to talk to or, in another term, tell, rather than listen. There are a very, very small number of police officers who are good at listening as far as I can see. This is a real weakness in the business of engagement and I think it has been exposed in this context in one way or another.

The particular question though that I wanted to ask relates - I have been interested by the manner in which politicians and pundits leapt very quickly to judgement as to what was really going on and wanted to blame the gangs and the youth and the families and the so on and so forth. I am very pleased at Lynne’s [Owens], “Wait. We need to find this out” stuff.

One thing I was not surprised about and yet all these politicians and pundits seemed to be was that a high proportion of the people that had been arrested for disorder and criminal damage and so forth have records. Pretty obvious! What I speculated on privately was that this could lead to a reduction in the crime rate because if you swept up 1,000 plus folk who are commonly engaged in crime, the first people who go out and do crimes given half an opportunity, that might reduce crime in the long run.

I noticed in paragraph 13 of the report - sorry to refer to the report - that it says that masses had resumed after the disorder. Since 15 August we have seen lower levels in personal robbery, violence with injury, serious youth crime, knife crime, knife robbery and residential burglary which is a continuation of the slight downward trend we had seen prior to the disorder. What I wonder is, is it simply a continuation of that and it just continues that line, or is there a dip and is there something significant happening here? That then must, if it is, set a very obvious agenda to what happens soon hereafter when these people re-emerge from whatever constraints have been put upon them.

Bernard Hogan-Howe (Commissioner Designate, MPS): Possibly there are two responses to that. The first one is, as we have already said, there is a huge amount of work to do looking at all the images of people committing crime. The first group of people who were arrested were the ones who committed the most serious offences; someone being attacked, a fire being set, the obvious things that people would expect us to prioritise. Those have been the ones who have been identified. That was the easy part. You found someone committing a serious crime and then you try to identify them.

There is a parallel piece of work going on which is now kicking in at a higher speed which is identifying people we know who are frequent offenders and then trying to see whether they are members of the crowd who were committing the offences. If you bear in mind what happened you tend to look at a set of images and then you try to identify that person. We are trying to do it in reverse by saying it is likely this person may have been involved, let’s see whether or not they were there. We are trying to find them there. We are not trying to do anything else; just to try to identify them at the scene.

That is more likely to lead to a longer term benefit; the frequent offender who is caught, put before a court and receives the appropriate sanction. There is a potential for some longer term benefit but I do not suppose anybody wanted this to happen to achieve it.

Appendix 2

Addendum to the Commissioner’s report

Report by the Commissioner

This report follows up on the actions and commitments made verbally by the Commissioner and the MPS Director of Resources at the Full Authority meeting on 15 September 2011.

The Commissioner agreed to provide updates to Members on the following issues:

Written response to questions from Members

1. Members asked for written responses regarding the following questions:

Health care and custody suites
Metropolitan police horses
August riots
Safer Neighbourhood team sergeants
Rehabilitation of offenders
Risks from smoke inhalation to police officers
Gang intervention work
Deaths in police custody
Metal theft
Surge capacity

Responses have been provided to the MPA.

Briefing on the Stolen Vehicles Unit

2. A Members’ briefing has been arranged for 3 November.

Contracts approved by MPS Director of Public Affairs

3. Information will be provided to the MPA by 27 October 2011.

Details of donated assets referred to in the statement of accounts for the year ended 31 March 20111 and Annual Governance Report 2010/11.

4. Information has been provided to the MPA.

Review of the MPS response to the Barbar Ahmad investigations and judicial findings that can be publicly published.

5. Further legal advice has been requested in relation to publication of a report on this issue. It is difficult at this stage to give an indication as to when that advice will be received. However, the matter is to be reviewed again in 28 days.

Report author: Beverley Stanford, Strategic Relationships, MPS
Background papers None

Supporting material

Send an e-mail linking to this page

Feedback

Minutes

Present

Members

MPA officers

MPS officers

21. Apologies for absence and announcements

22. Declarations of interests

23. Minutes: 28 July 2011

24. Statement of accounts for year ended 31 March 2011 and annual governance report 2010/11

25. Chairman’s update

26. Commissioner's report

Disturbances in London during August

Performance issues

Issues raised by members

Unrest in London during August

Expenditure on legal advice

MPA gifts and hospitality

Contracts awarded by Director of Public Affairs

Screening out burglary and theft

Gang intervention work

Road safety

Stolen Vehicle Unit

Written responses to questions

Other questions raised by members

Rape Sanction

Equality and Human Rights’ Commission disability harassment inquiry

27. Reports from committees

28. Action taken under delegated authority

29. Any other urgent business

Claims made under the Riot (Damages) Act 1886

30. Exclusion of press and public

31. Olympics/Paralympics update

32. Review of the MPS response to Barber Ahmed investigations and Judicial findings

32. MINUTES: 28 July 2011

Appendix 1

Extract from the transcript of Metropolitan Police Authority meeting held on 15 September and which relates specifically to members question and responses from the Commissioner on the riots that took place during August 2011.

Appendix 2

Addendum to the Commissioner’s report