Implementation of Recommendation 61 of The Stephen Lawrence Inquiry

Report: 07a
Date: 20 May 2004
By: Clerk

Summary

The published Home Office aim and objectives of the Recommendation 61 is to ‘promote trust and confidence in the police by providing transparency and accountability on the spot and at a strategic level, police imitated non-statutory encounters’. This report reports on the extent to which the implementation in Hackney and Tower Hamlets have met this aim, and the plans that will need to be put in place for the proposed London-wide implementation of Recommendation in Autumn 2004.

A. Recommendations

Members are asked to

1. Note the emerging findings of the Home Office report regarding trust and confidence in the practice
2. Agree that the MPS be asked to bring a further report to a nominated MPA member on the recording of stops, in light of the Home Offfice findings
3. Agree the option for monitoring the implementation outlined in Appendix 1, or propose a further option.

B. Supporting information

Overview

1. The main aim of Recommendation 61 was that it should lead to increased public trust and confidence as the police become more accountable in their stopping of individuals and more transparent by giving those stopped a ‘record’ stating the reason for the stop.

2. Although the recommendation did not give any guidance on the nature of the ‘record’, it can safely be assumed that Sir William Macpherson intended that the interaction should be such that it was not unnecessarily prolonged (given that there is no suspicion of an offence) and that officers would be seen and experienced as accountable in their actions, thus leading the individual feeling more confident and less aggrieved by the interaction.

3. An unpublished report commissioned by the MPA to inform the Stop and Search Scrutiny, found that of the 300+ people interviewed across six boroughs in London, the overwhelming experience was one of anger, hostility and frustration of those stopped or stopped and searched. This report by the 1990 Trust has served to reinforce the view of those interviewed nationally by the Home Office.

4. The Home Office evaluation report of the experience of those stopped across the seven Recommendation 61 implementation sites report that the experience of those stopped expressed a range of hostile and negative reactions about their experiences.

5. The report acknowledged that whilst respondents tend to understand the need for police stops, they are typically dubious as to whether they are being used for what they would feel are appropriate purposes. Respondents tend to feel that stops should be reserved for relatively serious offences (i.e. suspicion of drug dealings as opposed to simply drug usage) but believe that police are currently focussing them on easier targets. This is perhaps illustrative of the wider issue of what different people classify anti-social behaviour and perceptions of its relative seriousness – clearly at the moment, those being stopped continue to feel that they have been targeted simply for wearing the wrong clothes or hanging around in groups whilst ‘doing nothing wrong’.

6. The report also highlights that the current negativity around police stops, in part, explains why most respondents are supportive of the concept of recording stops. This support is often based on the notion of a record since many are unaware of such procedures taking place in their areas and have little or no experience of seeing the form themselves (despite having been stopped in the implementation period). Suggestions as to why the police might record the details of people who are stopped reveal some interesting ideas and misconceptions – some of which are more appealing than others to those who have been stopped.

The Recording of Stops.

7. Members will be aware that the Hackney Monitoring Group has consistently brought to its attention the matter regarding the lack of analysis to the data presented by the police. Members may also recall that an early committee report also highlighted the fact that it appeared that those individuals stopped were giving inaccurate personal information to the police. This has been confirmed by the Home Office evaluation at a national level.

8. The Home Office report highlights that the initial implementation exercise highlights some critical over-arching issues for the recording of police stops. It raises serious questions about the accuracy of the recorded information in terms of how it has been collected and recorded, as well as the comprehensiveness of the systems used to share such information once collected.

9. Whatever the reason, this aspect of the implementation will need to be more effectively managed in the future so that proper assessments can be made of the data, especially as this information is entered on the Met’s Crime Data. Members may want to ask the MPS to bring a detailed report on the steps that it will take to manage this, given the Home Office findings. It is also unclear whether the IT pilot in Tower Hamlets has resulted in more accurate and truthful information being given by those stopped.

10. This raises the question of whether the stops data should be collecting personalised data from individuals given that they have not committed a crime. This is a sensitive matter which the currently the future of this Board will wish to address with the senior management of the MPS.

11. The MPA has commissioned an evaluation of the Hackney implementation in order to ascertain the extent to which public confidence has increased in Hackney and Tower Hamlets as a result of the implementation. The researchers from the 1990 Trust will be interviewing police staff as well as members of the public and members of the local monitoring groups. The report will be published in July and should therefore informs the work that will be required in this area.

12. One of the main concerns of the MPS at the beginning of the phased implementation in Hackney and Tower Hamlets was that officers would find the additional task of recording stops so burdensome that they would withdraw from the tactic of stop/search. This has not proved to be the case and in fact both stop and stop/search activity in Hackney and Tower Hamlets has steadily increased since 1 April 2003. In Hackney, the average number of stops per month is 445 against an average of 988 searches. In Tower Hamlets, the corresponding figures are 436 and 898. (See Appendix 2)

13. Home Office reports have indicated that it had anticipated that the number of searches would decrease when the implementation of Recommendation 61 was in place. As this appears not to be the case in the MPS, members may want to take steps to ensure that the MPS looks into the reasons for this, as part of its planning for the London wide rollout of the implementation. Failure to look into this at this stage of the implementation could result in deepening a problem, which later in the implementation may proves difficult to resolve. It could also be an action that may be deemed necessary by the Commission for Racial Equality (CRE) in order to comply with the General Duty of the Race Relations Amendment Act 2000.

14. This matter had been discussed with the TP lead for the implementation and assurances had been given that such assessments will be carried out. This Board may wish to delegate this action to the Clerk, to ensure that she identifies an MPA Member who will be interested in over-viewing the TP delivery of this area of work in the timescale proposed.

Learning for the Future – Monitoring Group

15. The experience of the implementation of the two boroughs had led to a lot of learning being captured. Unfortunately, these have not been all good and members of both Monitoring groups have raised some serious concerns about the London-wide implementation, in the proposed timescale, given that there still remain a number of problems that the MPS failed to address. These include:

• The availability of analysts to make sense of the data collected from the ‘stop’ intervention, so that the public can be better informed.
• Lack of publicity and community information.
• Increasing public hostility to the operation, given that the interventions appear to be increasing rather than lessening
• Increased disengagement of the community in the intervention – given that the information provided by the police has been experienced as unhelpful in assisting the community to increase their understand of the data or the ‘story behind’ the data.

These had created a high level of frustration and have led to disengagement of the community from the implementation.

16. Many of the issues that have been raised by the Monitoring Groups are being addressed by the MPA and MPS and it is planned that this will be addressed in the guidance document that is being developed by the MPS and MPA officers.

17. In the matter of the analysts, the Chair of the EODB have since written to the Deputy Commissioner to address this matter and she is confident of receiving a favourable response by the date of the Board meeting.

18. The areas that the Monitoring groups feel has worked well include:

• The joint working between the MPA/MPS/LA and the community
• Engaging groups who otherwise would be disengaged from the police
• The community involvement in the decision-making process in the early stages of the implementation and being able to influence this
• The stability of the MPA and MPS officers. It was acknowledged that this was unusual, due to the high level of change of MPS officers. Members felt this was very important and something that the MPS should try to ensure in each of the implementation sites.
• The involvement of the LES – especially in the ability to disseminate information to schools, school heads, governors and others in the education chain.

Proposals for the London wide roll out of Recommendation 61

19. The MPS and MPS are developing a detailed guide for the implementation of the recommendation. One of the significant areas requiring member’s guidance and decision is that of the role of the MPA in the development of local implementation groups. The models developed in Hackney and Tower Hamlets were very different. In Tower Hamlets, the MPS took responsibility for identifying the members and agreeing the terms of reference. This group had no obligation to report to the EODB. In Hackney, the monitoring group’s authority came from the fact that they had direct access the EODB, and indeed, brought a range of issues to the attention to the Board, which otherwise it would not have been aware.

20. In developing this paper, both monitoring groups were asked about the monitoring group model that should be recommended given the London wide implementation. Both groups have suggested that the Authority should seek to establish monitoring groups in each borough, and that these groups should have access to report directly to the EODB, rather than be accountable to the local police only. Given this, the following option is presented for member’s consideration. If approval is given, officers will develop this in detail and develop an accompanying implementation plan, with detailed cost and resource implication. This is attached at Appendix 1.

21. If improvements are to increase community trust and confidence in the practice, given that the Home Secretary has taken that decision, the Board will need to give a steer as to the extent to which it would like to see that this is addressed as a matter of priority. MPA and MPS officers are in the process of setting up an Implementation group, drawing members from a range of agencies, but also working with key organisations to see how a planned publicity and information campaign can be developed, working through key partners and stakeholders to see that the information about this practice is delivered, especially to young people, over the summer months.

C. Race and equality impact

Under the Race Relations Amendment Act 2000, stop/search and the implementation of Recommendation 61 need to be the subject of a Race Equality Impact Assessment. The current implementation have already highlighted that there is high adverse impact on Black and Minority Ethnic males. This has been discussed with the MPS and it is understood that separate genders would be given to boroughs so that this assessment would be carried out prior to the implementation. As summary will be made available to the relevant MPA Link Members when these become available.

D. Financial implications

The MPA a budget allocation to this implementation, however the cost for publicity is likely to far exceed that combined budget of the MPA and MPS. A further report will be developed and this matter will be brought to the attention of the MPA Senior Management Team so that a decision can be reached on how this may be accommodated internally within existing budget.

E. Background papers

None

F. Contact details

Report author: Julia Smith, MPA

For more information contact:

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

Appendix 1

Recommendation 61 London Wide Implementation - Proposed options

This paper is presented to stimulate discussion and to assist members in reaching a decision on the likely role that the authority could take in the roll out of the implementation.

Issues

How is the MPA going to monitor, influence, and inform the process of implementing Rec 61+ Rec 63?

Option

High-level strategic overview and monitoring

Advantages

Meets the requirement for the MPA to have a Pan MPS view of operations.

Provides forum for addressing Pan London issues.

Avoids suggestions of meddling at an operational level.

Multi agency approach reflects current best practice and givers the opportunity for the forum to grow into other areas of concern to partners.

Disadvantages

If local groups are seen as effective from the start it may be difficult to identify what value, another layer of management will bring to the process.

All agencies are busy-it has always been difficult to retain senior members on strategic forums unless the benefits for their agency are clearly defined.

How would this work in practice?

There is currently no easily identified body or forum that would be able to take on such a function. The public does not see the Community Police Consultative Groups, which the MPA currently fund to the tune of over a million pounds per year, as effective or representative. In their current configuration there is no realistic prospect of them being able to meet this need.

The MPA has recently established the Race Hate Crimes Forum, which is a sub group of the EODB and reports directly to it. It has attracted buy-in from a range of partners and stakeholders and the model appears to working well. The GLS has similarly set up similar Pan London groups that take on overview on specific policy areas. There is therefore already good practice in the way in which such, a group could work.

It is therefore proposed that a new forum would provide the opportunity for all of those bodies which have a Pan London and could make a positive contribution to the implementation to become involved in a monitoring group, which, although initially concerned with Rec. 61, could provide a community focus on the wider stop and search issues.

This forum could consist of, at least, representatives from the following organisations:

• The Metropolitan Police Authority (MPA)
• The Metropolitan Police Service (MPS)
• The Greater London Authority (GLA)
• Government Office for London (GOL)
• Youth Justice Board (YJB)
• London Civic Forum (LCF)
• London Wide Race Equality Forum
• Transport for London (TFL)
• Community representatives from 2/3 of the monitoring group

This need to be a high level group, able to take decisions and commit resources if it is to make a difference. It should be chaired by a MPA Member to reflect the pivotal role the Authority has in this process.

The terms of reference could reflect those of the pilot sites but should recognise the need to:

• Monitor implementation of Rec. 61 across the boroughs
• Advise on and inform guidance for the promotion and communication of the initiative in the local boroughs as well as Pan London
• Develop processes and advice for assessing the impact of the implementation of Rec 61 on the community
• Identify and promote areas of joint working between the various organisations represented
• Propose areas for reports to the relevant MPA committees

In order to be productive this forum will need to have effective lines of communication between them and the local monitoring groups, which will be set up on each Borough. A vital part of this communication will be a clear understanding of the respective roles of both forums.

Whilst the local forums will be expected to raise local issues with the Borough Commander there will need to be a clear protocol about what information is passed to the Pan London Forum and why. There need to be clear benefits to the local group in this activity, be it financial, in recognition of their evidence gathering role, or practical in the form of resolving issues that they have been unable to rectify at a local level.

Next steps

• Gain approval for proposal
• Look at castings & resource issues
• Identify suitable partners in named agencies and canvass support

Peter Day, MPA, May 2004

Send an e-mail linking to this page

Feedback