Examination of Witness (Question Numbers
90-99)
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
JOHN YATES
10 NOVEMBER 2009
Q90 Chairman: Good morning. Could I remind
all of us present that we have a second session this afternoon,
when we will be looking at the Extradition Act and we have another
witness the Home Secretary. This is the second evidence session
for the Committee's inquiry into counter-terrorism. We are very
pleased to see here Assistant Commission John Yates, Head of the
Specialist Operations (Counter-Terrorism) at the Metropolitan
Police. Welcome and thank you for fitting us in. I know you have
had a very busy schedule over the last few weeks. I would refer
all those present to the register of Members' interests, where
the interests of all members are registered. The Home Secretary
said last week that some of the counter-terrorism proposals made
after 7 July 2005, the London bombings, were "too draconian"
and not the right way to go. Do you agree with the Home Secretary
that some of the proposals were too draconian?
Assistant Commissioner Yates:
It depends which proposals you are referring to, Chairman. I think
we just about have the balance right. We need to tease through
some of the issues occasionally, particularly around things like
section 44 of the Terrorism Act and we need to adapt and adopt
proper procedures around these issues as these events go on. I
think we have just about got the balance right. The level of scrutiny
around many and several issues that we confront on a day-to-day
basis is huge, both from committees like this, the police authorities,
the media, and I think we respond to that in an appropriate way.
Q91 Chairman: His comment that we
went too far you cannot agree with.
Assistant Commissioner Yates:
I do not think so. We constantly have to test these issues and
we have to consider them in the light of developments and in the
light of ongoing cases.
Q92 Chairman: How many police officers
are currently engaged in counter-terrorism activities?
Assistant Commissioner Yates:
The totality—so this is counter-terrorism and protective
security across the country—is about 7,700. That includes
all port policing, counter-terrorism officers and other matters
as well. In terms of engaging directly with what people think
would be counter-terrorism, it is just over 3,000 across the country.
Q93 Chairman: We were told by Lord
West, our first witness in this inquiry, that there has been an
increase in funding for the security services. Has there been
an increase in the funding for counter-terrorism?
Assistant Commissioner Yates:
Overall, yes there has, of about 30% over the last three years.
About £80-odd million, rounding it down. £80 million
roughly. There has been a 30% increase.
Q94 Chairman: Do you think that is
sufficient for you to carry out your duties?
Assistant Commissioner Yates:
Again it is all a matter of balance, in terms of what we must
achieve in counter-terrorism and what the other police priorities
are as well. I think the balance is just about right. If events
dictate that we should have more, then of course we will make
the case out, but at the moment I think the balance is just about
right.
Q95 Mrs Dean: Are PCSOs actively
involved in counter-terrorism policing?
Assistant Commissioner Yates:
Yes, they are involved in a number of areas. They are involved
in local safer neighbourhoods, in terms of community safety and
the visible presence there. They are certainly heavily involved—you
see them around the Government security zone—around Westminster
and the broader geography around here. They are an integral part
of the counter-terrorism response, particularly in terms of the
visible presence they provide.
Q96 Mrs Dean: Are they used in stop
and search?
Assistant Commissioner Yates:
They have quite unusual powers in terms of that. First, they must
be under the direction and control of a fully fledged warranted
officer. In terms of section 44, yes, they can be deployed on
that. They can stop vehicles, they can search vehicles, they can
search articles that people are carrying, but they cannot search
that person in terms of the more intrusive powers that a fully
warranted officer has. It is under the direction and control of
a fully warranted officer. They receive very careful training
around these issues, and training and briefing in terms of what
they can and cannot do, but, I repeat, they are an important and
integral part of the counter-terrorism response.
Q97 Mrs Dean: Are they always with
a warranted officer when they do stop and search?
Assistant Commissioner Yates:
I believe that is the case, that they must be under the direction
and control of a warranted officer, yes. You will see them patrolling
on their own and in pairs when it is warranted.
Q98 Mrs Cryer: Assistant Commissioner,
is the funding that goes to counter-terrorism work through your
department ring-fenced or is there a chance that it may be cut
at some point in the future?
Assistant Commissioner Yates:
It is ring-fenced in terms of what we can use it for. We have
to make it very clear that the funding that is provided for us
is used for that purpose. There is very significant oversight
and audit of that. In terms of the overall funding pot, that of
course is a matter for the Home Office and the Office of Security
for Counter-Terrorism (OSCT). I do not know what the future holds.
We have a generous settlement at the moment in terms of the current
CSR period. Clearly there is likely to be pressure in the future
on all funding pots, so I do not really know, but it is not really
a matter for me, it is a matter for the Home Office and the Treasury.
Q99 Mrs Cryer: For the immediate
future, is the counter-terrorism pot of money ring-fenced?
Assistant Commissioner Yates:
Until the end of this financial year, yes, and, in theory, until
the end of the 2010-11 period, yes, but I am also a pragmatist
and understand that there is significant pressure on budgets on
all fronts.
Mrs Cryer: Thank you.
| 
