32.Memorandum submitted by the Police
Federation of England and Wales
1. BACKGROUND
1.1 The Police Federation of England and
Wales—the voice of the operational police officer—is
the staff association for over 95% of police officers. Established
by statute, we are responsible for the welfare of officers and
the provision of an efficient police service.
1.2 The Police Federation welcomes the opportunity
to submit written evidence to the Committee. This memorandum has
been prepared specifically for the inquiry and is enumerated broadly
in accordance with the Committee's call for evidence (21 July
2004). We would be happy to provide oral evidence or additional
memoranda on request.
2. INTRODUCTION
2.1 The tragedies of 9/11, Istanbul and
Madrid graphically demonstrated not only the shocking barbarity
of international terrorism, but also the very real nature of the
threat facing the UK and other Western states. We consider the
views expressed in the Home Office discussion paper Reconciling
Security and Liberty in an Open Society entirely realistic
and legitimate in this regard.
2.2 Whilst the UK security services and
police have, to date, been successful in preventing such an atrocity
on UK soil, the threat faced by the UK is likely to remain elevated
for the foreseeable future. Unfortunately minority ethnic communities
in the UK can be unsuspecting hosts to would be terrorists as
they can provide both the anonymity and camouflage that terrorists
seek. It is therefore critical the police maintain the support
of minority ethnic groups in order to glean all possible intelligence
threads.
2.3 The police service plays a key role
in the promotion and protection of community cohesion. Each and
every community must have faith in its police service and be confident
that it will respond to its special needs and demands. In recent
months, the police have received a considerable degree of public
and media criticism for the use and interpretation of powers under
terrorism legislation—particularly in respect of ethnic
minorities—but continue to operate in an environment where
their overriding concern must always be to be the prevention of
terrorism.
3. THE STIGMATISATION
OF MINORITY
GROUPS PUBLICLY
"ASSOCIATED" WITH
TERRORISM; AND
MEDIA COVERAGE
OF THESE
ISSUES
3.1 We fully understand that many Muslims,
but particularly those of North African, Middle Eastern or Asian
ethnicity, may feel stigmatised due to a public "association"
with terrorism. The Police Federation represents police officers
of all religions, cultures and ethnic backgrounds, and we fervently
oppose any comments or actions, be it intentional or unintentional,
which serve to stigmatise any minority group or cause racial tension.
3.2 Over the course of the last year there
has been an increase in the number of reported stops and searches
amongst Asian people, particularly young men. This has fuelled
criticism that the police have been overzealous, acting disproportionately
and/or discriminately in a knee-jerk reaction to the increased
terrorist threat. We strongly refute any such accusations. First
and foremost, stops and searches are conducted on the basis of
intelligence information. Secondly, given the common demographic
backgrounds shared by the majority of Muslim fundamentalist terrorists,
it would be perverse if there had been no such increase in the
number of stops and searches amongst specific minority ethnic
groups. The service must do all that it can to regain the support
of the whole Muslim community, thus replicating Project Trident;
a pertinent example of a police initiative that overcame initial
scepticism to win the broad support of the Afro-Caribbean community.
3.3 We do not believe the increased number
of stops and searches, or the arrest of a number of individuals
under terrorism legislation should be cited for stigmatising minority
groups. Far more significant is how minority ethnic groups are
negatively portrayed in the media. The conflation of the patently
distinct issues of asylum, immigration and international terrorism,
combined with latent racism and inaccurate sensationalist reporting
(for instance stating the percentage increase in stops and searches
as opposed to far less "dramatic" statements with the
real numerical figure) evoke strong feelings and can contribute
to both stigmatisation and a feeling of stigmatisation of minority
groups, especially amongst more impressionable readerships. The
fact remains that the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001
(ACTS Act) powers have been used sparingly.
3.4 Far greater efforts must be made to
elucidate to minority groups how and why anti-terrorist measures
such as stop and search and arrests have been conducted. The media
should be a willing partner in this process by paying closer attention
to the veracity and interpretation of stop and search figures
and ensuring issues relating to race or religion are reported
accurately, thus avoiding the use of inflammatory language.
4. THE INCIDENCE
OF ANTI-SEMITISM,
ISLAMOPHOBIA AND
OTHER FORMS
OF PREJUDICE
4.1 Post 9-11 there has been a recorded
increase in anti-Semitism, Islamophobia and other forms of prejudice,
ranging from racial abuse and defacement of religious entities,
to serious acts of violence against the person.
4.2 Convicting those responsible for these
crimes requires the cooperation of communities. For their part,
the police must both protect, and be seen to protect, all communities,
especially those at greatest risk. This requires a return of policing
in the community.
5. CIVIL LIBERTIES/POLICING
ISSUES
5.1 In written evidence to the Home Affairs
Committee's inquiry into the use of police powers under terrorism
legislation (29 June 2004) we stated:
"Debates exploring where the delicate balance
between freedom and security should lie are an inevitable consequence
of introducing new measures to combat terrorism. In the main we
believe it is for public debate, not the police, to determine
where this equilibrium-point should be . . . there are times,
however, when it is abundantly clear—at least from an operational
policing perspective—that added security measures are imperative
in order to preserve the freedoms we enjoy."
5.2 These issues vis-a"-vis civil liberties
understandably have even greater saliency in the context of community
relations or minority ethnic groups. As we have stated in relation
to stop and search figures, we believe it would be unrepresentative
if, in the current climate, certain ethnic groups were not more
likely to be stopped. Moreover, it is disingenuous when elected
representatives are unwilling to convey these rather unpalatable
truths to the public at large.
5.3 The current simplistic collection of
monitoring data does not enable a proper analysis of the reasons
and groups for stops and searches. No data is collected on issues
other than race thus obscuring issues of sexuality, age, religion
or disability. The Police Federation is a partner in the Home
Office Stop and Search Action Team and we are keen to see the
adoption of a multi-variant activity that shows a complete picture
of police stop and search activity that can be fed back to local
communities. This system should be able to identify whether all
searches are conducted on the basis of a policing and community
need using valid and justifiable reasons. The reality is that
discrimination may be occurring but we are not looking in the
right places.
5.4 We do not support the Newton Report's
assertion that stop and search is ineffectual as an anti-terrorist
tool. Whilst no accurate means of assessing whether stop and search
has directly prevented a terrorist strike exists, this in no way
detracts from its value to police, for instance as a preventative
tool. Furthermore, authorisation may only be given: "if the
person giving it considers it expedient for the prevention of
acts of terrorism" and this is coupled with due transparency
provided by the newly formed Independent Police Complaints Commission
(IPCC).
5.5 Stop and search is widely misunderstood.
The fact remains that those who would wish to carry a knife or
firearm are less likely to do so if they know they might be stopped
and searched. The same principle of disrupting perpetrators applies
equally to terrorists. By dealing with individuals on the street
police officers avoid the need to make and arrest and go to the
police station. Stop and search is therefore a far less onerous
procedure and a lesser infringement on the individual's liberty.
5.6 Officers may have genuine fears of criticism
of litigation in respect of human rights legislation when using
ACTS powers. It is vital that these fears do not effect their
work, and by extension the efficacy of the police and security
services to thwart would be terrorists.
12 November 2004
| 
