1
 1                                      Wednesday, 7th April 2004
 2   (10.30 am)
 3                        MR TARIQUE GHAFFUR
 4   SIR WILLIAM MORRIS:  Good morning, everyone, and welcome to
 5       the Inquiry, Mr Ghaffur.  Can I start by thanking you
 6       for accepting our invitation to attend the Inquiry to
 7       give evidence, and thank you also for letting us have
 8       your written submission, which we found extremely
 9       helpful.
10           I do appreciate that for some of our witnesses, the
11       process can be somewhat daunting, so I thought it would
12       be helpful if I set out very briefly how we propose to
13       conduct the hearing this morning.
14           But first, let me introduce myself and the other
15       members of the panel.  I am Sir Bill Morris, recently
16       retired General Secretary of the Transport and General
17       Workers Union, and as you can see, there are two other
18       members of the panel.  On my right is
19       Sir Anthony Burden, who recently retired as Chief
20       Constable of the South Wales Constabulary, after a very
21       long and distinguished career in the police service; and
22       on my left is Miss Anesta Weekes QC.  Anesta is an
23       eminent barrister who sits as a recorder and part-time
24       chairperson of employment tribunals.  She was also
25       counsel to the Lawrence Inquiry.
     2
 1           As you know, we have been tasked by the Metropolitan
 2       Police Authority to conduct an independent inquiry into
 3       professional standards and employment matters in the
 4       Metropolitan Police Service.
 5           Our focus is the MPS as an organisation and not the
 6       individuals who make up the organisation.  The inquiry
 7       that we are conducting is inquisitorial and not by
 8       nature or character adversarial.
 9           We are very keen to enquire into the issues raised
10       by our terms of reference so that we can make
11       appropriate recommendations for further good practice
12       within the Metropolitan Police Service.
13           To assist us in our report, you have given us
14       pointers to areas of information which are of great
15       interest.  You have set out for us the background,
16       purpose and content of your review; you have indicated
17       your findings in relation to the effectiveness of
18       service delivered by the Metropolitan Police Service;
19       also your findings in relation to the appropriateness
20       and inclusiveness of Metropolitan Police Service
21       internal processes.  You have addressed the issues of
22       complaints, grievance handling and discipline, and also
23       leadership approaches and style.
24           You have indicated your findings in respect of the
25       Met's legal responsibility and its actions and
     3
 1       recommendations, and finally, you have shared with us
 2       some of the conclusions from your thematic review.
 3           We would like naturally to ask you questions on
 4       these matters, and indeed range perhaps somewhat wider,
 5       exploring those issues which are of mutual interest to
 6       us, but before we move on to have the conversation with
 7       you, by way of inviting you to respond to our questions,
 8       I wonder whether, for the benefit of the transcript, you
 9       would mind just introducing yourself to the Inquiry.
10   MR GHAFFUR:  Good morning, chair; good morning, members of
11       the panel.  My name is Tarique Ghaffur, I am the
12       Assistant Commissioner in the Metropolitan Police,
13       currently responsible for specialist crime.  Specialist
14       crime covers a range of issues, ranging from
15       investigation of homicides in London, serious gun crime,
16       drug supply, economic crime, protection.  I also oversee
17       the intelligence and the forensic assets in London, as
18       well as the crime academy.
19   SIR WILLIAM MORRIS:  Okay, thank you very much indeed for
20       introducing yourself and the areas of your particular
21       interest within the MPS.
22                 Questions by SIR WILLIAM MORRIS
23   SIR WILLIAM MORRIS:  Mr Ghaffur, you have produced a very
24       interesting report, which has national implications.
25       I note that you refer to the BBC television programme
     4
 1       the Secret Policeman in the executive summary of your
 2       report, and this can in fact be found at reference
 3       TXG 1/2.  This portrayed examples of overt racism at a
 4       police training establishment.
 5           You say that brought your task into sharper focus,
 6       and obviously, it formed part of the background to your
 7       thematic review of race and diversity in the
 8       Metropolitan Police Service.
 9           Can I ask, do you think the sort of events shown in
10       the Secret Policeman could happen or repeat itself in
11       the Metropolitan Police Service?
12   MR GHAFFUR:  Well, the Secret Policeman programme, which, of
13       course, did not relate directly to the
14       Metropolitan Police, but it related to a training
15       establishment up north, was the catalyst for my inquiry.
16           As to whether it could happen, I mean, my personal
17       impression in relation to the Secret Policeman, quite
18       clearly, I was absolutely disgusted with what I saw;
19       very concerned, given the scale of the fact that, you
20       know -- I mean, I have been a police officer for
21       29 years, I worked in many different police forces.  We
22       have had high-profile incidents, racial type inquiries,
23       not least the Stephen Lawrence Inquiry, the Scarman
24       Inquiry, various other aspects, so when you put it in
25       the context of that, I was very concerned at the fact
     5
 1       that something could happen, you know, despite the fact
 2       that we had gone through a huge amount of process and
 3       progress in many ways.
 4           You asked me a direct question as to whether it
 5       could happen again: I cannot say that it will never
 6       happen again, I think it could, and I think there are --
 7   SIR WILLIAM MORRIS:  My question was whether it could happen
 8       in the Metropolitan Police Service in particular.
 9   MR GHAFFUR:  Well, I cannot guarantee that it cannot happen
10       in the Metropolitan Police, and in particular, within
11       the training environment, because quite clearly, the
12       people who actually come into the training environment
13       come from various backgrounds, come from various parts
14       of society, and sadly, in parts of society, particularly
15       in London, you know, there are quite clear incidences of
16       racism, et cetera, so I cannot say that it cannot
17       happen, because clearly it can happen.
18   SIR WILLIAM MORRIS:  When you say "training background", do
19       I assume correctly that you are making reference to the
20       Hendon training centre?
21   MR GHAFFUR:  Yes, I am.
22   SIR WILLIAM MORRIS:  Well, whether or not you believe it
23       could or could not happen, the real issue is: what, if
24       any, steps are being taken within the
25       Metropolitan Police Service to ensure that it does not
     6
 1       happen?
 2   MR GHAFFUR:  I think the fact that the Commissioner very
 3       quickly took action in relation to asking me to do my
 4       review -- and the very first task that I undertook as
 5       part of the review, and I was very pleased to undertake
 6       the review, was to actually do a risk assessment, in
 7       terms of what are the risks in relation to us at Hendon,
 8       and frankly, you know, what I found was that we took
 9       some -- a number of immediate steps to ensure, and those
10       steps are very much documented in the review.
11           There is a clear action plan within the appendices,
12       in terms of some of the immediate steps we actually took
13       to ensure that it does not happen.
14           Then there was an issue about trying to unpick
15       really what are some of the other things that can be
16       done, and I have made a number of recommendations in
17       relation to our training environment per se, in terms of
18       addressing some of the issues.
19           So I think we took some immediate steps; part of
20       that included some limited integrity testing, part of
21       that included looking at what the risks were, and there
22       is an action plan, and I can go through the action plan
23       if you want, specifics in relation to what colleagues
24       within the HR department did.
25           Then it was a question of also commenting on the
     7
 1       wider aspect of environment within training itself, as
 2       to -- as far as it relates to, particularly, minority
 3       officers, and I took into consideration comments that
 4       had been made by the BPA report, what has happened to
 5       minority officers as well, so I think collectively, as
 6       far as the Met is concerned, I think we took some
 7       immediate action, and we are continuing to take further
 8       action in terms of developing and ensuring that training
 9       is an environment where if there is any kind of racist
10       behaviour, that is immediately dealt with.
11   SIR WILLIAM MORRIS:  We are talking about in excess of
12       30,000 police officers.  Has an individual letter gone
13       out to every single police officer from the Commissioner
14       to make it absolutely clear to the individual that under
15       no circumstances will the sort of behaviour which was
16       manifesting itself in the Secret Policeman be tolerated
17       in the Metropolitan Police Service?  I hear what you say
18       about the generality of approach; what I am sure my
19       colleagues and I would wish to hear is the specifics of
20       what action has been taken by the Metropolitan Police
21       Service to ensure that this behaviour does not take
22       place in the Met, and if it did, every single police
23       officer would be aware of the consequences.
24   MR GHAFFUR:  I think the review obviously was a commitment
25       to show that we are going to take some immediate action.
     8
 1       Beyond that, from where I am sitting, I am not aware
 2       that an individual letter went out, but the way the
 3       management team of the Met communicates is -- I know
 4       that there was a fairly strongly-worded communication
 5       that went out through our intranet system.
 6           I know that the Commissioner has used every
 7       opportunity to talk about not accepting any behaviour,
 8       whether it is based on race, gender, sexual orientation,
 9       and some of those he himself does through a significant
10       amount of visible leadership which he displays in
11       meeting officers and in conducting focus groups.
12           I also know that collectively, we all attend what
13       are called "mission, vision, value" events, which are
14       large scale events, where officers are there, and again,
15       on a number of occasions, I have heard him in particular
16       absolutely make it very clear, but, of course, the
17       Commissioner is just the leader of the organisation.
18           I think the important thing is that it permeates
19       down to every other leader making the same
20       pronouncements, and I myself have made it absolutely
21       clear to my 5,000-odd staff that we would not tolerate,
22       you know, any behaviour that is based on race, gender,
23       sexual orientation, disability, et cetera; so I think
24       collectively, if you put all that together, there has
25       been a very significant message from the top in relation
     9
 1       to what is acceptable and what is not acceptable, but
 2       I cannot, chair, mention -- I am not aware whether there
 3       was a personalised letter sent to 40,000-odd or
 4       44,000-odd staff.
 5   SIR WILLIAM MORRIS:  We have heard evidence that there is
 6       a culture within the Metropolitan Police Service where
 7       the victims always lose, and the perpetrators win.  Do
 8       you recognise that culture at all?
 9   MR GHAFFUR:  Well, I think -- I mean, in the sense -- that
10       is a fairly generalised statement, in terms of, you
11       know, without -- yes, there are case studies, quite
12       clearly, I considered some of those case studies, where
13       a person who, for example, had made a grievance --
14       because of the length at which the process had
15       undertaken, that the person who made the grievance
16       almost became the victim.
17           I myself, because of the unique position I am in as
18       one of the significant role models for ethnic minority
19       communities, from time to time have examples from people
20       where I think, "Hang on, this person has actually made
21       a grievance or raised an issue, but the process itself
22       is taking over", and I comment about that in my report,
23       which is becoming almost disproportionate.
24           But to say that there is a pervasive culture right
25       across the organisation, I am not sure, because equally,
    10
 1       I have heard about cases where there are individuals who
 2       have really championed the cause for making sure that
 3       the person who is making a grievance or the person who
 4       has made a complaint or the person who has whistle
 5       blowed against somebody almost does not become a victim.
 6           So yes, there are cases, you know, well documented
 7       cases -- there are cases that have been brought to my
 8       attention, because of the unique position I am in, but
 9       I would not say that that is a culture that permeates
10       right across the organisation, and I think I do comment
11       about some of the issues in my review.
12   SIR WILLIAM MORRIS:  You describe the culture that
13       I imparted to you, from the evidence that has been
14       offered to us, as a generalised statement; would it be
15       helpful if we were able to indicate some specific
16       instances to justify that evidence?
17   MR GHAFFUR:  I think, as I said, chair, I am myself aware;
18       so, for example, I considered the BPA report in relation
19       to what is happening to ethnic minorities, particularly
20       at Hendon.  There were some issues in there which I can
21       very clearly relate to.
22           I do have a number of, you know, specific examples
23       where people -- so I am not saying that there are no
24       specific examples of that happening.
25           What we have to look at is why that is happening,
    11
 1       and for example in my report I found that, you know,
 2       sometimes, particularly on minor matters, instead of
 3       taking a pragmatic approach, there was an overemphasis
 4       on formalising the thing and then passing it up the
 5       chain, and I found examples where somebody made
 6       grievances -- rather than become a human issue, in terms
 7       of trying to tackle some of those aspects, it almost
 8       became an administrative process, and I myself have come
 9       across, you know, areas where things have been referred
10       in my workplace to me.
11           So, chair, I am very aware of the examples, and that
12       manifests into the way people react, but if you want to
13       pose me a couple of questions or examples, I might
14       comment on them.
15   SIR WILLIAM MORRIS:  Okay.  You have said that you, in your
16       command, have communicated with your 5,000 staff, 5,000
17       people for whom you are more or less directly
18       responsible.  What form did your communication take to
19       your 5,000 people for whom you are responsible; was it
20       a personal letter, or was it the intranet again?  What
21       was the method of communication; can you help us?
22   MR GHAFFUR:  I myself, given the unique nature, in terms of
23       victims and perpetrators, coming from communities in
24       London -- I have a very open style in terms of, firstly,
25       communicating with the public; I regularly go out to
    12
 1       consultative groups, because it is important -- the
 2       reason why we are here is to deliver services and make
 3       London safer, so I go out, I must speak to 200 to 300 or
 4       400 members of the public a month around serious crime
 5       and organised crime issues.
 6           Similarly, internally, you know, I am extremely
 7       visible, I go out myself at least once a week, sometimes
 8       twice, to go and visit my officers on the frontline, and
 9       actually talk to them on the first -- on a face-to-face
10       basis, and some of these things that are talked about
11       are made very clear.
12           I have a personalised -- the issue about
13       communication is two ways, it is not just one way, just
14       sort of talking down to people and giving them the
15       message.  I have a personalised website on the
16       specialist crime intranet where they can ask me, my
17       officers -- "Ask ACSC", where officers can ask me, very
18       clearly, questions or raise issues in relation to any
19       matter, professional or personal.
20           I hold focus groups, like the Commissioner does; so
21       I have used every opportunity -- I have large scale
22       intervention exercises.  So I have used each one of
23       those to actually ensure that the message in relation to
24       what I stand for is well communicated, and I think my
25       officers see that visibility as well, because
    13
 1       I publicise where I am going, what I am actually doing.
 2           So I think I have reached out to the majority of my
 3       staff, but there may be pockets where I have not.
 4   SIR WILLIAM MORRIS:  Do I take it that your reference to you
 5       communicating with the 5,000 officers and staff who are
 6       under your direct command was an indirect communication
 7       and not a direct communication to the individuals?
 8   MR GHAFFUR:  Not sending individual letters, no.  Yes,
 9       through using the mediums that are open to me, yes.
10   SIR WILLIAM MORRIS:  In the light of the Secret Policeman,
11       and having regard to the magnitude of damage to the
12       national police service, do you not think there is
13       a case for a senior officer of the Metropolitan Police
14       to write to every individual police officer to make it
15       absolutely clear that the behaviour was not acceptable
16       and would not be tolerated in the Met, and the
17       consequences for that sort of behaviour would be spelt
18       out?
19   MR GHAFFUR:  I think if you mentioned that -- was there
20       a need to directly write to individuals in relation
21       to -- well, I did not do that.  I mean, what I did was
22       follow the Commissioner's example, in terms of making
23       sure that I used every opportunity to bring -- but
24       whether there was a direct -- whether, in hindsight,
25       that would have been a possibility, perhaps yes.
    14
 1   SIR WILLIAM MORRIS:  I have your report in mind in relation
 2       to that question, on the recommendations, and I am
 3       asking you whether, in the light of your inquiry, the
 4       magnitude of the concerns, the implication for the
 5       police service nationally -- against that background,
 6       and we will hear from others about the Met itself,
 7       whether the judgment for a direct communication to
 8       officers was justified or not.
 9   MR GHAFFUR:  I think in the overall aspect of -- in relation
10       to the magnitude, the scale of it, the risks to the
11       reputation, et cetera, my answer would be yes.
12   SIR WILLIAM MORRIS:  As a result of your review, Mr Ghaffur,
13       on race and diversity issues, what lessons do you think
14       need to be learnt within the Metropolitan Police
15       Service?
16   MR GHAFFUR:  I think I very clearly commented -- I mean,
17       what I did was I took sort of a golden thread approach
18       in my review, and what I did was looked at service
19       delivery, then, as you quite clearly said, chair,
20       I looked at recruitment, retention, career development,
21       leadership; and then looked at how we are progressing in
22       various reports.
23           I think the messages for me, in terms of the overall
24       messages, are that, you know, the job in relation to
25       tackling race and diversity per se is not finished.  We
    15
 1       started on a very significant journey, particularly in
 2       relation -- my review was very race-specific, and I do
 3       accept that there are wider aspects in relation to
 4       diversity; but the job in relation to race was very
 5       significantly -- I mean, the Lawrence Inquiry was the
 6       wake-up call, a serious wake-up call, in terms of the
 7       way we deliver services.
 8           I very clearly also realised that the diverse nature
 9       of London itself is a major opportunity rather than
10       a challenge.  The Met have done very significant things,
11       post-Lawrence, in the way it delivers its services, the
12       way it actually sort of manages some of its internal
13       processes, but there was a lot more to be done, and the
14       headlines for me really were that in service delivery,
15       I identified four areas: clarity around stop and search,
16       an issue around, "Are we engaged sufficiently with young
17       people?", the challenge of new communities in London,
18       and very clearly, issues around quality of service.  So
19       there were some lessons that I put on the table in
20       relation to that.
21           In relation to the recruitment aspect, there was
22       a lot of good news, in the sense that if you look at the
23       recruitment trend in relation to visible ethnic
24       minorities, it is pretty upwards, particularly since
25       1999, but there were some issues around the way the
    16
 1       recruitment process operates, so I made a number of
 2       comments in relation to that as to whether, you know,
 3       that recruitment process was appropriate.
 4           In retention, you know, the statistics are very
 5       clear: in relation to the small number of people who
 6       leave the Met, a large proportion of visible ethnic
 7       minorities leave within the first two years, and then
 8       there is another chunk that leaves after five years.
 9           Now as to a real understanding as to why that is
10       happening, I comment on that.  On career development,
11       the absence of role models across the organisation is
12       a big issue.  The issues around specialist -- the
13       challenges around having representation within
14       specialist departments was a real big issue.
15           On complaints, really, the issue about particularly
16       the perceptions around how complaints are dealt with,
17       the issues around the process itself, and more
18       importantly, I think, to wrap up the leadership
19       dimension, whether there was sufficient -- we have done
20       a huge amount of work in building leaders' capabilities
21       and skills in the way we deliver services, but is there
22       sufficient emotional leadership engagement on race and
23       diversity issues internally; whether we need to do more.
24           And quite clearly, you know, the challenge of having
25       role models really, so chair, if I -- so those are some
    17
 1       of the headlines which I found through my report.
 2           But I must add, you know, in the context of all
 3       that, the Met -- and I have worked in other police
 4       forces as well -- frankly has moved a long way, but
 5       quite significantly, it is not enough, there is a lot
 6       more to be done.
 7   SIR WILLIAM MORRIS:  I said earlier, and I say to all our
 8       witnesses, that we are not just interested in what is
 9       wrong with the Met, we are equally keen to hear about
10       what is right, but most importantly, what we really are
11       about is: what can we collectively do to make it better?
12           Looking at your report, can you identify for us,
13       please, what you think represents the most important
14       contribution that would assist this Inquiry?
15   MR GHAFFUR:  I think in my report, I summarise basically in
16       the conclusions, effectively, what I feel are really
17       absolutely important in improving the organisation.
18           I think there is a real issue about valuing
19       individuality and difference to a far extent.  That is
20       a real, real point, and that is about, to me, what
21       diversity is really about.  It is about valuing -- you
22       know, people who are displaying difference,
23       individuality.
24           I have been amazed that when you go beyond the way
25       we deliver services, what I am saying is: please be more
    18
 1       people-centred, as opposed to procedural-centred,
 2       because you are dealing with people.  Particularly where
 3       you have got a greater level of difference and
 4       individuality, the expectations and everything else are
 5       different, there is a real need to take sometimes
 6       a practical, pragmatic -- you know, a leadership
 7       interventionist approach to treat people as perhaps we
 8       as leaders would like to be treated ourselves.
 9           I talk about focusing on creating and developing
10       strong leaders for whom diversity is actually a real
11       central tenet, you know, that is a thread that -- it is
12       not all about just strategy and policy, and having nice
13       documents and having procedures; it is actually about
14       transferring belief and behaviours, and almost walking
15       the talk.
16           Finally, what I am saying is that we need to be more
17       dynamic in finding creative, innovative, staff-friendly,
18       diversity-proof solutions to problems, and I think a lot
19       of those solutions to problems actually lie with
20       actually the staff who work in the sharp end, who can
21       give the ideas.
22           Finally, I think there is -- we just need to be
23       a bit more brave on things such as positive action,
24       where we prepare people and we make sure that we
25       effectively are, you know, allowing people to be able to
    19
 1       be represented right across the organisation.
 2           The only other point I would make is that where
 3       people make mistakes, I mean, the issue about blame --
 4       where people make mistakes, then frankly, I think the
 5       learning that comes out of the mistake is more
 6       important, and that learning has to be transferred into
 7       the workplace, and what I am saying is we can have loads
 8       of reports, loads of recommendations, loads of boxes
 9       ticked, but actually, at the end of the day, you are
10       dealing with people, so there has to be a more whole
11       approach to people.
12   SIR WILLIAM MORRIS:  Sure.  The Metropolitan Police Service
13       has been described to us as -- how was it put -- "policy
14       rich, implementation poor".
15           Firstly, do you share those views, but be that as it
16       might, what steps are being taken to implement the
17       recommendations in your report, given, as you say, the
18       report is one thing, but we need to have more than nice
19       documents, and the cynics would say, "Another lovely
20       glossy document".
21           But the question is: what steps are being taken to
22       implement the recommendations in your report?
23   MR GHAFFUR:  I think the -- yes, there is a danger of this
24       document becoming, you know, another document on
25       a shelf.  I am very conscious of this, but I think the
    20
 1       process that I have adopted is in the sense that I did
 2       the report in quite a fast time, in relation to
 3       delivering the results on it.
 4           That report went into a consultation phase, and
 5       I got quite significant comments from it being
 6       a brilliant piece of work to it being awful really, but
 7       a number of those comments have been included, in terms
 8       of making it more rich, because the greater the
 9       involvement, the better.
10           The final draft has now been produced; unfortunately
11       the draft got leaked, so there was a public dimension to
12       it.  Once the final draft -- this is going to be very
13       much -- quite clearly will form part of your Inquiry,
14       chair.  There is a lot of debate around the report going
15       on within the Metropolitan Police Authority.  There is
16       also further dialogue with the consultative groups and
17       other stakeholders, and what I would hope is once it has
18       been finalised entirely, that the recommendations would
19       be fed into the Deputy Commissioner's diversity forum,
20       which involves all the stakeholders, and that there
21       would be a fairly strong, robust plan that would support
22       that.
23           But in addition to that, some of the real nuggets in
24       the report are the softer measures, the cultural, the
25       issues that we could put right because, again, the
    21
 1       recommendations can be ticked; I would hope that there
 2       would be greater debate around how we -- within the
 3       management board, and I have already initiated, to start
 4       to say, "Well, how do we actually permeate the
 5       organisation in relation to that?"
 6           The test of the pudding would be, really, if in
 7       12 to 18 months, there is a health check done,
 8       a compliance check done, to see whether these have been
 9       complied with, because my experience is unless you
10       really do that sort of check ...
11           So quite clearly I will do as much as I can, but
12       I think there is a commitment within the management
13       board, and there is a commitment within the MPA to
14       actually progress matters, so let us see what happens.
15   SIR WILLIAM MORRIS:  Thank you very much.  I will pass you
16       on for further questions to Sir Anthony.
17                 Questions by SIR ANTHONY BURDEN
18   SIR ANTHONY BURDEN:  Good morning.  I want to deal in more
19       detail with Hendon, if I may.  Our reason for being so
20       concerned about Hendon, I am sure you would share this
21       view, is because it is the cultural gateway into your
22       organisation; that is why it is so important.
23           Your comments, I think, start at page 28 of your
24       report, but contextually in relation to the size of the
25       organisation, at the bottom of page 29, you very
    22
 1       helpfully give the staffing levels at Hendon; TXG 1/29.
 2       (Pause).  It is your paragraph 1.15 anyway; we may have
 3       to go from the manuscript, I think.
 4           Maybe we can do this manually, it is probably
 5       better.  But you make reference there to the fact that
 6       there are 180 police officers, and you give a gender and
 7       ethnicity breakdown.  Five police staff employed in
 8       recruit training, which is a very large staffing level,
 9       no question about that.
10           On my page 30, but the next page of your report, you
11       make the point, and quite properly you made us aware
12       this morning that you were conscious of three major
13       reviews already having been undertaken into training at
14       Hendon, and therefore your review really was a snapshot
15       in time, and you have outlined what you have done to
16       assist your report in relation to Hendon.
17           Under paragraph 1.15.4, "Recruit training stage:
18       diversity issues", you make some helpful comments about
19       the competence of the majority of the trainers to
20       deliver diversity training, and also to deal with
21       difficult issues.
22           Could you just enlarge on that and assist us more in
23       relation to that matter?
24   MR GHAFFUR:  Yes, I think the context in which I was coming
25       from -- I mean, as you quite rightly say, training is
    23
 1       your gateway.  I mean, recruitment is your gateway;
 2       I think the way you deal with people on recruitment
 3       tells a lot about the image of your organisation, how it
 4       operates, but I -- when I started to look at the
 5       training in relation to, quite clearly, diversity issues
 6       amongst trainers -- because if it is a gateway, then the
 7       people who are delivering it have got to be your
 8       champions.
 9           You know, they have to be your ambassadors, really,
10       who walk the talk, and what I found was that given the
11       fairly significant amount of recruitment that we had
12       done -- I mean, it was something like 3,400 officers.
13       In context terms, we recruited more people than the
14       establishment of some police forces.
15           Quite clearly, there is a lot of pressure on people
16       to deliver volume, and I think that in that context they
17       have done a magnificent job, but I think the important
18       thing was that when a recruit person comes into
19       training, they need quite a bit of support; they need
20       support through their individual circumstances in which
21       they are coming in -- because they come from different
22       backgrounds.  They need mentoring, in terms of support
23       to the way they are going through what is a fairly
24       formalised environment.
25           They have to be -- if you are going to meet
    24
 1       individual needs, as opposed to collective needs, they
 2       have to be counselled at times, and coached at times, so
 3       there has to be a personal dimension to that.
 4           Then also, more importantly, in diversity terms,
 5       people have to really understand what diversity means to
 6       them, and they have got to sort of live and breathe it,
 7       frankly.
 8           What I found was that they were trying to -- the
 9       trainer was trying to do all of that, and the impact of
10       training that had been given to them, which is, you
11       know, one week diversity training, is just not
12       significant.
13           What I commented upon -- I said, "Look, you know,
14       they need some support mechanisms that actually can
15       deliver support to them, rather than leaving them" --
16       because if you add on top of that they almost were line
17       managers as well, because our recruits go out as well,
18       it is just not do-able.
19           So the issue I posed was, you know, if you are going
20       to have personal tutorials, which I recommend, if you
21       are going to have people who are going to look after
22       needs and expectations of a very diverse -- if you are
23       going to deal with some serious discipline issues if
24       they emerge, et cetera, then frankly, the support
25       mechanism, and in particular the focus group I held, the
    25
 1       personnel function, you know, which can provide that
 2       sort of support mechanism, had been brigaded with the
 3       recruit function, so in fact had been more centralised.
 4           I was just saying: look, you know, all those areas,
 5       you cannot have one person doing it, because they will
 6       get beleaguered by it.  That is the context in which
 7       I was making those -- and I was wondering whether some
 8       of the difficulties that are quoted as individual case
 9       studies were because of that.
10   SIR ANTHONY BURDEN:  Can I come back to that perhaps later?
11       Because I think that is very important from our
12       viewpoint, to try and exactly understand what it is you
13       are recommending, and in report terms, trying to assist,
14       perhaps, the case that you are making.
15           Could I move on then to the issue of the culture
16       which exists at Hendon?  We are talking diversity as
17       well, not just race.  Because we have heard some
18       conflicting evidence; we heard earlier in the Inquiry
19       that there were some genuine concerns about the culture
20       at Hendon in relation to behaviour, particularly around
21       sexism, racism and behaviour that could be perceived as
22       bullying.
23           The commander in charge at Hendon said, "Well, if
24       only evidence could be brought of individual cases",
25       then he would look at them, but he felt that much of it
    26
 1       was around speculation.
 2           If I could just put up on the screen what I consider
 3       to be more substantial evidence -- and I will put these
 4       up one at a time, so that you have an opportunity to
 5       read them.  First is the insistence that Muslim officers
 6       drill and parade, which is unnatural and embarrassing
 7       for Muslim women to do.
 8           Second is those who wished halal food at Hendon; if
 9       their name was not on a list, then quite simply, they
10       could not have it, and Muslim officers felt that was
11       very demeaning, and actually identified them out as
12       being different.
13           The third is the challenge to an officer that he
14       could not grow a beard whilst he was at Hendon; if
15       I could say in support of this particular statement, we
16       have had an individual submission from an officer who
17       had to bring in a religious leader to convince the
18       member of staff that what he was asking for was nothing
19       more than his rights in relation to his religious
20       beliefs.  Then, in fact, he found that there was
21       a policy in the Metropolitan Police which would have
22       explained everything to the trainer, had he looked.
23           Fourth is in relation to Muslim male officers, and
24       sensitivity as to the way they shower after physical
25       exercise at Hendon, and then no tolerance when they
    27
 1       decide to go back to the room and shower, and as
 2       a consequence are late for lessons; they then get
 3       penalised as a consequence.
 4           And really the statement there that all people are
 5       seeking really is that they be treated as human beings,
 6       and some understanding; I think that was something you
 7       said in your values statement, to the chairman, as to
 8       what you felt to be most important.
 9           Then another short series of examples, where concern
10       was raised by a witness about the culture generally, in
11       a very pressurised environment.
12           Then an example where it was felt that there were
13       pressures, possibly quite rightly, on students to do
14       well, but these pressures were brought to bear in a less
15       than humane way, which could be interpreted as
16       a bullying atmosphere.
17           Then when issues such as appearance came into play,
18       how that was dealt with, in this particular case to the
19       extent that the officer felt so pressurised that
20       an issue of untidy hair -- we have had an opportunity,
21       you have not, I am sorry to say, to see the photographs
22       of the officer concerned, and the untidiness certainly
23       comes into question, as to the judgment around whether
24       the hair was untidy, if you are willing to accept that
25       from me.
    28
 1           You yourself have said you have experienced case
 2       studies being brought before you, and I just really want
 3       to ask whether you can relate to the sort of facts that
 4       you have seen on the screen, because these are all
 5       issues that are on the transcript of this Inquiry as
 6       having been brought before us.
 7   MR GHAFFUR:  Sure.  I can relate -- because of the unique
 8       position I am in, I mean, quite clearly, as a Muslim,
 9       some of the things you told me there, I can relate very
10       personally to them as being inappropriate.
11           Secondly, I can relate examples of these sort of
12       things which have been brought to my attention
13       personally, which I have had to deal with.
14           In the context of my inquiry -- I mean, if I took
15       a forward look -- I was really pleased.  I mean, there
16       is a perception about Hendon, you know, and there is
17       a danger of the perception about Hendon being the same
18       as perceptions about other district training centres.
19           The fundamental difference is that Hendon trains for
20       the Met, and in many ways, you know, it is a continuing
21       from recruitment into training, whereas in other parts
22       of the country, they have to go to another island site.
23           So yes, I had read, you know, I was aware of
24       examples.  I personally myself have dealt with a number
25       of examples.  So I went to Hendon with a very open mind,
    29
 1       in terms of conducting my review.
 2           What I was encouraged -- I was encouraged by the
 3       developments now taking place within Hendon, and in
 4       particular, the very flexible approach to training and
 5       development that is being encouraged particularly at
 6       Sunbury and various other places, so there is a lot of
 7       good practice going on, but even when I was there, I had
 8       to intervene -- as I said to you, we had to take some
 9       immediate actions.
10           I had to intervene in three or four instances where
11       I can relate to specifically issues that I think, to
12       a certain extent, may in reality make Hendon
13       an unfriendly environment, or in real terms, there may
14       be evidence that there is difficulties.
15           So, for example, I do comment in my report about the
16       danger of fast-tracking people, and then you put
17       a minority officer there who is being fast-tracked, with
18       a white officer who has not, and possible backlash of
19       that.  I comment about that in my report.
20   SIR ANTHONY BURDEN:  Yes, you do.
21   MR GHAFFUR:  An issue that I had to deal with, that was
22       brought to my attention, was around halal food, that
23       halal food was being served, but it was being served at
24       the end of the chain, and almost there was separatism,
25       in terms of people having to go for that food and sit
    30
 1       separately, and I intervened, and put -- you know,
 2       worked with the management to put that right.
 3           There was an issue raised around showers, not in the
 4       context of the Muslim officer that you raise here, but
 5       in the context of a Sikh officer, and I think again, we
 6       took very quick remedial action in relation to that.
 7           I comment about possibly the alien environment,
 8       because if you are going to recruit Londoners from very
 9       diverse communities, very different backgrounds, to put
10       them in a different environment creates some challenges,
11       so I talked about the island mentality, the drinking
12       culture, and how people can fit in into that.
13           So I think, you know, there are examples -- I talk
14       about in my report for Hendon to revisit what is
15       happening to our -- in the minority report from the
16       MBPA.  So I think, you know, in the context of examples,
17       they are there, and I can very clearly relate to them,
18       and issues that need to be addressed.
19           But I think the encouraging side for me was
20       effectively that certainly, I found that there were
21       a number of things that colleagues in HR and training --
22       and within the diversity directorate, as well as the
23       DOIT team -- that had in train that actually will start
24       to change some aspect of -- you know, some aspects of
25       the environment that operates.
    31
 1           You know, I came across another example where
 2       a person -- a minority officer had failed most of their
 3       exams, but had huge life skills, and then joined another
 4       police force, and passed and transferred into the Met.
 5           So, you know, I think these examples are indicators
 6       of culture, and I think we have got to listen to them
 7       and take some note of them, but on a broader front,
 8       I must say that in the context of some of the -- you
 9       know, I was pleasantly surprised in many ways, given the
10       perception that existed about Hendon, and what
11       I actually found, that there was a lot of good practice
12       that people were conscious of and wanted to implement
13       and move forward, and I know that is continuing.
14           The issue about militaristic -- you know, that is
15       an old cliche.  I mean, I am nearly in my 30th year of
16       my police service.  The issue about, you know,
17       hierarchical, militaristic, rank-based organisation,
18       against a much more looser approach -- I think you have
19       to look at the context of the job we do, and frankly,
20       I am still a believer that there has to be an element of
21       discipline, there has to be an element of hierarchy, to
22       provide -- particularly deal with the command and
23       control type of environment, that people like me in my
24       job have to deal with, and manage the risks and deliver
25       some of the operational aspects of it, and some of those
    32
 1       are very highly risky.
 2           So I think, you know, I do not -- a bit of me just
 3       still says that having pride and being disciplined --
 4       and I am not saying go over the top with it, but having
 5       some sort of regulation actually is not a bad thing.
 6   SIR ANTHONY BURDEN:  Can I then take us into the future,
 7       because as the chairman said earlier, we are concerned
 8       with putting things right, and helping the organisation
 9       get things right, and making recommendations which are
10       sensible, and which matter.
11           If I can refer you back to the end of 1.15.4, on
12       your page 31, I think it is, where you talk about the
13       pastoral care unit, and initiatives which are being put
14       in place.  You see, it might be that the staff at Hendon
15       feel they are not being racist, not being sexist, not
16       intending to bully, but that their style of training is
17       actually in the interests of the Metropolitan Police,
18       that they do need the help that you suggest they need
19       because they are under such pressure cooker conditions
20       there to get these recruits through the process, there
21       is just too much to take regard of, and there is not
22       even time to train them right in terms of diversity;
23       there needs to be stronger policing of insensitivity
24       around diversity.
25           Is that a fair comment?
    33
 1   MR GHAFFUR:  Stronger policing and intolerance of people who
 2       breach that.
 3   SIR ANTHONY BURDEN:  And intolerance, yes.
 4   MR GHAFFUR:  And identifying that at an early stage; yes,
 5       I agree with that entirely, because if you do not take
 6       swift action, then that has a danger of, you know,
 7       a level of acceptance that should be not acceptable, and
 8       that is well preached by the top management, you know,
 9       and many leaders in the organisation.
10           I think the issue of our training, whether --
11       I mean, I would like to see more support for trainers,
12       I think that is -- in the current context of the way we
13       deliver training, but to me, from the point a person
14       wants to join this organisation, particularly Londoners,
15       and particularly very diverse Londoners, then the
16       training dimension of it, and the continuous
17       professional development dimension of it, becomes
18       almost -- you know, end-to-end, lifetime experience.
19           Just boxing that off there and boxing that bit of
20       that there and boxing it -- I just do not see that you
21       can completely eradicate some of the problems that
22       occur.  You know, it has got to be the whole person
23       approach, where people are bringing lifestyles -- that
24       is why I recommend that those should be captured early
25       on, used in CCRU, you know, then taking them through
    34
 1       a process of continuous learning, so whilst they are
 2       waiting they can learn, making a more flexible approach
 3       to training, which is what they are moving towards.
 4           If that means staying at home, fine; and if that
 5       means a modular approach, that is fine, and then the
 6       continuous development of people, and weaved into that
 7       is positive action initiatives.
 8           I think the crucial point is that mentally, we are
 9       still seeing positive action as positive discrimination,
10       because we are looking for fairness for all.  Well, you
11       know, what we learn from delivering services to the
12       community post-Lawrence is that you cannot have a one
13       size fits all service for everybody.  What you have to
14       do is customise and value that individuality and
15       difference, so I think -- you know, yes, if you are
16       going to leave it as it is, then provide more support,
17       but I recommend a completely -- a more community-centric
18       recruitment approach, a more flexible type of training
19       that is being delivered, and a more continuous
20       professional development that links into career
21       development, et cetera.
22           Those may be fine words, but I think they are
23       deliverable, they really are deliverable, but I think it
24       needs to be looked at as a whole, because otherwise you
25       look at little pieces; I just do not understand how that
    35
 1       can work, frankly.
 2   SIR ANTHONY BURDEN:  I mean, the long-term aim is one
 3       I would share with you: you are looking for each trainer
 4       to have the skills to deal with all issues, including
 5       diversity issues, in a sensitive and understanding way.
 6   MR GHAFFUR:  Sorry, not only skills, but they should easily
 7       be able to call upon support if they need to, and feel
 8       comfortable about doing it.
 9   SIR ANTHONY BURDEN:  Can we just talk about that?  Because
10       obviously, there is a short to medium-term issue here,
11       that you cannot skill up people that rapidly, and
12       obviously, you are suffering under immense resource
13       difficulties to staff up at Hendon, which as we
14       understand it, is almost working on shifts to get
15       recruits through as required.
16           To allow young female Muslim recruits, and gay
17       recruits, and all minority groups within the diverse
18       workforce that you are trying to create, to go back to
19       their communities and their friends at the weekend and
20       say, "My experience at Hendon is one where diversity is
21       valued", what can we assist you in doing, through
22       recommendations, that would assist with a short-term fix
23       as well as the longer-term aspirations, which I think
24       you absolutely articulate within your report, and the
25       way to get there is well-founded, I think, in your
    36
 1       recommendations.
 2           But I think you recognise we cannot wait for that,
 3       because there are holes that need to be plugged.
 4   MR GHAFFUR:  I think there are three -- some of the clues
 5       are in the report.  I mean, the first thing is that when
 6       people arrive there, for God's sake, let us have some
 7       personal tutorials, where you elicit expectations.  We
 8       do that in other areas, where there is a statement of
 9       expectations into what are the needs, what are the
10       expectations.  You cannot do it on a group basis.  So
11       I suggest here there should be personal tutorials, in
12       terms of ...
13           The second thing is appointment of some professional
14       staff to just support things such as mentoring,
15       counselling, so that there is a third party reference
16       point, so that if there is any difficulties, they can be
17       mediated out.
18           The third thing which I mention here is very much
19       community involvement in Hendon training, so setting up
20       of an IAG type, where community members of those sort of
21       diverse colleagues can be actually reflected within the
22       accountability framework of training.
23           So I think, you know, if you said to me, "What are
24       the immediate solutions?", one is: see individuals very
25       quickly and elicit -- you know, build their confidence,
    37
 1       that if there is an issue it will be dealt with; have
 2       some professional support; and frankly, some of it does
 3       need professional support, and we do that in other
 4       areas.  I do it in child protection, where, you know,
 5       people are given professional occupational health
 6       support, et cetera, and that is compulsory.
 7           Thirdly, get a community engagement in, that builds
 8       accountability in terms of delivery, and then robustly
 9       monitor what is actually happening, frankly.
10           Because I think in a humanistic approach -- the
11       culture I am trying to have in my set-up is that if you
12       make a grievance, if you are unhappy within the
13       workplace, we should be celebrating that, not sort of
14       dismissing it as, you know -- and then we should take
15       immediate action in dealing with it.
16           Yes, there will be challenges you will never be able
17       to meet -- because some of the reasons why people may
18       leave is because of their expectations -- the job choice
19       may not be what they thought it was going to be, so
20       inevitably, we are going to get some casualties around
21       it.  That is why I recommend that there should be
22       pre-employment induction, a proper one, so people
23       understand what the realities of the job are really.
24   SIR ANTHONY BURDEN:  Just finally from me, it was mentioned
25       in relation to Hendon that staff associations could see
    38
 1       a clear distinction in terms of the culture, the
 2       atmosphere and the behaviour at Hendon when a particular
 3       individual -- I am not identifying the individual, but
 4       it is the type of individual who gave very clear
 5       leadership at middle management level at Hendon, as to
 6       what was and was not acceptable behaviour, and what
 7       culture would exist.
 8           Would you agree that that sort of overt leadership,
 9       and the selection of people that can do that well, is
10       important in a training environment?
11   MR GHAFFUR:  Yes, because in an operational environment --
12       I mean, I call that intrusive leadership, not
13       necessarily down the chain, but when you have to manage
14       issues, you sort of give that very clear message; yes,
15       I certainly would concur entirely with you, because
16       people are very clear as to where they stand and where
17       they do not.
18   SIR ANTHONY BURDEN:  Thank you very much, indeed.
19   SIR WILLIAM MORRIS:  We should be moving on to Miss Weekes
20       now, but I think it is probably an appropriate time for
21       us to take a very short break for the benefit of the
22       stenographers, about five to seven minutes.
23   (11.38 am)
24                         (A short break)
25   (11.52 am)
    39
 1   SIR WILLIAM MORRIS:  Okay, Mr Ghaffur, I will pass you
 2       straight over to Miss Weekes for some questions from
 3       her.
 4                     Questions by MISS WEEKES
 5   MISS WEEKES:  Thank you very much, Assistant Commissioner.
 6       We are rather grateful that you have come to give
 7       evidence; you are the most senior visible ethnic
 8       minority officer of Assistant Commissioner rank, and
 9       with 30 years in the force, it would be very helpful if
10       I could go back to the general matters that you have
11       raised in your report, which are not specifically to do
12       with visible ethnic minorities, but to do with every
13       officer and staff in the force.
14           The first of those issues are the management issues,
15       the management issues of people, informal resolution of
16       disputes at work.
17           I think you would agree with me that the hallmark of
18       a country's judicial system is how it treats those who
19       are accused of a wrong and the victims of a wrong, and
20       Britain is pretty high up there, so equally, the way the
21       Met Police treat people who have been accused of
22       a wrong, and those who say they are a victim of a wrong,
23       is absolutely crucial to your reputation.
24           Do you think the line management of disputes
25       generally is good?
    40
 1   MR GHAFFUR:  I think you are absolutely right in terms of
 2       the hallmark, in terms of, you know, victims, and people
 3       who are accused.
 4           I mean, I would just add the issue about -- which
 5       I have to take into consideration around
 6       proportionality, around the human rights dimension.  So
 7       I think you are absolutely -- so I agree with that
 8       statement entirely.
 9           I think we have made efforts in dealing with
10       particularly grievances and other things, and we have
11       moved on from where we were, but I still think there is
12       quite a long way to go, because from a personal
13       perspective, and also, I am a leader of an organisation,
14       which is 5,000 strong; to me, as I said earlier on, if
15       somebody -- say somebody gets -- makes a grievance, as
16       an example, in the workplace, I think the mindset should
17       be that that is a positive thing.
18           The second thing is that there should be
19       face-to-face communication to try and resolve that
20       matter at the earliest opportunity, and the line
21       manager, being the next person, is absolutely key.
22           The third thing is that the procedures that should
23       exist behind it should be aimed at bringing early
24       closures.  So, for example, when I first came into the
25       Met, the grievance procedure, I thought, was so
    41
 1       administrative that it often did not bring any closure,
 2       it just went on and on, and there were dockets about
 3       that thick, in terms of what had been done.
 4           I introduced my procedure, because as a Deputy
 5       Assistant Commissioner, if a grievance got to my level
 6       and had not been resolved earlier on, then basically,
 7       you know, I had a kind of a hearing to listen to the
 8       views of the various people, and I put a written
 9       submission.  At times, if I had to apologise, or if a
10       manager had not got things right, it was said; at least
11       it brought closure.
12           I think sadly what I am seeing in my professional
13       experience and my personal experience is that there is
14       closure -- the closure for some people, particularly
15       from minority groups or gender, at the end of the day,
16       is a tribunal, and that in business terms is usually --
17       I mean, in reputation terms, in terms of losing
18       a valuable human resource, is a huge problem.
19           On the other hand, you know, sometimes, for white
20       officers, there is no closure, but at least I closed it.
21       You know, I gave a judgment; if they liked it or not --
22       and it was amazing that I did not get a significant
23       amount of comeback on that, in the sense that yes, some
24       managers did not like what I was saying about them, in
25       terms of me saying, "Well, you got it wrong".
    42
 1           In the same way, as far as complaints is concerned,
 2       if there are serious criminal allegations, and if there
 3       is serious corruption, and there is serious discipline
 4       around integrity, et cetera, of course that has to be
 5       investigated, and it has to be investigated with
 6       rigour -- because as a publicly accountable body, there
 7       is a need, and that is why I welcome even the
 8       independent oversight over it.
 9           Where there are minor demeanors, the critical
10       issue -- the test I apply is if one of my officers has
11       done something wrong, the first thing is: how many times
12       did we get it right?  Often, I find that actually, in
13       the context -- because everybody can make mistakes,
14       everybody can misjudge, in terms of where they come
15       from, so how many times did we get it right?
16           The second thing is: what is the learning from it?
17       Is that person becoming defensive about it, are they
18       learning from it?
19           If the person exactly knows what they have done
20       wrong, the learning is there, frankly, we have got it
21       right 99 per cent of the time, and I can give examples
22       where I have actually personally intervened in this
23       particular aspect; then frankly, why should we get into
24       a judicial process, you know, that just runs on and on
25       and on, and actually, ultimately, does nobody any good?
    43
 1       It does not do the organisation good, it victimises the
 2       person, it permanently damages, sometimes, people.
 3           So I think, you know, what I am saying here is that
 4       the more the decentralised the approach is, the more
 5       empowerment and people are supported to make decisions
 6       at the earliest opportunity, the better the support they
 7       have, they need support -- and to be fair, I think the
 8       Fairness at Work procedures, for example, have started
 9       to do that.
10           Where there are problems, things can be mediated
11       out, and a more practical and pragmatic approach -- of
12       course, that is what should happen, but I am not
13       undermining in any way the serious cases, the crime, the
14       corruption, and serious elements around integrity,
15       because they are fundamental to the way we operate in
16       this country.
17   MISS WEEKES:  Can I agree with you on the question of the
18       importance of integrity, and separating out of the
19       debate the very serious conduct issues, and can
20       I concentrate on everyday workplace conflicts that, if
21       not handled adequately and sensitively, could result in
22       an employment tribunal case, or simply a status quo,
23       which means the officer or staff are unhappy?
24           One of the things that is crucial to the resolution
25       of a dispute is the character and quality of the person
    44
 1       who is line managing; that is obvious, is it not?
 2   MR GHAFFUR:  Yes.
 3   MISS WEEKES:  I did not understand, before sitting on this
 4       panel, that every officer who is promoted automatically
 5       has the role of line managing.  When you become
 6       a sergeant, you automatically line manage.  When you go
 7       up the rank, as an inspector, there are more people to
 8       line manage.  So it is clear from that that there is no
 9       prerequisite of having to have the qualities of a good
10       line manager; am I right?
11   MR GHAFFUR:  I think the line manager is almost
12       effectively -- well, there are competency profiles,
13       there are profiles written down around what the
14       competencies should be.
15   MISS WEEKES:  Is it written specifically for your ability to
16       deal with personnel issues and line management?
17   MR GHAFFUR:  No, I think the competencies are fairly
18       generic, in terms of the various dimensions that need to
19       be -- I think the challenge for me is that almost a line
20       manager has to be technically and operationally
21       competent, to deal with operational issues, should
22       provide operational leadership, which is much more, as
23       I said, you know, sharper, command and control, various
24       other -- is rank-based.
25   MISS WEEKES:  But operational issues have nothing to do with
    45
 1       handling people at work.
 2   MR GHAFFUR:  Right, and that is where I think the challenge
 3       is.  One minute you have a manager who may have been
 4       promoted, a sergeant, inspector, chief inspector, for
 5       strong operational competence, ability to -- you know,
 6       has credibility in terms of operational achievements, he
 7       has a clear understanding of how to command and control
 8       firearms incidents and various other things.
 9           Suddenly, if you put them into a supervisory or
10       managerial chair, that is about more managing the
11       organisation, it is more role-based, in terms of people,
12       in terms of resources, in terms of managing, you know,
13       the environment, et cetera.
14           I think -- I comment in my report that I have seen
15       supervisors and managers delivering services, I have
16       seen them interacting with diverse communities, diverse
17       people, we build capability around training and
18       investment and various other aspects, and I have seen
19       them operate really well.
20           I have certainly seen that person sitting internally
21       within a supervisory chair, that they do not operate,
22       and I think the biggest challenge is building that
23       capability.
24   MISS WEEKES:  Can I deal with that in detail?  That is the
25       reason for my questions.  I am going to go back to my
    46
 1       question, because it may be important to us, and we
 2       really would like your help, because of your seniority.
 3           Is there anywhere in the present system of promotion
 4       a built-in priority that a line manager must have the
 5       minimum recognised qualities and skills to line manage
 6       and to deal with personnel issues?
 7   MR GHAFFUR:  I am not aware, other than the competency
 8       framework, so --
 9   MISS WEEKES:  Right, so the answer probably is that it is
10       not really there in terms of a very specific separate
11       priority, that your skills in terms of management and
12       personnel issues must be of a particular recognised
13       level before your promotion.
14   MR GHAFFUR:  And you mean both, technical skills and people
15       skills, really?  Because you need technical skills to
16       understand --
17   MISS WEEKES:  Of course, I have understood your comments
18       about operational and technical skills; that is taken as
19       read.  That is what the police are very good at, and
20       they have a profile for that, but this Inquiry has
21       recognised, from the evidence we have gathered, that
22       there is a consistent complaint from the majority of
23       your white officers, from the minority of your officers
24       and staff, there is a problem about line management.
25           So can I take it, because I want to move this on now
    47
 1       to how we are going to improve it, that you agree with
 2       me that there is not really, within the system of
 3       promotion, a very specific priority that any officer who
 4       goes for promotion up the ranks must have the recognised
 5       minimum requirement for the skills of line management
 6       and personnel issues?
 7   MR GHAFFUR:  I have not seen the recent competencies for
 8       sergeants, inspectors, chief inspectors, et cetera, the
 9       national competencies; I am aware of the ACPO
10       competencies.  If they are missing, that is
11       a fundamental gap, because to me, once you get into
12       supervisory ranks and you get into leadership ranks,
13       your spans of control increase, et cetera, as you quite
14       rightly say.
15           The big issues for me, in terms of competence, are
16       you have to be operationally competent, you have to be
17       able to deal with people issues, and people issues come
18       in the hard and soft approach.  The hard is
19       understanding what the discipline procedures are,
20       understanding what the various other procedures,
21       policies and practices are, and the soft aspect is about
22       the morale, the motivation, the communication, dealing
23       with, you know, disputes, et cetera --
24   MISS WEEKES:  Why is it soft?  Why do you use the word
25       "soft"?
    48
 1   MR GHAFFUR:  I use "soft" in the sense that they are much
 2       more people-centred.  I mean, they are very hard to
 3       approach, but they are very soft in the sense that you
 4       have to take individual needs and expectations into
 5       consideration.  So it is in that context I use the word
 6       "soft".  The management of resources is becoming very
 7       important, you know, how to manage money, et cetera, and
 8       inclusion of that is capability to manage -- nowadays,
 9       the capability to manage technology, in particular.
10           So I think if that is not reflected, the people
11       dimension, that is a fundamental gap.
12   MISS WEEKES:  Well, let me be fair: it may well be
13       reflected, but not as a priority.  I am sure somewhere
14       in your training programmes, there must be some
15       reference to line management, but as far as you are
16       aware, it is not a priority for promotion.
17   MR GHAFFUR:  But it should be.
18   MISS WEEKES:  All right.  I would like to take you to
19       a short passage which came up from questions asked of
20       a senior ACAS officer, in relation to what he said would
21       be the prerequisite for a good line manager.
22           Now you will not have read this, so I am going to,
23       as it were, just read out the bits which are applicable.
24       He was asked a question, it may well have been by
25       myself, or one of the panel members, "What is required
    49
 1       for a good line manager?", and he said this:
 2           "The first one, if I could describe them, is
 3       intellectual; someone needs to have the capacity to
 4       quickly cut through the detail and understand what the
 5       issues are in a variety of very different industries."
 6           Further down:
 7           "The second area, I would say, would be about their
 8       personal skills, and it would seem to me that there are
 9       two which are crucial.  One is this capacity to be
10       objective and not to be a prisoner of the past, in terms
11       of what your experience or what your history says.  So
12       there is an issue about objectively collecting the
13       evidence, if you like, the facts, on which there should
14       be no disagreement; you know, trying to get consensus on
15       the facts.
16           "The second personal attribute, I think, is
17       judgment, sound judgment, which I would say is rooted in
18       common sense, but there is not a lot of people have got
19       common sense.  It is just the capacity to sit down and
20       make a sensible judgment based on common sense.
21           "The third one is impartiality, that if the mediator
22       cannot project themselves as being impartial, then they
23       will have lost the confidence of either of the parties.
24       So it is an interesting person that you are after now."
25           Right down further, please, to the next page:
    50
 1           "But I think that it is the key, you know, it is
 2       good forensic intellectual skills.  You do not have to
 3       be a brain surgeon by any stretch of the imagination,
 4       but you have to be able to understand things.  The
 5       capacity to be impartial; and good judgment."
 6           I am pretty sure you are going to agree with
 7       absolutely every aspect I have read out.
 8   MR GHAFFUR:  I think that is a fair assessment in terms of,
 9       you know, skills one would require to almost be
10       a champion in a workplace.
11   MISS WEEKES:  Now are you aware as to whether or not
12       officers who line manage know that that kind of
13       requirement is necessary to resolve everyday workplace
14       disputes?
15   MR GHAFFUR:  Well, I am not aware that, you know, all of
16       them actually know, but what I do -- I mean, I can
17       rattle out, you know, people who I meet on a regular
18       basis, or I speak to on a regular basis, across the
19       organisation, who display a lot of those particular
20       skills.
21           I also meet people who do not, and I think the key
22       issue for me particularly, in the context of resolution
23       of minor grievances, minor complaints, is that issue
24       around cutting out the complexity of what is being
25       presented to you, but presenting a -- making a judgment
    51
 1       on common sense is absolutely crucial.
 2           The issue for me is: why do people not do that?
 3   MISS WEEKES:  Can I take you to that issue?  There is no
 4       doubt -- and the seven or so staff representatives who
 5       have come to give us evidence have all, very fairly,
 6       every single one, said that there are good people in the
 7       Met, there are good line managers, there are good senior
 8       officers; but there are those who are appallingly bad.
 9           I am now going to move on to what happens to bad
10       line managers, because it is quite clear that a lot of
11       people get it right.
12           The staff associations tell us that the bad ones are
13       moved to another area, they are promoted, which
14       effectively means they perpetuate bad line management;
15       is that right?
16   MR GHAFFUR:  Well, I mean, that is a very subjective
17       statement to make, in terms of -- because to me, you
18       know, yes, I do -- I mean, the context of what is good
19       and bad depends on where you are sitting, what you are
20       doing, what background you actually come from,
21       et cetera.
22           To me, I think the reason -- I mean, what I found in
23       my study, in particular, there are three or four reasons
24       that I have found people to be bad.  One is, frankly,
25       you know, this is one extreme in terms of people who are
    52
 1       bad, who are racist, who are really -- you know, have
 2       got value systems that have no place in this
 3       organisation.  Now, I know taking very punitive action
 4       in relation to tackling those is fine.
 5           I have come across people who are -- because of the
 6       very high nature and profile, particularly, of ETs and
 7       various other aspects, and race issues and diversity
 8       issues, they are under fear.  They do not -- you know,
 9       they find it very difficult -- so what they do is
10       instead of taking that pragmatic, common sense view,
11       they effectively take the procedural route and pass
12       things on to other people to deal with.
13           I have come across people who are extremely good --
14       narrowly focused, you know, who are extremely good at
15       what they do operationally, but may not be so good at
16       dealing with organisational issues, and I think the big
17       issue there is not whether they are bad, but the big
18       issue there is actually: have you built their
19       capability, have you built the skills to actually
20       deliver what we are expecting them to -- and that goes
21       back to the clarity --
22   MISS WEEKES:  Mr Ghaffur, do you have a problem with the
23       description: "a bad line manager"?
24   MR GHAFFUR:  I do not have a problem in describing somebody
25       who is bad, I have a problem in just not understanding
    53
 1       really what the reason for that badness is --
 2   MISS WEEKES:  Well, you have given three examples.
 3   MR GHAFFUR:  There is a fourth one, and the fourth one is
 4       actually having people -- role models, frankly, people
 5       who can put themselves in the shoes --
 6   MISS WEEKES:  Let us come back to role models -- I am sorry
 7       to interrupt, but I really would like to finish this
 8       rather important issue.  Some people are good
 9       operational officers, and some people are bad line
10       managers, and one of the reasons why you may be a bad
11       line manager is because you do not deal with issues of
12       performance with your staff very well, you persistently
13       and unfairly refuse to promote a credible staff member;
14       those are just two classic examples which have nothing
15       to do with race.
16           Now that is a bad line manager, is it not?
17   MR GHAFFUR:  Yes.
18   MISS WEEKES:  Right, can I just move on: what should happen
19       to bad line managers?  Should they be demoted?  Should
20       they have the role of line manager taken away from them?
21       I have just given you two possible solutions.  Are
22       either of those a good idea, or is it simply not
23       practical to do it that way?
24   MR GHAFFUR:  No, I think, as a leader, you cannot fudge it.
25       I mean, if there are managers who are bad, the first
    54
 1       issue as a leader is for you to be able to give very
 2       clear feedback.  So when you are conducting the
 3       appraisal, be objective, and I think the point about --
 4       is to give them very clear feedback.
 5   MISS WEEKES:  Suppose they still remain incompetent or bad
 6       line managers after at least two or three feedbacks;
 7       what do you do then?
 8   MR GHAFFUR:  I think if there is feedback, you know, and --
 9       there is feedback, there is remedial -- you know,
10       because I think what I mentioned, the development of
11       staff is a partnership between the organisation and the
12       individual.  If there is remedial action taken, in terms
13       of improvement, et cetera, frankly, if all that is
14       failing, then you have to have regulations in place --
15       I mean, I know what would happen in industry, I know
16       what would happen in the private sector, you would fast
17       track -- you know, you would sack people.  You would be
18       able to ask people to resign.  You would be able to
19       place people in roles, despite their rank, that they are
20       competent at.
21           Because otherwise, it does not make any business
22       sense, because if you continue to, as you put it,
23       promote these people to reach a level of incompetence,
24       then frankly, the damage they can do to you, the
25       organisation, often themselves, is very significant, so
    55
 1       the issue is about intervention, this issue is about
 2       leadership taking action, and whatever the regulations
 3       are, supporting that action to be taken.
 4           I think sometimes what tends to happen is that when
 5       people are bad, rather than biting the bullet and taking
 6       the action, we start to look at other ways of dealing
 7       with them, and that is not productive.
 8   MISS WEEKES:  Well, you did mention in that explanation the
 9       word "sacked".  Can you help this Inquiry: does the
10       Metropolitan Police, in your experience, consistently
11       take a robust approach to sack officers who consistently
12       show they cannot line manage?
13   MR GHAFFUR:  Well, I am not aware of an example.
14   MISS WEEKES:  Right, well, if it is not sacked and you are
15       not aware of an example at all --
16   MR GHAFFUR:  Although I have dealt with it, myself,
17       personally -- as a leader, quite clearly, I have dealt
18       with a number of instances where remedial action has
19       been put in place, but I am aware of people being sacked
20       for discipline, I am aware of people being sacked, you
21       know --
22   MISS WEEKES:  Well, that is probably gross misconduct, or
23       a conduct issue.
24   MR GHAFFUR:  But I have not heard of an example of a person
25       being sacked in relation to incompetence, in terms of
    56
 1       performing the role of management.
 2   MISS WEEKES:  You have an incompetence procedure which we
 3       have heard is very rare to be adopted; is that right?
 4   MR GHAFFUR:  That is true.
 5   MISS WEEKES:  Well, why is that?  If you have it, why not
 6       use it?
 7   MR GHAFFUR:  I think we should.
 8   MISS WEEKES:  I am just interested in why it has not been
 9       used.
10   MR GHAFFUR:  I think there may be -- and I can speak from my
11       sort of context: there may be an issue around frankly
12       our appraisal system, where people may not be given --
13       I have just done an exercise in my set-up where I have
14       looked at the standard distribution in terms of ratings
15       by officers on appraisals.
16           What I have found is that in a standard
17       distribution, you should have about 10 or 15 per cent of
18       your people who are underperforming, you should have 10
19       or 15 per cent who are overperforming, and the rest are
20       in the middle.  There is a tendency, when I look at it,
21       to be skewed right on to the other side, in terms of 70
22       or 80 per cent of people.  So I think there is an issue
23       around appraisal; me and my senior colleagues in HR are
24       looking at ways in which that can be made objective.
25           I think there is a cultural issue around effectively
    57
 1       feedback, whether people are given very clear feedback
 2       by supervisors, line managers; and I think the third
 3       issue may well be whether we are robust enough in really
 4       getting to grips with some of the difficult issues and
 5       difficult people, so the combination of all three may
 6       lead to a point where, frankly, we are not making use of
 7       procedures that exist.
 8   MISS WEEKES:  You will agree that if you do not take
 9       a robust approach to dealing with line managers who do
10       not perform, or who are just plain bad, you leave
11       an atmosphere and a culture of unhappiness and
12       dissatisfaction, even if it is only a small percentage?
13   MR GHAFFUR:  Yes, and I think you leave -- not only
14       a culture of dissatisfaction, you leave a perception of
15       double standards, which is not helpful, and I think that
16       actually, you know, then has a potential to cause quite
17       serious harm.
18   MISS WEEKES:  Can I go back to the "why"?  Forgive me, it
19       may be that I did not hear your answer.
20           Why do you think senior officers of your rank or
21       perhaps slightly below do not take a more consistent,
22       robust view to invoke the dissatisfactory performance on
23       line managers, or to simply remove them from the post of
24       line managing?  Why do you think that is?
25   MR GHAFFUR:  I think if I was to sort of give one reason why
    58
 1       that is, I think there is an issue about -- to me, there
 2       may well be an issue about confidence and capability, to
 3       really get to grips with it.
 4   MISS WEEKES:  Or is it because, as some of the staff
 5       associations and individuals tell us in their
 6       submissions, there is a feeling that when you start
 7       moving up the ranks, you do not do a lot to rock the
 8       boat; you protect your rank, and you protect your fellow
 9       senior officers from criticism.  That is what we hear;
10       is that right?
11   MR GHAFFUR:  Well, I know where I stand with this, frankly,
12       you know, in terms of trying to protect what is not
13       protectable is not appropriate.  There may be an aspect
14       in terms of a group culture operating that may present
15       that perception.  My view is very clear, that from the
16       work I have done, I come across a huge number of people
17       who are performing a very efficient role, who do the
18       sort of things that have been talked about in here.
19           We do sadly have a number of people -- and to me,
20       some of that is related to confidence, capability, and
21       I think some of it is sometimes related to leadership
22       not gripping the issue and dealing with it, frankly, and
23       it needs to be dealt with.
24           But I think to generically say, "Well, hang on,
25       there is a massive group culture operating here", which
    59
 1       almost is counter-productive to what we are trying to
 2       achieve, I think we would very quickly -- given the
 3       visibility of certainly the Commissioner, the top team,
 4       we would be able to pick that up very quickly, but I do
 5       appreciate that there are issues around confidence and
 6       capability, there are bad managers, there are issues
 7       that we need to reflect on.
 8   MISS WEEKES:  Are you saying that there is no evidence, as
 9       far as you are concerned, of an element -- I do not
10       suggest that it is 100 per cent, but there is an element
11       of senior officers protecting their rank and protecting
12       other senior officers from criticism?  Reluctance to
13       want to bring about a procedure that might cause
14       a senior officer to lose his job?  There is no evidence
15       of that?
16   MR GHAFFUR:  No, there is evidence.  What I am saying is
17       there is no universal evidence that this is happening in
18       a widespread -- of course there is, and often, when
19       I counsel officers, they do talk about group culture,
20       they do talk about protectionism, and I have actually
21       reflected that as one of the barriers in terms of career
22       development.
23   MISS WEEKES:  How can you change that sort of approach?
24       Because that is an aspect we have understood makes staff
25       and junior ranks very unhappy.
    60
 1   MR GHAFFUR:  The way you change it -- the way I have dealt
 2       with it in my set-up, what I have done is I have
 3       actually introduced -- I think it is about confidence,
 4       allowing people to speak up.  If they are not happy --
 5       and what I have done in my set-up is after the 12 months
 6       as head of specialist crime, I brought external people
 7       in to look at me and my command team, and I asked those
 8       external people to conduct a 360-degree appraisal of how
 9       I am doing and how my command team is doing.
10   MISS WEEKES:  Did you do well?
11   MR GHAFFUR:  Well, not really, not in all areas, there were
12       areas of improvement, but it is about honesty, it is
13       about creating a culture where people, if they are not
14       happy -- to say so, it is about honest feedback, and it
15       is about gripping the issues, frankly, and giving the
16       people the confidence to deal with what are difficult
17       issues.
18   MISS WEEKES:  Is your approach of getting an external
19       assessor, as it were, quite common?
20   MR GHAFFUR:  No.
21   MISS WEEKES:  Would you like it to be common?
22   MR GHAFFUR:  I think as part of the continuing development
23       of where we come from, where we are, and the number of
24       good things that are happening, I think ultimately, yes,
25       that would be quite a thing to do.
    61
 1   MISS WEEKES:  If we were to consider -- because my
 2       colleagues and I have not discussed it yet -- a possible
 3       recommendation which was the minimum skills for line
 4       management and dealing with personnel issues must be
 5       shown before someone is promoted, how do you think the
 6       Met would take that?
 7   MR GHAFFUR:  No, I think the Met would take it very
 8       positively, because the whole ethos of what we are
 9       trying to do as the top team is to decentralise the way
10       we deal with people, the way we manage our money, the
11       way we give people empowerment within the framework to
12       actually operate, so -- and the way we are trying to
13       become community-centric, in terms of delivery of our
14       services.
15           So I think in the context of doing that, the
16       challenge will be whether you can go one step ahead and
17       have mechanisms in place to allow people to assess
18       themselves against how they are actually doing,
19       almost -- rather than an assessment process, more of
20       a development process, and then identifying what the
21       gaps are, and then creating some mechanisms in terms of
22       how that can actually be supported, so there would be
23       quite a bit of investment.
24           If you try to do -- you know, that being more of the
25       same in a different way, I am not sure that that would
    62
 1       really permeate down, but I think in the ethos of what
 2       we are seeking to do -- but it will present challenges
 3       in having mechanisms, the tools to deliver that kind of
 4       approach.  But I am sure our HR colleagues, in the way
 5       they are approaching it at the present time, are up for
 6       that.
 7   MISS WEEKES:  Would you be happy with a change of emphasis
 8       on the reply, "I have been promoted to the rank of
 9       inspector because I am an excellent line manager and
10       I am good at people skills, but I am also good at
11       firearms"; it is a change of emphasis, because your
12       first comment to me was that one of the criteria is
13       operational skills.  You simply did not mention
14       personnel skills at all when you first began to talk
15       about line management.  So that is what comes over, that
16       it is operational; it is operational but people come
17       last.
18   MR GHAFFUR:  I think we have been moving towards that
19       context.  When I joined the police many years ago, and
20       I operated in police forces, people were promoted
21       because they did a fantastic job in the current role, or
22       they were promoted because of their operational -- just
23       operational competence, of achievements.
24           Now in some areas of work, that is very necessary.
25       Frankly, in my area of work, where you have got homicide
    63
 1       investigators and various other very specialist
 2       investigators, that is very necessary, because it is in
 3       rank where those particular technical competencies in
 4       detectives actually exist.  So that is not a bad thing.
 5           I think the danger is not to throw that away,
 6       because we still need people with operational skills, if
 7       there is a firearms incident, or there are public order
 8       incidents, or there is a critical incident, but I think
 9       the emphasis in shifting that into a more holistic
10       approach to also take on the wider responsibilities for
11       the roles, which hereto may have been centralised, is
12       not a bad thing to do.
13           But there is a danger -- culturally, you are
14       shifting from rank to role, and rewarding role, and
15       secondly, you have to have the tools to deliver that,
16       you know, in terms of assessment, training, various
17       other aspects, and providing that is put in place, that
18       is absolutely a move in the right direction.
19   MISS WEEKES:  The resolution of disputes generally covers
20       quite a wide area, and Fairness at Work, just very
21       briefly, are you happy with how that is developing?
22       Because it is still quite new, and there are issues
23       there obviously to be developed.
24   MR GHAFFUR:  Yes.
25   MISS WEEKES:  The trade unions for the Met say they would be
    64
 1       rather keen to have independence thrown back into
 2       Fairness at Work, and have it back centrally dealt with
 3       by HR; do you agree?
 4   MR GHAFFUR:  No, I do not.  I think the movement of the
 5       Fairness at Work procedure, with a greater emphasis on
 6       early resolution, with support by advisors, trained
 7       advisors, if needed, by intervention through mediation
 8       to achieve early resolution, is absolutely the right
 9       way.
10           My fear is that -- and that sits very closely to
11       line managers taking responsibility for managing their
12       people, et cetera.  My fear is that if you centralise,
13       you know, and things get centralised and decentralised
14       structurally, that you could almost create an island,
15       which I have commented about in terms of my report, on
16       complaints and various other aspects, that is
17       counter-productive, in the sense that that becomes
18       an island in itself, and it almost goes back into
19       another administrative quagmire.
20   MISS WEEKES:  One of the reasons why the trade unions put
21       that forward is because there is now developing
22       a practice, I do not know how widespread it is, that the
23       Fairness at Work advisors are being taken from the same
24       area of command in which, for example, a line manager is
25       the subject of complaint.  Did you know that was
    65
 1       happening?
 2   MR GHAFFUR:  No, I did not know that, but I think the
 3       Fairness at Work advisor, I am informed, is chosen
 4       really for their skills, is chosen and trained to
 5       deliver, just as I would do with family liaison officers
 6       in murder investigations, et cetera.
 7   MISS WEEKES:  Forgive me, it is not the skills; I am dealing
 8       with the independence of that Fairness at Work advisor.
 9       It would not be the best practice, would it, to have the
10       Fairness at Work advisor come from the same command
11       where he might know the line manager?
12   MR GHAFFUR:  I think if -- this is again identifying the
13       expectations.  I think it would be desirable for the
14       organisation.  I mean, independence comes from many
15       other sources, you know, the network organisations
16       provide independence, because a number of problems are
17       sent to them, but I think organisationally, the
18       independence in relation to Fairness at Work advisors,
19       so there can be clear feedback, if needed, to be given
20       to a supervisor, in the way they are dealing with it,
21       I would agree with -- I would concur with, and I think
22       that would give more confidence to people.
23   MISS WEEKES:  One of the other general complaints, and
24       I appreciate it is a general complaint, I will move to
25       a specific example in a moment, a specific example that
    66
 1       in fact involved yourself, is when officers are moved,
 2       they are moved into a cushier position, or nothing
 3       appears to happen, or if they resign or are dismissed,
 4       they come back to the force after an appeal.
 5           Can I just flag up the statistics which we obtained?
 6       Between 2001 and 2003, 68 officers were dismissed and/or
 7       resigned, or were required to resign.  30 of them were
 8       reinstated on appeal.
 9           Now let me say straight away I am not going to go
10       into the detail of individual cases; these are general
11       statistics, and within those statistics there must be
12       credible, good examples of why an appeal was allowed.
13           But may I refer very briefly to a case that you were
14       involved in, not remotely to be personal or to attack
15       you, I would not possibly do that, but simply to get you
16       to help us with how the Met deals with this particular
17       procedure.
18           There was a case that involved two females who
19       raised sexual harassment against the same officer.  One
20       of the females was being supervised by that officer, so
21       there was a line management situation there.
22           Complaint was made by both females of the officer;
23       he was suspended, pending disciplinary charges.
24       Two years later, not necessarily very unusual for that
25       time, it was around 1999, disciplinary proceedings were
    67
 1       held, the officer was dismissed.  He appealed, he was
 2       reinstated.
 3           Now you dealt with the appeal.  We have received
 4       a written appraisal from one of the females concerned
 5       that you dealt most politely and sensitively with
 6       explaining to them why the decision was made, and the
 7       nature of the appeal, so there was no personal criticism
 8       against you as such.
 9           One of the matters raised by the women was whether
10       you knew, when you considered reinstatement, that that
11       officer had previously been suspended for assaulting
12       a female.  Did you know that at the time?
13   MR GHAFFUR:  Okay, I think you are talking about an
14       individual case here.
15   MISS WEEKES:  Yes, I am not going to mention names or
16       details.
17   MR GHAFFUR:  I very clearly know that case, in the sense
18       that, as you rightly mention, in terms of my
19       accountability, I personally saw the officers concerned
20       and explained why --
21   MISS WEEKES:  And they clearly appreciated that.
22   MR GHAFFUR:  -- I made my decisions.  I think, quite
23       clearly -- I mean, I made the decision based on
24       a criteria which I use, and the criteria I use, without
25       going into the details of the case, was three things
    68
 1       which I use when I look at the appeal.
 2           I look at -- I apply a test of reasonableness,
 3       because reasonableness extends both to victims as well
 4       as to people who are ...
 5           I applied a test of fairness, you know, is what has
 6       happened and being presented fair in the circumstances?
 7           Thirdly, you know, I looked at proportionality, in
 8       terms of: is it proportional?
 9           But as the current procedures, in terms of review,
10       stand, they are from a very narrow perspective of the
11       proceedings and the circumstances of the case, and very
12       narrow in terms of the information that is provided to
13       you.  There is no historical information presented as
14       part of that review, and I think --
15   MISS WEEKES:  So you did not know that there had been
16       a previous suspension for assaulting a female?
17   MR GHAFFUR:  The procedure as it stood was from a very
18       narrow perspective.  I have to look at -- and that is
19       embedded in the regulations, you know, whether there had
20       been any previous history, previous suspensions,
21       previous disciplines, or whether -- you know, what was
22       the organisation's issue around similar cases.
23           We recently now have some very clear guidance in
24       terms of how we should approach that, which is very
25       helpful.
    69
 1   MISS WEEKES:  How recently has there been a change?
 2   MR GHAFFUR:  The guidance has just come out, I would say
 3       a month ago.
 4   MISS WEEKES:  One month ago?  So that is extremely recent.
 5   MR GHAFFUR:  It is recent, yes.
 6   MISS WEEKES:  So can I take it that the need for this new
 7       guidance was because this procedure was clearly
 8       unsatisfactory in ensuring that there was a consistent,
 9       credible approach to the discipline, suspension and
10       resignation of officers, and their right to appeal?
11   MR GHAFFUR:  No, the guidance was very specifically for the
12       conduct of reviews that are conducted by Assistant
13       Commissioners.
14   MISS WEEKES:  But it does go to the root of the credibility,
15       of which officers remain and which officers leave the
16       force.
17   MR GHAFFUR:  It goes on the credibility of what actually --
18       we are examining the propriety of the original decisions
19       made by the tribunals, nothing else.  As I said, I have
20       very clear criteria that apply in terms of -- now quite
21       clearly, we do not in that procedure get any previous
22       information, and we still do not, any previous history,
23       unless it has been presented within the considerations
24       of the tribunal, and often they are not, but in these
25       new procedures now, the presenting officer is present in
    70
 1       the review, and the defending officer, and their
 2       representatives, and we have very clear guidance in
 3       terms of what we can do and cannot do.
 4           However, as I said, in this particular case, I went
 5       beyond procedure in actually seeing the officers and
 6       explaining to them.
 7   MISS WEEKES:  Is there anything wrong with that?  That is
 8       rather good people management, is it not?
 9   MR GHAFFUR:  Yes, exactly.
10   MISS WEEKES:  That officer is back in the force; yes?
11   MR GHAFFUR:  I presume so.  Yes, he was reinstated.
12   MISS WEEKES:  Well, he was reinstated.  What support was
13       given to the two women, who remain very unhappy about
14       this outcome?
15   MR GHAFFUR:  Well, I personally had seen them, and during my
16       meeting with them, I had offered any further support
17       that is required.  I am not aware what happened
18       thereafter.
19   MISS WEEKES:  You have not followed it up yourself?
20   MR GHAFFUR:  I personally have not, no.
21   MISS WEEKES:  Can I turn, please, to just three other
22       shorter but rather crucial issues?  Some people in the
23       Met, probably some people outside of the Met, may take
24       the view that the race agenda has swamped all other
25       agendas in relation to how people are treated fairly; do
    71
 1       you think that is probably right?
 2   MR GHAFFUR:  Yes.
 3   MISS WEEKES:  As a result, there is a bit of a backlash.
 4       You have actually referred to that.  If I can
 5       conveniently bring it up on the screen, I think it is at
 6       your page TXG 1/57.  This is your final report which you
 7       have very kindly submitted to us, so in fairness, it is
 8       clear that you have identified it.
 9           Here we are.  If you look at the screen, you say
10       here:
11           "There are many diverse people within the
12       organisation that feel that the high-profile nature of
13       race and diversity issues has a perverse or retarding
14       effect rather than a positive or progressive impact.
15           "This arises from the fact that usually when race
16       and diversity issues are raised, it is from a negative
17       perspective when the organisation 'knee jerks' or
18       overreacts.  This puts ethnic minorities and other
19       minorities constantly under the spotlight or under
20       scrutiny that others do not have to endure."
21           Can I just raise another element of the backlash
22       which we, the panel, are concerned to ensure that we
23       take on board?  It is the way white officers feel about
24       the high priority given to the race agenda.
25           Do you think there is now a feeling of, "Well,
    72
 1       I have heard so much about race, I am being told I have
 2       to go to diversity training, it appears that line
 3       managers are soft on ethnic minority officers, they are
 4       not being pulled up for things, I am not happy about
 5       it"; is there that kind of feeling in the Met now?
 6   MR GHAFFUR:  Yes, I think -- I mean, I come to it from two
 7       perspectives.  I come to it from the perspective that
 8       I am part of an organisation, and my view in relation to
 9       that perspective is that the wider diversity agenda, and
10       that includes, you know, gender issues, sexual
11       orientation, disability, age, makes absolutely brilliant
12       sense --
13   MISS WEEKES:  Forgive me, my question was not relating to
14       what your view of the diversity agenda was, it was very
15       specific: apart from what you have identified in your
16       document, very sensibly, I suggest, that there is
17       a backlash for ethnic minorities, is there also
18       a backlash for the way that white officers now feel
19       about this high-profile agenda?  Is there or is there
20       not?
21   MR GHAFFUR:  Yes, I believe there is.
22   MISS WEEKES:  Well, it seems to me that that would be
23       disastrous, if the well-meaning race agenda, developed
24       understandably since the Stephen Lawrence Inquiry, is
25       now having a negative effect instead of a positive
    73
 1       effect of joining black and white officers together to
 2       work together; do you agree?
 3   MR GHAFFUR:  Well, again, I comment of the dangers of
 4       separatism in my report.
 5   MISS WEEKES:  So how can we remedy that?  Because I think
 6       you can take it that my two colleagues will agree with
 7       me, that would be disastrous, if a well-meaning policy
 8       is going to cause bad feeling, negative -- whether or
 9       not it was intended.  How can we deal with such
10       a difficult problem?
11   MR GHAFFUR:  I think there are a number of solutions to
12       this.  I mean, the first thing is, you know, the
13       reality -- and we have to face up to the reality.  The
14       reality is that in terms of delivering diverse -- sorry,
15       delivering policing services to diverse communities in
16       London.  We are never going to get off the race agenda,
17       because yes, we started with the black community
18       issues -- I myself, in serious crime, am tackling issues
19       around South Asian issues, where I have to really
20       interact with the communities, et cetera.
21           So I think the reality is, internally or externally,
22       we are not going to get away from the race issues.
23           I think the big issue for me there is one -- is the
24       issue of communicating that, and saying, "Race is not
25       going to go away" -- if there are people who think that
    74
 1       it will go away, it will not go away.
 2           Secondly, there will remain high-profile cases,
 3       there will remain issues of confidence that we need to
 4       work towards, and I think to me, race being seen as
 5       a problem is counter-productive.  We have to start to
 6       talk about race being seen as an opportunity in very
 7       diverse London, and that is why I make some far-reaching
 8       recommendations in relation to recruitment and various
 9       other aspects.
10           I think the second thing is that equally, there is
11       a gender agenda, there is a disability agenda, and
12       ultimately, you know, that to a senior manager like me
13       makes real business sense, that if I was to have that
14       level of representation -- and I have been pushing some
15       real positive action round those initiatives.  I think
16       we should not move away from the fact that there is that
17       agenda, and that we need to create what is really
18       an inclusive workforce.
19   MISS WEEKES:  There is another suggestion, and sometimes
20       what you call something does not really matter, it is
21       what you do with it.  One of the staff associations who
22       spoke to us yesterday said, "I am rather tired with the
23       words 'visible ethnic minorities', what about 'minority
24       groups'?"
25           May I suggest something that might be considered:
    75
 1       "Fair treatment for all".  Because clearly fair
 2       treatment for all would involve everybody: do you think
 3       there is now time for reconsideration of what we call
 4       things, and what we include in that title?
 5   MR GHAFFUR:  Yes, I think there is.  I mean, to be honest,
 6       the way that London's profile is going, the notion of
 7       visible ethnic minorities will not be the case in five
 8       to six years, for a start.
 9           I mention in my report that the term "visible ethnic
10       minorities" being labelled on recruits who are coming
11       in, thinking they are joining one organisation, is
12       counter-productive.
13           I do have a difficulty with -- do not get me wrong,
14       I think having separate labels for purposes of
15       understanding, monitoring, taking positive action, is
16       fine.  I think what we should be endeavouring to become
17       is an inclusive organisation, with leaders believing and
18       feeling that if they have a very diverse team around
19       them, that is a really good thing, that we should have,
20       you know, people with the right skills in the right
21       place, and that includes life skills.
22           So I think that aspiration is absolutely necessary.
23       Having said that, I think there is a danger of again
24       throwing something that works in some ways.
25           I am very concerned about separatism.  I have been
    76
 1       in the United States, I have seen some of the issues
 2       around one organisation operating in very separate
 3       elements.
 4           I think what we should work towards is inclusivity
 5       in the mainstream organisation, and everything that we
 6       should talk about, but the diversity agenda in that
 7       context for me is about valuing individuality,
 8       difference and fairness for all, and I agree with what
 9       you say in relation to that, and that is fairness for
10       all, all of the people, because I think that is what
11       will make us a rich organisation in achieving our aims.
12   MISS WEEKES:  That conveniently takes me to: what happens
13       when a senior commander, a borough commander or above,
14       realises that a line manager is not line managing
15       a visible ethnic minority person because he is
16       frightened, he is not confident, he is worried about
17       what might or might not happen?
18           What are borough commanders told that they should do
19       about that situation?
20   MR GHAFFUR:  Well, I think -- I mean, the first issue is,
21       can they resolve that --
22   MISS WEEKES:  No, what are borough commanders told that they
23       should do when there is evidence that line managers will
24       not line manage black and ethnic minority officers, or
25       if they raise an issue of race discrimination, they say,
    77
 1       "I will not touch it, I will send it up to the
 2       commander".  What are they told they should do about
 3       that?
 4   MR GHAFFUR:  Deal with it.
 5   MISS WEEKES:  Is that universally known, that borough
 6       commanders should insist that line managers deal with
 7       it?
 8   MR GHAFFUR:  Yes.
 9   MISS WEEKES:  Well, why are we then receiving evidence,
10       quite consistently, that there is fear, there is
11       reluctance to line manage ethnic minority officers and
12       staff, and/or race/gender issues?
13   MR GHAFFUR:  Yes, the message has not got through.  I found
14       the same thing.  But I think the commitment from the top
15       is very clear, and I have been party to lots of
16       discussions with the senior team where that message is
17       very, very clear, in terms of dealing with it.
18           There are other issues, in terms of building
19       capabilities, et cetera, but frankly, I think quite
20       clearly the message is not getting through.
21   MISS WEEKES:  We have heard that before, Deputy Assistant
22       Commissioner: things do not get down to the level of
23       middle management and those who make the all important
24       everyday decisions.  Every single individual and staff
25       association gives huge credit to the Commissioner and
    78
 1       many senior officers of your rank, but they say it just
 2       does not filter down.  What can we do about that?
 3   MR GHAFFUR:  I think we are -- you know, I am very, very
 4       clear, and I can only speak about the narrow
 5       perspective, you know; I am very clear about the
 6       Commissioner's commitment to what we are seeking to do
 7       in terms of diversity.  I regard myself as an agent of
 8       the Commissioner to deliver that, and the responsibility
 9       lies with me, and accountability lies with me, and there
10       are checks and balances in relation to what I agree with
11       the Commissioner, in terms of delivery.
12           I should do the same, you know, so I do the same
13       with my deputy assistant commissioners, my commanders,
14       and then effectively, you know, that should cascade
15       down.
16           The important thing, though, is that people like
17       me -- really, the Commissioner cannot do it on his
18       own -- should then go and check that it is actually
19       happening, and where it is not happening, we should take
20       the steps that need to be taken to deliver the clarity
21       of the message, and I think --
22   MISS WEEKES:  Who checks that it happens?
23   MR GHAFFUR:  The Commissioner -- what happens is that every
24       two weeks, we have a large scale intervention, in the
25       Met, in terms of our mission, vision, values sessions;
    79
 1       there are hundreds of people there, and part of the
 2       encouragement by the Commissioner is people to come up
 3       front and raise their grievances, and that is a very
 4       good checking mechanism, in terms of whether it is
 5       happening or not.
 6           From time to time, we do try and formalise
 7       inspections and do certain things in terms of
 8       compliance.  The important point is when there is no
 9       compliance -- firstly, it is the clarity of the message;
10       secondly, if there is no compliance, then it is not up
11       to the Commissioner to do it all, it is up to me and the
12       various other leaders to actually deliver.
13   MISS WEEKES:  I have one last point, because it would be
14       helpful, I think, to wrap things up, and it deals with
15       your assessment again within your report on an aspect of
16       the gender issue.  It is at TXG 1/43; it is going to
17       come up on the screen for you, but if you do have it,
18       you might want to turn to it.
19           It is your overall impressions at paragraph 1.16.5:
20           "Although the MPS has managed to attract more
21       visible ethnic minority officers, the organisation is
22       still grossly underrepresented at middle and senior
23       management positions."
24           Now it is this next sentence that I flag up:
25           "Female visible ethnic minority officers are the
    80
 1       most underrepresented."
 2           Now we have raised this issue with others: do you
 3       know why it is so?
 4   MR GHAFFUR:  I mean, I think I cannot give you a specific
 5       reason as to why that is the case.  I think the number
 6       of --
 7   MISS WEEKES:  Has anybody taken the trouble to collect any
 8       information from females at the moment in post and those
 9       who have left?
10   MR GHAFFUR:  We have started to do that.
11   MISS WEEKES:  When was that started?
12   MR GHAFFUR:  Certainly in my set-up, I have been very
13       conscious --
14   MISS WEEKES:  When did you start that?
15   MR GHAFFUR:  About 6 or 12 months ago.  In fact, I have
16       taken some positive action, in terms of particularly one
17       part of my organisation, which had, you know, a very
18       significant history of being led by male senior
19       officers, and in fact, the situation is completely
20       reversed now.
21   MISS WEEKES:  What steps did you take, and how can that be
22       a model for others?
23   MR GHAFFUR:  Two things really.  The positive action
24       I took -- I mean, for example, I have got senior
25       investigating officers within the murder commands who
    81
 1       were all male; I looked at the select list for detective
 2       inspectors and found that there were a couple of
 3       females, I think minority, who were actually qualified
 4       but had not yet got a posting.
 5           I arranged a shadowing process for one of the female
 6       officers, with a competence plan and a training plan.
 7       That has just sort of come to fruition, with her being
 8       promoted to a senior investigating officer, the first
 9       woman senior investigating officer within my murder
10       command.
11           Similarly, with the Commissioner, we have taken
12       positive action on the Flying Squad, with the commander
13       and the detective chief superintendent; they never had a
14       history of that being the case.  If you then ratchet
15       that up to visible ethnic minority females, and if you
16       then take it a stage further, where you talk about
17       disability, very considerable challenges still remain.
18           The numbers are just not there to --
19   MISS WEEKES:  It is quite clear that that action was taken
20       on merit.
21   MR GHAFFUR:  Entirely.
22   MISS WEEKES:  Well, thank you very much for the example of
23       that good practice.
24   SIR WILLIAM MORRIS:  Mr Ghaffur, before we adjourn for our
25       lunch break, there are one or two points that I just
    82
 1       need you to clarify for us, supplementary points.
 2           From the evidence that we have received so far,
 3       there are clearly three strands of culture emerging in
 4       the Metropolitan Police.  There is obviously the
 5       operational culture, there is the legalistic culture,
 6       and of course there is the managerial culture.
 7           Could you help us as to which of those three
 8       represents the prevailing culture?
 9   MR GHAFFUR:  I think the very nature of the complexity and
10       the volume of work and the demand on us, I would say
11       that it is a very, very strong operational culture.
12   SIR WILLIAM MORRIS:  Driven by the legalistic dimension?
13   MR GHAFFUR:  Yes, a very strong operational culture; I mean,
14       the legalistic one -- I would not say that everything is
15       a legalistic culture.  I would say that it is much more
16       of an administrative/leadership -- internally as opposed
17       to externally, in terms of predominance, more
18       administrative, procedural, legal, you know, dimension.
19           Managerially, I think I have seen more leadership in
20       the Metropolitan Police, you know, symbolic leadership,
21       operational leadership, managerial leadership, than
22       I have seen managerial, per se.  I have seen actually
23       more examples of some fantastic leadership, so I would
24       substitute "managerially" with a more leadership type.
25   SIR WILLIAM MORRIS:  Okay, thank you very much for that.
    83
 1       Before I conclude, can I just bring to your attention
 2       the comments that I made in my opening introduction,
 3       when I said to you that at the end of our questions, we
 4       would offer you an opportunity to make a brief closing
 5       comment, if you so wished.  If you do wish to make
 6       a brief closing comment, this is the point at which you
 7       have that opportunity.
 8   MR GHAFFUR:  Chair, I think I have said everything I wanted
 9       to say, and quite clearly, some of the additional
10       information is very much in the review I have done.
11           If the panel is minded to, you know, feel that
12       perhaps there are other things you want to put to me,
13       then I would be more than happy to present those.  I sit
14       before you in the context of not only a very experienced
15       police officer, who has operated in different policing
16       environments, but I also sit as a role model for many,
17       many aspiring officers and staff, police staff, and
18       I would hope that it is in that context you would have
19       taken my replies to you.
20           But thank you for giving me an opportunity to come
21       and present my views to you.
22   SIR WILLIAM MORRIS:  Yes, thank you for your kind words, and
23       thank you also for the comments in respect of your
24       willingness to return if necessary, because that takes
25       me to the formal statement that I make to every witness
    84
 1       before us, and it is simply that having heard your good
 2       self, it may be that when we hear from other witnesses,
 3       we may determine that it is necessary to put further
 4       questions to you, either in writing or indeed to have
 5       you back to one of these hearings.
 6           If we do decide to seek further information from
 7       you, then of course we will try and do so in a way which
 8       presents you with the least possible inconvenience, and
 9       we will do it at a point where, as I have said, you are
10       able to respond without any inconvenience.
11           But for the moment, all that I need to do is to
12       thank you for your written submission which we received,
13       thank you also for responding this morning, and thank
14       you for the overall contribution that you are making to
15       the work of this Inquiry.  So on behalf of my colleagues
16       and myself, thank you very much.  We adjourn, and we
17       will resume hearings at 2.00 pm this afternoon.
18   (1.00 pm)
19                     (The short adjournment)
20
21
22
23
24
25