COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT IS INTEGRAL TO COUNTER-TERRORISM

ACPO CONFERENCE - 23RD MAY 2006

LORD TOBY HARRIS

Next month the Metropolitan Police Authority will begin a series of public hearings as part of our wider programme to engage the community on issues around terrorism and counter-terrorism. What we hope to do is sustain and widen an informed debate on how our society should respond to the terrorist threat. It seeks to enable the community to inform the police of their issues, considerations and tensions. This in turn should lead to better-informed police decision-making. What is more, if this fosters a greater sense of public ownership of the problems, and their solutions, we believe that this will increase the likelihood of generating future community intelligence, build social capital—and therefore resilience—in London, and reduce the likelihood of future terrorist attack.

This is an ambitious objective but I would put it to you that this is an essential component of any long-term and sustainable strategy to reduce the threat from international and home-grown terrorism. There are a number of reasons for this, but at the core of them all is TRUST.

Trust in most public institutions is declining. I am what former Vice President Al Gore would describe as "a recovering politician", so I am as aware as anyone that the level of public trust in politicians and the political process is at what can at best be described as at a low ebb.

There is a degree of cynicism about the threats that we face. That was certainly prevalent before the events of last July. I even remember a meeting in the House of Lords on the evening of 6th July where colleagues were ridiculing some of the security arrangements around Parliament and their necessity.

Those critics—and those elsewhere—were silent the following day and in the weeks that followed. However, as memories fade to some extent of the horror of last July, I again hear people stating that the threat is over-stated or the measures that are being taken to address the problem are disproportionate in terms of their impact on civil liberties. When Ministers warn of the dangers, what they say is discounted and there are mutterings about WMD and Iraq. When there is a raising of the declared level of security alert in the United States, it is seen as a manoeuvre to bolster the position of the President.

Nor are the security services exempt from this. They are implicated in the WMD issue and along with those of you who are police, are accused of talking up the threat so that more resources will be awarded.

So there is a general issue to be faced: how do those of us who are privy to some of the intelligence picture of the terrorist threat convince the wider public that that threat is real and that the measures being taken are justified and proportionate? How much can and should be shared? Is it possible to share enough to convince and at the same time protect the sources on which that intelligence is based (or for that matter convince people that what is being done is sensible but not induce alarm or panic or shut down the UK's tourist industry)?

Striking the correct balance is even more difficult when we start to look not just at society as a whole but at individual communities and sections of communities whose initial reaction to the authorities of the state will be one of suspicion or hostility.

But this is not something that is new. In the late 1990s the Metropolitan Police through Operation Trident rebuilt its relationship with sections of the black community in London and engaged their support in tackling so-called black-on-black killings. And all over the country, police authorities have worked with their local police services to consult local communities about the use of stop and search powers, helping to improve practice and reduce community resentment.

Community engagement also delivers better policing as through that engagement the public can, importantly, give a steer and direction on questions such as what reassures them and what does not, or how to use particular policing tactics in culturally sensitive ways that will command public support.

Building strong relationships with communities is going to be essential for future anti-terrorist work and getting it wrong will not only build resentments that will make co-operation with the police more difficult but are also likely to act as another factor influencing a very small minority to listen to the calls of those promoting terrorist violence.

To understand the problems that we may face, the police need the co-operation and support of all or virtually all strands of community opinion. I am not here talking about the recruitment of covert sources - although the environment in which the police are operating will also have an impact here. I am talking about ensuring that the police understand what is happening within a community, that they are aware of which meeting places are attracting people who may be vulnerable to extremists, and that if there are worries or concerns about particular individuals they are articulated so that the police may monitor them.

None of this can happen without trust and that trust cannot be created overnight. Moreover, it will require a very high level of trust for an individual to voice suspicions about a friend or family member. But even the degree of trust necessary for individuals to talk to the police about community sensitivities will require a consistent willingness by the police to address that community's concerns. The police cannot be just fair-weather friends; they will need to be there all the time.

It is only when individuals within that community have sufficient confidence in police officers whom they know will they start to confide their fears and concerns. And they will only acquire that confidence, once the police officers concerned have demonstrated their willingness to act on other issues that worry the people from that community - and these will often be traditional policing issues about burglary, street crime or anti-social behaviour, as well as matters which are directed specifically at that community. And that confidence will only acquire sufficient strength for more serious matters to be raised when the police officers concerned have shown that they can act appropriately and effectively and, where necessary, with discretion.

In my time as an elected politician, I attended hundreds of community events. At many of them, there was a police presence. However, there was no point in that presence when the demeanour of that officer was such as to indicate that he had drawn the short straw to spend his Saturday afternoon at an event he or she did not understand with people whom he had only limited, if any, contact. Much more important was the presence - the sort of presence I am pleased to say was becoming much more common - where the police officer is obviously known to those attending the event and where the conversations you would overhear with the officer were of the nature of: "you remember that matter I mentioned to you two weeks ago, well now this has happened …."

Today, we have already heard some discussion of what brings about so-called radicalisation. It is a gradual process whereby a tiny proportion of individuals within a community are persuaded to see that the only response to the grievances that they perceive as being practised against their people is through terrorism.

Some of those grievances are international: what is happening now in Iraq, or on the West Bank, or in Kashmir, or in Malaysia, or in Chechnya are all given their place as part of a single narrative; as are issues about the distribution of economic power around the world.

In this country, the role of our government in these issues or its failure to help resolve them becomes a factor. As does the wider sense of discrimination in jobs and wealth against Muslims (even if this is not something that directly affects the individuals concerned). And, of course, the measures that have had to be taken to combat terrorism create their own mythology of prejudice and discrimination. Every inappropriate stop under the Terrorism Act, every horror story about Control Orders and the debates about how long terrorist suspects can be held without charge will all feed—disproportionately— into that sense of grievance.

Now please do not get me wrong, I am not criticising the measures that have been taken to combat terrorism—I am a robust defender of their necessity. I certainly believe that there is abundant evidence that such measures have to be taken given the number of people who have already progressed along a path of radicalisation to a willingness to commit atrocities.

What I am saying, however, is that we must all do what we can to choke off the flow of young people being persuaded to follow down that path those who have already taken that journey. Now in this audience I suspect that there are not many who will be able to do anything of any substance about those international grievances that I mentioned.

However, we all have a role to play in ensuring that there is a strong and deep engagement with communities about what is being done to combat terrorism. The more that people understand why particular measures are being taken, the more they recognise that those measures are being used in a fair and proportionate way, and the greater is the sense that the police service is there for them and provides support to all communities, the more willing will be people in those communities to support the police and the less likely will credence be given to those who try to argue that it is all part of the single narrative of victimisation of that community.

Now none of this is easy. It takes time—time that those who are under pressure to deliver results in terrorist investigations or indeed in any of the policing KPIs will feel that they can ill-afford. However, I believe it is an essential investment. It is certainly not an optional extra.

It is essential, so that the police can demonstrate that they are not fair-weather friends and that they will actively address the wider issues of concern to those communities. It is essential, so that when things go wrong—as they will—that there can be a dialogue, a debate, and perhaps an understanding. And it is essential, so that the police will have the support and perhaps the information that they need to take forward their work.

That is why a community-based approach to policing is so important—and a community-based approach that recognises that the tea stops will not just be with the little old ladies who can be relied on to produce the biscuits and cake. And this must be about much more than just neighbourhood policing, with its natural emphasis on communities of geography, separate investment in engagement with communities of interest and of identity will be required.

That is why engagement with communities is the responsibility of all levels of the service, including the highest, (just as it must be for police authorities, who need to be pro-active in this area particularly as they take on a more strategic focus, and politicians, who must be prepared to sit and listen rather than simply mouth platitudes). Indeed, what is important is that that engagement must embrace the difficult and frustrating meetings, just as much as those where there is a receptive audience. It is only by that sort of engagement that we can hope to carry communities with us and successfully doing so will be essential for all our futures.