22.Memorandum submitted by the Mayor of
London
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 The Mayor welcomes this opportunity
to submit evidence to the Home Affairs Committee Inquiry into
Terrorism & Community Relations. The Mayor recognises that
it has been necessary for the Government to introduce powers to
tackle the potential threat posed by international terrorism.
However, the Mayor believes that the measures must be proportionate,
tightly focussed and effective. With this in mind, the Mayor's
submission concentrates on:
— the impact of terrorism legislation
on community relations in Britain;
— the need for comprehensive data monitoring;
— the need for a race impact assessment;
2. THE IMPACT
OF TERRORISM
LEGISLATION
2.1 The Mayor recognises the rationale behind
Section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000. Whilst the Mayor believes
that it is important that police officers have the use of this
power in order that they can prevent and deter terrorist activity,
he has a number of concerns about how it is being implemented
and its impact on community relations.
2.2 An authorisation under s44 may be given
only if the person giving it considers it expedient for the prevention
of acts of terrorism. In London, it may be given where the specified
area or place is the whole or part of the Metropolitan Police
District, by a police officer for the district that is at least
the rank of commander of the Metropolitan Police. The authorisation
must be confirmed by the Secretary of State; must be given for
a specific period of time; regularly renewed and set out the precise
purpose for which the power may only be exercised ie terrorism.
2.3 Since s44 came force on 19 February
2001, there has been a rolling programme of successive authorisations
that have been renewed every 28 days throughout the Metropolitan
Police District (MPD).
2.4 The Mayor would argue that Parliament
intended s44 authorisations to be given and confirmed only in
response to "an imminent terrorist threat to a specific location
in respect of which normal police powers of stop and search were
inadequate." The Mayor is, therefore, concerned that the
"rolling" s44 authorisations across the MPD have become
part of day-to-day policing and as such are not in accordance
with Parliament's intentions. The Mayor notes the Divisional Court
and Court of Appeal judgements that Parliament had envisaged that
an anti-terrorist authorisation might encompass an entire police
area or district. He is persuaded that it is not the existence
of the s44 power that could cause civil liberties infringements
but the exercise of that power.
2.5 The effect of s44 is that after an authorisation,
a police officer in uniform is able to stop and search vehicles
and persons without there being any precondition of reasonable
grounds for suspicion. Representations have been to the Mayor
by the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB) that the use of s44 is
damaging community relations and confidence in policing. Given
the sweeping nature of the s44 powers, the Mayor believes that
the police need to take care that such powers are not used arbitrarily
or capriciously. Given that s44 confers an extremely wide power
to intrude on the privacy of members of the public, the Mayor
considers that a "reasonable suspicion" precondition
should be attached to s44 of the Terrorism Act 2000, along the
same lines as currently operates under the stop and search powers
of the Police & Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE).
2.6 Recent statistics published by the Home
Office show a consistent rise in the number of s44 stop and searches
across all London's communities for the period 2001-02 to 2002-03
but disproportionate use against London's Black and Minority Ethnic
(BME) communities. 61% of all s44 stops and searches conducted
in England and Wales during 2002-03 were carried out in the MPD
and 21% in the City of London. Very few arrests for terrorism
offences have occurred as a result of s44 stops and searches in
London. Out of a combined total of 16,206 s44 stops and searches
carried out during 2001-02 and 2002-03, only 13 arrests were terrorist
related.[24]
These figures could give the impression that s44 does not appear
to be an effective weapon against terrorism. Concerns have been
expressed by BME community groups in London that the use of these
powers is having an increasing corrosive effect on community confidence
that undermines policing by consent in the fight against terrorism.
2.7 It is important that the stop and searches
carried out under s44 of the Terrorism Act 2000 should not be
looked at in isolation from stop and searches carried out under
s1 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE) and s60
of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994. There is anecdotal
evidence that BME individuals are sometimes initially being stopped
and searched by police under s44 of the Terrorism Act and subsequently
the action is justified by police officers under PACE or s60 provisions
of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act and recorded as such.
2.8 Furthermore, very few individuals stopped
and searched will know the distinction between the range of legislation.
If they have been informed by a police officer that they were
stopped and searched under terrorism suspicions, or they themselves
perceive that they have been stopped and searched for this, then
the cumulative negative impact on BME communities is that they
feel they are being targeted, labelled and criminalised as terrorist
suspects. Indeed Home Office statistics reveal that during 2002-03
per 1,000 population, London's black and Asian populations were
stopped and searched almost four times and nearly 1.5 times more
often than "white" people under PACE. In 2001-02, more
Asians were stopped than black people.
Detention
2.9 The Mayor is aware that some BME community
group representatives point to instances where members of their
community have been detained under s41 of the Terrorism Act and
released immediately prior to the expiry times. Time in detention
under s41 of the Terrorism Act without charge can range from an
initial maximum period of 48 hours to 14 days. Some of the detainees
may have been released without charge, bailed to return, cautioned,
charged under other legislation not connected with terrorism offences,
or dealt with under immigration legislation.
2.10 This is further exacerbated by detention
of a number of Muslim men under Part 4 of the Anti-Terrorism Crime
and Security Act 2001 (ATCSA). The Mayor, in his recent submission
to the Home Secretary stated that he considers Part 4 of the ATCSA
to contain controversial and draconian provisions, which are not
appropriate to the extent of the threat from international terrorism,
and are indefensible. He is concerned that:
— such suspects face no specific charge
and are not presented with, and given the opportunity to refute,
all the evidence against them;
— detention under Part 4 is for a potentially
indefinite period;
— Part 4 only tackles the threat from
foreigners suspected of having links with Al Qa'eda or its associated
networks. It does not address threats from British nationals with
similar links; or from anyone in the UK with links to other foreign
terrorist causes. The Mayor believes that the UK response to the
threat from international terrorism should not be confined to
measures, which target foreign nationals, but should consist of
measures that apply equally to nationals and non-nationals;
— Part 4 seeks to deport terrorist
suspects. The Mayor does not consider this a satisfactory response,
given the risk of exporting terrorism. If there is evidence that
people in the UK are contributing to terrorist activity both here
or abroad, the Mayor believes that they should be dealt with in
this country.
2.11 The Mayor considers the combined effect
of these detention powers is counter-productive, with many Muslims
citing examples of how they are being treated in a discriminatory
and unequal manner by the law.
3. DATA COLLECTION
3.1 The Mayor is concerned that the data
collected and analysed by the Home Office is deficient.
It refers only to persons who were searched
by the police following an initial stop and therefore excludes
persons stopped by the police without a search. Such data excludes,
for example, occasions where persons are stopped with a view to
a search but where the officer has had their suspicions allayed
after a conversation. This could include instances where a person
has been initially stopped by police on suspicion of terrorist
involvement/activities. A number of BME organisations and individuals
have provided anecdotal evidence to the Mayor that individuals
are being stopped, with the incident not being recorded.
3.2 Recommendation 61 of the Stephen Lawrence
Inquiry Report requires police officers to record all stops where
they ask a person to give an account of themselves. The record
should include the reason for the stop, the outcome and the self-defined
ethnicity of the person stopped. A copy will be given to the person.
It is commendable that the Home Secretary has instructed that
Recommendation 61—"Stop and Account"—will
be implemented nationally by 1 April 2005. In London, the Borough
Operational Command Units of Hackney and Tower Hamlets have already
fully implemented "Stop and Account". October 1 is the
beginning of force-wide implementation across the MPD. It is anticipated
that the roll out will take approximately six weeks, with training
for patrol-based police officers and police community support
officers.
3.3 The Mayor welcomes the Government's
commitment to roll out the documenting of all stops and searches
encountered in the police forces of England and Wales. However,
the Mayor wishes to emphasise that this must be accompanied by
police force managers improving officer skills in handling encounters.
The MPS have authorised the development of a 30-minute interactive
computer-based training package, mandatory for all patrol-based
officers up to and including the rank of Inspector, Special Constables
and Police Community Support Officers. Once complete the CBT will
be available to all police forces in England and Wales. The training
will assist police officers in understanding Recommendation 61;
using and explaining the stop and search forms and when to record
the stop. Tutor-led supervisor training is being progressed in
the MPS. While commendable, the Mayor is minded that this must
also include training on how to treat the public fairly and with
respect. Police officers should also be made aware of the risks
to legitimacy and strategies for managing or minimising them.
Training should also include the types of evidential factors needed
to effect a stop and search both specifically under the Terrorism
Act and other stop and search legislation. It is important to
spell out to police officers whether and to what extent generalisations
can be used. The Mayor recommends that such police training be
subject to accreditation.
3.4 The Mayor wants to highlight that since
September 11 there has been an increase in racially motivated
crime/incidents. He recommends that the Association of Chief Police
Officers (ACPO) conduct an analysis of verbal and physical attacks,
criminal damage and threats perpetrated towards ethnic, cultural
and religious communities (especially Asian, Arabic, Muslim/Islamic,
Sikh, Hindu and new types of victims) and policy implications
assessed. The Mayor notes that reported incidents do not give
a full picture of the sense of threat and fear, which has been
engendered in the BME and Muslim community and other minority
populations by the growth in racist and xenophobic attitudes.
3.5 The Mayor believes there is a need to
collect data on faith in relation to anti-terrorist legislation
and stop and search provisions, so as to assure the Muslim and
other affected communities that they are not being unfairly profiled
and targeted as terrorists. At present the police do not specifically
monitor faith-hate crimes. Accordingly the Mayor recommends that
the Government consider the issue of religious monitoring, which
warrants careful and sensitive examination. At a pan-London level
the Mayor has proposed to the MPS Commissioner that a policy on
religious monitoring of all stops and searches be developed in
partnership with all relevant stakeholders. The MPS has also begun
to collate such faith-hate incidents as a sub-set of racial incidents,
which is to be welcomed.
3.6 The Mayor believes that violence based
on religious hatred is unacceptable, and all offences aggravated
by religious hatred should be covered under mainstream legislation
designed to protect individuals from hate crime rather then within
anti-terrorism legislation. The Mayor welcomes the announcement
by the Home Secretary in July 2004 that the Government intends
to introduce an offence of incitement to religious hatred as soon
as possible to help tackle extremists who use religion to stir
up hatred in our society. He hopes that this will be analogous
to the existing offence of incitement to racial hatred, and likewise,
it too will be included in broader legislation as opposed to anti-terrorist
legislation.
4. RACE IMPACT
ASSESSMENTS
4.1 The Mayor recommends that a race impact
assessment be carried out, alongside its current review, of anti-terrorist
legislation, to identify whether existing measures are having
a different and/or adverse impact on some racial groups or harming
race equality.
5. MEDIA REPORTING
5.1 The Mayor is sympathetic to complaints,
primarily made by members of the Muslim community, regarding media
reporting following arrests and detentions of suspects under terrorism
legislation. Concerns have been expressed that initial arrests
often attract immense media coverage, yet when suspects have been
released without charge this has not received a commensurate level
of coverage. Frequently reference is made to the ethnicity or
religion of arrested suspects. There is also concern that significant
coverage is given to hard-line extremist Islamic groups and their
supporters, when compared with mainstream Muslim groups. Such
extremists have been referred to as "the enemy within"
and "a fifth column", with some journalists arguing
that the opinions of these young Muslim men expose the failure
of Britain's current approach to multiculturalism. There have
also been newspaper calls for expulsion and treason charges to
be brought against Muslim men who volunteered to fight for the
Taliban and against British Forces. The Mayor views this as disproportionate.
5.2 Whilst the Mayor recognises that media
interest in counter-terrorism is valid, he believes this must
be balanced by fair, accurate and sensitive reporting. The Mayor
recommends that the Press Complaints Commission (PCC) should be
invited to issue guidance on the use of accurate terminology and
sensitivity in reporting on anti-terrorism issues. The guidance
should remind editors that pejorative or irrelevant reference
to a person's race, religion, or nationality is already prohibited
under Clause 13 (Discrimination) of the PCC Code. Similarly, the
PCC under Clause One (Accuracy) of its Code must underline the
danger that inaccurate, misleading or distorted reporting may
generate an atmosphere of fear and hostility.
6. CONCLUSION
6.1 The Mayor is of the view that the fight
against terrorism is paramount. However, the implementation of
anti-terrorist legislation and negative media reporting is undermining
community relations and confidence in the police by London's BME
communities. London's BME communities must be fully engaged in
the process of tackling terrorism and crime. In order to achieve
this the Government and public authorities must ensure that they
have the confidence that the legislative powers are being used
fairly and with good reason; that they are used within the guidelines
designed to regulate their practice; and that they are effective
in that they are targeted in a way that maximises interventions
with active offenders and minimise those with law-abiding members
of the public. Improving data monitoring will assist in taking
informed decisions. A race impact assessment should also be conducted
on existing terrorist legislation to identify where remedial action
is required and help enhance legitimacy.
6.2 Finally, the involvement of the community
in partnership with police forces, police authorities and key
stakeholders at both strategic and operational levels is paramount
in the fight against terrorism. Such involvement should have a
clear purpose and specific agenda, and aim to win the consent
of the public by responding to their concerns regarding terrorism
issues.
21 September 2004
BACKGROUND NOTE
1.1. The Greater London Authority is the
strategic body for London and is constituted through the Greater
London Authority Act 1999. The Authority has a democratically
elected executive Mayor, Ken Livingstone, and an Assembly comprising
25 members that are responsible for scrutinising the policies
and decisions of the Mayor.
1.2 The Mayor sets the budget for the Metropolitan
Police, London Fire & Emergency Planning Authority, Transport
for London, and also approves the budget and business plans of
the London Development Agency. Through this power, the Mayor steers
the direction of the services delivered by the police, fire and
transport, and shapes regional approaches to economic development
and regeneration.
MAYOR'S
MANIFESTO COMMITMENT
1.3 The Mayor is committed to tackling terrorism.
His manifesto for London's states that:
"Like many capital cities London is a target
for terrorist attacks. So we have given the highest priority to
maintaining public vigilance against terrorism and ensuring that
the police and the emergency services have all of the resources
they need to counter this terrible threat. With support from the
Labour government 1,000 extra officers have been deployed on counter
terrorism duties. We have fundamentally reviewed London's ability
to respond to, and recover from, a major terrorist attack. We
continue with a comprehensive programme of exercises and testing.
We have met all the requests for extra resources to fight terrorism.
This has included 200 extra fire-fighters to respond to major
incidents and we have provided the advanced equipment they need."
[25]
1.4 He further goes on to state that over
the next four years during his term in office:
"He will continue to provide the police
and emergency services with all of the resources they need to
protect London against terrorist attack. He will maintain the
strength of the specialist operations units, which are in the
front line against terrorism, building on the 1,000 extra officers
already deployed. He will maintain the highest level of public
vigilance against terrorism and actively engage London's diverse
communities in working together with the police to keep London
safe. He will ensure London's fire and rescue services have sufficient
resources and equipment to deal with whatever threats London faces."[26]
24 Statistics on Race & the Criminal Justice System-2003:
A Home Office Publication under Section 95 of the Criminal Justice
Act 1991 (2004) Back
25
A Manifesto 4 London - London Mayoral & London Assembly Elections
2004, p13. Back
26
A Manifesto 4 London - London Mayoral & London Assembly Elections
2004, p14. Back
| 
