Transcript of this meeting [PDF]

Valerie Brasse (AM): I wondered whether I could ask my question on training becauseit does fall --Kit Malthouse (Chairman): No, we have got an order now --Valerie Brasse (AM): Oh all right. I was just going to say it falls within, but there youare.Kit Malthouse (Chairman): I am reverting to the order. We are done with budget in aspirit of we are not sure. Obviously, hopefully, by the next MPA, the picture will be alittle clearer and then clearer again for December. We will, obviously, keep you posted.Right. In the order that they were submitted. Dee Doocey. Your submitted questionabout Mark Saunders.Dee Doocey (AM): You want me to read it?Kit Malthouse (Chairman): Yes please, because the people on television do not know.Dee Doocey (AM): OK. To the Commissioner. In light of the criticism of the MPSfrom the coroner in the inquest of Mark Saunders, can you update us on any action thathas been taken since May 2008 to update firearms procedures in the MPS?Sir Paul Stephenson (Commissioner, MPS): Right. OK. Firstly, I speak for everyonewhen I say, whatever the outcome of the inquest, our thoughts are with Mr Saunders’family.Just dealing with what the coroner said first. The coroner referred to there appearing tobe - and I quote - “A blurring of distinction between two firearms’ roles”. To show whatwe will be doing about what he has already said we will be reinforcing, throughBronze(?) firearms’ command training and bespoke Bronze command training, theimportance of clear distinction. We have heard that message and we will be reinforcingthat distinction through our training.The second point he made relates to the containment of vulnerable people. We havelooked at that. It was clear to those involved in the operation that Mr Saunders wasvulnerable, had been drinking and was acting erratically, including his actions. The aimof the operation and the intent of officers involved was to try to resolve that situationwithout loss of life. Sadly, we could not do that. We were very, very clear of thevulnerability because of the fact that he was a vulnerable person because he had beendrinking.The third point raised by the coroner in a letter to the Home Secretary related to concernsabout the levels of policy and documentation. We have looked at that. We do notbelieve that the policies conflict or provide confusion, however, we will cooperate withwww.merrillcorp.com32