Subject: Overview of the Police and Crime Committee’s Work 2012-2016

Report to: Police and Crime Committee

Report of: Executive Director of Secretariat Date: 17 March 2016

This report will be considered in public

1. Summary

1.1 This report provides a summary of the work and investigations the Committee has undertaken during this Mayoral and Assembly term from May 2012 to March 2016.

2. Recommendations

2.1 That the Committee notes the summary of the work and investigations the Committee has undertaken over the Mayoral and Assembly term, as set out in this report.

2.2 That the Committee agrees to hold a site visit to Operation Safeway on 18 March 2016 to gain a better understanding of how the MPS Roads and Transport Policing Command works to keep road users safe.

2.3 That the Committee notes the schedule of meetings for 2016/17, which is subject to agreement at the Annual Meeting of the Assembly on 13 May 2016.

2.4 That the Committee agrees, in relation to urgent matters only, a general delegation of authority in respect of the Committee’s powers and functions (apart from those that cannot under the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011 be delegated) to the Chair of the Committee, in consultation with the party Group Lead Members of the Committee, from the close of this meeting until the Annual Meeting of the London Assembly on 13 May 2016.

3. Background

3.1 The Committee’s work programme was devised to enable it to effectively fulfil its roles both of holding the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime (MOPAC) to account, and investigating issues of importance to policing and crime reduction in London.

City Hall, The Queen’s Walk, London SE1 2AA Enquiries: 020 7983 4100 minicom: 020 7983 4458 www.london.gov.uk

3.2 The Committee’s work over this term has involved a range of activities, including formal meetings with MOPAC, the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) and other stakeholders, site visits, written consultations and round table meetings. Over this Mayoral and Assembly term, the Committee has conducted 25 major investigations, and produced 19 reports. Through its regular topical Question and Answer sessions, it has covered over 100 different topics, ranging from MOPAC’s and the MPS’s finances and the delivery of local policing, through to funding and support for victims of crime, Safer Neighbourhood Boards, and how serious crimes, such as rape, are handled.

3.3 The Committee’s investigations and reports garner much interest from a wide range of stakeholders and regularly gain attention in the media. The Committee is seen as an authority on policing and crime issues in the and is frequently approached for its views.

3.4 A full list of the reports the Committee has published during this term is set out in Appendix 1 and a list of site visits by the Committee and other stakeholder activity is set out in Appendix 2.

4. Issues for Consideration

4.1 The following summarises some of the key pieces of work by the Committee over this term.

Scrutiny of the Mayor’s Police and Crime Plan for London

4.2 At the start of this term the Mayor published his draft Police and Crime Plan for 2013-16. The Plan set out the Mayor’s priorities for policing in London and objectives for tackling crime and making London safer. To assess the objectives and goals set out in the draft plan, Members held a series of public evidence gathering meetings with academic experts, and met specifically with representatives of communities that tend to report lower confidence in the police. In March 2013, the Committee published its response to the consultation on the draft Plan. This contained 19 recommendations in relation to the Plan and its associated Estate Strategy and budget.

4.3 The Committee’s recommendations resulted in significant changes to the final Plan. As a result of the Committee’s work a greater number of named officers were allocated to London’s wards than originally planned; MOPAC developed a performance management framework and new approach to reviewing data quality; and MOPAC provided more detail about how the use of stop and search would be scrutinised.

4.4 The Committee reviewed progress against the Plan annually. Each year, Members examined each of the key targets set by MOPAC, including progress against the seven ‘priority crimes’ (MOPAC 7) that the Mayor wanted to see reduced; public confidence in the police; and progress in tackling other crimes not falling within the MOPAC 7, such as gang crime, domestic violence and rape. Where areas for improvement were identified, the Committee continued to monitor these closely throughout the following year.

The Committee has ensured that information about progress against the Plan is put into the public domain. Following the Committee’s annual review of the Plan in July 2015, it published a stocktake of the Mayor’s progress. The Committee has continued to publish this information through a series of quarterly monitoring updates, giving Londoners an easily accessible and up to date single source of information about progress.

Local policing

The structure of local policing 4.5 The Committee has dedicated much of its time to examining the structure of local policing across London’s boroughs. The Local Policing Model (LPM) — introduced in the Mayor’s Police and Crime Plan— changed the way policing is organised in boroughs. It changed the structure of ward policing from a 1:2:3 model (1 sergeant, 2 police constables, 3 police and community support officers (PCSOs) per London ward) to a 1:1 model (1 PC and 1 PCSO per London ward), with additional support from neighbourhood officers, who cover several wards and respond flexibly to demand. To coincide with the LPM implementation, the Public Access project also went live, which, amongst other things, rationalised the number of MPS front counters in each borough.

4.6 The Committee has examined the impact of the LPM on front line resources, visibility and flexibility, and on public confidence. In its response to the consultation on the Police and Crime Plan, the majority of the Committee voiced concerns about the new model: particularly about the apparent reduction in the size of dedicated ward teams. The Committee has continued throughout the term to discuss the impact that the LPM is having on public confidence, visibility, and the ability of the MPS to respond to crime.

4.7 Towards the end of the term, Members helped to shape the policing agenda by responding to a consultation on the future of policing. In April 2015, the Committee submitted its response to the MPS’s ‘2020’ consultation, which looked at how policing could be transformed to meet new threats, pressures and challenges. The Committee highlighted that building and maintaining trust must be a key aspect of any transformation, and that silo working is unlikely to help the MPS meet the demand placed on it in the future.

The diversity of the MPS 4.8 In June 2014, the Committee started an investigation into the diversity of the MPS’s frontline. Members looked specifically at what the MPS has done to recruit more Black and Minority Ethnic (BAME) officers, including how it supports BAME officers to progress through the ranks, and the representation of women and other groups with protected characteristics as defined by the Equality Act 2010.

4.10 The Committee published its report on diversity in the MPS in December 2014. The report, The Diversity of the Met's frontline1 , identified that more can be done to improve the MPS’s diversity and ensure it reflects the capital it serves. The report recognised that the MPS has made some progress, but made a number of recommendations to further increase its diversity, including targeting BAME women as a specific group and creating ‘champions’ to increase diversity; supporting flexible working to plug the rising number of female officers leaving the force; and to consider the legal implications of introducing schemes to increase diversity if other efforts to prove unsuccessful.

4.11 As a result of the report, the MPS has introduced a new ‘One MPS Scorecard’ which will put the emphasis on individual command units to have plans in place to achieve a more representative

1 https://www.london.gov.uk/about-us/london-assembly/london-assembly-publications/diversity-met-police

workforce. It is also developing a new exit survey targeted at capturing the reasons why officers/staff from under-represented groups leave the force.

4.12 The report gained attention from key broadcast and online media in London, including BBC Breakfast, BBC London News, LBC 97.3 and ITV News online. The Committee established itself as an authoritative voice on this topic, having been approached by London Live in December 2015 to provide comment on progress made after new data emerged.

Police and community engagement 4.13 Safer Neighbourhood Boards (SNBs) were set up with the aim of improving the quality and consistency of community-police engagement across London. The Committee examined the proposals to introduce SNBs, as a replacement for Community and Police Engagement Groups. The Committee’s report, published in August 2013, was informed by a public meeting where MOPAC was criticised for providing inadequate, or contradictory, information to stakeholders about the basic functions of SNBs, how they will be governed, and their role within the current borough policing structures. The report set out a series of questions about the responsibilities that MOPAC wanted SNBs to fulfil, and called for clearer guidance.

4.14 The Committee reviewed the development of SNBs at its meeting in September 2015. Members engaged with SNBs through a survey asking for views on the key issues identified in its 2013 report. The report concluded that while SNBs do valuable work, there are a number of concerns about how well they are functioning, and the inconsistency in how they engage with the public. The Committee remains concerned about the capacity of SNBs to deliver the types of projects MOPAC expects from them, and has urged MOPAC to ensure it provides effective support for those Safer Neighbourhood Boards that cannot rely on the help of their local authority. The Committee’s report, Safer Neighbourhood Boards Two Years On can be accessed here2.

Finances

4.15 Much of the Committee’s time in Question and Answer sessions, particularly towards the end of this term, has focused on the issue of police funding. The Committee has questioned MOPAC about funding threats and has supported its efforts to address these. In the run up to the Comprehensive Spending Review (CSR) 2015, the MPS faced a potential ‘triple effect’ in respect of funding pressures: a reduction as a result of the Comprehensive Spending Review; a review of the overall formula for allocating funding to forces; and a review of the National and International Capital City grant. At the time, the Commissioner anticipated that the MPS would need to save over £1 billion by 2020. Following the CSR, which protected police funding in real terms, Members continued to question the Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner about operational changes that were still being considered.

4.16 The Committee helped to uncover new information and represent the concerns of Londoners about the possible options for addressing any funding reduction, including the possibility that officer numbers will fall. It has also aimed to influence and shape decisions by responding to the Home Office’s consultation on police funding, reinforcing many of the arguments being made by the Mayor and the MPS — predominantly that the proposed grant formula, as with the current formula,

2 https://www.london.gov.uk/about-us/london-assembly/london-assembly-publications/safer-neighbourhood-boards-two- years

does not account for the challenges of policing a capital city. This has helped to ensure that a consistent message is being given to central government from both the operational and strategic bodies in London.

Victims and Vulnerability

Support for victims of crime 4.17 In January 2013 the Committee published Duty of Care: Improving support for Victims of Crime. The report can be accessed here3. It reported that the MPS has one of the worst victim satisfaction ratings of any police service in the country and made ten recommendations to improve its performance. It emphasised that providing better training for frontline police officers, equal respect for all crime victims, and closer cooperation in dealing with victims across the whole criminal justice system. The MPS responded positively to the report.

4.18 The Committee reviewed the impact of its report on victim care in July 2013. It discovered that, as a result of the Committee’s recommendations, a new training package on victim care is being rolled out to all neighbourhood officers. Additionally, having acknowledged the Committee’s concerns about the accuracy of information shared with Victim Support, new processes introduced mean that the MPS is able to turn around virtually all requests from Victim Support in less than one working day.

Rape investigations 4.19 Following the publication of an independent report into how the MPS and Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) handle rape cases in London, the Committee discussed how the MPS and CPS provide support to victims of rape, investigate offences and bring cases to court at its meeting in June 2015. The Rt Hon Dame Elish Angiolini DBE QC, who was commissioned to conduct the independent review, and Baljit Ubhey OBE, Chief Crown Prosecutor, London, were invited to give evidence alongside MOPAC and the MPS. The Committee heard that the MPS and CPS have accepted all of the 46 recommendations made in Dame Elish’s review and are focusing on putting more resources into the investigation of rape and working more effectively with a range of partners. The Committee reviewed the progress made with the MPS and CPS in implementing the recommendations made in the review at its meeting in March 2016.

Safeguarding Children and Child Sexual Exploitation 4.20 The Safeguarding Working Group was established to examine the MPS’s role in safeguarding children. In May 2014, the Chair of the Police and Crime Committee visited the MPS’s Operation Limelight at Heathrow Airport. Part of a national week of action, officers from the MPS, UK Border Force and the National Crime Agency targeted two inbound flights (from Nigeria and Liberia, via Sierra Leone) to gather information, raise awareness, deter potential offenders and identify children who may have recently been subject to female genital mutilation. The targeted action also sought to identify, arrest and prosecute offenders.

4.21 As part of the investigation, Members of the Safeguarding Working Group also visited Harrow’s Multi-Agency Safeguarding Hub (MASH) in June 2014. The MASH model is designed to improve the way local safeguarding partners work together. It brings together a range of safeguarding

3 https://www.london.gov.uk/about-us/london-assembly/london-assembly-publications/duty-care-improving-support-victims- crime

professionals, including police, children’s social care, education, probation and health, into one secure assessment, research and referral unit. The visit provided Members with an opportunity to witness how agencies come together to share information and make safeguarding decisions. Members heard that the MASH structure allows for timely information and intelligence sharing across the safeguarding partnership. These issues were reflected in the investigation report.

4.22 In July 2014, the Committee published its report on the MPS’s role in safeguarding children, Keeping London’s children safe, which can be accessed here4. The report commended the progress made by the MPS, but recognised that the need to safeguard children is ever more challenging. It identified immediate challenges for the MPS, including ensuring that its child abuse teams are fully resourced and the number of officers dedicated to safeguarding children is increased.

4.23 In March 2015, the Committee published a report on London’s approach to safeguarding children and young people from sexual exploitation, Confronting Child Sexual Exploitation in London, which can be accessed here5. The report recommends that MOPAC set out a clear performance monitoring framework for child sexual exploitation (CSE) and asks all London Local Safeguarding Children Boards (LSCBs) to ensure robust mechanisms are in place to monitor the effectiveness of CSE strategies and procedures. The report says that every LSCB in London should have a forum in place to engage with children and young people affected by CSE, including looked-after children and those that have in the past gone missing, to increase understanding, provide appropriate care and support to young victims and those at risk of CSE, and to encourage confidence in reporting. The Committee followed up its work on CSE in March 2016, including the findings of the recent HMIC report that the Met does not have a full understanding of the nature and scale of absent it faces, in particular in relation to persistent missing children.6

Violence Against Women and Girls (VAWG) 4.24 The Committee published its response to the consultation on the Mayor’s revised violence against women and girls strategy in August 2013, which can be accessed here7. The response set out a five point plan to ensure that the Mayor delivers on his manifesto promise to make London a safer place for women. In light of funding cuts to services that work with victims of violence, the Committee called for leadership from MOPAC to ensure a consistently high standard of care and support. The Committee’s recommendations included the need for MOPAC to complete its review of how effectively demand for domestic violence services is being met and to develop a plan to fill gaps in service. It also argued that the Mayor should commit to deliver an increase in the supply of Independent Domestic Violence Advocates, rather than simply maintain their current level, as the service is already struggling to meet demand.

4.25 In November 2013, the Mayor published his revised Violence Against Women and Girls strategy. Many of the Committee’s recommendations had influenced the final strategy. One of the Committee’s primary concerns was that in light of funding cuts to services that work with victims of violence, MOPAC needed to provide clearer leadership to ensure a consistently high standard of care

4 https://www.london.gov.uk/about-us/london-assembly/london-assembly-publications/keeping-london%E2%80%99s- children-safe 5 https://www.london.gov.uk/about-us/london-assembly/london-assembly-publications/confronting-child-sexual-exploitation- london 6 https://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmic/wp-content/uploads/police-effectiveness-2015-metropolitan.pdf 7 https://www.london.gov.uk/about-us/london-assembly/london-assembly-publications/violence-against-women-and-girls- assembly

and support. The spirit of this recommendation is reflected in the final strategy, which includes clearer commitments to secure provision across London through a coordinated approach to commissioning.

Provision of healthcare for detainees 4.26 In January 2014, the Committee published its findings about the healthcare of people detained in police custody in its report, Falling Short: the Met’s healthcare of detainees in custody, which can be accessed here8 During its investigation, which took place in late 2013, the Committee heard about safety concerns prompted by the staffing and management of custody suites, which prompted an investigation by the Health and Safety Executive. The Committee’s report set out the issues the MPS must address to improve its delivery of healthcare in custody suites, including nurse recruitment and retention, supporting forensic medical examiners, and the Independent Custody Visitor scheme. The report has been praised by London’s forensic medical examiners, who believe the MPS has made some positive changes in response to the report.

4.27 The Committee returned to this issue several times throughout the remainder of the term. Through its Q&A sessions, the Committee examined the responses received by the MPS, MOPAC and Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Prisons (HMIP) to its report and, to inform the session, Members visited custody suites at Wood Green and Leyton.

Mental Health 4.28 The Committee has considered how the MPS responds to people with mental health problems. This has focussed on how mental health is embedded across the MPS and progress made against the recommendations in the report of the Independent Commission on Mental Health and Policing. The Committee examined how the MPS works with a range of services to support those who are mentally ill and welcomed the drive to reduce the use of police custody for people with mental health problems and the roll out of ‘vulnerability assessment training’. The Committee has returned to mental health and policing through Q&A sessions, and most recently in March 2016 followed up on earlier work looking at partnership working, training and healthcare in custody.

Hate crime 4.29 The Committee is committed to, and regularly explored hate crime throughout this term. This has included MOPAC's role in preventing and minimising hate crime and its work to increase reporting of hate crime and encourage victims to come forward. This included consideration of hate crime at its meeting in December 2014, following the publication of the Mayor’s Hate Crime Reduction Strategy for London. It examined the work the MPS is doing to address the decline in sanction detections for hate crime and how the Mayor’s strategy will ensure a more consistent approach to tackling hate crime across London.

Online Crime 4.30 Through the establishment of the Online Crime Working Group in October 2014, Assembly Members gathered evidence on MOPAC and the MPS’s response to the new threat that cyber-enabled crimes present. The Working Group’s investigation focused on one particular group: cyber-enabled acquisitive crimes. These are crimes committed using the internet that involve taking goods or money from a victim. Examples include online fraud, identity theft and handling stolen goods.

8 https://www.london.gov.uk/about-us/london-assembly/london-assembly-publications/falling-short-met%E2%80%99s- healthcare-detainees

4.31 In November 2014, the Online Crime Working Group visited Action Fraud and the National Fraud Intelligence Bureau (NFIB) at the City of London Police to understand the key role that the City of London Police has in both collecting and analysing reports of online crime. Action Fraud originally formed part of the National Fraud Authority but transferred to the City of London Police in 2014. The NFIB has been the responsibility of the City of London Police since it was launched in 2010. Assembly Members toured Action Fraud and NFIB and received a briefing from the National Police Coordinator for Economic Crime and the Director of the NFIB.

4.32 In March 2015, the Committee published its report, Tightening the net: the Metropolitan Police Service’s response to online theft and fraud, which can be accessed here9. It examined trends in online theft and fraud and assessed how the MPS is dealing with the threat to businesses and the public. The report recommended that the MPS should appoint a senior ranking officer responsible for ensuring the whole force is prepared to tackle online crime. It also said that the Office for National Statistics should introduce specific questions into the Crime Survey for England and Wales to measure online victimisation; and that the Mayor, in partnership with the City of London Police and other key stakeholders, should lead a London-wide campaign during 2015-16 to draw attention to the threat of online crime and raise awareness of Action Fraud.

4.33 The report gained national coverage, with details of the report and quotes from the Chair featuring in , The Telegraph and The , in addition to the . The report also drew widespread interest from regional broadcast media including: BBC London News, ITV London, London Live, LBC 97.3, BBC Radio London and London 106.2.

Security of Londoners

Counter terrorism 4.34 The security of Londoners has been high on the agenda of the Committee, which has given its attention to the MPS’s role in counter terrorism. This has included looking at the MPS’s response to serious national and international incidents. In January 2015, for example, the Committee examined the MPS’s response to the terrorist attacks on the offices of Charlie Hebdo in Paris. It also examined the impact of the murder of Fusilier Lee Rigby in May 2013, including the implications for community safety, public reassurance, and the impact on hate crime.

4.35 The Committee’s work has also included looking at the resources that the MPS has to respond to a terrorist attack. It has, on an ongoing basis, discussed with the Commissioner, Deputy Commissioner and Assistant Commissioner for Specialist Operations how the MPS would respond to a large scale terrorist incident in London. As part of this, it has explored how the MPS is increasing its firearms capability and has visited the MPS’s training facility to see how officers are trained to use firearms in crisis situations.

4.36 The Committee’s scrutiny of MPS counter terror measures demonstrated its role in addressing a serious threat to the capital: this did not go unnoticed in the media. , The Daily Mail, BBC London News, ITV London, LBC 97.3 and the Evening Standard, among others, have featured the Committee’s work on this topic.

9 https://www.london.gov.uk/about-us/london-assembly/london-assembly-publications/tightening-net

Preventing extremism 4.37 Following a reported increase in the number of people arrested on suspicion of travelling to Syria in support of extremist activity, and high profile cases in London such as the Bethnal Green schoolgirls who travelled to Syria, the Committee dedicated time to examining how extremism in London can be prevented. MOPAC has said it would like greater oversight of the Government’s Prevent Strategy in London, which led the Committee to look at the implications and opportunities of such a proposal. Members received evidence from a range of guests, including academics, London boroughs, and the former independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, Lord Alex Carlile of Berriew QC CBE. The investigation helped to generate discussion amongst Londoners: following the Committee’s meetings, phone-in radio shows featured preventing extremism as part of their debate.

4.38 The report, Preventing extremism in London, which can be accessed here10, examined the structures in place in London to tackle extremism, and reflected on the obstacles and opportunities that are faced by communities and public services. The report concluded that openness about the issues and how they are being tackled will enhance efforts to prevent extremism. It made a range of recommendations to MOPAC to strengthen its involvement, improve communication with the public on this issue, and help public services to work together more closely.

4.39 The report reached a national audience via The Independent and key findings were broadcast on BBC London News, BBC 24 and LBC 97.3 throughout launch day. BBC Online published a lengthy article featuring a quote from the Chair. Trade publications such as Police Oracle and Police Professional and a number of regional newspapers found the report to be significant, largely due to its analysis at borough level.

4.40 The report was well received by MOPAC and other partners. In December 2015 the Deputy Mayor for Policing and Crime told Members that he welcomed the report and agreed with the majority of recommendations made; MOPAC’s formal response said that the recommendations had been helpful and constructive, giving impetus to this area of work.

Gangs and Youth Crime

Strategy for tackling gangs 4.41 Gangs, youth crime and knife crime were continuing topics examined regularly by the Committee. The Committee responded to the London Crime Reduction Board's Draft Partnership Anti-Gangs Strategy consultation in October 2012. The response was based on information gathered by the Committee earlier in 2012, including a meeting on tackling gangs with representatives of the MPS, boroughs, the voluntary sector and Glasgow's Violence Reduction Unit held in January 2012. Among other things, the Committee's consultation response outlined the need for more emphasis on prevention and diversionary activities to balance increased enforcement activity, and called for greater emphasis on the role of the voluntary and community sectors.

4.42 The Committee has examined knife crime as part of its work on gangs and violent crime. It has heard from the MPS about its work to decrease the level of knife crime in London and tackle the culture of carrying knives on London’s streets.

10 https://www.london.gov.uk/about-us/london-assembly/london-assembly-publications/preventing-extremism-london

Preventing youth reoffending 4.43 The Committee commenced an investigation into youth reoffending in January 2015, to assess what more the Mayor could do to address this issue. It heard from academics working in the field of youth crime and youth justice and practitioners with experience of working with young offenders and service providers. As part of the investigation, the Committee heard from young ex-offenders who have experience of the youth justice system in London. The group came from a variety of backgrounds: some had been placed into custody; others were in the early stages of working with Youth Offending Teams in the community. Members heard about their experiences of the support they received both in prison and in the community, and discussed with them what they wanted to see from an effective youth justice system.

4.44 In July 2015, the Committee published its report into youth reoffending in London, Breaking the cycle – reducing youth offending in London, which can be accessed here11. The Committee found that the number of people in the youth justice system in London is falling, but the proportion of that smaller group who go on to offend again remains a problem: it continues to be slightly above the national average and is rising. The report recommended that MOPAC, in revising its approach to youth reoffending, should make public more data about youth reoffending; deliver awareness campaigns for young people and families about the support that is available to them; and involve former young offenders in the development of its approach. The report has been well received: User Voice, a community organisation run by former young offenders, has welcomed the recommendation that MOPAC engage more directly with former offenders in the development of its strategy. MOPAC has welcomed the report and said that it recognises that there is more that can be done to build on the progress it has already made.

Public order and intrusive tactics

Water cannon 4.45 The Committee carried out an investigation into the MPS’s proposal to purchase water cannon for use in London. Members heard from the Mayor, senior MPS officers and external experts including Sir Hugh Orde OBE QPM, one of the few senior officers with practical experience of using water cannon. The Committee concluded that the MPS had not set out a convincing case for why water cannon were needed in London by summer 2014. In its report, Water Cannon: why the Met’s case doesn’t wash, the Committee found that the examples that have been given as to when water cannon could have been used over the past ten years were unconvincing, sometimes contradictory, and inappropriate, and would have failed to gain the full backing of the Mayor. The investigation and report received considerable press attention.

4.46 Through its Q&A sessions, the Committee continued to contribute to the debate about MOPAC’s decision to purchase water cannon on behalf of the MPS. Issues such as the ethical framework for the use of water cannon, and the reasons why water cannon were purchased before the Home Secretary agreed whether to license them, were discussed.

4.47 In July 2015, the Home Secretary, The Rt Hon Theresa May MP, announced her decision not to authorise the use of water cannon. The Home Secretary’s decision reflected many of the

11 https://www.london.gov.uk/about-us/london-assembly/london-assembly-publications/breaking-cycle-reducing-youth- reoffending

Committee’s concerns, including the limitations of water cannon in response to fast, agile disorder, and the negative impact the deployment of water cannon could have on public perceptions of police legitimacy. The Committee discussed this decision with the Deputy Mayor for Policing and Crime to identify the lessons learned and explore what the Committee considered to be poor decision making on this issue.

4.48 From 2014 onwards the Committee’s work on this topic has achieved extensive media coverage, successfully demonstrating how the Assembly fulfils its role in holding the Mayor and the MPS to account. This scrutiny attracted national and regional media attention, including: The Independent, The Telegraph, The Daily Mail, The Daily Star, BBC London News, the Evening Standard, BBC Breakfast, ITV London, LBC 97.3, ITV News online, and BBC News online.

Stop and Search 4.49 In July 2013, the Committee established a working group to look at the use of stop and search in London. The working group explored the impact of a new approach to stop and search introduced by the Commissioner Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe QPM in January 2012. It met with a range of experts including lawyers, community groups and leading academics. It also took part in site visits and focus groups held with young people across London, and benefitted from observing stop and search in practice.

4.50 The Committee concluded its examination in February 2014 with the publication of ‘Stop and Search: An investigation of the Met’s new approach to stop and search’, which can be accessed here12. The findings were referenced by the Children’s Rights Alliance for England in its review of the different experiences of children across London, which noted the variation in the use of stop and search between London boroughs. The Committee’s recommendations, made to the MPS and MOPAC, sought to ensure an accurate account of stop and search, a culture of accountability, and involve young people in change. A positive response to the Committee’s recommendations was received and both the MPS and MOPAC welcomed the report.

4.51 The report featured in and the Evening Standard, in addition to gaining broadcast coverage on BBC London News, ITV London, LBC 97.3 and BBC Radio London. The Committee’s questioning of the MPS and MOPAC on the topic consistently attracts media attention, including regular coverage in publications that target BAME communities.

Body worn video cameras 4.52 The Committee focused on body worn cameras following the Mayor’s announcement that all of the MPS’s neighbourhood and response officers will be issued a body worn camera (BWC). These are small cameras that are attached to officers’ uniforms. The devices have a 30 second pre-buffer, so that when an officer presses the record button, the camera captures the previous 30 seconds of visual information. The recorded material is then uploaded to a cloud-based server, from which it is deleted after 31 days unless it is required for evidential purposes. The Committee discussed some of the concerns that Londoners have about the cameras with the MPS and MOPAC, and heard that protocols were in place to ensure that the cameras are turned on only to collect evidence and improve transparency.

12 https://www.london.gov.uk/about-us/london-assembly/london-assembly-publications/stop-and-search-investigation-mets- new

Taser 4.53 The Committee established a Taser Working Group in 2013 to explore the MPS’s use of Taser, in response to the use of Taser being expanded to all London boroughs. It met with MPS officers, civil liberties groups and representatives of people with mental health problems. It also observed the training given to officers in Taser use during a visit to the MPS’s Taser Training Centre in White City in April 2013. The Committee considered concerns about the wider deployment of Taser and heard views on how governance and monitoring structures might be improved. The evidence gathered by the Working Group helped to inform a discussion with the Deputy Mayor for Policing and Crime and the Commissioner in June 2013. Members explored how decisions made on Taser and other less-lethal weapons have changed since the creation of MOPAC and considered how the process should be made more robust and transparent in future.

4.54 The Committee published its report into how the MPS expands its use of ‘less-lethal weaponry’ in October 2013. Using the example of Taser, Arming the Met: The deployment of less‐lethal weapons in London, which can be accessed here13, examined how decisions to arm officers are taken. The Committee argued that decisions that are subject to public challenge are ultimately more likely to enjoy broad political and public support and lead to better outcomes. The report set out a process that should be followed for future decisions about arming the MPS with less-lethal weaponry.

4.55 The MPS’s response to the report welcomed the close scrutiny by the Committee. The MPS’s lead officer for armed policing requested a meeting with the Committee. It accepted that the process for introducing or expanding the availability of less lethal weapons should include a sound business case supported by accurate data. It has now developed a webpage to make this information available to the public. The Committee was approached to provide feedback on the website and whether it adequately meets the standards of public engagement that Members have said is required.

4.56 Featuring in a long list of media including The Independent, ITV London, BBC London News, the Evening Standard, BBC Radio London and LBC 97.3, the Committee’s work on the MPS’s use of Taser has been in the public eye since 2013, firmly establishing the Committee as an expert voice on the topic. The report continues to draw references – in October 2015, The Guardian reported that: “Announcing the review, the Home Secretary cited evidence from the London Assembly that showed up to 30% of people Tasered by the Metropolitan police were emotionally or mentally distressed, and 50% were from black or other minority ethnic backgrounds.”

Future priorities and the schedule of meetings for 2016/17

4.57 Many of the issues considered by the Committee may remain priorities for the next Assembly. This includes, for example, the next Mayor’s Police and Crime Plan; the future shape of local policing; and progress in tackling child sexual exploitation. Additional changes to the role of Police and Crime Commissioners, and the debate about further devolution to London, may also bring new areas of focus. The reconstituted committee will agree a work programme for 2016/17 when it meets after the 2016 GLA Elections.

13 https://www.london.gov.uk/about-us/london-assembly/london-assembly-publications/arming-met-deployment-less-lethal- weapons

4.58 The schedule of all 2016/17 meetings, subject to decisions to be made at the Assembly’s Annual meeting on 13 May 2016, are set out below. The proposed pattern of meetings is based on the current one with alternate thematic and Q&A meetings:

 Thursday 26 May 2016 – Q&A session;  Thursday 9 June 2016 – thematic;  Thursday 23 June 2016 – Q&A session;  Thursday 14 July 2016 – thematic;  Tuesday 19 July 2016 – Q&A session;  Thursday 8 September 2016 – thematic;  Thursday 22 September 2016 – Q&A session;  Thursday 6 October 2016 – thematic;  Thursday 20 October 2016 – Q&A session;  Thursday 3 November 2016 – thematic;  Thursday 17November 2016 – Q&A session;  Thursday 1 December 2016 – thematic;  Thursday 15 December 2016 – Q&A session;  Thursday 12 January 2017 – thematic;  Thursday 26 January 2017 – Q&A session;  Thursday 9 February 2017 – thematic;  Thursday 23 February 2017 – Q&A session;  Thursday 9 March 2017 – thematic; and  Thursday 23 March 2017 – Q&A session.

5. Legal Implications

5.1 The Committee has the power to do what is recommended in this report.

6. Financial Implications

6.1 There are no financial implications arising from this report.

List of appendices to this report: Appendix 1 - Committee reports published during this term Appendix 2 - Committee site visits and other stakeholder activity

Local Government (Access to Information) Act 1985 List of Background Papers: None.

Contact Officer: Becky Short, Scrutiny Manager Telephone: 020 7983 4760 E-mail: [email protected]

Appendix 1 Committee Reports Published During this Term

2012/13 29 October 2012 Response to London Crime Reduction Board's draft anti-gangs strategy

16 January 2013 The Future of Community Safety Funding

23 January 2013 Duty of Care: Improving support to victims of crime

06 March 2013 Response to Draft Police and Crime Plan for 2013-2017

2013/14 02 August 2013 Safer Neighbourhood Boards

05 August 2013 Submission to the Mayor’s consultation on the Violence Against Women and Girls (VAWG) strategy

17 October 2013 Arming the Met: The deployment of less-lethal weapons in London

27 January 2014 Falling short: The Met’s healthcare of detainees in custody

03 February 2014 Stop and Search: An investigation into the Met's new approach

25 February 2014 Water cannon: Why the Met’s case doesn’t wash

2014/15 24 July 2014 Keeping London’s children safe: The Met’s role in safeguarding children

18 December 2014 The Diversity of the Met's frontline

19 March 2015 Tightening the net: the Metropolitan Police Service’s response to online theft and fraud

25 March 2015 Confronting Child Sexual Exploitation in London

2015/16 02 July 2015 Breaking the cycle: Reducing youth reoffending in London

10 December 2015 Safer Neighbourhood Boards - Two Years On

17 December 2015 Preventing extremism in London

To be published Crime on public transport during March 2016.

To be published Policing the Night-Time Economy during March 2016.

This page is intentionally left blank

Appendix 2 Committee Site Visits and Other Stakeholder Activity

Over the course of this Mayoral term, the committee has undertaken several site visits and other meetings with stakeholders in support of both its investigations and its examination of topics through its Q&A meetings.

2012/13 April 2013 Visit to Territorial Army Centre for Members to examine how the MPS engages with local communities and how officers are trained in the use of Taser. April 2013 Violence against women and girls roundtable

2013/14 May 2013 Briefing from MPS on Woolwich murder

August - Committee Members accompanied MPS on patrol in Hackney to observe September 2013 stop and search powers.

October 2013 Meeting with Chair of pan-London stop and search monitoring network

November 2013 Meeting with young people and the police on stop and search.

Nov 2013 Meeting with MPS on Taser

Dec 2013 Meeting with Lord Carlile about MOPAC ethics panel

Feb 2014 Meeting with HMIC on the use of police time

Feb 2014 Meeting with the All Party Parliamentary Group on young people about young people’s experience of stop and search

March 2014 The Chair of the Safeguarding Working Group visited the Met’s Central Child Abuse Investigation Team (CAIT)

2014/15 May 2014 Visit to Heathrow Airport to see Operation Limelight (tackling FGM)

June 2014 Visit to Harrow Multi Agency Safeguarding Hub (MASH)

July 2014 Focus group on women in the Met

September 2014 Meeting with new MPS recruits on diversity

October 2014 Visit to Wood Green and Leyton Custody Suites

November 2014 Visit to City of London Police

February 2015 Meeting with former young offenders on youth reoffending

April 2015 Meeting with the MPS on the Local Policing Model

2015/16 May 2015 MPS briefing on preventing extremism

May 2015 Meeting with the MPS Commissioner

July 2015 Visit to Birmingham on Preventing extremism

October 2015 Visit to the MPS Specialist Training Centre

Oct 2015 Meeting with various organisations on preventing extremism

November 2015 Visit to British Transport Police control centre and a transport policing operation.

January 2016 Visit to St Giles Trust

February 2016 Meeting with the Night Time Industries Association