Transcript of public session: Sir John Stevens, Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis

Wednesday, 18 February 2004
10.00 am

Sir William Morris: Ladies and gentlemen, good morning and good morning to you, Sir John.

A. Good morning.

Sir William Morris: Sir John, can I first of all say thank you very much indeed for accepting our invitation to attend the Inquiry and to give evidence, and indeed for letting us have your written submission, which we have read. We have found that extremely helpful indeed.

I do appreciate that for some of our witnesses, perhaps not your good self, any process of this nature might seem to be a rather daunting experience. So I thought it would be helpful if first I briefly set out how we propose to conduct the hearing this morning.

First let me introduce myself. I am Sir Bill Morris, recently retired General Secretary of the Transport and General Workers Union, a position which I held for some 12 years, and I have been asked to chair this Inquiry.

As you can see, there are two other panel members. On my right is Sir Anthony Burden, who recently retired as Chief Constable of the South Wales Constabulary after a long and distinguished career in the police service. On my left is Anesta Weekes QC, who is an eminent barrister who sits as a recorder and part-time chair of employment tribunals. She was also counsel to the Lawrence Inquiry.

Sir John, as you know we have been asked by the Metropolitan Police Authority to conduct an independent inquiry into professional standards and employment matters in the Metropolitan Police service. Let me repeat what I said at the launch of our inquiry. Our focus is the MPS as an organisation and not the individuals who make up the Metropolitan Police Service.

The inquiry we are conducting is inquisitorial and not adversarial in nature. We are keen to inquire into the issues raised by our terms of reference so we can make appropriate recommendations for further good practice, rather than concentrating on making criticisms of MPS or indeed the organisations or a particular individual.

To help us in our task we are very keen to hear from all our witnesses not just what is wrong with the Metropolitan Police Service but what is right with it, and most importantly your suggestion and all the suggestions of our witnesses in telling us what needs to be done in putting it right.

A transcript is being taken so that we have a proper record of the evidence given by the witnesses. This will be posted on our website later today. At the end of these introductory remarks I will lead on the questions to you followed by my colleagues, Miss Weekes followed first by Sir Anthony Burden, and then the supplementary questions that I might find necessary. At the conclusion of our questions I will offer you the opportunity for a brief closing comment.

In your written submissions, Sir John, which will be posted on the Inquiry's website when you have given your evidence, you have set out the following information: your views on delivering policing service that is fair, appropriate, compassionate and impartial. You have said that there are a number of examples of good practice in the Metropolitan Service and you have given some examples: diversity directorate, the community safety unit, the family liaison officers, and of course increasing numbers of ethnic minority officers and the fairness at work procedures and practices.

You have also given us your views on some aspects of the service which in your view needs improvements. Examples: a greater need for informal resolution of complaints, attempts to reduce delay in the relevant process, and emphasis on the early assessment of the importance of all complaints. You have indicated alteration to the Crown servant status of officers and the referral of grievance to mediators.

It is not our intention to ask you to repeat what you have already told us in your written submission, but rather there are various issues raised in it that we wish to explore with you. But before we raise these issues, for the benefit of the transcript writer, I wonder, Sir John, if you would mind formally introducing yourself to the inquiry?

A. John Stevens, Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police. I have been Commissioner for four years now.

Questions by Sir William Morris

Sir William Morris: Thank you.

Sir John, since the year 2000 there has been an additional political dimension to your role as Commissioner. That has manifested itself; in addition to the Home Secretary there is now the Mayor of London, the Greater London Authority, the Metropolitan Police Authority, and of course it is true to say that the state holding community of the MPS has grown somewhat in those succeeding years.

Let me ask you first how does this manifest itself on a day-to-day basis? Would you say it has made your job easier or more difficult?

A. I think, chairman, I am on record as saying I am the most accountable police chief in the world. Of that there is no doubt. If one looked at the number of bodies one is accountable to, and I make no complaint about this, I might have some comment about it. I think there is something in the region of 22/26 bodies that I am accountable to.

I think the political complexity and mix of London, in particular in the new structure, does create problems for us in terms of bureaucracy and in terms of clarity, and I think the changeover from our response and our direct link to the Home Secretary, which changed within six months of my becoming Commissioner, had its strengths and weaknesses.

I think the underlying theme and the underlying importance of all of this is that the Metropolitan Police must never be seen as a political football. With the advent of local elections coming up in June and perhaps national elections next year, it is absolutely essential that the Metropolitan Police are seen to be independent in terms of the delivery of the law and independent in our actions. That does not mean to say of course that we are not accountable to the people of London, not accountable to our local political masters or our central political masters, but it is very, very important that we have a clear chain of command and a clear chain of accountability.

Sir William Morris: Thank you. Just taking the theme forward in terms of the scale of the task, not just in accountability terms but in functional terms, I think it is perhaps common ground that the job of the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police is without doubt the most challenging police task and job in the United Kingdom, and perhaps some would even say in the world. You have to deliver on the one hand strategic executive management and leadership of some 40,000 plus officers and staff, and it is estimated that your budget is somewhere in the region of about £2.5 billion.

On the other hand, you also have to give executive strategic operational leadership in policing London. London is a patch which is changing beyond recognition, not just in terms of its profile of its citizens but in terms of the challenges, issues like global terrorism, and, in a sense, the frontiers of the MPS's boundary and the Commissioner's task is not the boundaries of London but some would say it encompasses the world in terms of traffic and mobility of people.

With these two tasks, executive strategic managerial function, executive strategic operational leadership, where do you see the priorities, and can you tell us whether you think the priorities are competing ones?

A. I think the priorities are always competing. I think what we have tried to do over the last four years in the restructuring of the Metropolitan Police, specifically with the emphasis on the boroughs and we will be going into a new structure where we drill even further down in terms of a far better local delivery, is that if you make the boroughs the primary purpose and the primary delivery platform for the Metropolitan Police then you have to delegate to borough commanders who are coterminous with their political boundaries all the necessary power for them to deliver. You have to trust them, you have to give them the power and delegation in terms of personnel finance and likewise other areas.

That for me has been the main primary delivery. Yes, of course we have to have the antiterrorist branch, organised crime branch, flying squad and our central delivery squads, specifically the murder squads. But I think the change of style of policing for London has been for the better.

That change of style of policing means to say we at the centre have to be a far more co-ordinating monitoring group. You cannot allow 32 borough commanders to go off, and I will use the phrase like mad dogs in the distance, doing what they wish to do. There has to be some reining in, there has to be some direction and there has to be some monitoring. The key is how that is delivered.

Previously to the creation of the Metropolitan Police Authority we had a receiver who actually had similar powers to the Commissioner, who reported direct to the Home Office and the Permanent Undersecretary, and actually was responsible for our resources and the way on occasions they were delivered.

I think that was actually overgrown by time, and time marched on. I think the process we have got now, where we do have to have a real proper delivery I think in terms of finance and in terms of how we deliver things is proper professional advice, for example finance. The Metropolitan Police did not have one qualified accountant in its make-up five years, six years ago. That has changed. And so what I am trying to say here is that there has to be a proper professional delivery in the areas where we have to deliver that.

I happen to believe that also is represented in the way we deliver in other areas. I have an advisory board of people who are extremely distinguished people who I keep quite quiet about. Perhaps they keep quite quiet about the fact they advise me on a regular basis, but a lot of them are very eminent people in their own areas. That is being superimposed further down the chain by professional people from very large multinational companies on occasions who mentor borough commanders and mentor some of our operational departments and the heads of those. I think it is this kind of interchange on more of an unofficial basis which brings a lot of benefit.

I think your point is well made, if I might say so, Chairman, that what we have to have is proper professional advice. And when it comes to the area of diversity, when it comes to the area of employment law, when it comes to advice in relation to some of the more complicated areas that are there in policing we have to have that proper professional advice. Dare I say it, that professional advice has to be independent. We as police officers, quite rightly, are focused on delivery on the street in terms of operational requirements.

We can on occasions lose sight of some of the other issues, which I think you were alluding to, Chairman, which need to be taken into account also. My own view is advisory boards, professional advice, mentoring at the highest level, mentoring also at a more operational level by independent people is essential to the way we should operate in this highly complex world which is getting more complex as time goes on.

Sir William Morris: I think there will be no disagreement in recognising the degree of delegation of responsibility and authority within the managerial structure of the Met; the borough command module, for example, is recognised and you have given some explanation about that. I think that is very commendable and that is not an issue in doubt. But in the end, when you have taken advice from the board, when you have drilled down into the mentoring programme of professional officers, and you have all the accountants – and I note that is an increase in number – when all that has been done, the fact of the matter is that the buck stops at the Commissioner's desk. You cannot go beyond that, there is nowhere else to go unless you go into the political field and that is not what the managerial issues of the Met is about.

But you have talked about some of the advisers, multinational companies, and it must be very obvious that in those companies there is a division of roles; there is the chief executive, there is some modicum of political leadership interfacing with a city or other institution. So in the light of all that do you think that the model where these two roles, the leadership in management and leadership in operational activities, resides in a single person is now right for review in the light of the complexities of an evolving 21st century?

A. I think that is an interesting point. I think at the end of the day the buck stopping at the Commissioner is fair enough, and here I want to pay tribute to the Metropolitan Police Authority. I think the Metropolitan Police Authority in essence, if we looked at some private organisation outside the public service, is more of a board whereby they hold the Commissioner to account on a regular basis and they certainly do that. They are constructive critics. We have structure of committees which delivers. They have been very tough with the Met and myself on occasions, and quite rightly, in terms of financial control, personnel and the like, and I think the private sector kind of model, appealing as it is – and I can see the real advantages of it – I think probably would not meet the Metropolitan Police's demands, specifically I think because those demands are met by the Metropolitan Police Authority.

Here I want to publicly put on record my admiration for the way that authority has handled themselves in terms of delivering what is a better service for London. I have been around in the service for a long time, I have been a chief constable, worked my way up. I was an HMI inspecting all the larger forces outside London and some of the smallest, and this police authority started from a very difficult, complex system and have delivered. I see them as delivering, I think, some of the roles that you refer to, Chairman.

Sir William Morris: Yes, we are still to hear from the Metropolitan Police Authority, and having seen their written submission there is a debate to be had about the accountability issue. But the accountability issue insofar as you described it is a retrospective experience. What, I think, my colleagues and I are really interested in is, if you like, the proactive experience. Not after the decisions have been taken but before the decisions are taken.

Let me just ask you to consider: could you perhaps see an alternative model where the role is split between, say, the Commissioner with responsibility for leading, providing the strategic directional operational leadership? I know you get out on the beat because I have seen you, but to be with the people on the beat. One person cannot do it all. You cannot be managing the shop at the same time as giving support to the troops. You can do it occasionally but there is a limit to that. And I know you have a team there.

One person giving that sort of operational leadership and support, someone like a chief operating officer or chief executive/chief operating officer with the responsibility for the day-to-day management of the organisation – in my line of business we would say minding the shop. Just common basic be there; make sure that there is accountability for the resource and strategically pulling all the necessary parts of the Met together to deliver one common purpose; that is to support the police officers on the beat.

How would you see that, if it has any merits at all?

A. I think it has merits, but I think in terms of what we are doing it goes back to what are we here to do? Are we here to make London a safer place? Are we here to make people's quality of life better in terms of making sure the streets are safe?

Where I think the weakness, if I may put it that way, of your argument is in relation to the overall delivery. I remember coming back to the Met as the Deputy Commissioner, I was there for two years, and Paul Condon in that atmosphere quite rightly talking about me being the chief executive of the organisation and he being the chairman. I think in that environment then that was perhaps right.

I think what people are looking for now in this new more complex environment is simple leadership. I think that simple leadership is all about – actually, policing at the end of the day in terms of what we are trying to achieve is simple. The ability of trying to get there is far more complex and is made more complex.

The bottom line is I do not think in terms of getting the best out of the police service that you can separate the resources issue and how we deliver our resources from the operational end of our business. I think where we have – and Sir Anthony will either agree or disagree with this, I know not – I think where one of the weaknesses of policing has been over the years is that we have been driven by resources rather than us, the operational side of the business, driving the finances; rather than us saying, "This is where we are aiming to go", the finance is following up, I am afraid one of the weaknesses have been over the years is that we say, "Right, you have this sum of money Chief Constable, or Commissioner. You can only do this because we only have this sum of money." I do not think that is the right way of doing business.

Therefore, it is a long answer to your question, it is about where the focus is; it is all about making sure you have got that professional ability to come in behind you, and I also think it is also about having that accountability which does involve finances and resources which comes from the MPHM.

Sir William Morris: Yes, I am very much with you. I mean, there is no chicken and egg here at all.

A. No, there is not.

Sir William Morris: The fact of the matter is, nevertheless, that resource equals delivery.

A. Absolutely.

Sir William Morris: And resource has to be managed.

A. Yes.

Sir William Morris: I have read the HMIC's last report and I think that the report highlights the inspector's thoughts of some managerial weaknesses in the MPC's managerial structure.

Let me just take you to about three or four examples which might be indicative of a much broader problem. The first is in fact – you will see it on the screen – paragraph 2.3 on page 90. Under the heading "Strategic Direction and Planning", you will have read that:

"The MPS does not yet have a medium term corporate strategy."

And it goes on to talk about:

"The significant omission for an organisation of its size and complexity ..."

So this is the HMIC's inspectorate indicating that there are some strategic planning issues, which is in fact an important consideration. I think we should perhaps just look at this together. The next is the second one, which is paragraph 2.29 on page 25. The issues there are set out in terms of what the independent auditors found. It talks about:

"... struck by the sheer abundance of data produced by the MPS combined with the relative lack of incisive analytical products and a distinct lack of costing information."

So basically what he is saying is that the costing structure, there is a lack of incisive analytical product which supports the costing structure. He is arguing there that the abundance of data makes life difficult to come to those sort of basic conclusions.

Just another couple which I think are important: paragraph 5.32 on page 60. This here is just the internal auditors indicating their concern:

"In summary, while I am satisfied that the efforts continue to be made to correct identified weakness I can only offer a 50 per cent reassurance on the adequacy of the control and the effectiveness of the system within the MPS."

I am not sure what Companies House would say about a 50 per cent assurance from the auditor – although it is an internal auditor – if we were a business, which we are not. We are providing a service.

Just a final one. This is perhaps a bit lengthy. It is 6.12 on page 68, please. It talks about:

"A number of budgets have been devolved to enhance local freedom within corporate parameters. The directorate has produced a catalogue of hardware and software applications which can be purchased and devolved to budget holders in order to provide this element of central control. However, Her Majesty's Inspectorate was concerned to find that the directorate does not hold records of the equipment which has been purchased in order to check compliance with both corporate policy and also legal requirements surrounding the use and licensing of computer software. He therefore suggested that as a matter of urgency an audit is conducted of all locally managed hardware and software to ensure compliance with the requirements."

So I am sure that the inspectorate – let me say that in his report he also makes some very commendable comments in terms of where things have actually been put right as a follow-up to a previous report.

But the fact of the matter is that bearing in mind these comments, which, as I said earlier, are somewhat indicative of a wider report and issues that he has formed, is there any alternative model, if not the one that I put forward on behalf of my colleagues and myself, that could relieve the Commissioner of some of the day-to-day management of the existing resource and manage it better, which would then provide greater resource for the operational needs of the Met, because there is only one purpose that the Met is in business for; that is the police; it is not there to do anything else.

A. I think there are three very important issues that you raised there which come out of Sir Ronnie Flanagan's report. One is the financial structure and how we actually deliver in terms of the finance we get. The other is of course the costings structures and the support we give to our commanders, specifically our borough commanders. I think the other issue is absolutely right about the accountancy processes of the Metropolitan Police.

Now, the finance that comes to the Metropolitan Police comes in kind of modules from the Home Office and also has to go through the Assembly and the Mayor. It is an incredibly inefficient process at the moment for us to sort our business in a way you would want. I think one of the things that really does have to happen is there has to be some certainty about how the Met is financed in the next two or three years, both from the Home Office in terms of the formula – we have one or two comments to say that we have not got our fair amount of money this year from central government, £82 million, if you look at the formula. But the real question is the timing of how we work out our finances and work our finances into the business of delivering a strategy. There is a massive weakness which I am sure some of the officers who follow me in the MPA will talk about, Chairman, which is a real problem for us specifically in London.

The costings structure and the support and the professionalism to our borough commanders in 1992/2003 was not good enough. If you look at the structures they were not there. The professionalism was not there. The good news is that for the first time I think in the Metropolitan Police's history, this year the National Audit Office has signed off our accounts with 100 per cent, as far as they can go, with 100 per cent confidence in the fact that we are now doing our financial business in a way that is satisfactory to them. That is for the first time ever. If you look at the history over the last seven or 10 years and beyond they have refused to do that. That was actually when we were under the control of the Home Office.

The other interesting thing is that over the course of the last five years – this is something I am very proud of – we have made £310 million worth of efficiency savings. I would like to see any other public body in this country that has achieved that over the period of time we have done it, and at the same time we increased our efficiency and increased our productivity.

But the points that the HMI has made there are absolutely right. They do refer to a deficiency that was there. I would like to think a lot of that deficiency has been eradicated. But the primary point, Chairman, is the timing of how we get our finances, how we work it through the GLA and then how it comes through the MPA in terms of how we do that. That needs to be changed. It is one of those areas I will be pleading with people that they change and change now.

Sir William Morris: Yes. We have picked up in the HMIC's report the difficulties in terms of the planning cycle and the budget making cycle, particularly from your additional political stakeholders, Mayor's office and GLA. But in the end, you know, there will always be a debate about quantitative amounts allocated to any institution and I have never met one who could not spend more given a fair wind.

But one of the best ways of convincing those who allocate resource that you are worthy of more is in fact to be able to demonstrate that you are competent using that which you have got, and the report indicates a situation where in critical areas, for example the whole inventory of software and the compliance issues, you are almost negating your insurance covers on issues like that, and contract overruns.

I think the case that I am really making is that there is vast improvement necessary in managing the existing resource, and I think you have recognised this to some extent, and one of the issues that we will certainly want to look further at is as to what suggestions can be made, if not structurally or managerially, but we do believe that the situation as it currently exists, of course we want to see delegation, but delegation will only work effectively and efficiently in terms of resource management if there is a strong central lead from this end.

A. Agreed.

Sir William Morris: Can I move on to one or two employment issues, Sir John, please. I want to turn to your submission now. In paragraph 25 of your submission you refer to the current system of managing staff relationship and you express the view – and I quote – you say there that:

"The present system is antiquated and long-winded and should be scrapped."

You state, and I quote again:

"With some exceptions the ordinary employment law applicable to employment relationship should be applied to police officers, even though they are office holders under the Crown and must remain so and not employees of the service."

Could I invite you please to expand on that statement a little more?

A. Yes, I think the present system relates to the old courtmarshal system, and I have said for a very long time, and I know some of my colleagues have said for a very long time, that this system is totally out of kilter in terms of delivering for a modern day service. I think the business of the legalised process that we use for discipline, I think that the way that chief constables are actually pushed into a position of adjudicating on many cases which really could have been dealt with and bypassed, if you like, in a satisfactory way earlier on, is completely outdated.

Further, I think not only is it outdated, it is justice delayed, which means justice denied. I think if you combine that with the way that the length of time that decisions are made, not just in relation to the Police Complaints Authority but in relation sometimes to the DPP and the Attorney General, I think the whole system really does need to be completely regenerated.

I for one, Chairman, will be looking to this inquiry with great optimism, that you will come up with a system that allows justice to take place, that allows people not to be suspended for a period of six to seven years, or on occasions appear to be scapegoats in certain situations where other people have been allowed to walk away, and that certain individuals – I can give you examples – have been left to hold responsibility beyond that which their rank encompasses. That is because the system is just not adequate to deal with these cases.

Sir William Morris: You indicate not a sort of root and branch sweep away, that is how I interpret your comments, with some exceptions. Can you help us in terms of what specific exceptions?

A. I think I refer to, in my submission, a triage approach where each individual case is judged on its merits. What we have at the moment is if you get an individual where a complaint has been made, there is a whole complicated legal process that comes into action, a process that is lengthy, that is legal, that actually at the end of the day achieves nothing and pleases no-one. The thing for me – and I hear it from officer after officer when I go round talking to people – is the delay in the system. I am afraid it is no good any of us, and I include the police service in this, the PCA in other words, turning round and saying, "These decisions take an awful long time to come to fruition". I am afraid that is just not good enough.

When you are talking about offences which are outside the criminal law, criminal prosecution, corruption – which I have led on in terms of the Met – is something different to be pursued in a different manner.

But if you are talking about other issues which relate to grievances, we really do have to have a better system. I think that system needs to be an independent system. When you talk about having a chief executive to deliver outside the Metropolitan Police in terms of finance and the others, well we can discuss that. But if you are talking about an ACAS-type system outside what we have now, surely that must be the way forward. And I think there is a disjoint, if you like, between what the police deliver and what the criminal law delivers. So that you can have a decision made by a police authority – by that I mean a chief constable or police service – which is totally out of kilter with what the civil law will find out. It really does need to be dealt with.

Sir William Morris: Let us come back to ordinary employment law, I think was the phrase in your submission?

A. Yes.

Sir William Morris: For the avoidance of doubt – because employment law has evolved in many strands over the years – but in specific terms, are you suggesting that the Metropolitan Police officers – and I do not think this will be just about the Metropolitan Police Service; it would be wider than that. I think the Home Secretary would have a view here. Are you suggesting that they should have an ordinary contract of employment such as some people in this room enjoy?

A. Yes, I am. What I think should happen is there should be a contract of employment that actually encompasses the Metropolitan Police as a family; to do the same to an extent for the police officer as it is for the police staff. Of course you have to have a certain rigour in terms of the contract because we are a disciplined organisation. On occasions we have to give orders which have to be followed. But I believe the time has now come – and it might be a radical suggestion, I know not, but that does not worry me; I suspect it will not worry you, Chairman – that really there does need to be an overall contract of employment. The sooner we can get that, I think that will then filter down to all the structures we have and all the issues we have around grievances which, quite frankly, are not dealt with in a satisfactory way at the present time.

Sir William Morris: You obviously see it as a plus otherwise you would not have put it forward, but I think my colleagues and I would like to know whether you have considered the so-called downsides.

A. I think the downsides would be: are we actually protecting the rights of the employer? Let us take a police officer in this instance because they have a separate right. I was a Federation rep for a period of time and I fought for some of the things that are there now. This was a long time ago, 30 years ago. I think employment law actually does have enough protection for a police officer in these circumstances. Further, I think the way the processes work – all right, we know that we have got long delays in terms of ETs because of the structure sometimes of tribunals, but nobody surely can justify the lengths of time it takes for us to deal with things in relation to discipline offences. And some of these offences, if you look at them in detail, which I have done over the years, are minor matters in my view. If they had been handled earlier on by way of resolution, by way of some kind of judicial process that allows people to meet and talk about these issues, it would have been dealt with years before that.

I go back to my point that I really feel very strongly about, that when issues have taken place and, you know, I can give examples of that, where officers are left in the organisation, other officers have left it and moved on to other things for certain reasons, it is absolutely wrong for the whole weight of the Police Complaints Authority and the police disciplinary process to come down on those people who decide to stay either because they are junior rank and have time to go forward into other things or have a lengthy time before they retire. It is just not justice.

Sir William Morris: Yes. I take all the points that you have made in terms of delay and the justice and the speed and all that goes with that. Where my colleagues and I need a little bit more enlightenment and understanding is that you are arguing that the office holder under the Crown status should still be maintained, but you are also arguing that the concept of employment law which makes them an employee should in fact be afforded, and it seems like a cake and eating it concept here. You know as well as I do – we have both been here long enough to know that that cannot happen. You cannot have a cake and eat it.

A. I do not think you can have that. It is nice to try and do it but the world is not like that as you say, Chairman

I think the bottom line is that the employment under the Crown of course relates to an oath that a police officer takes to ensure that the law is administered in a way that is independent and in a way that it has in the past. I think that can still stand. But I cannot see why we cannot have proper civil law principles of delivery of justice, if I might use that word, for employees. There has to be a better way of doing it.

The other point is this: where some of the problems arise is that a decision – I think I hinted at this earlier on – a decision is made by the police service, a chief constable or whoever is found guilty of a disciplinary offence. What has happened on a large number of occasions is that that then goes into the civil forum, which obviously has precedence and then there is a conflict in terms of that decision. That surely is not the right way to progress things. You need a common level of probity, evidence giving and judgment, and we have not got that at the moment. It is a disconnect, and I think one of the secrets of making sure we have got a satisfactory police service is to make sure there is a connection between civil law, industrial tribunals and the way we operate.

The other thing I will draw attention to, if I may, Chairman, is that we need an independence in the structure. We have to have an independence similar to ACAS.

Sir William Morris: Just one final point, if I may, Sir John. If you had the employment status that you have sort of indicated, and even with the attendant principle of independence external, fundamentally from a day-to-day workplace environment do you think that this would alter the relationship between the uniformed officers and the civilians with whom they interface? Because that is not an unimportant consideration towards the common cause of fighting crime and keeping London safe.

A. Chairman, you are absolutely right. I actually do not think it would drive us further apart or drive us apart. I actually think it would bring us together. I think the fact that we used a unified system of employment, the fact that civilian staff, police staff, would be seen to be operating under a similar type of agreement, contractual agreement, I think would bring us together.

And I think the other thing is, you know, with the help of ACPO we have led in London on the PCSOs, community safety officers. We know that that has been a massive success. We are now trying to extend that in terms of how we embed that in our policing structure with this ward-based policing. Step change as we call it at the moment.

So I believe the change in the kind of employment structure we are talking about, one employment structure is very much in sympathy with the way we are going to be policing in the future of this country. It is all about bringing us together and closer to the people we serve and the people who we police.

Sir William Morris: That leads me on to the last section of my questions here: organisation. Moving from employment to organisation. Because we have a very helpful chart – I think it is the inquiry 86 – it sets out the structure as it currently operates. I just want to make one or two points about that. Anyway, you know the narrative.

A. Indeed.

Sir William Morris: Here we are. We have an Assistant Commissioner, Mr Hogan-Howe. He is in charge of human resources. You have a Deputy Assistant Commander reporting to the Deputy Commissioner in charge of professional standards directorate. We then have an employment tribunal as a unit within the professional standards directorate.

A. Yes.

Sir William Morris: By their very nature they are concerned obviously with workplace issues. And then we have got fairness at work practice and procedures. That comes within the HR directory.

Let me give you my first reaction. I am concluding here that there is a golden thread but it does not run through. I have not said too much about diversity yet, and I will be talking to your colleague about diversity. I said yesterday, it is not a flexible commodity that you can take around.

A. No.

Sir William Morris: So what I am saying to you is that this chart gives us a very, very clear and excellent intention but it is not joined up, is it?

A. Well, we have had lots of discussion about the chart and about the structure and it is exactly as you described it. Does that allow us to have this kind of combined effect in terms of what we are delivering on diversity? After long discussions we decided that perhaps that is as good as it gets but maybe you will come up with a better structure that we will agree with.

The bottom line is that every single thing we do, whether it comes from my office or whether it comes from someone who is working cleaning the toilets at Scotland Yard, has to have embedded in them the principles of diversity. The fact is that integrity is non-negotiable and diversity is part and parcel of everything we do.

Certainly in my term as Commissioner that is what I have been trying to do, and deal with that in the kind of way that involves justice, involves fairness. So for me structural charts are important, of course they are, Chairman, but for me the most important part of it is the culture of the Met.

I think, even though our most stringent critics would say we have come a long way in the last four to five years we still have a massive way to go. I accept that.

Sir William Morris: I will not burden you any more on my comments on structural issues, but your other colleagues will enlighten us further.

A. Indeed.

Sir William Morris: Sir John, thank you very much for your answers and the candidness with which you have answered. That is all I want to ask you for the moment. I will now hand you over to Miss Weekes, my colleague, to ask you some questions.

Questions by Miss Weekes

Miss Weekes: Good morning, Commissioner. Please may I apologise for my voice. I will do my best to ensure that I am heard.

I would like to deal, if I may, with some of the comments that you have made in dealing with the relationship of officers that work with each other; effectively the work environment, people management.

I would like to come back also to your comments about delay and about the need for an independent system. First of all, can I start with the resolution of disputes before they reach employment tribunals.

You are bound to agree with me, Commissioner, that if you can resolve workplace disputes which are often very minor disputes, you increase morale?

A. Yes.

Miss Weekes: You increase the correct atmosphere at work?

A. Yes.

Miss Weekes: You allow officers to get on with policing and you reduce the expense of a tribunal case?

A. Absolutely.

Miss Weekes: So a central theme for us in this inquiry is the way those disputes are dealt with and how officers are treated by line managers and supervisors.

At the moment are you happy with the way minor disputes are dealt with?

A. No. I have not been happy for some time with the way minor disputes have been dealt with. We are looking at a new structure – it is too early to say. I think Sir Ian Blair and others will be talking about that new structure. But I believe what has happened in the past is that minor issues, as we call them – which are sometimes not minor of course to the people affected by them; they affect their work life, they affect their home life – have not been resolved in the way that you or I would expect them to be resolved.

I think the organisation, quite frankly, has become extremely rigid in terms of the way it has been dealing especially with ethnic issues. To use a phrase that I think Tarrique Ghaffur might well use, if you call him in front of you, is that the organisation needs to be more relaxed in terms of the way we deal with things.

One of the results of the MacPherson Lawrence Inquiry is that people have become extremely frightened of issues involving ethnic minority complaints. And what they have done in my view, and I think you might hear some evidence during the period of time, is that they have resorted to a system which is there, a grievance system which has its faults which you will hear about I am sure during the inquiry, and they resorted to that in defence, they have seen, of their own position. I think it has been something which has caused a problem and it has caused a problem within the organisation, and if this Inquiry does anything I would hope that it comes up with a system and a recommendation – of course it is a matter for you – which deals with that.

Miss Weekes: Can I just interrupt you. It might be helpful as this is a public inquiry, let us just try to understand the nature of the problem you deal with. The Verdi report of 2001 – I will not go into the detail of Sergeant Verdi's case, I am simply looking at some of the matters highlighted in that report. It might be helpful if we are able to bring that up on the screen. It is the Verdi report at page 32. I have my own copy but we will just wait so you have it yourself.

Although that related, of course, specifically to disciplinary procedures in respect of Sergeant Verdi, that report, very helpfully, way back in 2001, highlighted some of the difficulties in people management and the workplace relationship. Whilst that has been brought up, you have also yourself, in your submission, highlighted the sensitivity surrounding the way managers deal with workplace conflict. I will not go back to use the word "minor" because you are right, some people would consider them important. But what we mean perhaps by minor – what I mean is not major enough to go to a tribunal case if it is resolved quickly?

A. Absolutely.

Miss Weekes: So let us look at this. To the left hand column you will see these words:

"More support is needed from senior officers to line managers and supervisors."

It says this, and I am going to highlight three or four of the bullet points further down:

"Managers face dilemmas when dealing with discipline/ET/grievance – clear guidance needed to empower managers to act robustly.

"The consequences of the blame culture means that the organisation are dealing with minor issues.

"There is insufficient time to deal with personnel issues at an early stage. Consequently, borough commanders find themselves dealing with issues at disciplinary tribunals which might have been prevented by early intervention."

That was in 2001. Is it the same now, in 2004?

A. In terms of the new system that has been brought out, I would like to think that that is not the case, but you can hear no doubt from Sir Ian Blair and from DAC Roberts who deal with these things on a daily basis.

Miss Weekes: The new system is the fairness at work procedure; is that what you are referring to?

A. I am, yes.

Miss Weekes: That has replaced all grievance procedures which operated within the Metropolitan Police Service before.

A. Indeed.

Miss Weekes: That fairness at work procedure is available to all police officers and police staff when they have workplace difficulties, grievances. That only began to operate in April 2003.

A. That is right.

Miss Weekes: So it is in its early stages.

A. That is right.

Miss Weekes: I am going to come back to that. But essentially, the matters highlighted by the Verdi report of 2001 have not gone away, have they?

A. I do not think they have gone away, and the reason I was saying earlier on that they have not gone away is because – again, I use Tarrique Ghaffur's expression – the organisation is not relaxed around these matters. I think there has to be some cultural change in terms of allowing people to deal with these things in an unbureaucratic way. We have got a long way to go on that, I accept that.

Miss Weekes: You yourself have identified, at page 6 of your submission, paragraph 16, the fairness at work procedure. Credit must be given to the Metropolitan Police for bringing about that change because undoubtedly one of the criticisms of the previous grievance was its complexity; it is cumbersome and it simply did not work to resolve matters.

A. Absolutely.

Miss Weekes: The fairness at work, does it guarantee that the line manager or supervisor will be better than he or she was under the old grievance? Is there any guarantees built into this? I have not read it.

A. I think the process does, but again we are talking about a cultural issue, again we are talking about people having the confidence to make decisions to make a resolution in areas where you and I would make a resolution, but because perhaps the confidence is not there, because of the history sometimes of these things, I think we have a fair way to go. I think what we would be looking to do in another four or five months is to look at the fairness at work issue and see where the weaknesses of that system are.

We would also, if I might say so, be looking to this inquiry to come up with some better ways maybe of what we have already created in terms of the system which we have got now which is a new system.

But you are right, the previous system, it was easy to see where the problems were in that system, and therefore I would like to think that the new system we have got in will be certainly better than that and will address most of the issues.

I go back to what I was saying to the Chairman, these are cultural issues, and once you have got an issue where people in the organisation are frightened to not deal with things on a one to one basis because they feel they are going then to be criticised or going to a legal process, you are going to have a problem. I think, again, like some of the things we have been doing over the last four years, this takes time to bed itself in so we will have to wait.

Miss Weekes: I am going to come to the issue of the sensitivity of discrimination being raised, whether it be race, gender, sexual orientation or age. I am going to come back to that. Let us just keep at the moment to the broad issues of workplace conflicts, because line managers must line manage.

A. Yes.

Miss Weekes: And if an officer's performance needs to be improved then the way to do it is through line management.

A. Yes.

Miss Weekes: You are not going to get rid of that, are you?

A. No.

Miss Weekes: Because the way the Metropolitan Police works, it works by having seniority and there is hierarchy, is there not?

A. There is.

Miss Weekes: Is there too much of that?

A. I think there probably is. I think there is probably too much of a rank structure, but that is the nature of what we do. I think policing is a complex business. To actually operate in a public order situation you need direct command and a direct kind of response to that command, or in a situation where lives are at stake in an antiterrorist situation and so on and so forth. Other situations which rely on a different style of leadership and a different style of direction and control have to be accepted as well.

Although you quite rightly say there is a need for line command, part of the line command, part of leadership is about the welfare of the people you are privileged to command, and that is all about assessing what their problems are, both in the workplace and sometimes at home, let alone some grievance which may well be well founded. That is as much a part of the leadership responsibility as anything else.

So we have some superb leaders in the Metropolitan Police. We have one or two poor leaders in the Metropolitan Police. What I would like to do is bring those poor ones up to the average, if not the best. But it is all about delivering welfare, fairness, truth to people in different circumstances. The bottom line is you have to listen to people, and I am not so sure we have done that as well as we could have done in the past.

Miss Weekes: One of the ways that the Metropolitan Police Service will undoubtedly deal with improving line management and people management is training of the line managers.

A. Yes.

Miss Weekes: How good have you been to date with the training of line managers?

A. Well, we have invested a massive amount of money, not just in training in relation to fairness at work, training in relation to diversity matters. I personally led a leadership programme in relation to leadership itself. I was down in Oxford only two days ago opening that. It is a two to three day process. And embedded in that is the principles of diversity and dealing with people in a proper manner. So we have invested a large amount of time and money in that and will continue to do so, and it is necessary to do so. I think where we need to fulfil our obligations more is with new things that come up. I am very confident this inquiry is going to come up with new systems of dealing with grievances and in a general manner of how we deal with things.

When that happens we have to follow that up with proper training, proper mentoring and proper education process for everybody within the organisation. What I am trying to say is it is an ongoing process.

Miss Weekes: One of Her Majesty's Inspectorate reports, the last one, 2002-2003, identified a difficulty with training. Officers are often left to make themselves available for training programmes that come up. So it does not appear that there is necessarily a compulsion about the bottom line for the level of training that is required; am I right?

A. I think that is right.

Miss Weekes: Why is that the case?

A. I think it is because of our operational delivery. If we have got something happening – I can give you five examples of things happening in London at the moment – if we actually said, "Well, the training delivery on this particular day is X" then you are not going to get (inaudible) delivery. We are at the highest level of alert London has ever had and that is one of the issues that we have to keep in mind.

It is all very well talking about what we have to do in respect of all these issues. The bottom line is about our delivery to Londoners out there.

But going back to what you are saying, where I think we have slightly got it wrong on training is that we have a centralised delivery on training. What I would like to see is something which they have at Bexley, for instance, whereby training is delivered locally in the local environment. The issues that actually appertain to Bexley, for instance, are dealt with by a training programme. I think the centralised way of training, yes, is important but I think we have to do that locally.

The Met has expanded beyond anything in its history. We have had 4,500 officers' expansion in something like three years. They have had to work in shifts at Hendon to deliver this. You are looking at an organisation which has worked flat out for the last four to five years – I can vouch for that – and has delivered. So you will always find things that we could do better, and I accept that that is the case, but I would like this inquiry, and people listening to it, to understand what we have delivered in the last four years. But I would like to see training far more locally delivered.

Miss Weekes: Thank you.

Can I move on to something which you have touched on more than once and quite understandably so, and that is the sensitivity between officers within the Metropolitan Police and the public perception that since the Stephen Lawrence Inquiry report the Metropolitan Police have not really moved on with getting comfortable with dealing with issues of discrimination. That is right, is it not, that is a public perception?

A. Is that internal or external?

Miss Weekes: Both.

A. I never said that for a minute. You obviously have not read the report that was done on Damilola Taylor by Bishop Sentamu. I really would invite you all to read that report. I will not quote from it. Please read that report. He was on the Lawrence Inquiry with yourself, I think. He talks about a quantum leap in terms of what we are doing and how we are doing it.

You know, it is very important to celebrate success. It is very important to give encouragement to some of us who have strived in the organisation and out of it to take this thing forward. I would like to see that happening a little more often, if I might say so.

Miss Weekes: Can I add to that and say that the Metropolitan Police have put into place a diversity strategy. It is undoubtedly a complete and detailed and clearly very well thought through strategy. I think that has been in place now for 2001 to 2003.

A. That is right.

Miss Weekes: Has that made life better for both white and ethnic minority officers?

A. I think so.

Miss Weekes: Because it has to be for both, does it not?

A. It has to be. It also has to be, if I might say so, for gender issues, for those people who have a different sexual kind of –

Miss Weekes: Sexual orientation.

A. Yes, that is the word I am looking for, and also for the disabled. I think it has, and I think we have worked very, very hard on that. I myself have specific focus groups, some of them may well come and give evidence to you because they certainly give their opinions to me quite forcefully on occasions.

Miss Weekes: You have your own Commissioner personal plan on diversity, do you not?

A. I do, yes.

Miss Weekes: Is that the first that we have seen or does it follow the previous Commissioner?

A. I think it is the first.

Miss Weekes: The first?

A. Yes. So, yes, I think it has helped, but it still does not mean to say – it is like the corruption issue. We must keep focusing on it. If you take your eye off the ball and allow all these things to fade away people think you have either succeeded in your task and you never have because it is a continual process. Corruption is another example of that, as I said. And you just have to keep at it. And you have got to bore people on occasions. You have to keep reminding, reminding, reminding them of how important it is to deliver on these issues.

Again, can I say it is a cultural thing. It has got to be embedded in people's minds. You can have all the fancy documents in the world, all the great policy situations, all the training; unless you get it in here you are going to achieve nothing.

Miss Weekes: Perhaps you can help me, Commissioner, about getting inside the heads of police officers, because you pointed to the head. It is absolutely correct that since the Stephen Lawrence Inquiry a huge amount of money and time has been spent on diversity issues.

A. It has.

Miss Weekes: But you would agree you are still not where you would want to be on this issue.

A. No.

Miss Weekes: Well, I would like you to help me with the way forward so we can obviously take that on board, because we cannot make recommendations, of course, blind.

A. Of course.

Miss Weekes: Attitudes are often not right, you might agree.

A. Attitudes are sometimes not right, but in a lot of cases they are.

Miss Weekes: Okay. One of the recommendations within the diversity structure – if we can perhaps bring it up, it might be helpful to look at it. It is MPS1, and it is at page 71. We will just wait a moment to bring that up. If you look to the left-hand column, you will see a point 6.

A. Got it.

Miss Weekes: It reads:

"Everyone in the Met to take responsibility for challenging inappropriate behaviour and discrimination."

It is, in my view, correctly identifying the internal product. The internal product you get is improved supervision and accountability, an improved working environment. That is obviously right, is it not?

A. Very much so.

Miss Weekes: Well, do you have sort of first-hand experience of people in the Met who have challenged inappropriate behaviour and what has happened to them?

A. I think that has been taken through the Deputy Commissioner's command and that takes place. We are not talking about discrimination solely here, we are talking about corruption cases as well. I can give you a large number of examples when I was Deputy Commissioner of that taking place which actually resulted in many cases going through the criminal court.

Miss Weekes: Do you think the environment is safe for a black person or a woman to raise an issue about how she was treated during the day by her line manager? Do you think it is a safe environment?

A. I think that would be variable. I think it would be variable – it has to be – in terms of how we deal with things, depending on the environment they are in and also the people who are leading them. It is like morale. I can tell you certain places where morale is sky high and other places where it is not, and I think the same thing applies. Again, it is this business of ensuring that leaders give the right messages and they give confidence in the environment for people to come out and what we call (inaudible).

This does not have to happen within the working environment. You have got to have a system whereby people can anonymously, if you like, bring these matters to attention through another system, by a phone line or whatever.

Miss Weekes: Do you have that system?

A. We do.

Miss Weekes: A confidential line that officers can call?

A. Yes. I do not know how much it is used. I could come back to you on that if necessary.

I go back to the business of it is all about the type of environment, that the leader, the commander, the manager creates within his command. I think these are the people we have to hold responsible. That is further down the line. I suspect we have a lot more work to do on that.

Miss Weekes: Yes. Can you help: why is it, do you think, that what I am quoting from the Verdi report – do not trouble to bring it up. I will read it out:

"Middle managers feel they would be found guilty especially if validations are to do with race."

Why do you think that is so? I appreciate that was the Verdi report in 2001. Perhaps I should ask you fairly, is that still the case now?

A. I think it is back to what I said earlier about people being frightened in terms of these issues. We created quite a strong environment in terms of identifying misconduct. We have integrity tests, something I introduced as Deputy Commissioner with the then Commissioner. We have a system whereby people sometimes think we are actually too strong in terms of testing out environments and the like. We have installed and had up at the training school a system which involves a large number of integrity tests which we have been found wanting not on one of them and we are talking over one hundred.

Miss Weekes: What is your solution for encouraging and empowering line managers not to feel guilty? Because race issues will not go away but they could be dealt with better. What are your suggestions as the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police?

A. My suggestions are on most occasions to try and deal with these things on a one to one basis. The restorative justice process is a model I think works well.

Miss Weekes: Sorry to interrupt you, but they may say, "Well, we do not want to deal with them, we are going to send them up to a more senior officer". That is what happens, is it not?

A. Sometimes it does and I think we have to say no. It happens not just in cases of race, it also happens on an operational basis. That is why we have to empower people to delegate authority down. It is also about processes. You know, I have spent a lot of time talking – 10, 15, 20 minutes – to the Chairman about how these processes need to be changed. This is where you come in. You cannot have processes which are draconian, which are ancient, which take a massive delay, which are all about legalistic lawyers talking here, there and everywhere and making points. If you have a system like that it does not instill confidence in people to actually open up and deal with things in a way that they should.

If I might say so, we are doing our best. What I would be hoping to see from this inquiry is that you come up with a system which really helps us to ensure that our best delivers the things that you want and I want.

Miss Weekes: I am going to move on my last area, as it were, the system around resolution of disputes.

You have the process, the procedures, the statutes, the policies, the regulations, the guidance. Police officers work under an extraordinary weight of paper?

A. Absolutely.

Miss Weekes: Perhaps uniquely so. Of course, much of the regulation is necessary because they are one of the most important public service providers and the public need to be assured that what they do is proper and according to law and according to standards that are expected of them. But do you agree that the weight of statutes, Home Office guidance and policies that I have come across could do with some trimming?

A. Absolutely. In the ideal world I would like to get rid of it all –

Miss Weekes: And start again?

A. – and start again, talking about the issues that you have talked about and the Chairman talked about, and create a new system that is modern, that actually deals with the modern world and the complex world we are living in. That is where I would like to start. That would be my ideal way of doing it. I would like to burn it all and start from the beginning.

Miss Weekes: I have asked, and I have been told, that you have 1,700 policies.

A. We have. We used to have actually something around 780 [sic] policies. So thanks to Tarrique Ghaffur and others we have actually got those down. You have to have policies in certain respects to safeguard people in very severe operational environments.

We have done an awful lot to get rid of a lot of the forms we have got and also the policies. Maybe there is still a way to go. A lot of it, as I suspect you would know, comes from central government and local government. Maybe we should be robust with them in saying maybe we should have even less policies.

Miss Weekes: Your own internal procedures are a matter for you as to how of course you deal with discipline. Whatever procedure you have at the end of the day you must not of course compromise on integrity.

A. Absolutely.

Miss Weekes: The complexity of, for example, your disciplinary procedures – I have asked for a flow chart from the relevant department and I have been given it. I am sorry the public will not be able to see it, but you can. (Handed).

A. Thank you. Yes.

Miss Weekes: You have probably not seen it in this form before.

A. I am rather glad I have not, actually.

Miss Weekes: It is quite frightening, is it not?

A. It is.

Miss Weekes: One really does not know where to start. It really is just far too complicated, is it not?

A. Absolutely.

Miss Weekes: An officer against whom a complaint is received – these are public complaints, but our interest is in how the officers are treated, not inquiring about the public as such, although it has implications for the public, and this is a picture of what you would want to get rid of and start again?

A. Absolutely. Get rid of the lot of it and start with a –

Miss Weekes: It really is quite an extraordinarily complex row of arrows –

A. It is ridiculous.

Miss Weekes: – and procedures.

A. A lot of it is by regulation guidance and the law, and it just has to be changed. You cannot operate in an environment like that.

Miss Weekes: Of course, the question of the internal investigations – these are the non-public ones – do not get very much better. (Handed).

That is the internal, again drafted very kindly by my request to the Inquiry as to what the picture looks like.

A. You would find it difficult to work your way through this.

Miss Weekes: I have not as yet worked my way through it, I am afraid. I think that probably graphically demonstrates what you have already fairly identified as being a quite complex procedure.

Can I move on, as a result of that, and ask you this, and it is perhaps something I should have asked you before when we talked about attitudes and relationships. The Met have got no less than 13 to 14 representative groups?

A. Yes.

Miss Weekes: The Police Federation.

A. Yes.

Miss Weekes: The Black Police Association, though there is an association for Muslims, Hindus, Greek. I have not listed them all but there are 13 or 14.

A. There are.

Miss Weekes: Have you been given constructive assistance from those groups as to how you should deal with workplace relationships?

A. Yes.

Miss Weekes: Has it helped?

A. It has helped. There is sometimes a conflict between the groups actually in terms of how we progress things and how we should react to things, however, the only way we can move forward is to listen to what these groups have said and to ensure we try to put that forward in a cohesive way.

The problem is, of course, that regulation guidelines and the law get in the way of it sometimes on a lot of occasions.

Miss Weekes: No doubt we will ask about that conflict when we, and if we do, speak to the representative groups.

A. Indeed.

Miss Weekes: The cases themselves cannot all be resolved so we are going to have to end up in employment tribunals, regrettably. I want to just deal with your views around employment tribunals and the alternatives you have offered in your written submission. There are really three alternatives, are there not? You have mentioned a totally independent system.

A. That is right.

Miss Weekes: You have mentioned mediation.

A. Yes.

Miss Weekes: And you have mentioned an ombudsman.

A. Yes.

Miss Weekes: I would like to deal with those three, if I may. Of course, none of those alternatives would ever get rid of the officer or staff right to go to an employment tribunal; that must be publicly stated.

A. Yes.

Miss Weekes: Let me deal with the independent system. What do you mean by that? And practically, how is this going to work?

A. Well, I believe that there should be a system which is similar to ACAS, whereby if you cannot get resolution within the organisation you go outside the organisation with some independent person who is respected by both parties to try and come to some agreement in the way you take things forward. It happens in other environments We in the service do not do that but I believe that can work well.

Whether you actually have a body which is representative of two to three different people, or you have an ombudsperson, I know not. That is something, I suspect, you would have far more of an expert view on than I would have.

Miss Weekes: Well, let us just explore this a little. You have an experienced line manager who is a very good policeman but, for whatever reason, he or she just does not line manage very well. If you are a good policeman that does not mean you can people manage.

A. I would say in which case he was not a very good police supervisor.

Miss Weekes: All right. A dispute arises and that line manager cannot deal with it, so there is tension within the ranks and the work relationship has disappeared.

A. Yes.

Miss Weekes: Are you suggesting that an outside person with not much knowledge of the structures internally and not much knowledge of police command and work comes in to resolve that issue? Is that what you are saying?

A. I would say the line manager who cannot resolve that should go perhaps one or two up. If those one or two up, if that is the way we want to refer to it in the structure, cannot resolve it then, yes, outside.

Miss Weekes: So you do not mean a completely outside person, you just mean somebody else within the Metropolitan Police Service.

A. Oh no. What I would say is if you get a conflict between a sergeant and another sergeant or a police constable, it is up then to the borough commander to try and resolve that. If that cannot be resolved then go outside to an independent resolution, because if you do not do that you are taking away the ability of the borough commander to command his own command.

Miss Weekes: And will officers in your police service respect that outside independent person?

A. That is a good question.

Miss Weekes: There might be an issue of respect there?

A. Well, I am afraid if they do not they are going to have to, because at the end of the day, if you look at the way we have doing things in the past, over the last 15 to 20 years, I do not think anybody could be satisfied with what the system was. So anything that is an addition to that that brings a value to it has to be accepted. I think we will just have to make sure that is the case, because at the end of the day everybody, as you so rightly say, Miss Weekes, has an opportunity to go to an industrial tribunal, an ET, if they want to do that anyway. So there has to be an acceptance along the line in terms of the culture of the organisation that that right is there anyway.

Miss Weekes: Is it not preferable to put some more money into training line managers to be good managers at work whatever the issue is in front of them?

A. Well, we do that. A lot of training goes on, as I was saying to the Chairman. A massive amount of training goes on. I think I said to you about leadership and the like. Of course it is an important issue. You know the amount of training that is demanded on the Metropolitan Police, whether it involves fire arms training or the like – I will give you a list that shows you there is a massive amount of training. I am not saying that this is not a priority, of course it is. But going back to one of my answers to you earlier on, in terms of how do you deliver training, of course training is important but we have to embed in the organisation the things that you and I hold dear in terms of fairness and treating people equally. That is all about a cultural issue, and you do that not just by training, you do that by other means. Those means involve leadership from the top right the way through the organisation.

Miss Weekes: Just the last two. Mediation. It might attract the same points I have just made in terms of respect and independence.

A. Yes, it does.

Miss Weekes: Has that ever been canvassed within the Metropolitan Police Service, the use of mediation?

A. I think it has. Mediation comes in all sorts of forms. This is an incredibly stressful job, policing. Some people find it very difficult to survive, and we have all sorts of counselling, mediation, assistance given to people in very severe operational environments. Now, if we can handle it then, why can we not handle it in other areas which are slightly broader.

Mediation can come in different forms. For me, if I had a problem I do not think I would go to a psychologist or a psychiatrist, I would go to my local priest actually. Some people find different ways necessary to deal with problems.

If we can do that, why can we not do it in other areas?

Miss Weekes: The ombudsman. Is an ombudsman to be used for monitoring the resolution of disputes or is it to be used for resolving those disputes.

A. I think both. You cannot ask an ombudsman to do the job that he or she is going to do if they are not monitoring where the weaknesses are in the organisation and they do not have an overview as to where the problems are. So I see that as dual kind of input to what we do. I do not think we could operate without that.

Miss Weekes: My last question goes back to delay with disputes, whether they be employment tribunal or conduct or discipline. Two public examples – I only choose them because they are publicly known, and I have not read the details of either as yet – there was huge delay in Sergeant Verdi's case.

A. Yes.

Miss Weekes: There was huge delay in Superintendent Dizaei's case.

A. Yes.

Miss Weekes: One involved discipline, the other involved questions of conduct which went to a criminal court where he was acquitted. What was the principal difficulty there about delay, first of all in Sergeant Verdi's case?

A. I think in Sergeant Verdi's case, I think the problem there again was the length of process in deciding whether criminal charges should be proceeded, if I remember rightly. Then you had a very long process in terms of where the PCA were in this. Then you had a lengthy process in trying to get together the discipline processes that should deal with it. And that was unsatisfactory. Sorry to repeat myself but justice delayed is justice denied.

I think in Ali Dizaei's case, of course, you had a criminal case at the Old Bailey which again had to be processed and dealt with, and then going back into the way that was dealt with, with some people we know the PCA are not happy with.

If you have a criminal prosecution that is different. It has to take its course. Whether it is here or what we do in Northern Ireland, it has to take precedence. There is an argument that that process could be speeded up, but that involves sometimes legal advice and so on and so forth –

Miss Weekes: It does. I just want to ask you because you mentioned the DPP, the Crown Prosecution Service effectively. Do you see any improvement there with the relationship of the advice and decision-making from the Crown Prosecution Service when there is an issue of conduct that is a criminal conduct and the disciplinary process which is either waiting at the side or continuing?

A. I think you would have to ask Ian Blair or Steve Roberts about the most recent cases because I do not get involved in those because of my position legally.

I honestly think that these decisions could be made quicker, I really do.

Miss Weekes: The decision to prosecute –

A. To prosecute or not prosecute could be made far quicker. I think the counsel authorities have a legal duty, let alone a humane duty, to come up with these decisions in a far quicker way.

I trained as a lawyer, I lectured in law, and I sometimes cannot for the life of me understand why these decisions cannot be made quicker.

Miss Weekes: Thank you very much, Commissioner.

A. Thank you.

Sir William Morris: Commissioner, thank you. The next line of questioning will come from Sir Anthony Burden, but I am going to suggest that we have five minutes or so break.

11.34 am
(A short break)
11.40 am

Sir William Morris: Sir John, welcome back. I will now hand you over to a voice you have heard before for some questions from Sir Anthony Burden.

Questions by Sir Anthony Burden

Sir Anthony Burden: Sir John, good morning. Could I go just go back to this issue of governance because there is one area, I think which needs to be clarified publicly and certainly has interested my colleagues because of the rather unusual way, perhaps, that senior or chief police officers are appointed.

You have a top management team of 37, as I understand it: a Deputy, four Assistant Commissioners, ten Deputy Assistant Commissioners and 22 Commanders. These are your top managers and you have to rely on them to actually implement the policies that you want implemented?

A. Yes.

Sir Anthony Burden: But you do not appoint them?

A. No.

Sir Anthony Burden: And you cannot dismiss them?

A. No.

Sir Anthony Burden: Is that workable –

A. No.

Sir Anthony Burden: That is very succinct. How can someone at the top of an organisation such as yours possibly manage if they cannot hire and fire the very top people that they depend on?

A. Well, that is absolutely right, and if you look at the process, that process has evolved in terms of independent appointment. I actually think police authorities, having been beneficially appointed, make the right appointments usually at the end of the day.

But your point is absolutely essential to the governance of an organisation; that if the chief constable, who is the chief executive, Chairman, whichever phrase you want to use, has got no kind of control over the destiny of people that are under his command, that cannot be right. And it cannot be right, I think, in terms of justice and fairness as well.

So for me, the point is well made. You have to have some control in terms of people's destiny. It is wrong not to do that. Further down the line you have, but why is it not at the very most senior level?

Sir Anthony Burden: Thank you. Can I just pick up one or two points that my colleagues have already raised but just taking a slightly different slant on them, if I may. It is really around the trust and confidence, or lack of it, in the complaints and grievance procedures within your organisation.

You have already commented that there is a particular – sorry if I quote you:

"There is a particular nervousness about dealing with issues raised by or about black and minority ethnic staff and officers."

If I can just refer to Deputy Assistant Commissioner Roberts' submission, and he appears before us next week. He makes much the same point:

"My personal view is that while it would be naive to suggest that intentional or unintentional racism does not play a part in the observed statistics in relation to both public complaints and internal investigations, much of the racial disproportionality at the point of entry into the investigative system arises from the fact that front line managers are very nervous about giving robust leadership and management when dealing with ethnic minority officers. There is a fear of allegations of racism and in consequence, when faced with minor misbehaviour by an ethnic minority officer, they will either retreat into the formal discipline process, with all the protections that the rules provide, or will turn a blind eye to the minor matters and only intervene at some later stage when more serious misbehaviour has occurred and formal investigation is the only possible course. Thus we either let down our minority officers by failing to administer [as he terms it] 'tough love' or you retreat into the safety of formal processes."

In the MPA's – the Metropolitan Police Authority's – submission, and we are yet to hear from Lord Harris on that, but slightly more graphically, they describe the MPS as "a pressure cooker which lets things simmer till the lid blows off". You have already referred to that, but can I just take that one stage further, if I may, because it is the impact that that has, or may have, on minority ethnic officers as a consequence of that.

We all, I guess, in our service, have been subject to minor indiscretions or minor discipline issues, and if those issues are not pulled up then and there, it is right, you are not fair to the individual because you actually do not steer their career and their development.

Is there a real fear, do you think, as a consequence of that – and I am choosing my words carefully here – that this may create organisational discrimination, in that because those minor indiscretions are not tackled there and then, it is going to actually impact on minority ethnic officers actually getting promotion and attachments to specialist departments? Do you see where I am going?

A. I do.

Sir Anthony Burden: There is a big negative around the fact that supervisors are not doing their job.

A. I think your point is absolutely right. It is absolutely essential that these matters are dealt with quickly and in a frank and honest manner. Otherwise, not only does it lead to people being carted off, it you like, in a direction where they should not do, it leads to massive pain, it leads to anger, it leads to disfunctionality of the organisation, and I for one have seen enough of that over the last five to ten years and it needs to be addressed.

Sir Anthony Burden: Thank you. Can I just pick up, not the Verdi report per se because my colleagues dealt with that, but the recommendations of both the Verdi report and the review of the diversity strategy undertaken by Lord Ouseley and Focus Consultancy.

Both documents came out with a series of recommendations, quite hard-hitting. You, I know, have given your personal endorsement to those recommendations, and yet looking at the Verdi report, the Black Police Association, in undertaking an analysis of that, say that they do not perceive any organisational learning has occurred within the Met as a result of the report.

Could I just ask – I have heard what you said, you know, things are moving on and a long way to go – what you would expect from middle managers in the way that they implement those recommendations, and what structures and processes the Metropolitan Police have put in place to make sure that at the end of the day those recommendations are in and adhered to?

A. One, those recommendations have to be implemented. Secondly, I would expect from the inspection process, and the Deputy Commissioner's command in particular, a monitoring of what those recommendations are, as we would with HMI's recommendations. And, quite frankly, there should be no discussion or argument about their implementation; people should get on and do it.

Equally, it is very, very, important – it goes back to the questions that Miss Weekes put to me – it is very important to take hearts and minds on this. You know probably as well as, if not better than, I do that police organisations are organisations which are focused on delivery. They are driven actually sometimes by targets and performance measures, which is another area which is interesting, and no doubt you will perhaps be touching on that with other witnesses. And it is very important that people do not lose sight of some of these issues which allow an organisation to be fair, healthy, and to have high morale and to feel that they are part of an organisation people want to work for.

So there are issues that you have got to monitor. It ranges from integrity tests right the way through to seeing focus groups and groups of officers. There can be no discussion about those recommendations. They need to be implemented and they need to be implemented in a format which shows that you have taken them on board right the way across the board in everything you deal with.

Sir Anthony Burden: Thank you.

You have referred in your submission and you have spoken this morning about the review you put in place, undertaken by Tarique Ghaffur, Assistant Commissioner, and I think very much to the credit of the MPS to do it, following the BBC programme "The Secret Policeman".

You have given an assurance, Sir John, that the report will be made available to this inquiry.

A. Yes.

Sir Anthony Burden: I know it is in draft form at the moment, but my colleagues and I would be very interested, if it is possible, just to get from you a flavour of what Mr Ghaffur will be saying in the report, if that is possible, please.

A. If I may take you through that. I asked him to do a report specifically for me personally, after that dreadful programme, to see where we were and to see how we could take that forward. If I could take you through the issues he is dealing with in the report.

I have spoken to Tarique this morning and yesterday and he would be delighted to come and speak to you, if you think that is necessary. But he has produced what I think is a very detailed report. It is essentially an internal looking review focusing on the following areas: service delivery to London's diverse communities; internal workings, most particularly in relation to the following: one, recruitment; two, recruitment at Hendon; three, retention and progression of minority officers and staff; four, career development; five, grievance handling and fairness at work; and six, complaints.

Another issues he is dealing with is progress by the MPS on various internal and external reports on race and diversity; some of those issues that you have raised this morning. Another issue: leadership is addressed through critical analysis at all levels of the service; something that Miss Weekes brought up. Quick fix actions through HR goal groups in light of The Secret Policeman screening; what have we done in relation to that?

Then it goes on to deal with the fact that diversity is an opportunity for the MPS and the fact that, are we giving evidence that I and the management board are committed to the diversity agenda. He will talk about McPherson, 70 recommendations. 31, of course, were not police specific. Of the 39 left that relate to the police, he will talk about the progress we have made or otherwise on those, in terms of embedding them and mainstreaming them into our policies and practices.

He talks about achievements, diversity directorate, diversity strategy board, community safety units, family liaison officers, critical incident training, CRU. He will also be talking about a record drop in complaints in the last four to five years of 60 per cent. And if you have seen the figures that came out nationally, the Met leads on that nationally. Those drop in complaints is continuing as I speak now, at a 20 per cent drop on top of the 60 per cent that has taken place over that period of time I talked about.

That is it. I have seen this report, looked at it. You will make your own judgment about whether you think it is valid or not. I think it is a great piece of work.

Sir Anthony Burden: And as the head of the organisation, Sir John, having obviously seen the draft, under those various topic headings, what is your general conclusion? Is it more positive than negative in terms of progress made, or vice versa?

A. I think you will find that Tarique is far more positive than negative and he actually recognises the progress we have made. But I have to say, he identifies some areas of weakness which we really have to identify quite quickly, and we will. The purpose for asking for that particular report was to have an honest look at where we are and where we are going, and the only way you progess is by admitting to things that you have not got quite right, or things you have got right, and getting on with that.

Sir Anthony Burden: Can I – and it is the last area for me, really – just look at this issue of trust and confidence in the complaints process and how it is handled. The question I would like to ask you – and I will explain why in a moment – is: should there be a greater role for the police authority in managing or monitoring the complaints process? The MPA in its submission says this:

"The Authority considers that there may be a case for a fundamental structural reform to put the investigation of professional standards matters at arm's length from the management of the Force and to underline its independence by making it directly accountable to the MPA. Although The Independent Police Complaints Commission will enhance the independence of investigations of some complaints for the near future, the vast majority of complaints against police and internal allegations will be investigated by the MPS itself."

So, if you like, it is where the IPCC will not be taking effect directly. It is the remainder – the bulk, I guess, of the complaints. Could you give your views on that, if you would.

A. Yes. I think there is room for compromise here. I think the MPA, with their expertise, can be far more involved. But let me just make it absolutely clear where I stand on this.

The MPA, if you go and listen to the conferences and the meetings, is sometimes politically driven from different political parties. There is nothing wrong with that; that is healthy. We have our eminent independent members. But I can tell you this: it is absolutely essential to the policing of this country, the golden thread of policing, that policing is independent of politicians. If you get yourself involved in a political environment in terms of police complaints, which is not independent in the way I have been describing it, we go down the route of disaster for our reputations, for the administration of the law and likewise.

The police service fought off, quite rightly, in the last two to three years, through the Houses of Parliament, what could have been direct political control of policing in this country. Do not let it come by another guise, please.

Sir Anthony Burden: Thank you.

Sir William Morris: Thanks, Sir Anthony.

Sir John, that, I think, concludes the questions that my colleagues and myself were minded to put to you. I just want to conclude by saying thank you very much for your help.

I did, in my opening comments, say I would offer to your good self, and indeed all witnesses, an opportunity for a brief closing statement. I invite you to do so should you wish.

A. Chairman, can I say how much we, the Metropolitan Police Service, and I personally welcome this inquiry. I think it has got a window of opportunity which is unique. I think it comes at a time when we all know that we need to change and progress. I have absolute confidence that what comes out of this inquiry will be for the benefit of the police service, and that means for the benefit of the public at large.

If there is anything we need to do from the Metropolitan Police Service, or I personally, to assist the inquiry, do not please hesitate to ask for it. I wish you well, Godspeed, and I look forward with great excitement, if you like to, what comes out of this inquiry.

Sir William Morris: Well, I am sure you can find the ability to curb the excitement and enthusiasm.

Can I say just by way of conclusion, picking up your point of continued support and help, as with all our witnesses, it may be necessary when we have heard from everyone that we may want to ask a few more questions, either by way of writing or indeed ask people to come back. If the need arises then we will try and do so in the best possible way to cause the least inconvenience to the parties.

But for the moment, my colleagues and I would just like to place on the record our thanks for your submission and your contribution to the Inquiry this morning. Thank you very much indeed.

A. Thank you very much.

Sir William Morris: Colleagues, we now stand adjourned until 2 o'clock.

11.57 am

Skip Navigation \| Accessible

Accessibility About the Inquiry Contacts Search
Home News Schedule Transcripts Evidence Report Links
Transcripts > Sir John Stevens (18 Feb 04)
QuickSearch See also On this website: Evidence: Sir John Stevens Transcript: Sir John Stevens (6 July 2004)	Previous Next	Views Print Accessible Actions Send
	Archive note Important note: This is an archive of the website that was formerly at www.morrisinquiry.gov.uk. It is being hosted on the MPA website for archival purposes only and may contain out-of-date information. Page summary This resource is from the Transcripts section. This section contains a transcript of the public session with Sir John Stevens on 18 February 2004. Sections available here: Transcript of public session: Sir John Stevens, Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis Questions by Sir William Morris Questions by Miss Weekes Questions by Sir Anthony Burden Alternative versions This transcript is also available with original line and page numbering. Content Transcript of public session: Sir John Stevens, Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis Wednesday, 18 February 2004 10.00 am Sir William Morris: Ladies and gentlemen, good morning and good morning to you, Sir John. A. Good morning. Sir William Morris: Sir John, can I first of all say thank you very much indeed for accepting our invitation to attend the Inquiry and to give evidence, and indeed for letting us have your written submission, which we have read. We have found that extremely helpful indeed. I do appreciate that for some of our witnesses, perhaps not your good self, any process of this nature might seem to be a rather daunting experience. So I thought it would be helpful if first I briefly set out how we propose to conduct the hearing this morning. First let me introduce myself. I am Sir Bill Morris, recently retired General Secretary of the Transport and General Workers Union, a position which I held for some 12 years, and I have been asked to chair this Inquiry. As you can see, there are two other panel members. On my right is Sir Anthony Burden, who recently retired as Chief Constable of the South Wales Constabulary after a long and distinguished career in the police service. On my left is Anesta Weekes QC, who is an eminent barrister who sits as a recorder and part-time chair of employment tribunals. She was also counsel to the Lawrence Inquiry. Sir John, as you know we have been asked by the Metropolitan Police Authority to conduct an independent inquiry into professional standards and employment matters in the Metropolitan Police service. Let me repeat what I said at the launch of our inquiry. Our focus is the MPS as an organisation and not the individuals who make up the Metropolitan Police Service. The inquiry we are conducting is inquisitorial and not adversarial in nature. We are keen to inquire into the issues raised by our terms of reference so we can make appropriate recommendations for further good practice, rather than concentrating on making criticisms of MPS or indeed the organisations or a particular individual. To help us in our task we are very keen to hear from all our witnesses not just what is wrong with the Metropolitan Police Service but what is right with it, and most importantly your suggestion and all the suggestions of our witnesses in telling us what needs to be done in putting it right. A transcript is being taken so that we have a proper record of the evidence given by the witnesses. This will be posted on our website later today. At the end of these introductory remarks I will lead on the questions to you followed by my colleagues, Miss Weekes followed first by Sir Anthony Burden, and then the supplementary questions that I might find necessary. At the conclusion of our questions I will offer you the opportunity for a brief closing comment. In your written submissions, Sir John, which will be posted on the Inquiry's website when you have given your evidence, you have set out the following information: your views on delivering policing service that is fair, appropriate, compassionate and impartial. You have said that there are a number of examples of good practice in the Metropolitan Service and you have given some examples: diversity directorate, the community safety unit, the family liaison officers, and of course increasing numbers of ethnic minority officers and the fairness at work procedures and practices. You have also given us your views on some aspects of the service which in your view needs improvements. Examples: a greater need for informal resolution of complaints, attempts to reduce delay in the relevant process, and emphasis on the early assessment of the importance of all complaints. You have indicated alteration to the Crown servant status of officers and the referral of grievance to mediators. It is not our intention to ask you to repeat what you have already told us in your written submission, but rather there are various issues raised in it that we wish to explore with you. But before we raise these issues, for the benefit of the transcript writer, I wonder, Sir John, if you would mind formally introducing yourself to the inquiry? A. John Stevens, Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police. I have been Commissioner for four years now. Questions by Sir William Morris Sir William Morris: Thank you. Sir John, since the year 2000 there has been an additional political dimension to your role as Commissioner. That has manifested itself; in addition to the Home Secretary there is now the Mayor of London, the Greater London Authority, the Metropolitan Police Authority, and of course it is true to say that the state holding community of the MPS has grown somewhat in those succeeding years. Let me ask you first how does this manifest itself on a day-to-day basis? Would you say it has made your job easier or more difficult? A. I think, chairman, I am on record as saying I am the most accountable police chief in the world. Of that there is no doubt. If one looked at the number of bodies one is accountable to, and I make no complaint about this, I might have some comment about it. I think there is something in the region of 22/26 bodies that I am accountable to. I think the political complexity and mix of London, in particular in the new structure, does create problems for us in terms of bureaucracy and in terms of clarity, and I think the changeover from our response and our direct link to the Home Secretary, which changed within six months of my becoming Commissioner, had its strengths and weaknesses. I think the underlying theme and the underlying importance of all of this is that the Metropolitan Police must never be seen as a political football. With the advent of local elections coming up in June and perhaps national elections next year, it is absolutely essential that the Metropolitan Police are seen to be independent in terms of the delivery of the law and independent in our actions. That does not mean to say of course that we are not accountable to the people of London, not accountable to our local political masters or our central political masters, but it is very, very important that we have a clear chain of command and a clear chain of accountability. Sir William Morris: Thank you. Just taking the theme forward in terms of the scale of the task, not just in accountability terms but in functional terms, I think it is perhaps common ground that the job of the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police is without doubt the most challenging police task and job in the United Kingdom, and perhaps some would even say in the world. You have to deliver on the one hand strategic executive management and leadership of some 40,000 plus officers and staff, and it is estimated that your budget is somewhere in the region of about £2.5 billion. On the other hand, you also have to give executive strategic operational leadership in policing London. London is a patch which is changing beyond recognition, not just in terms of its profile of its citizens but in terms of the challenges, issues like global terrorism, and, in a sense, the frontiers of the MPS's boundary and the Commissioner's task is not the boundaries of London but some would say it encompasses the world in terms of traffic and mobility of people. With these two tasks, executive strategic managerial function, executive strategic operational leadership, where do you see the priorities, and can you tell us whether you think the priorities are competing ones? A. I think the priorities are always competing. I think what we have tried to do over the last four years in the restructuring of the Metropolitan Police, specifically with the emphasis on the boroughs and we will be going into a new structure where we drill even further down in terms of a far better local delivery, is that if you make the boroughs the primary purpose and the primary delivery platform for the Metropolitan Police then you have to delegate to borough commanders who are coterminous with their political boundaries all the necessary power for them to deliver. You have to trust them, you have to give them the power and delegation in terms of personnel finance and likewise other areas. That for me has been the main primary delivery. Yes, of course we have to have the antiterrorist branch, organised crime branch, flying squad and our central delivery squads, specifically the murder squads. But I think the change of style of policing for London has been for the better. That change of style of policing means to say we at the centre have to be a far more co-ordinating monitoring group. You cannot allow 32 borough commanders to go off, and I will use the phrase like mad dogs in the distance, doing what they wish to do. There has to be some reining in, there has to be some direction and there has to be some monitoring. The key is how that is delivered. Previously to the creation of the Metropolitan Police Authority we had a receiver who actually had similar powers to the Commissioner, who reported direct to the Home Office and the Permanent Undersecretary, and actually was responsible for our resources and the way on occasions they were delivered. I think that was actually overgrown by time, and time marched on. I think the process we have got now, where we do have to have a real proper delivery I think in terms of finance and in terms of how we deliver things is proper professional advice, for example finance. The Metropolitan Police did not have one qualified accountant in its make-up five years, six years ago. That has changed. And so what I am trying to say here is that there has to be a proper professional delivery in the areas where we have to deliver that. I happen to believe that also is represented in the way we deliver in other areas. I have an advisory board of people who are extremely distinguished people who I keep quite quiet about. Perhaps they keep quite quiet about the fact they advise me on a regular basis, but a lot of them are very eminent people in their own areas. That is being superimposed further down the chain by professional people from very large multinational companies on occasions who mentor borough commanders and mentor some of our operational departments and the heads of those. I think it is this kind of interchange on more of an unofficial basis which brings a lot of benefit. I think your point is well made, if I might say so, Chairman, that what we have to have is proper professional advice. And when it comes to the area of diversity, when it comes to the area of employment law, when it comes to advice in relation to some of the more complicated areas that are there in policing we have to have that proper professional advice. Dare I say it, that professional advice has to be independent. We as police officers, quite rightly, are focused on delivery on the street in terms of operational requirements. We can on occasions lose sight of some of the other issues, which I think you were alluding to, Chairman, which need to be taken into account also. My own view is advisory boards, professional advice, mentoring at the highest level, mentoring also at a more operational level by independent people is essential to the way we should operate in this highly complex world which is getting more complex as time goes on. Sir William Morris: I think there will be no disagreement in recognising the degree of delegation of responsibility and authority within the managerial structure of the Met; the borough command module, for example, is recognised and you have given some explanation about that. I think that is very commendable and that is not an issue in doubt. But in the end, when you have taken advice from the board, when you have drilled down into the mentoring programme of professional officers, and you have all the accountants – and I note that is an increase in number – when all that has been done, the fact of the matter is that the buck stops at the Commissioner's desk. You cannot go beyond that, there is nowhere else to go unless you go into the political field and that is not what the managerial issues of the Met is about. But you have talked about some of the advisers, multinational companies, and it must be very obvious that in those companies there is a division of roles; there is the chief executive, there is some modicum of political leadership interfacing with a city or other institution. So in the light of all that do you think that the model where these two roles, the leadership in management and leadership in operational activities, resides in a single person is now right for review in the light of the complexities of an evolving 21st century? A. I think that is an interesting point. I think at the end of the day the buck stopping at the Commissioner is fair enough, and here I want to pay tribute to the Metropolitan Police Authority. I think the Metropolitan Police Authority in essence, if we looked at some private organisation outside the public service, is more of a board whereby they hold the Commissioner to account on a regular basis and they certainly do that. They are constructive critics. We have structure of committees which delivers. They have been very tough with the Met and myself on occasions, and quite rightly, in terms of financial control, personnel and the like, and I think the private sector kind of model, appealing as it is – and I can see the real advantages of it – I think probably would not meet the Metropolitan Police's demands, specifically I think because those demands are met by the Metropolitan Police Authority. Here I want to publicly put on record my admiration for the way that authority has handled themselves in terms of delivering what is a better service for London. I have been around in the service for a long time, I have been a chief constable, worked my way up. I was an HMI inspecting all the larger forces outside London and some of the smallest, and this police authority started from a very difficult, complex system and have delivered. I see them as delivering, I think, some of the roles that you refer to, Chairman. Sir William Morris: Yes, we are still to hear from the Metropolitan Police Authority, and having seen their written submission there is a debate to be had about the accountability issue. But the accountability issue insofar as you described it is a retrospective experience. What, I think, my colleagues and I are really interested in is, if you like, the proactive experience. Not after the decisions have been taken but before the decisions are taken. Let me just ask you to consider: could you perhaps see an alternative model where the role is split between, say, the Commissioner with responsibility for leading, providing the strategic directional operational leadership? I know you get out on the beat because I have seen you, but to be with the people on the beat. One person cannot do it all. You cannot be managing the shop at the same time as giving support to the troops. You can do it occasionally but there is a limit to that. And I know you have a team there. One person giving that sort of operational leadership and support, someone like a chief operating officer or chief executive/chief operating officer with the responsibility for the day-to-day management of the organisation – in my line of business we would say minding the shop. Just common basic be there; make sure that there is accountability for the resource and strategically pulling all the necessary parts of the Met together to deliver one common purpose; that is to support the police officers on the beat. How would you see that, if it has any merits at all? A. I think it has merits, but I think in terms of what we are doing it goes back to what are we here to do? Are we here to make London a safer place? Are we here to make people's quality of life better in terms of making sure the streets are safe? Where I think the weakness, if I may put it that way, of your argument is in relation to the overall delivery. I remember coming back to the Met as the Deputy Commissioner, I was there for two years, and Paul Condon in that atmosphere quite rightly talking about me being the chief executive of the organisation and he being the chairman. I think in that environment then that was perhaps right. I think what people are looking for now in this new more complex environment is simple leadership. I think that simple leadership is all about – actually, policing at the end of the day in terms of what we are trying to achieve is simple. The ability of trying to get there is far more complex and is made more complex. The bottom line is I do not think in terms of getting the best out of the police service that you can separate the resources issue and how we deliver our resources from the operational end of our business. I think where we have – and Sir Anthony will either agree or disagree with this, I know not – I think where one of the weaknesses of policing has been over the years is that we have been driven by resources rather than us, the operational side of the business, driving the finances; rather than us saying, "This is where we are aiming to go", the finance is following up, I am afraid one of the weaknesses have been over the years is that we say, "Right, you have this sum of money Chief Constable, or Commissioner. You can only do this because we only have this sum of money." I do not think that is the right way of doing business. Therefore, it is a long answer to your question, it is about where the focus is; it is all about making sure you have got that professional ability to come in behind you, and I also think it is also about having that accountability which does involve finances and resources which comes from the MPHM. Sir William Morris: Yes, I am very much with you. I mean, there is no chicken and egg here at all. A. No, there is not. Sir William Morris: The fact of the matter is, nevertheless, that resource equals delivery. A. Absolutely. Sir William Morris: And resource has to be managed. A. Yes. Sir William Morris: I have read the HMIC's last report and I think that the report highlights the inspector's thoughts of some managerial weaknesses in the MPC's managerial structure. Let me just take you to about three or four examples which might be indicative of a much broader problem. The first is in fact – you will see it on the screen – paragraph 2.3 on page 90. Under the heading "Strategic Direction and Planning", you will have read that: "The MPS does not yet have a medium term corporate strategy." And it goes on to talk about: "The significant omission for an organisation of its size and complexity ..." So this is the HMIC's inspectorate indicating that there are some strategic planning issues, which is in fact an important consideration. I think we should perhaps just look at this together. The next is the second one, which is paragraph 2.29 on page 25. The issues there are set out in terms of what the independent auditors found. It talks about: "... struck by the sheer abundance of data produced by the MPS combined with the relative lack of incisive analytical products and a distinct lack of costing information." So basically what he is saying is that the costing structure, there is a lack of incisive analytical product which supports the costing structure. He is arguing there that the abundance of data makes life difficult to come to those sort of basic conclusions. Just another couple which I think are important: paragraph 5.32 on page 60. This here is just the internal auditors indicating their concern: "In summary, while I am satisfied that the efforts continue to be made to correct identified weakness I can only offer a 50 per cent reassurance on the adequacy of the control and the effectiveness of the system within the MPS." I am not sure what Companies House would say about a 50 per cent assurance from the auditor – although it is an internal auditor – if we were a business, which we are not. We are providing a service. Just a final one. This is perhaps a bit lengthy. It is 6.12 on page 68, please. It talks about: "A number of budgets have been devolved to enhance local freedom within corporate parameters. The directorate has produced a catalogue of hardware and software applications which can be purchased and devolved to budget holders in order to provide this element of central control. However, Her Majesty's Inspectorate was concerned to find that the directorate does not hold records of the equipment which has been purchased in order to check compliance with both corporate policy and also legal requirements surrounding the use and licensing of computer software. He therefore suggested that as a matter of urgency an audit is conducted of all locally managed hardware and software to ensure compliance with the requirements." So I am sure that the inspectorate – let me say that in his report he also makes some very commendable comments in terms of where things have actually been put right as a follow-up to a previous report. But the fact of the matter is that bearing in mind these comments, which, as I said earlier, are somewhat indicative of a wider report and issues that he has formed, is there any alternative model, if not the one that I put forward on behalf of my colleagues and myself, that could relieve the Commissioner of some of the day-to-day management of the existing resource and manage it better, which would then provide greater resource for the operational needs of the Met, because there is only one purpose that the Met is in business for; that is the police; it is not there to do anything else. A. I think there are three very important issues that you raised there which come out of Sir Ronnie Flanagan's report. One is the financial structure and how we actually deliver in terms of the finance we get. The other is of course the costings structures and the support we give to our commanders, specifically our borough commanders. I think the other issue is absolutely right about the accountancy processes of the Metropolitan Police. Now, the finance that comes to the Metropolitan Police comes in kind of modules from the Home Office and also has to go through the Assembly and the Mayor. It is an incredibly inefficient process at the moment for us to sort our business in a way you would want. I think one of the things that really does have to happen is there has to be some certainty about how the Met is financed in the next two or three years, both from the Home Office in terms of the formula – we have one or two comments to say that we have not got our fair amount of money this year from central government, £82 million, if you look at the formula. But the real question is the timing of how we work out our finances and work our finances into the business of delivering a strategy. There is a massive weakness which I am sure some of the officers who follow me in the MPA will talk about, Chairman, which is a real problem for us specifically in London. The costings structure and the support and the professionalism to our borough commanders in 1992/2003 was not good enough. If you look at the structures they were not there. The professionalism was not there. The good news is that for the first time I think in the Metropolitan Police's history, this year the National Audit Office has signed off our accounts with 100 per cent, as far as they can go, with 100 per cent confidence in the fact that we are now doing our financial business in a way that is satisfactory to them. That is for the first time ever. If you look at the history over the last seven or 10 years and beyond they have refused to do that. That was actually when we were under the control of the Home Office. The other interesting thing is that over the course of the last five years – this is something I am very proud of – we have made £310 million worth of efficiency savings. I would like to see any other public body in this country that has achieved that over the period of time we have done it, and at the same time we increased our efficiency and increased our productivity. But the points that the HMI has made there are absolutely right. They do refer to a deficiency that was there. I would like to think a lot of that deficiency has been eradicated. But the primary point, Chairman, is the timing of how we get our finances, how we work it through the GLA and then how it comes through the MPA in terms of how we do that. That needs to be changed. It is one of those areas I will be pleading with people that they change and change now. Sir William Morris: Yes. We have picked up in the HMIC's report the difficulties in terms of the planning cycle and the budget making cycle, particularly from your additional political stakeholders, Mayor's office and GLA. But in the end, you know, there will always be a debate about quantitative amounts allocated to any institution and I have never met one who could not spend more given a fair wind. But one of the best ways of convincing those who allocate resource that you are worthy of more is in fact to be able to demonstrate that you are competent using that which you have got, and the report indicates a situation where in critical areas, for example the whole inventory of software and the compliance issues, you are almost negating your insurance covers on issues like that, and contract overruns. I think the case that I am really making is that there is vast improvement necessary in managing the existing resource, and I think you have recognised this to some extent, and one of the issues that we will certainly want to look further at is as to what suggestions can be made, if not structurally or managerially, but we do believe that the situation as it currently exists, of course we want to see delegation, but delegation will only work effectively and efficiently in terms of resource management if there is a strong central lead from this end. A. Agreed. Sir William Morris: Can I move on to one or two employment issues, Sir John, please. I want to turn to your submission now. In paragraph 25 of your submission you refer to the current system of managing staff relationship and you express the view – and I quote – you say there that: "The present system is antiquated and long-winded and should be scrapped." You state, and I quote again: "With some exceptions the ordinary employment law applicable to employment relationship should be applied to police officers, even though they are office holders under the Crown and must remain so and not employees of the service." Could I invite you please to expand on that statement a little more? A. Yes, I think the present system relates to the old courtmarshal system, and I have said for a very long time, and I know some of my colleagues have said for a very long time, that this system is totally out of kilter in terms of delivering for a modern day service. I think the business of the legalised process that we use for discipline, I think that the way that chief constables are actually pushed into a position of adjudicating on many cases which really could have been dealt with and bypassed, if you like, in a satisfactory way earlier on, is completely outdated. Further, I think not only is it outdated, it is justice delayed, which means justice denied. I think if you combine that with the way that the length of time that decisions are made, not just in relation to the Police Complaints Authority but in relation sometimes to the DPP and the Attorney General, I think the whole system really does need to be completely regenerated. I for one, Chairman, will be looking to this inquiry with great optimism, that you will come up with a system that allows justice to take place, that allows people not to be suspended for a period of six to seven years, or on occasions appear to be scapegoats in certain situations where other people have been allowed to walk away, and that certain individuals – I can give you examples – have been left to hold responsibility beyond that which their rank encompasses. That is because the system is just not adequate to deal with these cases. Sir William Morris: You indicate not a sort of root and branch sweep away, that is how I interpret your comments, with some exceptions. Can you help us in terms of what specific exceptions? A. I think I refer to, in my submission, a triage approach where each individual case is judged on its merits. What we have at the moment is if you get an individual where a complaint has been made, there is a whole complicated legal process that comes into action, a process that is lengthy, that is legal, that actually at the end of the day achieves nothing and pleases no-one. The thing for me – and I hear it from officer after officer when I go round talking to people – is the delay in the system. I am afraid it is no good any of us, and I include the police service in this, the PCA in other words, turning round and saying, "These decisions take an awful long time to come to fruition". I am afraid that is just not good enough. When you are talking about offences which are outside the criminal law, criminal prosecution, corruption – which I have led on in terms of the Met – is something different to be pursued in a different manner. But if you are talking about other issues which relate to grievances, we really do have to have a better system. I think that system needs to be an independent system. When you talk about having a chief executive to deliver outside the Metropolitan Police in terms of finance and the others, well we can discuss that. But if you are talking about an ACAS-type system outside what we have now, surely that must be the way forward. And I think there is a disjoint, if you like, between what the police deliver and what the criminal law delivers. So that you can have a decision made by a police authority – by that I mean a chief constable or police service – which is totally out of kilter with what the civil law will find out. It really does need to be dealt with. Sir William Morris: Let us come back to ordinary employment law, I think was the phrase in your submission? A. Yes. Sir William Morris: For the avoidance of doubt – because employment law has evolved in many strands over the years – but in specific terms, are you suggesting that the Metropolitan Police officers – and I do not think this will be just about the Metropolitan Police Service; it would be wider than that. I think the Home Secretary would have a view here. Are you suggesting that they should have an ordinary contract of employment such as some people in this room enjoy? A. Yes, I am. What I think should happen is there should be a contract of employment that actually encompasses the Metropolitan Police as a family; to do the same to an extent for the police officer as it is for the police staff. Of course you have to have a certain rigour in terms of the contract because we are a disciplined organisation. On occasions we have to give orders which have to be followed. But I believe the time has now come – and it might be a radical suggestion, I know not, but that does not worry me; I suspect it will not worry you, Chairman – that really there does need to be an overall contract of employment. The sooner we can get that, I think that will then filter down to all the structures we have and all the issues we have around grievances which, quite frankly, are not dealt with in a satisfactory way at the present time. Sir William Morris: You obviously see it as a plus otherwise you would not have put it forward, but I think my colleagues and I would like to know whether you have considered the so-called downsides. A. I think the downsides would be: are we actually protecting the rights of the employer? Let us take a police officer in this instance because they have a separate right. I was a Federation rep for a period of time and I fought for some of the things that are there now. This was a long time ago, 30 years ago. I think employment law actually does have enough protection for a police officer in these circumstances. Further, I think the way the processes work – all right, we know that we have got long delays in terms of ETs because of the structure sometimes of tribunals, but nobody surely can justify the lengths of time it takes for us to deal with things in relation to discipline offences. And some of these offences, if you look at them in detail, which I have done over the years, are minor matters in my view. If they had been handled earlier on by way of resolution, by way of some kind of judicial process that allows people to meet and talk about these issues, it would have been dealt with years before that. I go back to my point that I really feel very strongly about, that when issues have taken place and, you know, I can give examples of that, where officers are left in the organisation, other officers have left it and moved on to other things for certain reasons, it is absolutely wrong for the whole weight of the Police Complaints Authority and the police disciplinary process to come down on those people who decide to stay either because they are junior rank and have time to go forward into other things or have a lengthy time before they retire. It is just not justice. Sir William Morris: Yes. I take all the points that you have made in terms of delay and the justice and the speed and all that goes with that. Where my colleagues and I need a little bit more enlightenment and understanding is that you are arguing that the office holder under the Crown status should still be maintained, but you are also arguing that the concept of employment law which makes them an employee should in fact be afforded, and it seems like a cake and eating it concept here. You know as well as I do – we have both been here long enough to know that that cannot happen. You cannot have a cake and eat it. A. I do not think you can have that. It is nice to try and do it but the world is not like that as you say, Chairman I think the bottom line is that the employment under the Crown of course relates to an oath that a police officer takes to ensure that the law is administered in a way that is independent and in a way that it has in the past. I think that can still stand. But I cannot see why we cannot have proper civil law principles of delivery of justice, if I might use that word, for employees. There has to be a better way of doing it. The other point is this: where some of the problems arise is that a decision – I think I hinted at this earlier on – a decision is made by the police service, a chief constable or whoever is found guilty of a disciplinary offence. What has happened on a large number of occasions is that that then goes into the civil forum, which obviously has precedence and then there is a conflict in terms of that decision. That surely is not the right way to progress things. You need a common level of probity, evidence giving and judgment, and we have not got that at the moment. It is a disconnect, and I think one of the secrets of making sure we have got a satisfactory police service is to make sure there is a connection between civil law, industrial tribunals and the way we operate. The other thing I will draw attention to, if I may, Chairman, is that we need an independence in the structure. We have to have an independence similar to ACAS. Sir William Morris: Just one final point, if I may, Sir John. If you had the employment status that you have sort of indicated, and even with the attendant principle of independence external, fundamentally from a day-to-day workplace environment do you think that this would alter the relationship between the uniformed officers and the civilians with whom they interface? Because that is not an unimportant consideration towards the common cause of fighting crime and keeping London safe. A. Chairman, you are absolutely right. I actually do not think it would drive us further apart or drive us apart. I actually think it would bring us together. I think the fact that we used a unified system of employment, the fact that civilian staff, police staff, would be seen to be operating under a similar type of agreement, contractual agreement, I think would bring us together. And I think the other thing is, you know, with the help of ACPO we have led in London on the PCSOs, community safety officers. We know that that has been a massive success. We are now trying to extend that in terms of how we embed that in our policing structure with this ward-based policing. Step change as we call it at the moment. So I believe the change in the kind of employment structure we are talking about, one employment structure is very much in sympathy with the way we are going to be policing in the future of this country. It is all about bringing us together and closer to the people we serve and the people who we police. Sir William Morris: That leads me on to the last section of my questions here: organisation. Moving from employment to organisation. Because we have a very helpful chart – I think it is the inquiry 86 – it sets out the structure as it currently operates. I just want to make one or two points about that. Anyway, you know the narrative. A. Indeed. Sir William Morris: Here we are. We have an Assistant Commissioner, Mr Hogan-Howe. He is in charge of human resources. You have a Deputy Assistant Commander reporting to the Deputy Commissioner in charge of professional standards directorate. We then have an employment tribunal as a unit within the professional standards directorate. A. Yes. Sir William Morris: By their very nature they are concerned obviously with workplace issues. And then we have got fairness at work practice and procedures. That comes within the HR directory. Let me give you my first reaction. I am concluding here that there is a golden thread but it does not run through. I have not said too much about diversity yet, and I will be talking to your colleague about diversity. I said yesterday, it is not a flexible commodity that you can take around. A. No. Sir William Morris: So what I am saying to you is that this chart gives us a very, very clear and excellent intention but it is not joined up, is it? A. Well, we have had lots of discussion about the chart and about the structure and it is exactly as you described it. Does that allow us to have this kind of combined effect in terms of what we are delivering on diversity? After long discussions we decided that perhaps that is as good as it gets but maybe you will come up with a better structure that we will agree with. The bottom line is that every single thing we do, whether it comes from my office or whether it comes from someone who is working cleaning the toilets at Scotland Yard, has to have embedded in them the principles of diversity. The fact is that integrity is non-negotiable and diversity is part and parcel of everything we do. Certainly in my term as Commissioner that is what I have been trying to do, and deal with that in the kind of way that involves justice, involves fairness. So for me structural charts are important, of course they are, Chairman, but for me the most important part of it is the culture of the Met. I think, even though our most stringent critics would say we have come a long way in the last four to five years we still have a massive way to go. I accept that. Sir William Morris: I will not burden you any more on my comments on structural issues, but your other colleagues will enlighten us further. A. Indeed. Sir William Morris: Sir John, thank you very much for your answers and the candidness with which you have answered. That is all I want to ask you for the moment. I will now hand you over to Miss Weekes, my colleague, to ask you some questions. Questions by Miss Weekes Miss Weekes: Good morning, Commissioner. Please may I apologise for my voice. I will do my best to ensure that I am heard. I would like to deal, if I may, with some of the comments that you have made in dealing with the relationship of officers that work with each other; effectively the work environment, people management. I would like to come back also to your comments about delay and about the need for an independent system. First of all, can I start with the resolution of disputes before they reach employment tribunals. You are bound to agree with me, Commissioner, that if you can resolve workplace disputes which are often very minor disputes, you increase morale? A. Yes. Miss Weekes: You increase the correct atmosphere at work? A. Yes. Miss Weekes: You allow officers to get on with policing and you reduce the expense of a tribunal case? A. Absolutely. Miss Weekes: So a central theme for us in this inquiry is the way those disputes are dealt with and how officers are treated by line managers and supervisors. At the moment are you happy with the way minor disputes are dealt with? A. No. I have not been happy for some time with the way minor disputes have been dealt with. We are looking at a new structure – it is too early to say. I think Sir Ian Blair and others will be talking about that new structure. But I believe what has happened in the past is that minor issues, as we call them – which are sometimes not minor of course to the people affected by them; they affect their work life, they affect their home life – have not been resolved in the way that you or I would expect them to be resolved. I think the organisation, quite frankly, has become extremely rigid in terms of the way it has been dealing especially with ethnic issues. To use a phrase that I think Tarrique Ghaffur might well use, if you call him in front of you, is that the organisation needs to be more relaxed in terms of the way we deal with things. One of the results of the MacPherson Lawrence Inquiry is that people have become extremely frightened of issues involving ethnic minority complaints. And what they have done in my view, and I think you might hear some evidence during the period of time, is that they have resorted to a system which is there, a grievance system which has its faults which you will hear about I am sure during the inquiry, and they resorted to that in defence, they have seen, of their own position. I think it has been something which has caused a problem and it has caused a problem within the organisation, and if this Inquiry does anything I would hope that it comes up with a system and a recommendation – of course it is a matter for you – which deals with that. Miss Weekes: Can I just interrupt you. It might be helpful as this is a public inquiry, let us just try to understand the nature of the problem you deal with. The Verdi report of 2001 – I will not go into the detail of Sergeant Verdi's case, I am simply looking at some of the matters highlighted in that report. It might be helpful if we are able to bring that up on the screen. It is the Verdi report at page 32. I have my own copy but we will just wait so you have it yourself. Although that related, of course, specifically to disciplinary procedures in respect of Sergeant Verdi, that report, very helpfully, way back in 2001, highlighted some of the difficulties in people management and the workplace relationship. Whilst that has been brought up, you have also yourself, in your submission, highlighted the sensitivity surrounding the way managers deal with workplace conflict. I will not go back to use the word "minor" because you are right, some people would consider them important. But what we mean perhaps by minor – what I mean is not major enough to go to a tribunal case if it is resolved quickly? A. Absolutely. Miss Weekes: So let us look at this. To the left hand column you will see these words: "More support is needed from senior officers to line managers and supervisors." It says this, and I am going to highlight three or four of the bullet points further down: "Managers face dilemmas when dealing with discipline/ET/grievance – clear guidance needed to empower managers to act robustly. "The consequences of the blame culture means that the organisation are dealing with minor issues. "There is insufficient time to deal with personnel issues at an early stage. Consequently, borough commanders find themselves dealing with issues at disciplinary tribunals which might have been prevented by early intervention." That was in 2001. Is it the same now, in 2004? A. In terms of the new system that has been brought out, I would like to think that that is not the case, but you can hear no doubt from Sir Ian Blair and from DAC Roberts who deal with these things on a daily basis. Miss Weekes: The new system is the fairness at work procedure; is that what you are referring to? A. I am, yes. Miss Weekes: That has replaced all grievance procedures which operated within the Metropolitan Police Service before. A. Indeed. Miss Weekes: That fairness at work procedure is available to all police officers and police staff when they have workplace difficulties, grievances. That only began to operate in April 2003. A. That is right. Miss Weekes: So it is in its early stages. A. That is right. Miss Weekes: I am going to come back to that. But essentially, the matters highlighted by the Verdi report of 2001 have not gone away, have they? A. I do not think they have gone away, and the reason I was saying earlier on that they have not gone away is because – again, I use Tarrique Ghaffur's expression – the organisation is not relaxed around these matters. I think there has to be some cultural change in terms of allowing people to deal with these things in an unbureaucratic way. We have got a long way to go on that, I accept that. Miss Weekes: You yourself have identified, at page 6 of your submission, paragraph 16, the fairness at work procedure. Credit must be given to the Metropolitan Police for bringing about that change because undoubtedly one of the criticisms of the previous grievance was its complexity; it is cumbersome and it simply did not work to resolve matters. A. Absolutely. Miss Weekes: The fairness at work, does it guarantee that the line manager or supervisor will be better than he or she was under the old grievance? Is there any guarantees built into this? I have not read it. A. I think the process does, but again we are talking about a cultural issue, again we are talking about people having the confidence to make decisions to make a resolution in areas where you and I would make a resolution, but because perhaps the confidence is not there, because of the history sometimes of these things, I think we have a fair way to go. I think what we would be looking to do in another four or five months is to look at the fairness at work issue and see where the weaknesses of that system are. We would also, if I might say so, be looking to this inquiry to come up with some better ways maybe of what we have already created in terms of the system which we have got now which is a new system. But you are right, the previous system, it was easy to see where the problems were in that system, and therefore I would like to think that the new system we have got in will be certainly better than that and will address most of the issues. I go back to what I was saying to the Chairman, these are cultural issues, and once you have got an issue where people in the organisation are frightened to not deal with things on a one to one basis because they feel they are going then to be criticised or going to a legal process, you are going to have a problem. I think, again, like some of the things we have been doing over the last four years, this takes time to bed itself in so we will have to wait. Miss Weekes: I am going to come to the issue of the sensitivity of discrimination being raised, whether it be race, gender, sexual orientation or age. I am going to come back to that. Let us just keep at the moment to the broad issues of workplace conflicts, because line managers must line manage. A. Yes. Miss Weekes: And if an officer's performance needs to be improved then the way to do it is through line management. A. Yes. Miss Weekes: You are not going to get rid of that, are you? A. No. Miss Weekes: Because the way the Metropolitan Police works, it works by having seniority and there is hierarchy, is there not? A. There is. Miss Weekes: Is there too much of that? A. I think there probably is. I think there is probably too much of a rank structure, but that is the nature of what we do. I think policing is a complex business. To actually operate in a public order situation you need direct command and a direct kind of response to that command, or in a situation where lives are at stake in an antiterrorist situation and so on and so forth. Other situations which rely on a different style of leadership and a different style of direction and control have to be accepted as well. Although you quite rightly say there is a need for line command, part of the line command, part of leadership is about the welfare of the people you are privileged to command, and that is all about assessing what their problems are, both in the workplace and sometimes at home, let alone some grievance which may well be well founded. That is as much a part of the leadership responsibility as anything else. So we have some superb leaders in the Metropolitan Police. We have one or two poor leaders in the Metropolitan Police. What I would like to do is bring those poor ones up to the average, if not the best. But it is all about delivering welfare, fairness, truth to people in different circumstances. The bottom line is you have to listen to people, and I am not so sure we have done that as well as we could have done in the past. Miss Weekes: One of the ways that the Metropolitan Police Service will undoubtedly deal with improving line management and people management is training of the line managers. A. Yes. Miss Weekes: How good have you been to date with the training of line managers? A. Well, we have invested a massive amount of money, not just in training in relation to fairness at work, training in relation to diversity matters. I personally led a leadership programme in relation to leadership itself. I was down in Oxford only two days ago opening that. It is a two to three day process. And embedded in that is the principles of diversity and dealing with people in a proper manner. So we have invested a large amount of time and money in that and will continue to do so, and it is necessary to do so. I think where we need to fulfil our obligations more is with new things that come up. I am very confident this inquiry is going to come up with new systems of dealing with grievances and in a general manner of how we deal with things. When that happens we have to follow that up with proper training, proper mentoring and proper education process for everybody within the organisation. What I am trying to say is it is an ongoing process. Miss Weekes: One of Her Majesty's Inspectorate reports, the last one, 2002-2003, identified a difficulty with training. Officers are often left to make themselves available for training programmes that come up. So it does not appear that there is necessarily a compulsion about the bottom line for the level of training that is required; am I right? A. I think that is right. Miss Weekes: Why is that the case? A. I think it is because of our operational delivery. If we have got something happening – I can give you five examples of things happening in London at the moment – if we actually said, "Well, the training delivery on this particular day is X" then you are not going to get (inaudible) delivery. We are at the highest level of alert London has ever had and that is one of the issues that we have to keep in mind. It is all very well talking about what we have to do in respect of all these issues. The bottom line is about our delivery to Londoners out there. But going back to what you are saying, where I think we have slightly got it wrong on training is that we have a centralised delivery on training. What I would like to see is something which they have at Bexley, for instance, whereby training is delivered locally in the local environment. The issues that actually appertain to Bexley, for instance, are dealt with by a training programme. I think the centralised way of training, yes, is important but I think we have to do that locally. The Met has expanded beyond anything in its history. We have had 4,500 officers' expansion in something like three years. They have had to work in shifts at Hendon to deliver this. You are looking at an organisation which has worked flat out for the last four to five years – I can vouch for that – and has delivered. So you will always find things that we could do better, and I accept that that is the case, but I would like this inquiry, and people listening to it, to understand what we have delivered in the last four years. But I would like to see training far more locally delivered. Miss Weekes: Thank you. Can I move on to something which you have touched on more than once and quite understandably so, and that is the sensitivity between officers within the Metropolitan Police and the public perception that since the Stephen Lawrence Inquiry report the Metropolitan Police have not really moved on with getting comfortable with dealing with issues of discrimination. That is right, is it not, that is a public perception? A. Is that internal or external? Miss Weekes: Both. A. I never said that for a minute. You obviously have not read the report that was done on Damilola Taylor by Bishop Sentamu. I really would invite you all to read that report. I will not quote from it. Please read that report. He was on the Lawrence Inquiry with yourself, I think. He talks about a quantum leap in terms of what we are doing and how we are doing it. You know, it is very important to celebrate success. It is very important to give encouragement to some of us who have strived in the organisation and out of it to take this thing forward. I would like to see that happening a little more often, if I might say so. Miss Weekes: Can I add to that and say that the Metropolitan Police have put into place a diversity strategy. It is undoubtedly a complete and detailed and clearly very well thought through strategy. I think that has been in place now for 2001 to 2003. A. That is right. Miss Weekes: Has that made life better for both white and ethnic minority officers? A. I think so. Miss Weekes: Because it has to be for both, does it not? A. It has to be. It also has to be, if I might say so, for gender issues, for those people who have a different sexual kind of – Miss Weekes: Sexual orientation. A. Yes, that is the word I am looking for, and also for the disabled. I think it has, and I think we have worked very, very hard on that. I myself have specific focus groups, some of them may well come and give evidence to you because they certainly give their opinions to me quite forcefully on occasions. Miss Weekes: You have your own Commissioner personal plan on diversity, do you not? A. I do, yes. Miss Weekes: Is that the first that we have seen or does it follow the previous Commissioner? A. I think it is the first. Miss Weekes: The first? A. Yes. So, yes, I think it has helped, but it still does not mean to say – it is like the corruption issue. We must keep focusing on it. If you take your eye off the ball and allow all these things to fade away people think you have either succeeded in your task and you never have because it is a continual process. Corruption is another example of that, as I said. And you just have to keep at it. And you have got to bore people on occasions. You have to keep reminding, reminding, reminding them of how important it is to deliver on these issues. Again, can I say it is a cultural thing. It has got to be embedded in people's minds. You can have all the fancy documents in the world, all the great policy situations, all the training; unless you get it in here you are going to achieve nothing. Miss Weekes: Perhaps you can help me, Commissioner, about getting inside the heads of police officers, because you pointed to the head. It is absolutely correct that since the Stephen Lawrence Inquiry a huge amount of money and time has been spent on diversity issues. A. It has. Miss Weekes: But you would agree you are still not where you would want to be on this issue. A. No. Miss Weekes: Well, I would like you to help me with the way forward so we can obviously take that on board, because we cannot make recommendations, of course, blind. A. Of course. Miss Weekes: Attitudes are often not right, you might agree. A. Attitudes are sometimes not right, but in a lot of cases they are. Miss Weekes: Okay. One of the recommendations within the diversity structure – if we can perhaps bring it up, it might be helpful to look at it. It is MPS1, and it is at page 71. We will just wait a moment to bring that up. If you look to the left-hand column, you will see a point 6. A. Got it. Miss Weekes: It reads: "Everyone in the Met to take responsibility for challenging inappropriate behaviour and discrimination." It is, in my view, correctly identifying the internal product. The internal product you get is improved supervision and accountability, an improved working environment. That is obviously right, is it not? A. Very much so. Miss Weekes: Well, do you have sort of first-hand experience of people in the Met who have challenged inappropriate behaviour and what has happened to them? A. I think that has been taken through the Deputy Commissioner's command and that takes place. We are not talking about discrimination solely here, we are talking about corruption cases as well. I can give you a large number of examples when I was Deputy Commissioner of that taking place which actually resulted in many cases going through the criminal court. Miss Weekes: Do you think the environment is safe for a black person or a woman to raise an issue about how she was treated during the day by her line manager? Do you think it is a safe environment? A. I think that would be variable. I think it would be variable – it has to be – in terms of how we deal with things, depending on the environment they are in and also the people who are leading them. It is like morale. I can tell you certain places where morale is sky high and other places where it is not, and I think the same thing applies. Again, it is this business of ensuring that leaders give the right messages and they give confidence in the environment for people to come out and what we call (inaudible). This does not have to happen within the working environment. You have got to have a system whereby people can anonymously, if you like, bring these matters to attention through another system, by a phone line or whatever. Miss Weekes: Do you have that system? A. We do. Miss Weekes: A confidential line that officers can call? A. Yes. I do not know how much it is used. I could come back to you on that if necessary. I go back to the business of it is all about the type of environment, that the leader, the commander, the manager creates within his command. I think these are the people we have to hold responsible. That is further down the line. I suspect we have a lot more work to do on that. Miss Weekes: Yes. Can you help: why is it, do you think, that what I am quoting from the Verdi report – do not trouble to bring it up. I will read it out: "Middle managers feel they would be found guilty especially if validations are to do with race." Why do you think that is so? I appreciate that was the Verdi report in 2001. Perhaps I should ask you fairly, is that still the case now? A. I think it is back to what I said earlier about people being frightened in terms of these issues. We created quite a strong environment in terms of identifying misconduct. We have integrity tests, something I introduced as Deputy Commissioner with the then Commissioner. We have a system whereby people sometimes think we are actually too strong in terms of testing out environments and the like. We have installed and had up at the training school a system which involves a large number of integrity tests which we have been found wanting not on one of them and we are talking over one hundred. Miss Weekes: What is your solution for encouraging and empowering line managers not to feel guilty? Because race issues will not go away but they could be dealt with better. What are your suggestions as the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police? A. My suggestions are on most occasions to try and deal with these things on a one to one basis. The restorative justice process is a model I think works well. Miss Weekes: Sorry to interrupt you, but they may say, "Well, we do not want to deal with them, we are going to send them up to a more senior officer". That is what happens, is it not? A. Sometimes it does and I think we have to say no. It happens not just in cases of race, it also happens on an operational basis. That is why we have to empower people to delegate authority down. It is also about processes. You know, I have spent a lot of time talking – 10, 15, 20 minutes – to the Chairman about how these processes need to be changed. This is where you come in. You cannot have processes which are draconian, which are ancient, which take a massive delay, which are all about legalistic lawyers talking here, there and everywhere and making points. If you have a system like that it does not instill confidence in people to actually open up and deal with things in a way that they should. If I might say so, we are doing our best. What I would be hoping to see from this inquiry is that you come up with a system which really helps us to ensure that our best delivers the things that you want and I want. Miss Weekes: I am going to move on my last area, as it were, the system around resolution of disputes. You have the process, the procedures, the statutes, the policies, the regulations, the guidance. Police officers work under an extraordinary weight of paper? A. Absolutely. Miss Weekes: Perhaps uniquely so. Of course, much of the regulation is necessary because they are one of the most important public service providers and the public need to be assured that what they do is proper and according to law and according to standards that are expected of them. But do you agree that the weight of statutes, Home Office guidance and policies that I have come across could do with some trimming? A. Absolutely. In the ideal world I would like to get rid of it all – Miss Weekes: And start again? A. – and start again, talking about the issues that you have talked about and the Chairman talked about, and create a new system that is modern, that actually deals with the modern world and the complex world we are living in. That is where I would like to start. That would be my ideal way of doing it. I would like to burn it all and start from the beginning. Miss Weekes: I have asked, and I have been told, that you have 1,700 policies. A. We have. We used to have actually something around 780 [sic] policies. So thanks to Tarrique Ghaffur and others we have actually got those down. You have to have policies in certain respects to safeguard people in very severe operational environments. We have done an awful lot to get rid of a lot of the forms we have got and also the policies. Maybe there is still a way to go. A lot of it, as I suspect you would know, comes from central government and local government. Maybe we should be robust with them in saying maybe we should have even less policies. Miss Weekes: Your own internal procedures are a matter for you as to how of course you deal with discipline. Whatever procedure you have at the end of the day you must not of course compromise on integrity. A. Absolutely. Miss Weekes: The complexity of, for example, your disciplinary procedures – I have asked for a flow chart from the relevant department and I have been given it. I am sorry the public will not be able to see it, but you can. (Handed). A. Thank you. Yes. Miss Weekes: You have probably not seen it in this form before. A. I am rather glad I have not, actually. Miss Weekes: It is quite frightening, is it not? A. It is. Miss Weekes: One really does not know where to start. It really is just far too complicated, is it not? A. Absolutely. Miss Weekes: An officer against whom a complaint is received – these are public complaints, but our interest is in how the officers are treated, not inquiring about the public as such, although it has implications for the public, and this is a picture of what you would want to get rid of and start again? A. Absolutely. Get rid of the lot of it and start with a – Miss Weekes: It really is quite an extraordinarily complex row of arrows – A. It is ridiculous. Miss Weekes: – and procedures. A. A lot of it is by regulation guidance and the law, and it just has to be changed. You cannot operate in an environment like that. Miss Weekes: Of course, the question of the internal investigations – these are the non-public ones – do not get very much better. (Handed). That is the internal, again drafted very kindly by my request to the Inquiry as to what the picture looks like. A. You would find it difficult to work your way through this. Miss Weekes: I have not as yet worked my way through it, I am afraid. I think that probably graphically demonstrates what you have already fairly identified as being a quite complex procedure. Can I move on, as a result of that, and ask you this, and it is perhaps something I should have asked you before when we talked about attitudes and relationships. The Met have got no less than 13 to 14 representative groups? A. Yes. Miss Weekes: The Police Federation. A. Yes. Miss Weekes: The Black Police Association, though there is an association for Muslims, Hindus, Greek. I have not listed them all but there are 13 or 14. A. There are. Miss Weekes: Have you been given constructive assistance from those groups as to how you should deal with workplace relationships? A. Yes. Miss Weekes: Has it helped? A. It has helped. There is sometimes a conflict between the groups actually in terms of how we progress things and how we should react to things, however, the only way we can move forward is to listen to what these groups have said and to ensure we try to put that forward in a cohesive way. The problem is, of course, that regulation guidelines and the law get in the way of it sometimes on a lot of occasions. Miss Weekes: No doubt we will ask about that conflict when we, and if we do, speak to the representative groups. A. Indeed. Miss Weekes: The cases themselves cannot all be resolved so we are going to have to end up in employment tribunals, regrettably. I want to just deal with your views around employment tribunals and the alternatives you have offered in your written submission. There are really three alternatives, are there not? You have mentioned a totally independent system. A. That is right. Miss Weekes: You have mentioned mediation. A. Yes. Miss Weekes: And you have mentioned an ombudsman. A. Yes. Miss Weekes: I would like to deal with those three, if I may. Of course, none of those alternatives would ever get rid of the officer or staff right to go to an employment tribunal; that must be publicly stated. A. Yes. Miss Weekes: Let me deal with the independent system. What do you mean by that? And practically, how is this going to work? A. Well, I believe that there should be a system which is similar to ACAS, whereby if you cannot get resolution within the organisation you go outside the organisation with some independent person who is respected by both parties to try and come to some agreement in the way you take things forward. It happens in other environments We in the service do not do that but I believe that can work well. Whether you actually have a body which is representative of two to three different people, or you have an ombudsperson, I know not. That is something, I suspect, you would have far more of an expert view on than I would have. Miss Weekes: Well, let us just explore this a little. You have an experienced line manager who is a very good policeman but, for whatever reason, he or she just does not line manage very well. If you are a good policeman that does not mean you can people manage. A. I would say in which case he was not a very good police supervisor. Miss Weekes: All right. A dispute arises and that line manager cannot deal with it, so there is tension within the ranks and the work relationship has disappeared. A. Yes. Miss Weekes: Are you suggesting that an outside person with not much knowledge of the structures internally and not much knowledge of police command and work comes in to resolve that issue? Is that what you are saying? A. I would say the line manager who cannot resolve that should go perhaps one or two up. If those one or two up, if that is the way we want to refer to it in the structure, cannot resolve it then, yes, outside. Miss Weekes: So you do not mean a completely outside person, you just mean somebody else within the Metropolitan Police Service. A. Oh no. What I would say is if you get a conflict between a sergeant and another sergeant or a police constable, it is up then to the borough commander to try and resolve that. If that cannot be resolved then go outside to an independent resolution, because if you do not do that you are taking away the ability of the borough commander to command his own command. Miss Weekes: And will officers in your police service respect that outside independent person? A. That is a good question. Miss Weekes: There might be an issue of respect there? A. Well, I am afraid if they do not they are going to have to, because at the end of the day, if you look at the way we have doing things in the past, over the last 15 to 20 years, I do not think anybody could be satisfied with what the system was. So anything that is an addition to that that brings a value to it has to be accepted. I think we will just have to make sure that is the case, because at the end of the day everybody, as you so rightly say, Miss Weekes, has an opportunity to go to an industrial tribunal, an ET, if they want to do that anyway. So there has to be an acceptance along the line in terms of the culture of the organisation that that right is there anyway. Miss Weekes: Is it not preferable to put some more money into training line managers to be good managers at work whatever the issue is in front of them? A. Well, we do that. A lot of training goes on, as I was saying to the Chairman. A massive amount of training goes on. I think I said to you about leadership and the like. Of course it is an important issue. You know the amount of training that is demanded on the Metropolitan Police, whether it involves fire arms training or the like – I will give you a list that shows you there is a massive amount of training. I am not saying that this is not a priority, of course it is. But going back to one of my answers to you earlier on, in terms of how do you deliver training, of course training is important but we have to embed in the organisation the things that you and I hold dear in terms of fairness and treating people equally. That is all about a cultural issue, and you do that not just by training, you do that by other means. Those means involve leadership from the top right the way through the organisation. Miss Weekes: Just the last two. Mediation. It might attract the same points I have just made in terms of respect and independence. A. Yes, it does. Miss Weekes: Has that ever been canvassed within the Metropolitan Police Service, the use of mediation? A. I think it has. Mediation comes in all sorts of forms. This is an incredibly stressful job, policing. Some people find it very difficult to survive, and we have all sorts of counselling, mediation, assistance given to people in very severe operational environments. Now, if we can handle it then, why can we not handle it in other areas which are slightly broader. Mediation can come in different forms. For me, if I had a problem I do not think I would go to a psychologist or a psychiatrist, I would go to my local priest actually. Some people find different ways necessary to deal with problems. If we can do that, why can we not do it in other areas? Miss Weekes: The ombudsman. Is an ombudsman to be used for monitoring the resolution of disputes or is it to be used for resolving those disputes. A. I think both. You cannot ask an ombudsman to do the job that he or she is going to do if they are not monitoring where the weaknesses are in the organisation and they do not have an overview as to where the problems are. So I see that as dual kind of input to what we do. I do not think we could operate without that. Miss Weekes: My last question goes back to delay with disputes, whether they be employment tribunal or conduct or discipline. Two public examples – I only choose them because they are publicly known, and I have not read the details of either as yet – there was huge delay in Sergeant Verdi's case. A. Yes. Miss Weekes: There was huge delay in Superintendent Dizaei's case. A. Yes. Miss Weekes: One involved discipline, the other involved questions of conduct which went to a criminal court where he was acquitted. What was the principal difficulty there about delay, first of all in Sergeant Verdi's case? A. I think in Sergeant Verdi's case, I think the problem there again was the length of process in deciding whether criminal charges should be proceeded, if I remember rightly. Then you had a very long process in terms of where the PCA were in this. Then you had a lengthy process in trying to get together the discipline processes that should deal with it. And that was unsatisfactory. Sorry to repeat myself but justice delayed is justice denied. I think in Ali Dizaei's case, of course, you had a criminal case at the Old Bailey which again had to be processed and dealt with, and then going back into the way that was dealt with, with some people we know the PCA are not happy with. If you have a criminal prosecution that is different. It has to take its course. Whether it is here or what we do in Northern Ireland, it has to take precedence. There is an argument that that process could be speeded up, but that involves sometimes legal advice and so on and so forth – Miss Weekes: It does. I just want to ask you because you mentioned the DPP, the Crown Prosecution Service effectively. Do you see any improvement there with the relationship of the advice and decision-making from the Crown Prosecution Service when there is an issue of conduct that is a criminal conduct and the disciplinary process which is either waiting at the side or continuing? A. I think you would have to ask Ian Blair or Steve Roberts about the most recent cases because I do not get involved in those because of my position legally. I honestly think that these decisions could be made quicker, I really do. Miss Weekes: The decision to prosecute – A. To prosecute or not prosecute could be made far quicker. I think the counsel authorities have a legal duty, let alone a humane duty, to come up with these decisions in a far quicker way. I trained as a lawyer, I lectured in law, and I sometimes cannot for the life of me understand why these decisions cannot be made quicker. Miss Weekes: Thank you very much, Commissioner. A. Thank you. Sir William Morris: Commissioner, thank you. The next line of questioning will come from Sir Anthony Burden, but I am going to suggest that we have five minutes or so break. 11.34 am (A short break) 11.40 am Sir William Morris: Sir John, welcome back. I will now hand you over to a voice you have heard before for some questions from Sir Anthony Burden. Questions by Sir Anthony Burden Sir Anthony Burden: Sir John, good morning. Could I go just go back to this issue of governance because there is one area, I think which needs to be clarified publicly and certainly has interested my colleagues because of the rather unusual way, perhaps, that senior or chief police officers are appointed. You have a top management team of 37, as I understand it: a Deputy, four Assistant Commissioners, ten Deputy Assistant Commissioners and 22 Commanders. These are your top managers and you have to rely on them to actually implement the policies that you want implemented? A. Yes. Sir Anthony Burden: But you do not appoint them? A. No. Sir Anthony Burden: And you cannot dismiss them? A. No. Sir Anthony Burden: Is that workable – A. No. Sir Anthony Burden: That is very succinct. How can someone at the top of an organisation such as yours possibly manage if they cannot hire and fire the very top people that they depend on? A. Well, that is absolutely right, and if you look at the process, that process has evolved in terms of independent appointment. I actually think police authorities, having been beneficially appointed, make the right appointments usually at the end of the day. But your point is absolutely essential to the governance of an organisation; that if the chief constable, who is the chief executive, Chairman, whichever phrase you want to use, has got no kind of control over the destiny of people that are under his command, that cannot be right. And it cannot be right, I think, in terms of justice and fairness as well. So for me, the point is well made. You have to have some control in terms of people's destiny. It is wrong not to do that. Further down the line you have, but why is it not at the very most senior level? Sir Anthony Burden: Thank you. Can I just pick up one or two points that my colleagues have already raised but just taking a slightly different slant on them, if I may. It is really around the trust and confidence, or lack of it, in the complaints and grievance procedures within your organisation. You have already commented that there is a particular – sorry if I quote you: "There is a particular nervousness about dealing with issues raised by or about black and minority ethnic staff and officers." If I can just refer to Deputy Assistant Commissioner Roberts' submission, and he appears before us next week. He makes much the same point: "My personal view is that while it would be naive to suggest that intentional or unintentional racism does not play a part in the observed statistics in relation to both public complaints and internal investigations, much of the racial disproportionality at the point of entry into the investigative system arises from the fact that front line managers are very nervous about giving robust leadership and management when dealing with ethnic minority officers. There is a fear of allegations of racism and in consequence, when faced with minor misbehaviour by an ethnic minority officer, they will either retreat into the formal discipline process, with all the protections that the rules provide, or will turn a blind eye to the minor matters and only intervene at some later stage when more serious misbehaviour has occurred and formal investigation is the only possible course. Thus we either let down our minority officers by failing to administer [as he terms it] 'tough love' or you retreat into the safety of formal processes." In the MPA's – the Metropolitan Police Authority's – submission, and we are yet to hear from Lord Harris on that, but slightly more graphically, they describe the MPS as "a pressure cooker which lets things simmer till the lid blows off". You have already referred to that, but can I just take that one stage further, if I may, because it is the impact that that has, or may have, on minority ethnic officers as a consequence of that. We all, I guess, in our service, have been subject to minor indiscretions or minor discipline issues, and if those issues are not pulled up then and there, it is right, you are not fair to the individual because you actually do not steer their career and their development. Is there a real fear, do you think, as a consequence of that – and I am choosing my words carefully here – that this may create organisational discrimination, in that because those minor indiscretions are not tackled there and then, it is going to actually impact on minority ethnic officers actually getting promotion and attachments to specialist departments? Do you see where I am going? A. I do. Sir Anthony Burden: There is a big negative around the fact that supervisors are not doing their job. A. I think your point is absolutely right. It is absolutely essential that these matters are dealt with quickly and in a frank and honest manner. Otherwise, not only does it lead to people being carted off, it you like, in a direction where they should not do, it leads to massive pain, it leads to anger, it leads to disfunctionality of the organisation, and I for one have seen enough of that over the last five to ten years and it needs to be addressed. Sir Anthony Burden: Thank you. Can I just pick up, not the Verdi report per se because my colleagues dealt with that, but the recommendations of both the Verdi report and the review of the diversity strategy undertaken by Lord Ouseley and Focus Consultancy. Both documents came out with a series of recommendations, quite hard-hitting. You, I know, have given your personal endorsement to those recommendations, and yet looking at the Verdi report, the Black Police Association, in undertaking an analysis of that, say that they do not perceive any organisational learning has occurred within the Met as a result of the report. Could I just ask – I have heard what you said, you know, things are moving on and a long way to go – what you would expect from middle managers in the way that they implement those recommendations, and what structures and processes the Metropolitan Police have put in place to make sure that at the end of the day those recommendations are in and adhered to? A. One, those recommendations have to be implemented. Secondly, I would expect from the inspection process, and the Deputy Commissioner's command in particular, a monitoring of what those recommendations are, as we would with HMI's recommendations. And, quite frankly, there should be no discussion or argument about their implementation; people should get on and do it. Equally, it is very, very, important – it goes back to the questions that Miss Weekes put to me – it is very important to take hearts and minds on this. You know probably as well as, if not better than, I do that police organisations are organisations which are focused on delivery. They are driven actually sometimes by targets and performance measures, which is another area which is interesting, and no doubt you will perhaps be touching on that with other witnesses. And it is very important that people do not lose sight of some of these issues which allow an organisation to be fair, healthy, and to have high morale and to feel that they are part of an organisation people want to work for. So there are issues that you have got to monitor. It ranges from integrity tests right the way through to seeing focus groups and groups of officers. There can be no discussion about those recommendations. They need to be implemented and they need to be implemented in a format which shows that you have taken them on board right the way across the board in everything you deal with. Sir Anthony Burden: Thank you. You have referred in your submission and you have spoken this morning about the review you put in place, undertaken by Tarique Ghaffur, Assistant Commissioner, and I think very much to the credit of the MPS to do it, following the BBC programme "The Secret Policeman". You have given an assurance, Sir John, that the report will be made available to this inquiry. A. Yes. Sir Anthony Burden: I know it is in draft form at the moment, but my colleagues and I would be very interested, if it is possible, just to get from you a flavour of what Mr Ghaffur will be saying in the report, if that is possible, please. A. If I may take you through that. I asked him to do a report specifically for me personally, after that dreadful programme, to see where we were and to see how we could take that forward. If I could take you through the issues he is dealing with in the report. I have spoken to Tarique this morning and yesterday and he would be delighted to come and speak to you, if you think that is necessary. But he has produced what I think is a very detailed report. It is essentially an internal looking review focusing on the following areas: service delivery to London's diverse communities; internal workings, most particularly in relation to the following: one, recruitment; two, recruitment at Hendon; three, retention and progression of minority officers and staff; four, career development; five, grievance handling and fairness at work; and six, complaints. Another issues he is dealing with is progress by the MPS on various internal and external reports on race and diversity; some of those issues that you have raised this morning. Another issue: leadership is addressed through critical analysis at all levels of the service; something that Miss Weekes brought up. Quick fix actions through HR goal groups in light of The Secret Policeman screening; what have we done in relation to that? Then it goes on to deal with the fact that diversity is an opportunity for the MPS and the fact that, are we giving evidence that I and the management board are committed to the diversity agenda. He will talk about McPherson, 70 recommendations. 31, of course, were not police specific. Of the 39 left that relate to the police, he will talk about the progress we have made or otherwise on those, in terms of embedding them and mainstreaming them into our policies and practices. He talks about achievements, diversity directorate, diversity strategy board, community safety units, family liaison officers, critical incident training, CRU. He will also be talking about a record drop in complaints in the last four to five years of 60 per cent. And if you have seen the figures that came out nationally, the Met leads on that nationally. Those drop in complaints is continuing as I speak now, at a 20 per cent drop on top of the 60 per cent that has taken place over that period of time I talked about. That is it. I have seen this report, looked at it. You will make your own judgment about whether you think it is valid or not. I think it is a great piece of work. Sir Anthony Burden: And as the head of the organisation, Sir John, having obviously seen the draft, under those various topic headings, what is your general conclusion? Is it more positive than negative in terms of progress made, or vice versa? A. I think you will find that Tarique is far more positive than negative and he actually recognises the progress we have made. But I have to say, he identifies some areas of weakness which we really have to identify quite quickly, and we will. The purpose for asking for that particular report was to have an honest look at where we are and where we are going, and the only way you progess is by admitting to things that you have not got quite right, or things you have got right, and getting on with that. Sir Anthony Burden: Can I – and it is the last area for me, really – just look at this issue of trust and confidence in the complaints process and how it is handled. The question I would like to ask you – and I will explain why in a moment – is: should there be a greater role for the police authority in managing or monitoring the complaints process? The MPA in its submission says this: "The Authority considers that there may be a case for a fundamental structural reform to put the investigation of professional standards matters at arm's length from the management of the Force and to underline its independence by making it directly accountable to the MPA. Although The Independent Police Complaints Commission will enhance the independence of investigations of some complaints for the near future, the vast majority of complaints against police and internal allegations will be investigated by the MPS itself." So, if you like, it is where the IPCC will not be taking effect directly. It is the remainder – the bulk, I guess, of the complaints. Could you give your views on that, if you would. A. Yes. I think there is room for compromise here. I think the MPA, with their expertise, can be far more involved. But let me just make it absolutely clear where I stand on this. The MPA, if you go and listen to the conferences and the meetings, is sometimes politically driven from different political parties. There is nothing wrong with that; that is healthy. We have our eminent independent members. But I can tell you this: it is absolutely essential to the policing of this country, the golden thread of policing, that policing is independent of politicians. If you get yourself involved in a political environment in terms of police complaints, which is not independent in the way I have been describing it, we go down the route of disaster for our reputations, for the administration of the law and likewise. The police service fought off, quite rightly, in the last two to three years, through the Houses of Parliament, what could have been direct political control of policing in this country. Do not let it come by another guise, please. Sir Anthony Burden: Thank you. Sir William Morris: Thanks, Sir Anthony. Sir John, that, I think, concludes the questions that my colleagues and myself were minded to put to you. I just want to conclude by saying thank you very much for your help. I did, in my opening comments, say I would offer to your good self, and indeed all witnesses, an opportunity for a brief closing statement. I invite you to do so should you wish. A. Chairman, can I say how much we, the Metropolitan Police Service, and I personally welcome this inquiry. I think it has got a window of opportunity which is unique. I think it comes at a time when we all know that we need to change and progress. I have absolute confidence that what comes out of this inquiry will be for the benefit of the police service, and that means for the benefit of the public at large. If there is anything we need to do from the Metropolitan Police Service, or I personally, to assist the inquiry, do not please hesitate to ask for it. I wish you well, Godspeed, and I look forward with great excitement, if you like to, what comes out of this inquiry. Sir William Morris: Well, I am sure you can find the ability to curb the excitement and enthusiasm. Can I say just by way of conclusion, picking up your point of continued support and help, as with all our witnesses, it may be necessary when we have heard from everyone that we may want to ask a few more questions, either by way of writing or indeed ask people to come back. If the need arises then we will try and do so in the best possible way to cause the least inconvenience to the parties. But for the moment, my colleagues and I would just like to place on the record our thanks for your submission and your contribution to the Inquiry this morning. Thank you very much indeed. A. Thank you very much. Sir William Morris: Colleagues, we now stand adjourned until 2 o'clock. 11.57 am Internal links On this website: Evidence: Sir John Stevens Evidence provided by and documents referred to by Sir John Stevens in his appearance at the Inquiry. Transcript: Sir John Stevens (6 July 2004) The full transcript of the second public session with Sir John Stevens, held on 6 July 2004.
	Previous Next
Transcripts > Sir John Stevens (18 Feb 04)
© Copyright 2004, The Morris Inquiry. Standards compliant HTML. Designed and maintained by Netfundi