Examination of Witness (Question Numbers
100-119)
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
JOHN YATES
10 NOVEMBER 2009
Q100 David Davies: Assistant Commissioner
Yates, you have said in one report that section 44 should be replaced.
A new scheme has been tried out in four areas: Brent, Newham,
Southwark and Tower Hamlets. Section 44 is meant to be entirely
random, so that you are not singling people out who look suspicious,
whereas section 1 can be done on suspicion and section 60 can
be purely at random, on passers-by who may look suspicious to
a police officer. Is this new scheme going to be some combination
of those three sections?
Assistant Commissioner Yates:
Yes and no. I think the report you are referring to was a report
for the Police Authority of about six months ago, which was in
terms of community feedback, Lord Carlile's oversight and the
like. We acknowledged that the application of section 44, particularly
in the Met, was too draconian. In essence, on a monthly basis,
I provided an authority, signed by the Home Secretary as well,
that anybody in London could be stopped under section 44. In terms
of prescribing what you can and cannot do and where you can do
it, we felt that was too draconian and so we responded to those
concerns. Now it is much broader than the four boroughs; it has
now gone across London—so there have been developments since
that date. It is a patchwork authority. Clearly it is on a monthly
basis, responding to the intelligence picture. It can change.
It is very distinctive every month in terms of the intelligence
that I look at and I sign in order to provide the authority, but
every borough is now being asked to provide where they think they
need the power, in terms of either iconic sites (particular threat
sites), transport hubs and the like, so you have a patchwork authority
where you can use the authority under section 44.
Q101 David Davies: Is it not the
case that one of the flaws there is that it is meant to be random?
If you saw somebody coming along who in your opinion looked a
bit like a terrorist, but you had just stopped to search somebody
else who did not, really it might be quite hard to justify randomly
picking out the next person you see.
Assistant Commissioner Yates:
Section 44 now operates around the more iconic sites, where it
can be random, taking account of the intelligence picture. We
found that a lot of the stops under section 44 were actually under
section 43, where you require reasonable suspicion, so it was
a misguided, mis-briefed use of the powers, if you like. Section
43 of the Terrorism Act, which is with reasonable suspicion, operates
anywhere—and that still is the case. Section 44, which is
the catch-all slightly draconian power, is now operating in London—and
I can only speak for London on this point—in particular
areas where the local borough will respond in terms of: "This
is an iconic site, this is of particular area of concern to us,
with critical infrastructure and the like, where we think we ought
to have that power operating." As a result of that, we have
reduced our use of the power by about 46% over the past three
months. It is a proper, legitimate response to feedback and public
concerns around an overuse of power.
Q102 Patrick Mercer: Using similar
powers in Northern Ireland, we did not get much negative feedback
because, frankly, it was just a fact of life. It settled down
and the people were used to having their time wasted, for the
most part. From time to time, when we apologised and said, "I
am frightfully sorry for having to do this," people would
say, "No, not at all. This makes us feel more secure."
How much positive feedback do you get from people?
Assistant Commissioner Yates:
I am not aware of any positive feedback, but that is not to say
there is not any. It is not the sort of information that may filter
up to me.
Q103 Patrick Mercer: No-one says,
"Thank you for stopping us."
Assistant Commissioner Yates:
No-one says thanks. It depends what the current perception of
the threat picture is. I am sure after 7/7 in 2005 people would
have been delighted to have been stopped under those powers. As
that perceived threat dissipates, then I think it would become
less acceptable, even though the threat may remain broadly similar
in a certain sense. It is that sense.
Patrick Mercer: Thank you.
Q104 Ms Buck: Is the issue that section
44 was perceived to have leaked over into broader stop and search
powers. I say this from some experience, having a 15-year old
son growing up in London. Virtually all of his friends have been
stopped under section 44, when normally you would expect, if there
was going to be a stop and search of teenagers, that it would
be under the section 60 or whatever powers. To what extent do
you think that was happening in parts of London and why was it
happening? Perhaps you could tell us, in answering, what the trend
figures were that led to the report on the review of section 44.
Assistant Commissioner Yates:
On the first part, on whether there was there a leakage over into
section 1 and section 60 powers, that may be the case. But the
issue was that we had become broadly reliant on this power post
7/7, post the very significant threat, and there was probably
an absence of detailed briefing and understanding amongst a lot
of our staff that: "This power needs to be used in this way.
This is what it is for. There is section 43, reasonable suspicion,
which you can use at any time and any place." There may have
been an overuse of the power in that sense. We recognise that.
In terms of the trend you talk about, again, post Haymarket in
2007, we saw a massive spike. You would expect that and I think
people would understand that in the sense that they would probably
welcome it. There was a spike. As I say, it has gone down considerably
now by a factor of almost half in the last several months. I think
it is being used appropriately, properly and proportionately now.
Q105 Ms Buck: Do we have the specific
data?
Assistant Commissioner Yates:
I can certainly share that with you.
Q106 Ms Buck: We accept there will
be spikes, but the broad trend date since 2005 would be helpful.
Assistant Commissioner Yates:
We can certainly provide that. I think we publish them on the
website, to be honest. The Police Authority require them on a
regular monitoring basis, but certainly we can provide those.
Q107 Ms Buck: We do not live in a
perfect world, so I accept that not every single officer on the
street is always going to use their power proportionately, but
it does worry me that the sheer scale of extended use of section
44 could have occurred because people did not necessarily have
a grasp of what they were doing. What went wrong with the training
and guidance to operational officers, such that it could have
been so vague as to allow that explosion of the use of section
44 to have occurred?
Assistant Commissioner Yates:
There was an explosion of use, as I have said, after a particular
iconic event. That is to be expected. That is what we would want
to happen, to be honest. In terms of the specific details of section
44, in terms of its use, our attention may not have been as thorough
as it could have been. I am not saying it has gone wrong but I
think we could have paid more attention to that. In the last six
months, we have paid very particular attention to the quality
of the briefing on a daily basis at our boroughs across London.
It is one of the issues I look at on the monthly authority signing.
What does the briefing look like? What is the quality of the briefing?
What is the quality of the intelligence supporting that briefing?
We make sure, as is appropriate in terms of the level people can
receive in terms of their intelligence, that boroughs are aware
of that and that all the staff are aware of it. We pay particular
attention to it.
Mr Clappison: You were asked a
moment ago about positive response. I would suggest to you that
there is a large silent majority of people in this country, including
many of my constituents, some of whom suffered in the London bombings,
who support the work of the police in this area and do not wish
to put their work under the microscope in order to generate criticism
of them.
Chairman: Is that your question, Mr Clappison?
Q108 Mr Clappison: Yes. Will you
take that into account, please?
Assistant Commissioner Yates:
Yes. I noted it.
Chairman: Normally Mr Clappison
has several questions to put to our witnesses.
Q109 Mr Streeter: Assistant Commissioner,
you talked earlier about getting the balance right. Following
on from Ms Buck's questioning, you have now reined back slightly
on the use of section 44—as I understand it, in the last
six months. No doubt that goes down better in terms of community
relations and is more proportionate, but are you confident that
you are not now damaging the counter-terrorism activity reining
back in this way?
Assistant Commissioner Yates:
No, I do not think we are. We do keep it under constant scrutiny
in terms of safety. The authority will change instinctively every
month to reflect the intelligence picture we are receiving. It
is not as if it is a blank authority I sign every month. There
is an abundance of material that I will see every month. It is
different every month. For example, in the coming month we will
be looking at the Christmas markets, the Christmas shopping areas
and all those areas where the threat is likely to rise in terms
of people `s perception of public safety. It changes every month.
We monitor it very carefully. We are looking at the quality of
the stops as well. It is kept under constant scrutiny.
Q110 Mr Streeter: Presumably the
State Opening of Parliament is something that could give you palpitations.
Assistant Commissioner Yates:
Yes. You will be pleased to know that the 44 authority is in operation
in all of Westminster, in the Government security zone, for obvious
reasons.
Q111 Chairman: But it is not able
to manage to open Carriage Gate, which has been shut for a few
days because of a missing screw!
Assistant Commissioner Yates:
Another problem for me.
Q112 Mr Streeter: Neither could it
stop the climate change protesters getting up on to the roof.
Do you have any observations about how they were able to access
the Palace of Westminster within about 30 seconds using ladders?
Assistant Commissioner Yates:
That is a most regrettable incident, but it is under review at
the moment and I am sure we will be reporting back to the appropriate
authority once the findings of that review are produced.
Chairman: We are quite certain
they were not pass holders and they got in on their own.
Q113 Mr Winnick: Mr Yates, you recognise,
as we all do, the overwhelming majority of Muslims in this country
are law-abiding, they loathe terrorism and recognise that when
terrorism come about, like 7/7, they are as likely to be victims
as anyone else. That is not in question at any serious level.
Of those elements/individuals, few in number within the Muslim
community who so distort their religion as to justify and perhaps
carry out terrorism, how many would you say at this stage, in
so far as you can give a number—and Lord West did give a
number last year—could be considered an acute danger to
the security of Britain?
Assistant Commissioner Yates:
It is probably unwise of me to speculate about numbers. Clearly
the Security Service have the lead in terms of intelligence, in
terms of counter-terrorism, but I think Jonathan Evans is on record
as saying about 2,000 people—
Q114 Mr Winnick: That is the number
Lord West used.
Assistant Commissioner Yates:
Yes. That is a number on public record from the DG in the Security
Service. The intelligence lead is a matter for them. We work very
closely with them in what is an excellent working relationship,
and for me to speculate on a numbers beyond that I think would
be unwise.
Q115 Mr Winnick: Would it be right
to say that the feeling generally amongst the police and security
agencies is that it has not in any way been reduced but there
is a number of people—and you yourself do not want to give
a number, for reasons I perfectly understand—who present,
as I mentioned a moment ago, an acute danger to the security of
our country?
Assistant Commissioner Yates:
I think that is a fair assumption, yes.
Q116 Mr Winnick: There are other
groups, are there not, which could be described here as racist
and fascist elements—most of whom presumably do not wish
to engage in terrorism of any kind, although some do? For example,
a BNP election candidate called Robert Cottage was found last
year with the largest amount of chemical explosives ever found
in this country. There remains that danger of such groups, not
necessarily just the BNP.
Assistant Commissioner Yates:
That is correct. In recent months and recent years we have seen
a growth around some of the far right extremism movements. Mostly,
I have to say, they tend to be less organised. It tends to be
the concept of the `lone wolf'. We have seen several manifestations
of that over the past months and several arrests, and there are
ongoing cases which of course I cannot comment upon. This is something
we take extremely seriously. We make sure we balance our resources
appropriately, to ensure we can devote sufficient to the growth
of that threat, the intelligence picture, and of course the response,
should that be required.
Q117 Mr Winnick: My final question
about those who want to commit murder for what may be described
as political or religious reasons concerns the dissident Republicans,
who have surfaced again, I am told, in Northern Ireland. Do they
in any way present the same sort of danger, in your view, in Northern
Ireland and the mainland, as the IRA in the early days, when the
IRA started again, the Provisional IRA, if we take as an example
1970-71-72? Does this group of thugs I have just mentioned present
the same sort of danger?
Assistant Commissioner Yates:
Throughout the 1970s, the 1980s and the early 1990s we saw the
most dreadful carnage in Northern Ireland and on the mainland.
The very fact that has not happened in recent years would indicate
that the threat is not at that level. That being said, I know
the Independent Monitoring Board for Northern Ireland reported
this week that the threat from Dissident Republicans is as great
as it has ever been in the last six years, so clearly the threat
remains. The security services work very closely with the PSNI
over in Ireland in terms of countering that threat and of course
we monitor that very closely on the mainland as well. There have
been very worrying developments in Northern Ireland in recent
months, as demonstrated in the recent report of the Independent
Monitoring Group.
Q118 Martin Salter: Building on Mr
Clappison's remarks, would you also agree that if there is an
overuse of the counter-terrorism powers and an inappropriate use
of them, constituents like mine who suffered in the London bombings—we
had a casualty in my constituency as well—are put at greater
risk if, as a result, that shuts down the flow of intelligence
from communities. It is very important to get the balance right.
Assistant Commissioner Yates:
It is a constant battle to get that balance right. We saw with
the recent events up in the North West of England the effect on
community confidence. When we disrupt what we consider to be a
significant plot but it does not manifest itself in charges, those
issues really do hit home. We have to work constantly with communities,
which is why it is so important that a lot of our counter-terrorism
effort is based in local communities and we get that feedback
to us.
Q119 Martin Salter: Would it be fair
to say that we collectively have destructed more terrorist plots
as a result of good quality information coming out of communities
than we ever have through the use of section 44 powers or other
stops? I get the impression that it is intelligence that one needs
in the first place.
Assistant Commissioner Yates:
There is not really a benchmark to compare it with, but, as I
say, we work very closely with the security services around these
issues. The absence of an attack should not be seen as the absence
of a threat, but, again, it is good news that we have not been
subjected to the attacks in 7/7 and 21/7 in recent years.
| 
