Transcript of public session: Lord Toby Harris of Haringey, Mr R Auladin and Ms C Wright of the Metropolitan Police Authority

Monday, 23 February 2004
10.00 am

Sir William Morris: Ladies and gentlemen, good morning, and a special good morning to you, Lord Harris.

Can I first of all say thank you very much indeed for accepting our invitation to attend the Inquiry and to give evidence, and for letting us have your written submission which we found extremely helpful.

I do appreciate that for some – not you, I suspect, but for some of our witnesses, this process can in fact be a very daunting task, so I thought it would be helpful if I briefly say how we propose to conduct the hearing.

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

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

Lord Harris, as you know, you have asked us to conduct an Inquiry into professional standards and employment matters of the Metropolitan Police Service. It is an independent inquiry. Our focus is on the MPS as an organisation, and not the individuals who make up the MPS. The inquiry that we are conducting is inquisitorial and not adversarial in nature. We are very keen to enquire into the issues raised by our terms of reference, so that we can make appropriate recommendations for further good practice, rather than concentrating on making criticisms of the MPS as an organisation, or particular individuals within the MPS itself.

To help us in our task, we are very keen to hear from all our witnesses, not just about what is wrong with the Metropolitan Police Service, but also what is right with it, but more importantly, your suggestion and any suggestion we can have for putting things right, assuming that there are things wrong.

A transcript is being taken, so that we can have a proper record of the evidence given by all our witnesses, and this will be posted on our website later today.

At the end of these introductory remarks, I will lead with questions to you, followed by my colleague, Sir Anthony Burden, and next Miss Weekes, and any supplementary questions that I might necessary. At the conclusion of our questions, I will offer you the opportunity for a brief closing statement.

In your written submission, Lord Harris, which, as I have indicated, will be posted on the website, you have set out a number of headings which we find extremely important. You have indicated that the MPA and its function is a prime consideration. The MPA's responsibility for professional standards, including statutory oversight of complaints, and the conduct of the Metropolitan Police Service handling of individual cases; the MPA's responsibility with regard to human resource; the reasons for establishing this Inquiry; you have also indicated examples of best practice in the way in which the MPS handles matters; the shortcomings in the Metropolitan Police Service current system; and finally the heading that you have set out that we want to explore further, which is the respective roles of the MPA, the MPS, the PCA and the IPCC.

We would like to ask you some questions about the material in your submission around those headings, and seek your views on a range of matters of interest to us.

But first, before we raise these issues, for the benefit of the transcript note, I wonder if you would mind just formally introducing yourself to the inquiry.

Lord Harris: Thank you very much. My name is Toby Harris, I am the Chair of the Metropolitan Police Authority. I am accompanied by Reshard Auladin, who is a member of the Police Authority and chairs our Professional Standards Committee, and also by Cecille Wright, who chairs our Equal Opportunities and Diversity Board.

Questions by Sir William Morris

Sir William Morris: Thank you very much. We are very interested, Lord Harris, in the relationship between the MPA and the MPS. Perhaps we would invite you just to say how you would categorise the relationship in general terms. Would it be one of a distance overseer, or one of a cousin who is tolerated, offering advice and improvements? In what category would you put those?

Lord Harris: To some extent, it depends who you would ask, on that question. I think we like to see ourselves as a critical friend. We take our statutory responsibilities, in terms of the oversight of the police service and the importance of delivering for the people of London an efficient, effective and fair police service, extremely seriously.

I suspect that that, on occasions, means that we pose questions or press on issues that the Met finds difficult or perhaps inconvenient to address at that time, but we see that as our role, and it is one that we would wish to safeguard and to pursue as vigorously as we can.

Sir William Morris: Could you offer us your view about the professional relationship between the PCA and the Metropolitan Police Service, and in particular its department for professional standards, and how that has worked in practice?

Lord Harris: Again, that is clearly governed by the statutory relationships and the formal relationships which govern it. I suspect that the relationship has been one that has varied from individual case to individual case, in terms of the way in which the inquiries and supervision of those inquiries have been handled. I do not know whether Reshard wants to comment on the basis of closer involvement in that?

Mr Auladin: Well, from my point of view, I think the relationship has been one which has had a degree of tension; not destructive tension, but I think it is tension that has been, in a sense, necessary for the two bodies to be able to carry out their functions properly.

In terms of the relationship between the Met and the PCA, I think it has been, from my understanding, a very good working relationship. Over the last year, there has been a problem in terms of timescales, in looking at cases and being able to deal with those within the time limits that they were supposed to be dealt with, but on the whole I think that relationship has been a reasonably good one for working.

Sir William Morris: At this point in the relationship, recognising that it is relatively new, 2002 exists in time, what do you see as your own authority's priorities for the Met, in respect of improvements around issues about service quality, and just fulfilling its own mission? What is your priority? What is the MPA's priority for that?

Lord Harris: The priorities we have been following, and will continue to follow in the future, clearly are focused on delivering the best possible police service to the people of London. Part of that is about the level of resources that is provided, in terms of increasing the number of police officers and police staff, police community support officers, who are available to provide services to the public. That is something where we reversed a long term trend of decline to one of what I hope will be continued growth for the next few years.

There is then our desire to ensure that resources are used in the best possible way. One of the things as an Authority we were very keen to do when we took over responsibility in 2000 was to ensure that the Met had the financial systems and the financial mechanisms in place that an organisation of that scale needed.

When we first took over, one of the first things that happened to us was to receive a report from the internal audit function which informed us that the Met did not have a system for ensuring that it did not pay bills more than once. Clearly, in an organisation with a budget of £2.5 billion, that required serious work to address it. We have been doing that, and what we have been doing in the past three and a half years, and will continue in the future, are a series of efficiency and effectiveness reviews, designed to ensure that the Met delivers best value in those areas.

The third major area of work which I have referred to is that about the quality and nature of the service that the Met gives to the public of London. It is important that that is a service which is delivered fairly, a service where there is a mutual degree of respect between the police and the communities that they serve, and a degree of effectiveness in terms of the quality of work that is done.

So that means that crimes are investigated properly, that there is a result, but that people also feel that as users of the service, they have been treated properly and fairly. So those have been major areas of work, and to deliver that effectively it is also important that the Met itself works well internally, and that means addressing issues of fairness, of having a workforce which is balanced, which is reflective of the communities of London; those are all, if you like, major areas of activity that we would see as being essential to our mission.

Sir William Morris: The Commissioner, Sir John Stevens, told us last week that the Met is probably the most accountable police service anywhere in the world, and it is evidence that the political stakeholding constituency is an expanding one. In addition to the Home Secretary, we have the MDA, we have the office of the Mayor, we have the Greater London Authority, and, of course, we have the PCA and soon to be the IPCC, and the boroughs of course. It is a very wide stakeholding political constituency that the Commissioner and his colleague has to address at different levels.

In your view, do you think different layers of political accountability lead to an overregulated MPS, in accountability terms, in governance terms?

Lord Harris: I think it is very easy to say that the Met is overregulated and overaccountable, but the reality is that the formal lines of accountability and regulation are fairly clear, and these are the same for any police service, whether it is a small county or the Metropolitan Police.

There is an accountability to the Police Authority, and there is an accountability to the Home Office. Now in London, yes, there is the Mayor, yes, there is the GLA, but their responsibilities are limited, and the prime line of accountability is with the Police Authority.

Any police service, particularly one which is responsible for providing services to a capital city, is going to have a large number of stakeholders. The art of being a top police officer is working with those stakeholders, carrying those stakeholders along, as it would be for somebody running any other large service, delivered to a large population in that way.

There are many stakeholders, the Met has to work with all of them, but the formal lines of accountability are, as part of the tripartite arrangement laid down in successive Police Acts, to the Police Authority and to the Home Office.

Sir William Morris: Yes, the statute is clear, but you said the art of being a good police officer is to manage different relationships, and that is true, but do you not think it is an equal art of transferring responsibility, if the propensity is as great as it is; how do you identify precisely who is responsible for a particular set of actions or a particular decision?

What I am basically saying is there are so many different strands of accountability in one way or another, the whole context of accountability can get somewhat diffuse; would you share that view?

Lord Harris: Well, no, I would not share the view, because I think that the formal accountability lines are clear. There are plenty of people who are ready to take the credit when things go well.

Sir William Morris: That is true.

Lord Harris: And many of those would like to say that the police service in London is accountable to them. There are rather fewer who are ready to take responsibility when things are more difficult, and that is why I say the formal lines of accountability are primarily to the Police Authority, with an overall responsibility for policing with the Home Secretary.

Sir William Morris: Is the budget-making process impeded in terms of efficient budget-making by all these different lines? The Mayor's office, the GLA, your Authority; it appears to us it is not as clean-cut and clear as you are indicating. I put budget-making as just one example.

Lord Harris: I think budget-making is the one area where the statute is more complicated than it is in other parts of the country. However, the reality is that the budget is developed by the Police Authority; there is then a process of negotiation with the Mayor in terms of the nature of the final budget precept, and the Mayor ultimately then presents that budget.

The reality of this is that it is the MPA which formally proposes a budget to the Mayor; there is then a process of negotiation, and I suspect that is not dissimilar from the sorts of arguments that arise in any other area when budgets are set.

We have our own committee structure which looks very closely at that area, indeed we have committees which monitor very closely all sorts of activities of the Met and the work that it does; that is part of the public accountability structure that we have put in place.

Sir William Morris: Let me just take the governance issue into management. I think it is perhaps common ground that the job of the Metropolitan Police Commissioner is probably the most challenging policing job in the United Kingdom. He or she has to deliver executive strategic management, leading a service of some 43,000 people, including officers and staff; that is on the one hand.

On the other hand, the Commissioner has also got to provide executive strategic operational leadership, in an environment which has changed quite significantly. The beat of the Metropolitan Police Commissioner or the patch has extended now because some of the issues evolving – the issues of terrorism, for example, so it is no longer the borough boundaries of London; in some instances, it extends well beyond that, with new issues.

In the context of those two key areas, strategic executive managerial leadership and strategic executive operational leadership, do you as an Authority see any competing priorities here?

Lord Harris: Necessarily, the task of being Commissioner is an extremely complicated and an extremely difficult one. You are right to say that there are many different facets of that. Part of it is leading the police service and leading the professionalism of the police service; part of it is ensuring that the police service is effectively managed; part of it is ensuring the discussion with the many stakeholders who we discussed a moment ago.

In that role, the Commissioner of the Met has the support of the Deputy Commissioner, who is the second most senior police officer in the country, not just in terms of the Met, and between them they are able to, in practice, divide up some of these responsibilities and some of these functions; clearly the Commissioner holds the ultimate responsibility, but he has the support of a deputy, and if you like, when the Commissioner is performing a leadership role in one aspect, that enables the deputy to perform the leadership role or the management role in another area of activity.

Sir William Morris: Well, in the light of the changing role, and it is a changing role – it is expanding as I have tried to indicate – do you think the correct model, where these two key roles or functions reside in the hand of a single person, do you think that needs any revision in the light of, if you like, the 21st century evolution?

Lord Harris: I would have thought that anyone who was Commissioner would want to decide precisely how they wanted to use both the deputy and their senior management team to make the best use of the skills available, and to delegate responsibilities for various activities appropriately.

There is a civilian director of resources who leads a business team; there is a civilian director of human resources, of procurement, IT and so on; all of those are functions which are represented in the management team, along with the professional areas of policing, in terms of operational policing, serious crimes, specialist operations, and so on, who are also part of that senior management team. Anyone in charge of an organisation has to decide how best to make use of that senior team.

Sir William Morris: So you would not see a situation where the role is divided into two: a managerial chief executive, chief operating officer, call him or her what you will, but with responsibility for managing the resource, minding the shop as I put it last week, on the one hand, and the Commissioner or whoever giving the strategic operational leadership which brings him or her much closer to the serving police officers and staff, and a bit more responsive in the day-to-day demands. Can you see that role at all?

Lord Harris: I think that is probably the way it develops de facto. What I am not sure about is whether it is sensible to, if you like, legislate for it and say, "This is the division that must always apply in this particular sense". What I am trying to get at is that any Commissioner will have a deputy, plus other members of his or her senior management team, to provide support, and the precise division of responsibilities between them will presumably depend on the strengths of the individuals who are available at that time and holding those various offices.

I think you would be right to say that it is important that those delegations and those areas of responsibility are clearly defined, in terms of who is responsible for what, and how things matter.

What I am slightly reluctant to do would be to go along the line that says, "You will define in statute that this is the system of senior management structure that you adopt at any one time".

Sir William Morris: Let me just ask: does the MPA have any responsibility for the use and indeed deployment of the MPS resource, how it uses its resource?

Lord Harris: The answer to that, in my view, is yes, but that does not extend to the management of individual operations, or the use of resources for very precise purposes, but we have a responsibility in terms of managing the budget, in terms of our responsibility for ensuring that there is an efficient and effective service, for looking at the way in which resources are deployed.

Ultimately, these are operational matters which rest within the Met's management, but we would expect to be able to influence that by drawing together the way in which resource decisions are taken.

We have taken the lead, for example, on developing a more transparent formula for allocating resources between different borough commands. That was introduced following the arrival of the MPA, and is now subject to a very thorough review in the light of experience, to try and ensure that so far as the public are concerned, they see they are getting the best possible use of resources.

Sir William Morris: Have you seen and looked at the latest HMIC report?

Lord Harris: Yes.

Sir William Morris: Within that, my colleagues and I have identified some managerial weaknesses, to put it in those terms, about resource accountability and a recognition of how those are used.

In the light of that – I do not know whether you have identified any – are you satisfied that the management structure which currently operates – and I have shared my thoughts in respect of models; are you satisfied that the current model is serving to best effect?

Lord Harris: I think there has been enormous progress in the last three and a half years, in terms of the way in which the Met's resources are managed and the efficiency with which they are used. As I said, when we took over responsibility from the Home Office, we inherited an organisation where there was, frankly, an absence of financial controls and financial systems.

When we asked for financial information, what the Met were able to draw together was not of the detail or the quality you would expect in an organisation of that size.

That has moved forward enormously in the last three and a half years; however, to say that I am satisfied would probably be taking things too far. You know, in terms of the quality of the financial management and structures available, it was probably running at about one out of 10 in 2000; it might now be up to 4 or 5 out of 10, and we want to get it up to 8 out of 10 or 10 out of 10, so there is still work to be done as far as that is concerned.

Sir William Morris: In paragraph 62 of your submission, Lord Harris, you say, and I quote:

"The MPS's policy is rich but implementation poor."

Could you explain precisely what you mean by that statement?

Lord Harris: In my view, the Met is wonderful about adopting policies. It will have strategies for all sorts of things. The follow-through, in terms of ensuring that those strategies are translated into action, and the follow-through in ensuring that those strategies are understood and acted upon at every level of the organisation, I think, is a problem area. It is one of the things that we have emphasised, in terms of our discussion over the years with HMIC, about the importance of there being proper follow-up to recommendations which emerge from strategic considerations.

It came as something of a surprise to me when I became Chair of the Police Authority; I had assumed that in a uniformed, disciplined, hierarchical organisation, if there was a decision to do something, that something happened at the other end. Clearly, there is a – it does not work as smoothly as that within the Metropolitan Police, and one of the issues that we believe needs to be addressed is ensuring that policies are translated into real action at the practical level further down the organisation.

Sir William Morris: Just a final question, from me anyway: this failure of transmission that you just identified, do you see it as a managerial failure or is it an organisational failure?

Lord Harris: I think it is a weakness of the organisational culture. There is – what makes you a successful police officer is not necessarily the same as what makes you a successful manager, and you can be promoted – this is an issue which we have raised with the Met. You can be promoted to become a borough commander with a very substantial level of resources under your command and control without ever having had much in the way of formal management training, or the resources to enable you to manage that role effectively, both in terms of the staff you have under your control, the financial resources and other resources that you have under your control. That, I think, is a real problem.

That, I think, then leads to a culture in which making change happen is not something that comes naturally to police managers, because their experience is one of giving an order rather than of managing things, and that is, I suspect, one of the issues that impedes the implementation of policies in the organisation.

Sir William Morris: Thank you very much indeed, Lord Harris. I will ask my colleague, Sir Anthony Burden, to put one or two questions to you.

Questions by Sir Anthony Burden

Sir Anthony Burden: Thank you. I am going to deal mainly with the people management side of things, but can I firstly just ask you about an issue, following on from what Sir Bill said earlier, in attempting to understand relationships between the MPA and the MPS because I think that is a crucial area for me.

In your submission, I think you quite rightly, in my opinion, identified many of the key issues relevant to this Inquiry. If the Authority has that level of understanding, are there issues in relationship terms which put obstacles in the path of your attempts to put in place an action plan with the MPS to attempt to correct many of these issues?

Lord Harris: I think the obstacles come back to the question of the culture. I sense, quite frequently, a frustration amongst senior management in the Met, the most senior officers in the Met, that mirrors our frustration, that having developed a view, developed a diagnosis of a problem, and perhaps having developed a policy or a strategy to address it, that it then does not happen very quickly or very well, and that is because there is almost a disconnect between what happens at the most senior level, the views expressed there, and ensuring that things happen at the lowest possible levels.

So when we ask for follow-up, and when we ask for action plans, sometimes there is a delay before anything comes back, which I suspect reflects a problem within the organisation, of trying to get material back in the same sort of way.

Sir Anthony Burden: Yes, thank you.

In people management terms, are you content that your human resources committee is afforded sufficient opportunity to undertake its function of monitoring human resource management?

Lord Harris: I think I am satisfied that we receive a lot of data, a lot of material, a lot of information. I think there is still a frustration expressed by members of that committee, in terms of our ability to get to the heart of issues, and to be satisfied that at the end of the day the changes that are necessary have really taken place.

I do not know whether Cecille Wright, who sits on that committee, would like to comment?

Ms Wright: I feel that sometimes we get too much statistics, and to get to the heart of the matter, I think for HR it needs someone who is looking at police regulations, and coming to – actually advising members, because sometimes the blockage is that there are regulations which stop the Authority from getting the information, so, you know, there is something to be said for the Authority getting to grips with the regulations and what is perceived as blockages.

Sir Anthony Burden: Thank you. Can I ask you a rather subjective question, but it is important to me: do you get a sense, however, that there is a full understanding of people management issues within the departments that are responsible for managing those issues?

Ms Wright: In the central HR, yes. When you go to boroughs, that is a different matter.

Sir Anthony Burden: Right. There is a follow-up I was going to ask later, perhaps it is opportune to ask it now: we are aware of the pilot operating in two boroughs, we believe, where personnel professionals have been seconded into those boroughs. That seems to be a rather lengthy pilot, in terms of pilots I have been used to, without a positive outcome.

Would it be the MPA's view that you would wish to see that pilot implemented fully as a policy that there will be personnel professionals out on the boroughs, assisting borough commanders with people management issues?

Ms Wright: I think before the MPA made that decision, we would want to see the palace (?) evaluate it.

Lord Harris: I think it is fair to say that our general approach is that the more that responsibility for personnel and financial resources can be devolved to command unit level, the better that would be, in terms of most effective use of resource at that level, so therefore, our feeling – obviously, we would like to see this demonstrated by the pilots, but our feeling is that the weakness of the structure is that there is HR policy over here, developed centrally, and that is not being translated at local level.

That is not a criticism of the individual borough commanders or OCU commanders, it is simply that it is not there available to them, and it is very unlikely they have had the previous life experience that would enable them to look implement that.

Sir Anthony Burden: Thank you, that is very helpful, but in terms of your responsibilities as an Authority and your role in monitoring human resource and training strategies, there is a gap at the moment between what you would like, in terms of being able to undertake your function, effectively, and what is being delivered.

Lord Harris: I think we are getting the monitoring information which is alerting us to the fact that there is a real problem.

Sir Anthony Burden: Yes, thank you. Can I move on to the handling of employment tribunals? In your submission, you expressed concern over the way that employment tribunals are handled, and in particular, the handling of cases which you say have taken over 400 days to resolve.

Can I ask you, Lord Harris, just to elaborate on your concerns, if that is possible?

Lord Harris: Well, our concern is that this is totally unacceptable in terms of the length of time that this is going on for. It is unacceptable in terms of the organisation and the amount of resources that are put into it; it is unacceptable in terms of the people who are raising the grievances or taking the cases forward. I do not know whether, Reshard, you want to comment further on that?

Mr Auladin: Well, just to share the same view. I think it is the process which leads to those delays which is of great concern to us. That is the area where I think we need to be concentrating in the future.

Sir Anthony Burden: Thank you. The responsibility for managing employment tribunals is currently housed within the professional standards directorate. You do comment on that in your report, but could you just for the purpose of the public hearing express your views about where employment tribunals are handled, and how effective you feel that is, or ineffective?

Lord Harris: I think our concern – and Reshard can elaborate on this, but our concern is that by housing that responsibility in the same area that deals with professional standards, it produces a professional standards type response to individual cases, in terms of investigation and confrontation around those issues, rather than looking at resolving matters at a much earlier stage, which it might be if it was dealt with in a different way.

Mr Auladin: I agree with that.

Sir Anthony Burden: Thank you. And a related issue, I think, you certainly relate it within your submission; you make comment about legal services provided to the MPS. Many decisions appear legally driven, you say, and legal advice tends to be overly defensive and insensitive to community relations.

This obviously is a real concern for you to put it in your submission. Is there an alternative, do you think, faced with the sort of situation that might appertain, that is that the organisations that represent officers obviously are legally represented themselves, and I guess that sets up a sort of scene where you have got lawyers on both sides dealing with these issues.

Does that, in effect, sort of negate the opportunity to deal with these issues in a less formal way?

Lord Harris: I think it is inevitable that the Met will need to be legally represented and have legal advice under those circumstances. I think our concern is that too often – or our perception is that in too many cases the legal advice that is provided is overtly defensive, which leads perhaps to an approach that you pursue litigation to the exclusion of a genuine effort to settle.

I suspect, and this is my perception, that there is a problem with the way in which the client function is handled within the organisation. I am not sure – it may be a natural tendency of police officers that if they receive legal advice they assume that is the law and therefore you have to act on it, and it may well be that if the question was posed in a different way, you would recognise that this was simply advice, rather than a statement that this needs to be pursued to the next level or to the next point of action.

I think also too the general remit of legal services within the Met is about defending the organisation at all costs. Now I am not decrying that, or decrying the individuals involved in that; what I am saying is that sometimes you need to take a step back, take a dispassionate view and say: what in fact are the issues here? Is the legal principle we are fighting for one that really matters in the broader context? That, I suspect, the organisation is not very good at doing, and that is partly about the client function, in terms of what is asked of the solicitors.

Sir Anthony Burden: So lawyers should advise and managers should manage?

Lord Harris: That is a very succinct way of putting what I was trying to say.

Mr Auladin: I was just going to say that I think the remit of the legal services for me is the real issue. It is the need to look at the framework and the terms of reference within which they operate. You could argue, for example, that the Met and MPA has a mission – has a vision and a set of values, and whether the department of legal services, when they are discharging their duties, whether they are doing so within that overall mission. I think the connection between the mission and all parts of what the Met is doing is an important one.

Sir Anthony Burden: Thank you.

My colleague, Miss Weekes, I know will deal with proportionality per se, but can I still within this area of people management refer to what you say about black and minority ethnic officers and staff that they feel at the moment they are treated unfairly.

Is there, to your knowledge, evidence to actually support this claim?

Lord Harris: I think it is certainly possible to demonstrate that there is a disproportionality in terms of the number of cases which are progressed in various ways, and I suspect that part of the difficulty is the way in which the Met responds when there are issues of race, or indeed other diversity issues, involved in particular cases.

There is a sense that, you know, the rabbit is frozen in the headlamps, and as a result there is an overcompensation, "We must review this really thoroughly, we must do more", rather than, again, managing things at the earliest possible stage in the way any good manager would try and resolve issues and deal with them appropriately.

Sir Anthony Burden: Would that be your solution to trying to reinstate – in this particular area, trying to reinstate trust and confidence from black and ethnic minority officers?

Lord Harris: You must always be able to demonstrate that management is acting in a way which is fair and reasonable, but you must at the same time manage issues rather than simply falling back to very bureaucratic processes and procedures, which inevitably have the effect of spinning things out for a very long period.

Sir Anthony Burden: Thank you. Can I move on to the status of constable, and what you refer to as attempting to adopt unifying conditions of service between police and police staff. We have heard quite a lot about the office of constable as Crown servants, and also the need to move in this modern environment towards possibly contracts of employment for police officers. I think you, in your submission, have taken it that one step further, suggesting this unifying of conditions of service; in other words, "one service, one set of conditions", in effect, I guess is what you are suggesting.

Do you think this would be achievable, and would it, in practice, reduce some of the difficulties that we are seeing at the moment, where that status of constable as a Crown servant does seem to create some obstacles when it comes to managing officers and staff in this modern environment, with modern management legislation?

Lord Harris: It will become increasingly difficult to sustain two completely separate sets of terms and conditions. It will become increasingly difficult to sustain as the number of police community support officers grows, as the use of police staff in areas which have in the past been activities which have been solely carried out by police officers; as that increasingly becomes the norm, as the Police Reform Programme rolls forward, then it would be very difficult to sustain two completely different strands of employment and terms and conditions.

I also suspect that it would be better within the organisation if there was seen to be more parity. I think because police regulations are so different from everything else, that means that the number of people who can legitimately specialise in them and understand the law that relates to them is narrower, and I think that makes the whole process much more opaque and much more difficult.

Sir Anthony Burden: Thank you. We have already spoken about putting out to boroughs expertise in specialist areas of people management. That applies, of course, throughout the Metropolitan Police Service, equally at the centre, people managing the corporate areas.

There must be an issue, I guess, in London about paying the right rate for the right level of skills, for people to do the job well. Are salary levels constrained by salary payments paid to senior police managers, maybe properly so, maybe artificially so? Would you see anything wrong in having two sets of salary scales, maybe where the right professionals coming in to the Metropolitan Police, for example to deal with finance, for example to deal with people management, actually breached the salary levels paid to the chief officer team, police team?

Lord Harris: I might be relaxed about it; whether the officers concerned would be quite so relaxed is a different matter.

Sir Anthony Burden: I am sure they would have a different view.

Lord Harris: I think in any organisation it becomes very difficult when specialist posts, who have a line management responsibility to someone more senior, because of market conditions, have to be paid more. I think that is a very difficult situation, but it is one which other organisations have had to manage and had to cope with, and it may be something that the police service has to cope with.

Sir Anthony Burden: I would have thought – maybe this is more of a statement, but not only do you wish to employ those very skilled specialist people, but you want to retain them.

Lord Harris: You want to retain them, and you want to have the best that are available, yes.

Sir Anthony Burden: Thank you. You speak about the outcomes of grievance procedures and complaints, and you in your submission state that they should be reached impartially, after a timely and fair process. The Commissioner last week spoke about using arbitration or an ombudsman; in other words, if it cannot be resolved at first level, then rather than getting bogged down in the organisation, it should go outside for this independent assistance, some system which uses the benefits of mediation.

Would you favour such a system?

Lord Harris: We would certainly favour the use of mediation, we would certainly favour the use of informal resolution where it is possible to do so. You can get into a very messy process whereby you have to go through an attempt to resolve things informally before you can take things forward formally, but it is our view that many of the matters that end up being bogged down in very formal grievance procedures or disciplinary processes could have been resolved at an earlier stage in an informal way.

Sir Anthony Burden: And the use of an outside organisation to facilitate that, you would see no difficulties?

Lord Harris: We would see no difficulty with that in principle at all.

Sir Anthony Burden: And finally from me, you refer to the Northern Ireland model, where the police board can hold the Chief Constable to account for a wider area of police performance. Indeed, within your terms of reference, the Authority can, of course, hold the Chief Constable to account in human resource and training terms, but would you wish to see that extended in line with the Patten Report recommendations, and indeed the way those have been implemented in Northern Ireland?

Lord Harris: I think in terms of clarifying lines of accountability, and avoiding artificial distinctions, then I believe that would be helpful. My own personal background is somebody who was a local authority member for many years, and is used to a slightly different relationship between the elected politicians or the Authority and chief officers and the officer structure.

I believe that a structure which enables there to be clearer accountability and an opportunity – not to involve in the minutiae of managerial decisions or operational decisions, but a clarity about responsibility for allocation of resources and so on, I think that would be an improvement on the current arrangements.

Sir Anthony Burden: Thank you very much indeed.

Sir William Morris: Thank you, Sir Anthony.

Before I invite Miss Weekes to put some questions to you, Lord Harris, I am going to suggest that we adjourn for five to ten minutes, to give the stenographers a chance to stretch their fingers.

Lord Harris: Thank you.

11.25 am
(A short break)
11.35 am

Sir William Morris: Okay, Lord Harris, everybody is back in place, so I will invite Miss Weekes to put some questions to you.

Questions by Miss Weekes

Miss Weekes: Thank you. Good morning, everyone.

Can I start with the statutory framework which underpins your relationship with the Metropolitan Police Service? I am going to talk a little bit about what your views are about the statutory provisions underpinning the MPS on complaints; then I want to move on, if I may, to some of the comments you have made about high-profile cases; then I will move to how officers are treated during the process of complaints; and I would like to come back to one or two issues in relation to the IPCC and resolution of complaints. I just thought I would set out those areas for you.

Can I turn to – and it might be helpful if we had this up on the screen, it is at page 11 of your report, MPA 11, paragraph 26. I have concluded, and correct me if I am wrong, that you are not very happy, in fact, with the regulatory controls on the MPA and the subsequent relationship that you then have as what I call overseer of public complaints and indeed internal complaints for the MPS. Am I right in saying that you are not happy?

Lord Harris: Yes, we are not happy. We feel that the role – I think we express it as a duty to remain informed without any related duty to hold to account or seek to improve – is very unsatisfactory; obviously we strain against those boundaries, but it is an unsatisfactory wording.

Our feeling, frankly, is that the regulations which relate to police discipline need a complete overhaul, and as we get into more detail with them, we discover problems which chafe at all sorts of levels.

Miss Weekes: I am going to come back to that word "overhaul", because you are not the first witness to this Inquiry who has said that. I think it might be helpful for those who are here, the members of the public, if I read a little bit of that paragraph. I am sorry, if we can go back to it:

"The wording of the statutory duty, like much of the relevant enactments and regulations relating to complaints and discipline, is not exactly helpful. The Police Authority is required 'to keep themselves informed as to the workings of the relevant sections of the 1996 Act which bite on the handling and investigation of complaints. A duty to remain informed without any related duty to hold to account or seek to improve is neither onerous nor satisfying. The MPA has, like most other police authorities, interpreted section 77 as requiring the Authority to exercise a regular and fairly close monitoring regime in respect of management information relating to the overall handling of complaints, reinforced by dip sampling random closed complaint cases as a quality assurance mechanism.'"

Before I come to your views about the overhauling of the statutory underpinning for complaints for the MPS, is your unhappiness rooted in what you would consider to be the need for the MPA to have a more controlling role over complaints per se?

Lord Harris: I think I would be unhappy with the word "controlling". I think we –

Miss Weekes: What word would you choose?

Lord Harris: I think we would look for a word more like "supervising", or "overseeing", which was the word you used earlier. It is not for the MPA to be involved in the day-to-day minutiae of the handling of complaint or the handling of investigation, or handling the disciplinary inquiry, but I think it is important that there is this arm's length oversight over what is happening, and the oversight of that should include the individual cases, rather than the totality taken over a period of time.

Miss Weekes: In that case can I take you, then, to page 26, and see how that fits with what you say at paragraph 70, which I will read:

"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."

Now maybe I should read the whole of that paragraph to ensure that that is put within its context:

"Although the Independent Police Complaints Commission will enhance the independence of investigation of some complaints for the near future, the vast majority of complaints against police and internal allegations will be investigated by the MPS itself. Redefining the relationship of the investigating unit to the Authority could boost community confidence in the complaints process, complementing the role of the IPCC."

Now I have read it in full to ensure that I did not unfairly pick one bit of the paragraph and not the other. I want to understand the first part of that paragraph, where your suggestion is that we should, as a Panel, myself and my colleagues, consider bringing the management of professional standards matters directly accountable to the MPA. Can you explain that?

Lord Harris: What we are trying to say is that the Police Authority should be in a position to hold the force to account for the way in which cases are dealt with, individual cases are dealt with; not retrospectively, when it is too late, it has gone too far, it has gone on too long, damage has been done, but in real time, and so as to be able to give guidance to influence the turn of events we should not be compelled to sit on the sidelines as a passive observer.

That does not mean saying, "You must do this, you must do it in this particular way", but for us, as people – coming back to the phrase I used right at the beginning, being the critical friend, saying, "Are you sure this is what you want to do? Are you sure this is the best way of doing it? Have you considered these matters?"

Miss Weekes: How practically, Lord Harris, is this going to work? Because the Metropolitan Police Service have a very good concept and idea and strategy of professional standards itself. The practicalities of it are another thing, but they clearly do have that worked out well, do they not; would you agree?

Lord Harris: We would certainly agree that the commitment to the highest possible professional standards, the clear statement that integrity is not negotiable, are absolutely central to an effective police service, and that is something that the Met has – perhaps "led the world" would not be too far removed, in terms of trying to address those problems in the last ten years or so.

Miss Weekes: So how do you think they would cope, and would they be comfortable about the more involved role, "Do you think this is really the way you want to do it?" How do you think the MPS would react to that?

Lord Harris: I think they would find it challenging. As I said before, being challenged is not always comfortable, but I hope there would be a recognition that perhaps we were adding value because of the fact that we are outside the police service, and not directly part of the Met. We have changed the guard again, I do not know whether Reshard wants to –

Miss Weekes: Just before you come in, can I ask you both to consider this? Part of the make-up of the MPA, undoubtedly, some may say, is political. A number of your members are elected. Would the MPS feel comfortable about this more involved role that you have, bearing in mind your make-up, which is understandable as to why you are made up in that way, but I am raising it so that you can help me as to whether or not that might be an element of concern with this suggested more involved role that you want.

Lord Harris: I should make it clear I am an elected politician, just in case there is any suggestion that I have not made that clear.

Miss Weekes: Yes, I do know you are.

Lord Harris: I mean, what we are trying to define here is not where MPA members, whether they are elected, independent or magistrate members, are directly changing the way in which things are done. What we are saying is that it is about a process of challenge and holding to account, and trying to improve the process.

But it would be possible to define in different ways – I am flanked by two colleagues who are magistrate members. It would be perfectly possible, if people needed reassuring that there was no nasty political influence – I use the word "nasty" to caricature what some might feel – that could be addressed by making the oversight explicitly the responsibility of magistrate members of the MPA, if people felt more comfortable with that.

I do not know, Reshard, whether you want to say more?

Mr Auladin: Going back to the paragraph in the submission itself, there are two strands to this; one which is continuing some of the work that we already do, which is oversight of professional standards in general. What we are not suggesting is taking over professional standards as a whole, completely; we are looking only at the investigation side of things, which is already happening, say, for example with the PCA now, and will happen with the IPCC in the future, where they will be able to have an officer of the IPCC managing or supervising an investigation, to bring about independence.

The suggestion or proposal is to do with investigation only at this stage, where investigation has been carried out by a unit which is at arm's length from the Met; hopefully then engendering confidence from complainers and people who have been complained of. Again, it will not be day-to-day management of the investigation itself, but it would be to have an oversight, as the Chairman was talking about earlier on, which is about supervision and oversight of that process.

Discipline itself will remain with the Commissioner, it always has been and will be, even when the IPCC takes control. When they have carried out an investigation, it will be something they will pass to the Commissioner for discipline matters to be dealt with, so it is only to do with investigation.

The other strand I was talking about, which is the oversight of professional standards in general, it is being a little bit more proactive; the Chair has already talked about us not sitting on the sidelines, but having a say in the direction that certain processes are taking; reviewing processes, and also evaluating the processes that are already there and being able to make changes to those.

Miss Weekes: One gets the feeling that here is yet another set of individuals to be involved in a decision on complaints, because at the moment many of our witnesses have said, "It is complex, it has to go through many people for many decisions"; are you not adding yet another process?

Mr Auladin: I think we are substituting one. Instead of the accountability being directly to the command structure within the Met, you are looking at a different structure. The discipline would be as it is now.

Lord Harris: Could I just draw a couple of analogies, which is about where lines of accountability and lines of responsibility go within the organisation. At the moment, the internal audit function for the Met is located as accountable within the MPA. The purpose for that is to have an arm's length relationship with the rest of the organisation.

We are currently in discussion about how best to manage responsibilities for health and safety, for very similar reasons, about the need to be in an arm's length relationship, so as to avoid – I am not suggesting this would happen, but avoid a situation in which the line management, the operational line management pressures override what might be important audit or health and safety judgments; suggesting something similar in respect of this area of activity.

Miss Weekes: Is it not important, I suggest, simply to challenge and understand your reform, that the Metropolitan Police stand on its own and create its own independency, to give the message to the public that it can deal with its own professional standards, and when those standards slip, that it can deal with the slippage without having to move a department under the umbrella of the MPA?

Lord Harris: I think the problem that the Met or any police service has is that it is still regarded as the police investigating themselves, and this – I agree with you that the outcome must be clear, it must be seen that issues have been dealt with appropriately and firmly, but the process of investigation, which will often produce a result which says there is no case to answer – if that is seen to be done slightly at arm's length, then that would be helpful to public confidence.

Miss Weekes: Okay. Can I move to the second half of your first comment, which was the overhaul of the statutory provisions, regulations, policies, guidance, underpinning the MPS dealing with complaints, both external and internal? I am going to come to the IPCC in a moment.

You are not the first witness who has used the term "overhaul"; how long have you felt that those statutory provisions were in need of being overhauled? How long have you felt this?

Lord Harris: I think we have felt it since the point at which we began to try and make use of them.

Miss Weekes: When was this, in terms of years?

Lord Harris: Well, in terms of the first major case that the MPA had to deal with since it was set up in 2000. I mean, Reshard has been involved throughout, first as deputy chair and now chair of the relevant committee. I do not know if you want to answer that.

Mr Auladin: Well, there are two points here again. If we can be specific about one aspect of our work, which is looking at complaints for chief police officers, this has been a minefield for us in that not many other police authorities have experience of dealing with complaints against chief police officers, and trying to make the regulations work has been a very difficult problem for us. I think to this day we still have problems in making the regulations – or rather, trying to understand the regulations.

Miss Weekes: Who have you discussed this problem with? We as a Panel are receiving this feeling and these views all the time, and one does wonder: well, how long have you known of it, and who have you talked to about it, and what attempts have been made to remedy this?

Mr Auladin: There are a number of attempts we have made. First of all, we have sought legal advice, and we have to say that we have had different advice from different firms, in terms of clarity of other regulations.

Miss Weekes: Lawyers are a bit like that, are they not? So you have had different legal advice about how to simplify and reform the complexity.

Mr Auladin: We have also taken our concerns to the Association of Police Authorities, to see whether they have experience of dealing with those things, and they have reported really the same sort of problems that we have had. We have made, through the clerk to the Authority, representations to the Home Office on a number of occasions, and I know at one stage there was a working party looking at these regulations; if I am not wrong, they are still looking at these regulations.

Miss Weekes: Can you just give me the name of that working party? Is it a Home Office working party?

Mr Auladin: It is a Home Office process, yes. I am not sure of the name.

Miss Weekes: And this has been since 2000 that these different processes of trying to find a solution has been going on?

Mr Auladin: Yes. I think we also made submissions to the Police (Reform) Act when it was being considered by Parliament.

Miss Weekes: So really to date no breakthrough of any clear way ahead?

Mr Auladin: To date, not really, no.

Miss Weekes: I think again for the benefit of the public, we should put this discussion against the background that there is a major Act coming into place in April, that is the Police (Reform) Act 2002, and it will bite in April. Well, it is already enacted, but the majority of those provisions will come in, and one of the principal reforms, of course, is the Independent Police Complaints Commission, what we call the IPCC.

But that does not get rid of the remaining regulations that still exist for the treatment of senior officers who receive complaint, the treatment of other officers, the difference with police staff and police officers, the numerous guidances and numerous policies; am I correct? It does not actually get rid of that, the 2002.

Mr Auladin: I do not think it does. From our point of view, I think it is an opportunity missed, but there are a number of submissions that various bodies made, including the Association of Police Authorities, sadly that were not included in that Act.

Miss Weekes: Do you know why they were not?

Mr Auladin: I am afraid that I do not know.

Lord Harris: I think it was put in the "too difficult" pile.

Miss Weekes: The "too difficult" pile. That is part of the inertia that you have probably mentioned. Forgive me for asking these questions, but we have to grapple with this, because everybody who comes to us says, "Too many, too difficult, too complex"; it is making life difficult for officers, it is making life difficult for the service to deal with what will always be on their table, which is complaints. You are never going to get rid of them.

So if you can identify any document that might assist us, myself and my colleagues, that contains the best resolution for this particular issue, we would be grateful, because we have not necessarily read some of the things that you have just kindly referred me to.

Lord Harris: We will see whether we can submit a further paper to the Inquiry on those points.

Miss Weekes: If you did find any of the lawyers' advice helpful and you could, without breaching privilege, give us that, we would also be grateful.

Lord Harris: We will see what we can provide.

Miss Weekes: Can I then move on to the difference between the way senior officers are treated – I know you oversee ACPO officers. Why is there a need for the difference of approach to the way officers of ACPO rank are treated when they receive complaints, and other police officers and police staff? There probably is a very good reason for such a naive question, so please forgive me for asking, because there are different regulations and different guidance; whenever I pick up a paper on senior officers I have to remind myself that it is completely different to ordinary officers. Is it necessary? There must be a good reason.

Lord Harris: I assume that the origin is in terms of the differing processes for appointment of officers, in the sense that the more senior officers, the ACPO ranks, are appointed by police authorities as opposed to it simply being an internal process. Whether that justifies the difference in the regulations, I would need to be convinced.

Miss Weekes: I was just about to ask that very question. I do not know whether your colleague – does it justify it?

Mr Auladin: I do not think it does. I think it is purely for the sake of the people who are working for the organisation; I think they do ask questions about the different strands of the discipline process, but to a certain extent, the advent of the IPCC will address some of that, or they will be responsible for chief police officers' complaints as well, although we may still be responsible for carrying out investigations and so on, but in terms of oversight and supervision they will be responsible, so there is a degree of standardisation taking place there.

Miss Weekes: Do I understand, will the 2002 Act revoke or get rid of these different regulations that I keep looking – will they be gone? I think that is what you are saying.

Mr Auladin: I do not think they will go completely, but in terms of oversight, the IPCC will be taking oversight of all complaints cases.

Lord Harris: I think it will be simplified quite significantly.

Miss Weekes: All right. High-profile cases: you have mentioned the lessons to be learnt from the Lancet Review, and we have read that, my colleagues and I, and many other individuals have mentioned it.

I would like to specifically look at two aspects of high-profile cases. A high-profile case often simply becomes high-profile because the press are interested, and they write about it a lot. It might have to do with the profile of the officer concerned; it may not. It might have to do with the conduct complained of.

Do you have any views or comments or recommendations about the role of the press in terms of the press attached to the overseeing of the MPS, and how often things do get into the press domain, because undoubtedly it does affect the investigation, does it not?

Lord Harris: I think there are several aspects to this. I mean, one is that I would be very reluctant if there were some sort of blanket prohibition on the press reporting such matters, because it is about public confidence.

Miss Weekes: I should think you would see yourself in the High Court very quickly if you did.

Lord Harris: And the impact on community confidence of these cases is potentially very large, so there needs to be a transparency.

We are concerned that whether formally or, we rather suspect, informally, often details of cases emerge in the public domain in a way which is inappropriate, and that – I mean, it appears to be not uncommon in police services that the hotline to the local journalists who tell them of interesting burglaries that have taken place over the weekend seems to extend to all sorts of activities.

In our view, it is the case that it appears that there has been briefing for or against individuals, or in respect of individual high-profile cases, to the press; I am sure that is not done formally, but it is certainly happening informally, and that is obviously very unhelpful in that it is designed to create more public debate, or put pressure on the way in which things are resolved in a particular incident.

Miss Weekes: I would like to just touch on two aspects of that answer. Getting early sensitive information into the press domain does not help resolution, clearly, because there would then be naturally an obligation on the MPS to ensure that they are defended or they are defending their reputation; is that reasonable to expect that that is a reaction?

Lord Harris: Well, it is not just a question of the Met, I think any of the individuals involved would wish to defend their position and their reputation.

Miss Weekes: How can we improve on that?

Lord Harris: Well, I think it should be in the same way that a very firm line is taken on integrity in other aspects of police work; integrity in terms of releasing confidential information or information which applies to a particular disciplinary or investigation should be taken extremely seriously.

Miss Weekes: Which department do we go to to deal with this particular aspect, within the MPS?

Lord Harris: Well, there is the Directorate of Public Affairs which is responsible for media relations, but I think it is also a question of the way in which discipline is applied to officers who are thought to have leaked sensitive information. It may not be officers, it may be staff, and, of course, the leaks may have come from other sources as well.

Miss Weekes: Thank you for that. Again, as you are the overseer of a number of these complaints, if a case does become high-profile, do you see any evidence that decisions made, procedures adopted, discretion carried out, is affected by the fact that it has become high-profile?

Lord Harris: I talked earlier on about the rabbit in the headlights syndrome; I think that applies in respect of high-profile cases, and necessarily, I think that influences the way in which work is carried on.

At another level, it impacts on the Authority and other organisations in terms of the way in which the Met decides when and how to involve members of the Authority, or members of independent advisory groups or community figures in oversight of particular cases, and our own view is that this is done in a very informal way, and without necessarily a clear set of guidelines as to when it is appropriate to involve external people for oversight; nor is there a clear protocol as to how that is done, either in respect of the Authority or indeed of other bodies, in terms of calling on that expertise.

Miss Weekes: Do I understand you – you clearly want a clear protocol, but you would want to keep flexibility and informality about when you do employ outside independent agencies; is that right?

Lord Harris: Well, there is a need very clearly for a protocol in respect of members of the Authority, because we do not want to be in a position where our independence is compromised, or the statutory responsibility we might subsequently have in respect of cases is compromised, but I suspect the gains that the Met has had from involving lay people in gold groups or particular investigations has been very substantial; we would not want to throw any of that away.

What we do think is that it ought to be systematised, to the extent that there is a clear decision trail, an audit trail, as to why decisions were taken to involve this person rather than that person, or to involve people in the particular parts of the process; that has not always been very clear.

Miss Weekes: Is there anything else that either of the three of you would like to assist us with on high-profile cases? I note what you have said in your paragraph 36. I do not know whether there is anything else that you might be able to assist us on?

Lord Harris: I think just one point I would want to make is that we are very conscious of the level of resources that end up being devoted to some of these cases. Sometimes those levels of resources are very difficult to explain to the public; that may simply be a statement about the cost of police investigations per se, but it is part of – I would see our responsibility, in terms of delivering an efficient and effective police service, that we ask those questions about resources and we are probably informed about those, in terms of the decisions which are taken to deploy resources at that level, the proportionality of those resources.

Miss Weekes: I have not touched a great deal upon the proportionality point, because you deal with it very well, and as a Panel we should welcome and anticipate that the IPCC will follow the Lancet Review in having clear terms of reference for each case, and a review frequently upon the proportionality that turns up for the whole of the process, not just at the beginning or at the end. Have I summarised that correctly? We cannot anticipate it, we have to hope that it is going to work.

Lord Harris: Yes, I mean, certainly we have had some initial discussions with the IPCC, and we are keen to pass on to them what we think are our conclusions about the way in which the system works, and they will make their own judgment about how best to organise their own work.

Miss Weekes: What is the most important message you would want publicly to say to the work that the IPCC is going to take into account? I note what you say about delays, but is there anything that particularly is on your mind in terms of lessons to be learnt for the IPCC?

Lord Harris: I am very conscious of the lessons that the Met has learnt since the Stephen Lawrence Inquiry about managing critical incidents, working with communities, supporting families, and I think it is important that the IPCC applies those same lessons, in terms of the way in which they handle some of the high-profile incidents, or indeed any incident that is referred to them.

Miss Weekes: Okay. I want to ask about how officers are treated during the process of a complaint, especially if the complaint takes two or three years before resolution. Is there an agreed policy? Is there someone who oversees how officers are treated in terms of the stress that they will receive, because not all officers will be found guilty of a piece of conduct. Some will, some will not. How are they treated in terms of coming back to work when they have missed two or three years, and several new policies have been put on the table in their absence? Those sorts of things; who looks after officers?

Lord Harris: My impression is that this is very ad hoc. We have been conducting some work as a police authority on fatal incidents and police suspensions, and I remember quite vividly a focus group we had with firearms officers, and the descriptions that they gave us of the way in which some of those people in that room had been treated after serious incidents; the length of time, the lack of information, lack of information to their families.

That certainly leads me to believe that there needs to be a very clear policy in terms of support of the officers, just as much as there needs to be family support for victims of incidents and so on.

That is a lesson that has not been applied internally, but is much better now applied externally in terms of high-profile cases.

In some of the cases where I have been individually involved, where an officer has returned to work, I am aware of the complexities and difficulties of ensuring that that re-entry process is managed sensitively, fairly and appropriately. That is not easy, and it is probably a specialist requirement that there be people within the organisation who understand how best to do that.

Miss Weekes: But what is clear is that you are not aware of any accepted policy for the Met, and indeed for other forces?

Lord Harris: I am not aware of it. There may be one somewhere, but as we have said, the Met is policy-rich but not always terribly good at implementing those policies.

Miss Weekes: That moves me conveniently on to what you think of the fairly new Fairness at Work process, which came about in April 2003, or certainly has been enacted in April 2003, so it is still quite new, and there will not be a huge amount of results and cases for us to look at, but there will be some.

Are you happy that this new procedure is going to effectively deal with all the complaints about the past grievance procedure which was used by the MPS?

Lord Harris: I think we certainly see it as a substantial step forward. I think we need to see a little bit more how it is implemented in practice, the extent to which people understand its use, both at managerial level and in terms of those who might use the system, to assess whether or not it has effectively dealt with all the concerns that have been expressed about the grievance procedure in the past.

Miss Weekes: It raises two things for me, on my reading of it. The resolution of workplace conflicts with staff and officers still rests with supervisors and line managers, so it still remains that you are going to be lucky if you have a good one, or you are going to be lucky if you have one trained in personnel management; am I right?

Lord Harris: I think that is a fair statement, although I think it is important that most matters are dealt with at the line management level on that point. What it raises for us are issues about the extent to which sufficient training, sufficient emphasis is put on equipping those who are given management responsibilities with the skills that they need.

I commented earlier about the very difficult position that borough commanders are in. Borough commanders have an almost impossible range of responsibilities. I am concerned that they are not provided with the support and training to enable them to be as effective as they should be in those roles, and they are being asked to carry out very complicated, very difficult roles without those support structures and without necessarily the full range of training that they need.

Miss Weekes: I have read the Fairness at Work quite carefully, and I might be wrong, but I see nowhere within the document a detailed guidance at resolution of a dispute, and how an officer approaches the resolution of a dispute, because you are, I think, right – my personal view is that you are right. We do have to make line managers and supervisors resolve it.

Lord Harris: I think there is a sort of assumption that you will recognise it when you see it, in terms of a satisfactory resolution; well, in terms of management, that may well not be the case. People have to have an understanding as to what is an appropriate resolution.

Miss Weekes: Well, if you agree that it is not within the document, where are line managers getting the understanding of how they should resolve disputes?

Lord Harris: I suspect it is by osmosis. I think Reshard wanted to come in.

Mr Auladin: I think, to be fair, the Professional Standards Directorate within the Met over the last three or four years has made considerable progress in looking at some of these issues. They carried out a best value review in, I think, the year 2000, and as a result of some of the recommendations of that review, they have changed their own structure of dealing with complaints, and their management structure and so on.

Part of that change is what is happening in the boroughs now. If, for example, there is a conflict which a borough commander is passing on to the Professional Standards Directorate, the person responsible will look at that problem and decide whether this is something that should go back to the borough commander in terms of informal resolution, and they are doing so in two or three ways; one which is giving people guidance; there is also a great deal of co-ordination between professional standards staff and borough commander staff, and there is also a great deal of training that is taking place.

In terms of training their own people, again, to be fair, they are now doing a better job of training investigating officers, and they have better systems in place in looking at timescale and time management when they are dealing with complaints.

Miss Weekes: Thank you very much for that. I just want to move on, I think, to the last area, which will be local resolution and alternative ways of dealing with complaints, a matter that my colleague, Sir Anthony, touched on.

I am simply going to read from the Police Complaints Authority booklet on justice in police complaints; you have probably all read it. I do not have the system number for it, but it might help if I simply read it.

They outline, quite helpfully, some principles of fairness, and I know you have just now very helpfully summarised what the Metropolitan Police are now doing. I just want to find out whether you agree that this is embedded in what you have just told us:

"Three principles of fair process: Engagement. Involving individuals in decisions that affect them by asking for their input and allowing them to refute the merit of one another's idea and assumptions."

Is that within this new approach?

Mr Auladin: I think we come back to regulations, where some of the problems will continue to exist, because I think there is, on occasion, police officers' willingness to actually deal with things informally, but there is that fear that if they start talking openly, that material could be used against them, either in criminal or disciplinary matters. It is about looking at it for a resolution first and foremost, in a framework that does not have consequences further down the line. And in certain situations, you have to serve police officers with a regulation notice before you start interviewing them, for example, so these are problems that I think need to be resolved before we are fully capable of going down the line of informal resolution.

But I think we are already asking the Met to do some of that; we have talked about carrying out a couple of pilot schemes, where we are going to get police officers and complainants who are willing to look at informal resolution; even, if necessary, to bring third parties in as volunteers, to act as mediators to deal with informal resolution. That is at a very early stage, and we are watching this space with a great deal of interest.

Ms Wright: And it is true to say that in some boroughs, borough commanders are inviting the Director of Professional Standards to come and talk to their senior management team, so they are locally – I am not going to say every borough is doing that, but some borough commanders are being very proactive in the way they want to deal with things locally, and are actively seeking advice.

Miss Weekes: Right. And the second explanation:

"Everyone involved and affected should understand why final decisions are made as they are. Creates a powerful feedback loop that enhances learning."

And if I may add to that, both the public and the officer complained of has a right to know about the stages and decisions that are being made as the complaint progresses.

So that section, do you think that has helpfully now been taken forward by the MPS, or is there still room for improvement?

Mr Auladin: I do think there is still room for improvement. It is something that I think the MPS would accept themselves, that it is not quite right, in terms of informing police officers, as well as members of the public who have complained. They have some processes in place, but we have not got it quite right.

Miss Weekes: What is not quite right about it, so we can make sure we understand you?

Mr Auladin: I think it is about the interval at which people hear information, but also it is about management of information that you already have; maybe the need to have better training as to at what stage a certain amount of information has become something that you can disclose to parties that are interested.

And if we do go along the route of informal resolution, you could set a framework at the very start of a particular case, terms of reference which all parties will abide by, including sharing information at a later stage.

Miss Weekes: Lastly:

"Expectation; Clarity. Once decisions are made, new rules are clearly stated, so employees understand new standards and penalties for failure."

Has that been adequately adopted, do you think?

Ms Wright: I would not say right across the board. Again, there are pockets of good practice.

Miss Weekes: That brings me finally on to mediation, early resolution, local resolution, restorative justice; they sort of really fit under one umbrella, and it is the principle I want to go to.

I have not yet read, but it may exist, of a very clear guidance policy that indicates the categories of cases that are clearly suitable for local resolution/early resolution, and that must go through early resolution process; the category of cases that are not suitable, because sometimes it is not suitable, if an officer is charged with a criminal serious offence, for there to be early resolution; and finally, the process by which you early resolve, because some cases are more suitable to other forms than not.

I have summarised what I think this policy document would look like; does it exist?

Mr Auladin: I do not think it does at this stage. There are some strands of work that I think are being developed, I have not seen those, but there is, I think, clearly a need for that; it is something that the Authority itself, through its Professional Standards Committee, is asking for, which is to look at ways of dealing with more cases by way of informal resolution, and for us to be able to do so, we need that protocol that you have talked about. Clearly, it is something that I think further work needs to be done on.

Miss Weekes: Because, of course, we could not ourselves recommend which kind of cases should – it is really a matter for the profession, is it not, to put that category clearly in, but if there was a clear protocol and policy, then at least officers and line managers would have something to work to; do you agree?

Mr Auladin: We agree, yes.

Miss Weekes: One final question: not everything that is done by lawyers is good, but I am going to share something with you that you might think you want to consider, not necessarily adopt.

Lord Woolf brought forward some rather important reforms in relation to how civil cases should be resolved, and an important reform was that in every case that comes to the High Court, the parties are asked to go away and settle and resolve it, and to adopt mediation where it is helpful.

That has resulted in at least 35 per cent of cases not coming to court, and far less money for lawyers, and less work in the High Court, because people just do not lodge cases any more.

If, in this new protocol, you considered almost statutory, but not quite, the mandatory approach, "These cases must be mediated, must be resolved", would that work for the Metropolitan Police Service?

Mr Auladin: There are two points here; one which is about case management, which is very similar to what happens in the courts. I would see a case where parties have to submit their evidence to a case management court or tribunal, if you like, to look at what the evidence is, to look at what the aspects of that case are, to look at what the complaint is all about, and to make a decision as to whether this is something that should go back to the parties in terms of resolution.

If there is a very strong case for informal resolution, then directions would be given, and as you are suggesting, that case could be so resolved, but I think you are looking at a way of managing cases first of all, that is how the protocol will feed into it, but also the way you manage every single case; it is about looking at the case from the very starting point.

Miss Weekes: And who is going to draft this protocol for us to look at?

Mr Auladin: Well, we are hoping the IPCC would do that.

Miss Weekes: I am very grateful. Thank you very much for your assistance.

Sir William Morris: Thank you very much indeed, Lord Harris, for your response, and indeed your colleague. Can I just say that we have come to the end of the formal questions that we wanted to ask you, but you will recall that in my opening statement, I said that we would offer you the opportunity, and indeed your colleagues, for a brief closing comment, should you wish to make one. If you do, then now is your time.

Lord Harris: Okay. I mean, I will be very brief, it is really just to emphasise some of the points that we have made. Firstly, I think the Met has made gigantic strides in managing diversity in relation to the delivering of policing to the community since the Lawrence Inquiry report; there are still some large areas of concern, but in terms of community relations and the management of critical incidents, the Met has done very well and is at the leading edge, but the lessons learnt there have not been applied to other organisational problems.

It is certainly our view that the HR function in the Met is undervalued and underresourced, especially at borough command unit level, though it would apply to other operational commands. This lack of professional support, combined with lack of training for line managers in dealing with difficult HR issues, has resulted in the sort of pressure cooker situation we have referred to in our evidence.

Issues fester until they blow, because there is no will or no ability to resolve them. The Met is sometimes too oriented to investigation and not oriented to problem solving on difficult HR issues.

We recognise the need to balance the thoroughness of investigation with speed of resolution, especially where issues of corruption are involved. We believe that the balance is not yet right.

One other point which I just want to come back to is the question of the status of police officers as officers of the Crown, and I think that this Inquiry will do a great service if it just looks at what that is about, and whether that adds something in the modern world, and whether, if we could get to a position where the discipline of police officers was put on to the same footing as in general employment law, with the safeguards and protections of unfair dismissals and ETs, but not the wrapping round it of court martial-like procedures, I think that would be of great benefit.

We, as an Authority, will make some further submissions; you have specifically asked questions around the regulations and how they could be improved. I think we have promised you a draft protocol for the involvement of ourselves in oversight of sensitive cases, and a copy of our revised protocol for complaints and discipline cases for ACPO level officers to reflect the new IPCC regime.

Sir William Morris: Thank you very much. We naturally look forward to receiving the documentation that you have just referred to. Just one final comment –

Ms Wright: I actually wanted to make a comment, because I do not think that the Inquiry will be complete, in my humble opinion, unless we talk about something about race and diversity. Although we accept that the MPS has made great strides, that does not translate into the feeling of its black staff, and I think somewhere in this report, there must be something about the perception of black and ethnic minority staff within the force, about how they are treated, and whether they are valued, and whether their contribution to policing in London is valued.

Sir William Morris: Can I just clarify, when you use the word "staff", are you making reference to police officers, as we understand the term, or are you making reference to –

Ms Wright: I am saying police officers and staff, because the perception of black and ethnic minority people, depending on who you talk to, is a bit skewed and I think people would – I myself, as a member of the Authority, would want to see something about the acceptance or the realisation that a lot of problems stem from the way people feel about how they are dealt with as an ethnic minority person.

Sir William Morris: Does your colleague want to say anything?

Mr Auladin: No, thank you.

Sir William Morris: Just before we conclude, can I just say that as with all our witnesses, it may be necessary that once we have heard from other witnesses, we might want to ask you to come back for a few more questions, or indeed we may ask you to submit further documentation that you have volunteered, documentation additional in any event, but whatever we determine, we will seek to minimise any inconvenience that it may cause to you in providing us with further information.

For the moment, all that remains is for me, on behalf of my colleagues and myself, to thank you for your written submission and indeed your oral contribution this morning to the work of the Inquiry. Thank you very much to you and your colleagues.

Lord Harris: Thank you.

Sir William Morris: It is my intention to adjourn the Inquiry until 2.00 pm this afternoon. Could I ask members of the public to remain seated while the witness and the members leave the room, please? Thank you very much. We stand adjourned until 2.00.

12.30 pm

Skip Navigation \| Accessible

Accessibility About the Inquiry Contacts Search
Home News Schedule Transcripts Evidence Report Links
Transcripts > Metropolitan Police Authority (23 Feb 04)
QuickSearch See also On this website: Evidence: Metropolitan Police Authority Transcript: Metropolitan Police Authority (8 June 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 Lord Toby Harris of the Metropolitan Police Authority on 23 February 2004. Mr Reshard Auladin and Ms Cecille Wright were also called to this hearing. Sections available here: Questions by Sir William Morris Questions by Sir Anthony Burden Questions by Miss Weekes Alternative versions This transcript is also available with original line and page numbering. Content Transcript of public session: Lord Toby Harris of Haringey, Mr R Auladin and Ms C Wright of the Metropolitan Police Authority Monday, 23 February 2004 10.00 am Sir William Morris: Ladies and gentlemen, good morning, and a special good morning to you, Lord Harris. Can I first of all say thank you very much indeed for accepting our invitation to attend the Inquiry and to give evidence, and for letting us have your written submission which we found extremely helpful. I do appreciate that for some – not you, I suspect, but for some of our witnesses, this process can in fact be a very daunting task, so I thought it would be helpful if I briefly say how we propose to conduct the hearing. But first, let me introduce myself and the other members of the Panel. I am Sir Bill Morris, recently retired General Secretary of the Transport and General Workers Union, a position I held for some 12 years, and I have been asked to chair the Inquiry. As you can see, there are two other Panel members, Sir Anthony Burden, on my right, who recently retired as Chief Constable of the South Wales Constabulary, after a very long and distinguished career in the police service, and Anesta Weekes; Anesta is a QC, is an eminent barrister, and sits as a Recorder, as well as a part-time chairperson of employment tribunals. She was also counsel to the Lawrence Inquiry. Lord Harris, as you know, you have asked us to conduct an Inquiry into professional standards and employment matters of the Metropolitan Police Service. It is an independent inquiry. Our focus is on the MPS as an organisation, and not the individuals who make up the MPS. The inquiry that we are conducting is inquisitorial and not adversarial in nature. We are very keen to enquire into the issues raised by our terms of reference, so that we can make appropriate recommendations for further good practice, rather than concentrating on making criticisms of the MPS as an organisation, or particular individuals within the MPS itself. To help us in our task, we are very keen to hear from all our witnesses, not just about what is wrong with the Metropolitan Police Service, but also what is right with it, but more importantly, your suggestion and any suggestion we can have for putting things right, assuming that there are things wrong. A transcript is being taken, so that we can have a proper record of the evidence given by all our witnesses, and this will be posted on our website later today. At the end of these introductory remarks, I will lead with questions to you, followed by my colleague, Sir Anthony Burden, and next Miss Weekes, and any supplementary questions that I might necessary. At the conclusion of our questions, I will offer you the opportunity for a brief closing statement. In your written submission, Lord Harris, which, as I have indicated, will be posted on the website, you have set out a number of headings which we find extremely important. You have indicated that the MPA and its function is a prime consideration. The MPA's responsibility for professional standards, including statutory oversight of complaints, and the conduct of the Metropolitan Police Service handling of individual cases; the MPA's responsibility with regard to human resource; the reasons for establishing this Inquiry; you have also indicated examples of best practice in the way in which the MPS handles matters; the shortcomings in the Metropolitan Police Service current system; and finally the heading that you have set out that we want to explore further, which is the respective roles of the MPA, the MPS, the PCA and the IPCC. We would like to ask you some questions about the material in your submission around those headings, and seek your views on a range of matters of interest to us. But first, before we raise these issues, for the benefit of the transcript note, I wonder if you would mind just formally introducing yourself to the inquiry. Lord Harris: Thank you very much. My name is Toby Harris, I am the Chair of the Metropolitan Police Authority. I am accompanied by Reshard Auladin, who is a member of the Police Authority and chairs our Professional Standards Committee, and also by Cecille Wright, who chairs our Equal Opportunities and Diversity Board. Questions by Sir William Morris Sir William Morris: Thank you very much. We are very interested, Lord Harris, in the relationship between the MPA and the MPS. Perhaps we would invite you just to say how you would categorise the relationship in general terms. Would it be one of a distance overseer, or one of a cousin who is tolerated, offering advice and improvements? In what category would you put those? Lord Harris: To some extent, it depends who you would ask, on that question. I think we like to see ourselves as a critical friend. We take our statutory responsibilities, in terms of the oversight of the police service and the importance of delivering for the people of London an efficient, effective and fair police service, extremely seriously. I suspect that that, on occasions, means that we pose questions or press on issues that the Met finds difficult or perhaps inconvenient to address at that time, but we see that as our role, and it is one that we would wish to safeguard and to pursue as vigorously as we can. Sir William Morris: Could you offer us your view about the professional relationship between the PCA and the Metropolitan Police Service, and in particular its department for professional standards, and how that has worked in practice? Lord Harris: Again, that is clearly governed by the statutory relationships and the formal relationships which govern it. I suspect that the relationship has been one that has varied from individual case to individual case, in terms of the way in which the inquiries and supervision of those inquiries have been handled. I do not know whether Reshard wants to comment on the basis of closer involvement in that? Mr Auladin: Well, from my point of view, I think the relationship has been one which has had a degree of tension; not destructive tension, but I think it is tension that has been, in a sense, necessary for the two bodies to be able to carry out their functions properly. In terms of the relationship between the Met and the PCA, I think it has been, from my understanding, a very good working relationship. Over the last year, there has been a problem in terms of timescales, in looking at cases and being able to deal with those within the time limits that they were supposed to be dealt with, but on the whole I think that relationship has been a reasonably good one for working. Sir William Morris: At this point in the relationship, recognising that it is relatively new, 2002 exists in time, what do you see as your own authority's priorities for the Met, in respect of improvements around issues about service quality, and just fulfilling its own mission? What is your priority? What is the MPA's priority for that? Lord Harris: The priorities we have been following, and will continue to follow in the future, clearly are focused on delivering the best possible police service to the people of London. Part of that is about the level of resources that is provided, in terms of increasing the number of police officers and police staff, police community support officers, who are available to provide services to the public. That is something where we reversed a long term trend of decline to one of what I hope will be continued growth for the next few years. There is then our desire to ensure that resources are used in the best possible way. One of the things as an Authority we were very keen to do when we took over responsibility in 2000 was to ensure that the Met had the financial systems and the financial mechanisms in place that an organisation of that scale needed. When we first took over, one of the first things that happened to us was to receive a report from the internal audit function which informed us that the Met did not have a system for ensuring that it did not pay bills more than once. Clearly, in an organisation with a budget of £2.5 billion, that required serious work to address it. We have been doing that, and what we have been doing in the past three and a half years, and will continue in the future, are a series of efficiency and effectiveness reviews, designed to ensure that the Met delivers best value in those areas. The third major area of work which I have referred to is that about the quality and nature of the service that the Met gives to the public of London. It is important that that is a service which is delivered fairly, a service where there is a mutual degree of respect between the police and the communities that they serve, and a degree of effectiveness in terms of the quality of work that is done. So that means that crimes are investigated properly, that there is a result, but that people also feel that as users of the service, they have been treated properly and fairly. So those have been major areas of work, and to deliver that effectively it is also important that the Met itself works well internally, and that means addressing issues of fairness, of having a workforce which is balanced, which is reflective of the communities of London; those are all, if you like, major areas of activity that we would see as being essential to our mission. Sir William Morris: The Commissioner, Sir John Stevens, told us last week that the Met is probably the most accountable police service anywhere in the world, and it is evidence that the political stakeholding constituency is an expanding one. In addition to the Home Secretary, we have the MDA, we have the office of the Mayor, we have the Greater London Authority, and, of course, we have the PCA and soon to be the IPCC, and the boroughs of course. It is a very wide stakeholding political constituency that the Commissioner and his colleague has to address at different levels. In your view, do you think different layers of political accountability lead to an overregulated MPS, in accountability terms, in governance terms? Lord Harris: I think it is very easy to say that the Met is overregulated and overaccountable, but the reality is that the formal lines of accountability and regulation are fairly clear, and these are the same for any police service, whether it is a small county or the Metropolitan Police. There is an accountability to the Police Authority, and there is an accountability to the Home Office. Now in London, yes, there is the Mayor, yes, there is the GLA, but their responsibilities are limited, and the prime line of accountability is with the Police Authority. Any police service, particularly one which is responsible for providing services to a capital city, is going to have a large number of stakeholders. The art of being a top police officer is working with those stakeholders, carrying those stakeholders along, as it would be for somebody running any other large service, delivered to a large population in that way. There are many stakeholders, the Met has to work with all of them, but the formal lines of accountability are, as part of the tripartite arrangement laid down in successive Police Acts, to the Police Authority and to the Home Office. Sir William Morris: Yes, the statute is clear, but you said the art of being a good police officer is to manage different relationships, and that is true, but do you not think it is an equal art of transferring responsibility, if the propensity is as great as it is; how do you identify precisely who is responsible for a particular set of actions or a particular decision? What I am basically saying is there are so many different strands of accountability in one way or another, the whole context of accountability can get somewhat diffuse; would you share that view? Lord Harris: Well, no, I would not share the view, because I think that the formal accountability lines are clear. There are plenty of people who are ready to take the credit when things go well. Sir William Morris: That is true. Lord Harris: And many of those would like to say that the police service in London is accountable to them. There are rather fewer who are ready to take responsibility when things are more difficult, and that is why I say the formal lines of accountability are primarily to the Police Authority, with an overall responsibility for policing with the Home Secretary. Sir William Morris: Is the budget-making process impeded in terms of efficient budget-making by all these different lines? The Mayor's office, the GLA, your Authority; it appears to us it is not as clean-cut and clear as you are indicating. I put budget-making as just one example. Lord Harris: I think budget-making is the one area where the statute is more complicated than it is in other parts of the country. However, the reality is that the budget is developed by the Police Authority; there is then a process of negotiation with the Mayor in terms of the nature of the final budget precept, and the Mayor ultimately then presents that budget. The reality of this is that it is the MPA which formally proposes a budget to the Mayor; there is then a process of negotiation, and I suspect that is not dissimilar from the sorts of arguments that arise in any other area when budgets are set. We have our own committee structure which looks very closely at that area, indeed we have committees which monitor very closely all sorts of activities of the Met and the work that it does; that is part of the public accountability structure that we have put in place. Sir William Morris: Let me just take the governance issue into management. I think it is perhaps common ground that the job of the Metropolitan Police Commissioner is probably the most challenging policing job in the United Kingdom. He or she has to deliver executive strategic management, leading a service of some 43,000 people, including officers and staff; that is on the one hand. On the other hand, the Commissioner has also got to provide executive strategic operational leadership, in an environment which has changed quite significantly. The beat of the Metropolitan Police Commissioner or the patch has extended now because some of the issues evolving – the issues of terrorism, for example, so it is no longer the borough boundaries of London; in some instances, it extends well beyond that, with new issues. In the context of those two key areas, strategic executive managerial leadership and strategic executive operational leadership, do you as an Authority see any competing priorities here? Lord Harris: Necessarily, the task of being Commissioner is an extremely complicated and an extremely difficult one. You are right to say that there are many different facets of that. Part of it is leading the police service and leading the professionalism of the police service; part of it is ensuring that the police service is effectively managed; part of it is ensuring the discussion with the many stakeholders who we discussed a moment ago. In that role, the Commissioner of the Met has the support of the Deputy Commissioner, who is the second most senior police officer in the country, not just in terms of the Met, and between them they are able to, in practice, divide up some of these responsibilities and some of these functions; clearly the Commissioner holds the ultimate responsibility, but he has the support of a deputy, and if you like, when the Commissioner is performing a leadership role in one aspect, that enables the deputy to perform the leadership role or the management role in another area of activity. Sir William Morris: Well, in the light of the changing role, and it is a changing role – it is expanding as I have tried to indicate – do you think the correct model, where these two key roles or functions reside in the hand of a single person, do you think that needs any revision in the light of, if you like, the 21st century evolution? Lord Harris: I would have thought that anyone who was Commissioner would want to decide precisely how they wanted to use both the deputy and their senior management team to make the best use of the skills available, and to delegate responsibilities for various activities appropriately. There is a civilian director of resources who leads a business team; there is a civilian director of human resources, of procurement, IT and so on; all of those are functions which are represented in the management team, along with the professional areas of policing, in terms of operational policing, serious crimes, specialist operations, and so on, who are also part of that senior management team. Anyone in charge of an organisation has to decide how best to make use of that senior team. Sir William Morris: So you would not see a situation where the role is divided into two: a managerial chief executive, chief operating officer, call him or her what you will, but with responsibility for managing the resource, minding the shop as I put it last week, on the one hand, and the Commissioner or whoever giving the strategic operational leadership which brings him or her much closer to the serving police officers and staff, and a bit more responsive in the day-to-day demands. Can you see that role at all? Lord Harris: I think that is probably the way it develops de facto. What I am not sure about is whether it is sensible to, if you like, legislate for it and say, "This is the division that must always apply in this particular sense". What I am trying to get at is that any Commissioner will have a deputy, plus other members of his or her senior management team, to provide support, and the precise division of responsibilities between them will presumably depend on the strengths of the individuals who are available at that time and holding those various offices. I think you would be right to say that it is important that those delegations and those areas of responsibility are clearly defined, in terms of who is responsible for what, and how things matter. What I am slightly reluctant to do would be to go along the line that says, "You will define in statute that this is the system of senior management structure that you adopt at any one time". Sir William Morris: Let me just ask: does the MPA have any responsibility for the use and indeed deployment of the MPS resource, how it uses its resource? Lord Harris: The answer to that, in my view, is yes, but that does not extend to the management of individual operations, or the use of resources for very precise purposes, but we have a responsibility in terms of managing the budget, in terms of our responsibility for ensuring that there is an efficient and effective service, for looking at the way in which resources are deployed. Ultimately, these are operational matters which rest within the Met's management, but we would expect to be able to influence that by drawing together the way in which resource decisions are taken. We have taken the lead, for example, on developing a more transparent formula for allocating resources between different borough commands. That was introduced following the arrival of the MPA, and is now subject to a very thorough review in the light of experience, to try and ensure that so far as the public are concerned, they see they are getting the best possible use of resources. Sir William Morris: Have you seen and looked at the latest HMIC report? Lord Harris: Yes. Sir William Morris: Within that, my colleagues and I have identified some managerial weaknesses, to put it in those terms, about resource accountability and a recognition of how those are used. In the light of that – I do not know whether you have identified any – are you satisfied that the management structure which currently operates – and I have shared my thoughts in respect of models; are you satisfied that the current model is serving to best effect? Lord Harris: I think there has been enormous progress in the last three and a half years, in terms of the way in which the Met's resources are managed and the efficiency with which they are used. As I said, when we took over responsibility from the Home Office, we inherited an organisation where there was, frankly, an absence of financial controls and financial systems. When we asked for financial information, what the Met were able to draw together was not of the detail or the quality you would expect in an organisation of that size. That has moved forward enormously in the last three and a half years; however, to say that I am satisfied would probably be taking things too far. You know, in terms of the quality of the financial management and structures available, it was probably running at about one out of 10 in 2000; it might now be up to 4 or 5 out of 10, and we want to get it up to 8 out of 10 or 10 out of 10, so there is still work to be done as far as that is concerned. Sir William Morris: In paragraph 62 of your submission, Lord Harris, you say, and I quote: "The MPS's policy is rich but implementation poor." Could you explain precisely what you mean by that statement? Lord Harris: In my view, the Met is wonderful about adopting policies. It will have strategies for all sorts of things. The follow-through, in terms of ensuring that those strategies are translated into action, and the follow-through in ensuring that those strategies are understood and acted upon at every level of the organisation, I think, is a problem area. It is one of the things that we have emphasised, in terms of our discussion over the years with HMIC, about the importance of there being proper follow-up to recommendations which emerge from strategic considerations. It came as something of a surprise to me when I became Chair of the Police Authority; I had assumed that in a uniformed, disciplined, hierarchical organisation, if there was a decision to do something, that something happened at the other end. Clearly, there is a – it does not work as smoothly as that within the Metropolitan Police, and one of the issues that we believe needs to be addressed is ensuring that policies are translated into real action at the practical level further down the organisation. Sir William Morris: Just a final question, from me anyway: this failure of transmission that you just identified, do you see it as a managerial failure or is it an organisational failure? Lord Harris: I think it is a weakness of the organisational culture. There is – what makes you a successful police officer is not necessarily the same as what makes you a successful manager, and you can be promoted – this is an issue which we have raised with the Met. You can be promoted to become a borough commander with a very substantial level of resources under your command and control without ever having had much in the way of formal management training, or the resources to enable you to manage that role effectively, both in terms of the staff you have under your control, the financial resources and other resources that you have under your control. That, I think, is a real problem. That, I think, then leads to a culture in which making change happen is not something that comes naturally to police managers, because their experience is one of giving an order rather than of managing things, and that is, I suspect, one of the issues that impedes the implementation of policies in the organisation. Sir William Morris: Thank you very much indeed, Lord Harris. I will ask my colleague, Sir Anthony Burden, to put one or two questions to you. Questions by Sir Anthony Burden Sir Anthony Burden: Thank you. I am going to deal mainly with the people management side of things, but can I firstly just ask you about an issue, following on from what Sir Bill said earlier, in attempting to understand relationships between the MPA and the MPS because I think that is a crucial area for me. In your submission, I think you quite rightly, in my opinion, identified many of the key issues relevant to this Inquiry. If the Authority has that level of understanding, are there issues in relationship terms which put obstacles in the path of your attempts to put in place an action plan with the MPS to attempt to correct many of these issues? Lord Harris: I think the obstacles come back to the question of the culture. I sense, quite frequently, a frustration amongst senior management in the Met, the most senior officers in the Met, that mirrors our frustration, that having developed a view, developed a diagnosis of a problem, and perhaps having developed a policy or a strategy to address it, that it then does not happen very quickly or very well, and that is because there is almost a disconnect between what happens at the most senior level, the views expressed there, and ensuring that things happen at the lowest possible levels. So when we ask for follow-up, and when we ask for action plans, sometimes there is a delay before anything comes back, which I suspect reflects a problem within the organisation, of trying to get material back in the same sort of way. Sir Anthony Burden: Yes, thank you. In people management terms, are you content that your human resources committee is afforded sufficient opportunity to undertake its function of monitoring human resource management? Lord Harris: I think I am satisfied that we receive a lot of data, a lot of material, a lot of information. I think there is still a frustration expressed by members of that committee, in terms of our ability to get to the heart of issues, and to be satisfied that at the end of the day the changes that are necessary have really taken place. I do not know whether Cecille Wright, who sits on that committee, would like to comment? Ms Wright: I feel that sometimes we get too much statistics, and to get to the heart of the matter, I think for HR it needs someone who is looking at police regulations, and coming to – actually advising members, because sometimes the blockage is that there are regulations which stop the Authority from getting the information, so, you know, there is something to be said for the Authority getting to grips with the regulations and what is perceived as blockages. Sir Anthony Burden: Thank you. Can I ask you a rather subjective question, but it is important to me: do you get a sense, however, that there is a full understanding of people management issues within the departments that are responsible for managing those issues? Ms Wright: In the central HR, yes. When you go to boroughs, that is a different matter. Sir Anthony Burden: Right. There is a follow-up I was going to ask later, perhaps it is opportune to ask it now: we are aware of the pilot operating in two boroughs, we believe, where personnel professionals have been seconded into those boroughs. That seems to be a rather lengthy pilot, in terms of pilots I have been used to, without a positive outcome. Would it be the MPA's view that you would wish to see that pilot implemented fully as a policy that there will be personnel professionals out on the boroughs, assisting borough commanders with people management issues? Ms Wright: I think before the MPA made that decision, we would want to see the palace (?) evaluate it. Lord Harris: I think it is fair to say that our general approach is that the more that responsibility for personnel and financial resources can be devolved to command unit level, the better that would be, in terms of most effective use of resource at that level, so therefore, our feeling – obviously, we would like to see this demonstrated by the pilots, but our feeling is that the weakness of the structure is that there is HR policy over here, developed centrally, and that is not being translated at local level. That is not a criticism of the individual borough commanders or OCU commanders, it is simply that it is not there available to them, and it is very unlikely they have had the previous life experience that would enable them to look implement that. Sir Anthony Burden: Thank you, that is very helpful, but in terms of your responsibilities as an Authority and your role in monitoring human resource and training strategies, there is a gap at the moment between what you would like, in terms of being able to undertake your function, effectively, and what is being delivered. Lord Harris: I think we are getting the monitoring information which is alerting us to the fact that there is a real problem. Sir Anthony Burden: Yes, thank you. Can I move on to the handling of employment tribunals? In your submission, you expressed concern over the way that employment tribunals are handled, and in particular, the handling of cases which you say have taken over 400 days to resolve. Can I ask you, Lord Harris, just to elaborate on your concerns, if that is possible? Lord Harris: Well, our concern is that this is totally unacceptable in terms of the length of time that this is going on for. It is unacceptable in terms of the organisation and the amount of resources that are put into it; it is unacceptable in terms of the people who are raising the grievances or taking the cases forward. I do not know whether, Reshard, you want to comment further on that? Mr Auladin: Well, just to share the same view. I think it is the process which leads to those delays which is of great concern to us. That is the area where I think we need to be concentrating in the future. Sir Anthony Burden: Thank you. The responsibility for managing employment tribunals is currently housed within the professional standards directorate. You do comment on that in your report, but could you just for the purpose of the public hearing express your views about where employment tribunals are handled, and how effective you feel that is, or ineffective? Lord Harris: I think our concern – and Reshard can elaborate on this, but our concern is that by housing that responsibility in the same area that deals with professional standards, it produces a professional standards type response to individual cases, in terms of investigation and confrontation around those issues, rather than looking at resolving matters at a much earlier stage, which it might be if it was dealt with in a different way. Mr Auladin: I agree with that. Sir Anthony Burden: Thank you. And a related issue, I think, you certainly relate it within your submission; you make comment about legal services provided to the MPS. Many decisions appear legally driven, you say, and legal advice tends to be overly defensive and insensitive to community relations. This obviously is a real concern for you to put it in your submission. Is there an alternative, do you think, faced with the sort of situation that might appertain, that is that the organisations that represent officers obviously are legally represented themselves, and I guess that sets up a sort of scene where you have got lawyers on both sides dealing with these issues. Does that, in effect, sort of negate the opportunity to deal with these issues in a less formal way? Lord Harris: I think it is inevitable that the Met will need to be legally represented and have legal advice under those circumstances. I think our concern is that too often – or our perception is that in too many cases the legal advice that is provided is overtly defensive, which leads perhaps to an approach that you pursue litigation to the exclusion of a genuine effort to settle. I suspect, and this is my perception, that there is a problem with the way in which the client function is handled within the organisation. I am not sure – it may be a natural tendency of police officers that if they receive legal advice they assume that is the law and therefore you have to act on it, and it may well be that if the question was posed in a different way, you would recognise that this was simply advice, rather than a statement that this needs to be pursued to the next level or to the next point of action. I think also too the general remit of legal services within the Met is about defending the organisation at all costs. Now I am not decrying that, or decrying the individuals involved in that; what I am saying is that sometimes you need to take a step back, take a dispassionate view and say: what in fact are the issues here? Is the legal principle we are fighting for one that really matters in the broader context? That, I suspect, the organisation is not very good at doing, and that is partly about the client function, in terms of what is asked of the solicitors. Sir Anthony Burden: So lawyers should advise and managers should manage? Lord Harris: That is a very succinct way of putting what I was trying to say. Mr Auladin: I was just going to say that I think the remit of the legal services for me is the real issue. It is the need to look at the framework and the terms of reference within which they operate. You could argue, for example, that the Met and MPA has a mission – has a vision and a set of values, and whether the department of legal services, when they are discharging their duties, whether they are doing so within that overall mission. I think the connection between the mission and all parts of what the Met is doing is an important one. Sir Anthony Burden: Thank you. My colleague, Miss Weekes, I know will deal with proportionality per se, but can I still within this area of people management refer to what you say about black and minority ethnic officers and staff that they feel at the moment they are treated unfairly. Is there, to your knowledge, evidence to actually support this claim? Lord Harris: I think it is certainly possible to demonstrate that there is a disproportionality in terms of the number of cases which are progressed in various ways, and I suspect that part of the difficulty is the way in which the Met responds when there are issues of race, or indeed other diversity issues, involved in particular cases. There is a sense that, you know, the rabbit is frozen in the headlamps, and as a result there is an overcompensation, "We must review this really thoroughly, we must do more", rather than, again, managing things at the earliest possible stage in the way any good manager would try and resolve issues and deal with them appropriately. Sir Anthony Burden: Would that be your solution to trying to reinstate – in this particular area, trying to reinstate trust and confidence from black and ethnic minority officers? Lord Harris: You must always be able to demonstrate that management is acting in a way which is fair and reasonable, but you must at the same time manage issues rather than simply falling back to very bureaucratic processes and procedures, which inevitably have the effect of spinning things out for a very long period. Sir Anthony Burden: Thank you. Can I move on to the status of constable, and what you refer to as attempting to adopt unifying conditions of service between police and police staff. We have heard quite a lot about the office of constable as Crown servants, and also the need to move in this modern environment towards possibly contracts of employment for police officers. I think you, in your submission, have taken it that one step further, suggesting this unifying of conditions of service; in other words, "one service, one set of conditions", in effect, I guess is what you are suggesting. Do you think this would be achievable, and would it, in practice, reduce some of the difficulties that we are seeing at the moment, where that status of constable as a Crown servant does seem to create some obstacles when it comes to managing officers and staff in this modern environment, with modern management legislation? Lord Harris: It will become increasingly difficult to sustain two completely separate sets of terms and conditions. It will become increasingly difficult to sustain as the number of police community support officers grows, as the use of police staff in areas which have in the past been activities which have been solely carried out by police officers; as that increasingly becomes the norm, as the Police Reform Programme rolls forward, then it would be very difficult to sustain two completely different strands of employment and terms and conditions. I also suspect that it would be better within the organisation if there was seen to be more parity. I think because police regulations are so different from everything else, that means that the number of people who can legitimately specialise in them and understand the law that relates to them is narrower, and I think that makes the whole process much more opaque and much more difficult. Sir Anthony Burden: Thank you. We have already spoken about putting out to boroughs expertise in specialist areas of people management. That applies, of course, throughout the Metropolitan Police Service, equally at the centre, people managing the corporate areas. There must be an issue, I guess, in London about paying the right rate for the right level of skills, for people to do the job well. Are salary levels constrained by salary payments paid to senior police managers, maybe properly so, maybe artificially so? Would you see anything wrong in having two sets of salary scales, maybe where the right professionals coming in to the Metropolitan Police, for example to deal with finance, for example to deal with people management, actually breached the salary levels paid to the chief officer team, police team? Lord Harris: I might be relaxed about it; whether the officers concerned would be quite so relaxed is a different matter. Sir Anthony Burden: I am sure they would have a different view. Lord Harris: I think in any organisation it becomes very difficult when specialist posts, who have a line management responsibility to someone more senior, because of market conditions, have to be paid more. I think that is a very difficult situation, but it is one which other organisations have had to manage and had to cope with, and it may be something that the police service has to cope with. Sir Anthony Burden: I would have thought – maybe this is more of a statement, but not only do you wish to employ those very skilled specialist people, but you want to retain them. Lord Harris: You want to retain them, and you want to have the best that are available, yes. Sir Anthony Burden: Thank you. You speak about the outcomes of grievance procedures and complaints, and you in your submission state that they should be reached impartially, after a timely and fair process. The Commissioner last week spoke about using arbitration or an ombudsman; in other words, if it cannot be resolved at first level, then rather than getting bogged down in the organisation, it should go outside for this independent assistance, some system which uses the benefits of mediation. Would you favour such a system? Lord Harris: We would certainly favour the use of mediation, we would certainly favour the use of informal resolution where it is possible to do so. You can get into a very messy process whereby you have to go through an attempt to resolve things informally before you can take things forward formally, but it is our view that many of the matters that end up being bogged down in very formal grievance procedures or disciplinary processes could have been resolved at an earlier stage in an informal way. Sir Anthony Burden: And the use of an outside organisation to facilitate that, you would see no difficulties? Lord Harris: We would see no difficulty with that in principle at all. Sir Anthony Burden: And finally from me, you refer to the Northern Ireland model, where the police board can hold the Chief Constable to account for a wider area of police performance. Indeed, within your terms of reference, the Authority can, of course, hold the Chief Constable to account in human resource and training terms, but would you wish to see that extended in line with the Patten Report recommendations, and indeed the way those have been implemented in Northern Ireland? Lord Harris: I think in terms of clarifying lines of accountability, and avoiding artificial distinctions, then I believe that would be helpful. My own personal background is somebody who was a local authority member for many years, and is used to a slightly different relationship between the elected politicians or the Authority and chief officers and the officer structure. I believe that a structure which enables there to be clearer accountability and an opportunity – not to involve in the minutiae of managerial decisions or operational decisions, but a clarity about responsibility for allocation of resources and so on, I think that would be an improvement on the current arrangements. Sir Anthony Burden: Thank you very much indeed. Sir William Morris: Thank you, Sir Anthony. Before I invite Miss Weekes to put some questions to you, Lord Harris, I am going to suggest that we adjourn for five to ten minutes, to give the stenographers a chance to stretch their fingers. Lord Harris: Thank you. 11.25 am (A short break) 11.35 am Sir William Morris: Okay, Lord Harris, everybody is back in place, so I will invite Miss Weekes to put some questions to you. Questions by Miss Weekes Miss Weekes: Thank you. Good morning, everyone. Can I start with the statutory framework which underpins your relationship with the Metropolitan Police Service? I am going to talk a little bit about what your views are about the statutory provisions underpinning the MPS on complaints; then I want to move on, if I may, to some of the comments you have made about high-profile cases; then I will move to how officers are treated during the process of complaints; and I would like to come back to one or two issues in relation to the IPCC and resolution of complaints. I just thought I would set out those areas for you. Can I turn to – and it might be helpful if we had this up on the screen, it is at page 11 of your report, MPA 11, paragraph 26. I have concluded, and correct me if I am wrong, that you are not very happy, in fact, with the regulatory controls on the MPA and the subsequent relationship that you then have as what I call overseer of public complaints and indeed internal complaints for the MPS. Am I right in saying that you are not happy? Lord Harris: Yes, we are not happy. We feel that the role – I think we express it as a duty to remain informed without any related duty to hold to account or seek to improve – is very unsatisfactory; obviously we strain against those boundaries, but it is an unsatisfactory wording. Our feeling, frankly, is that the regulations which relate to police discipline need a complete overhaul, and as we get into more detail with them, we discover problems which chafe at all sorts of levels. Miss Weekes: I am going to come back to that word "overhaul", because you are not the first witness to this Inquiry who has said that. I think it might be helpful for those who are here, the members of the public, if I read a little bit of that paragraph. I am sorry, if we can go back to it: "The wording of the statutory duty, like much of the relevant enactments and regulations relating to complaints and discipline, is not exactly helpful. The Police Authority is required 'to keep themselves informed as to the workings of the relevant sections of the 1996 Act which bite on the handling and investigation of complaints. A duty to remain informed without any related duty to hold to account or seek to improve is neither onerous nor satisfying. The MPA has, like most other police authorities, interpreted section 77 as requiring the Authority to exercise a regular and fairly close monitoring regime in respect of management information relating to the overall handling of complaints, reinforced by dip sampling random closed complaint cases as a quality assurance mechanism.'" Before I come to your views about the overhauling of the statutory underpinning for complaints for the MPS, is your unhappiness rooted in what you would consider to be the need for the MPA to have a more controlling role over complaints per se? Lord Harris: I think I would be unhappy with the word "controlling". I think we – Miss Weekes: What word would you choose? Lord Harris: I think we would look for a word more like "supervising", or "overseeing", which was the word you used earlier. It is not for the MPA to be involved in the day-to-day minutiae of the handling of complaint or the handling of investigation, or handling the disciplinary inquiry, but I think it is important that there is this arm's length oversight over what is happening, and the oversight of that should include the individual cases, rather than the totality taken over a period of time. Miss Weekes: In that case can I take you, then, to page 26, and see how that fits with what you say at paragraph 70, which I will read: "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." Now maybe I should read the whole of that paragraph to ensure that that is put within its context: "Although the Independent Police Complaints Commission will enhance the independence of investigation of some complaints for the near future, the vast majority of complaints against police and internal allegations will be investigated by the MPS itself. Redefining the relationship of the investigating unit to the Authority could boost community confidence in the complaints process, complementing the role of the IPCC." Now I have read it in full to ensure that I did not unfairly pick one bit of the paragraph and not the other. I want to understand the first part of that paragraph, where your suggestion is that we should, as a Panel, myself and my colleagues, consider bringing the management of professional standards matters directly accountable to the MPA. Can you explain that? Lord Harris: What we are trying to say is that the Police Authority should be in a position to hold the force to account for the way in which cases are dealt with, individual cases are dealt with; not retrospectively, when it is too late, it has gone too far, it has gone on too long, damage has been done, but in real time, and so as to be able to give guidance to influence the turn of events we should not be compelled to sit on the sidelines as a passive observer. That does not mean saying, "You must do this, you must do it in this particular way", but for us, as people – coming back to the phrase I used right at the beginning, being the critical friend, saying, "Are you sure this is what you want to do? Are you sure this is the best way of doing it? Have you considered these matters?" Miss Weekes: How practically, Lord Harris, is this going to work? Because the Metropolitan Police Service have a very good concept and idea and strategy of professional standards itself. The practicalities of it are another thing, but they clearly do have that worked out well, do they not; would you agree? Lord Harris: We would certainly agree that the commitment to the highest possible professional standards, the clear statement that integrity is not negotiable, are absolutely central to an effective police service, and that is something that the Met has – perhaps "led the world" would not be too far removed, in terms of trying to address those problems in the last ten years or so. Miss Weekes: So how do you think they would cope, and would they be comfortable about the more involved role, "Do you think this is really the way you want to do it?" How do you think the MPS would react to that? Lord Harris: I think they would find it challenging. As I said before, being challenged is not always comfortable, but I hope there would be a recognition that perhaps we were adding value because of the fact that we are outside the police service, and not directly part of the Met. We have changed the guard again, I do not know whether Reshard wants to – Miss Weekes: Just before you come in, can I ask you both to consider this? Part of the make-up of the MPA, undoubtedly, some may say, is political. A number of your members are elected. Would the MPS feel comfortable about this more involved role that you have, bearing in mind your make-up, which is understandable as to why you are made up in that way, but I am raising it so that you can help me as to whether or not that might be an element of concern with this suggested more involved role that you want. Lord Harris: I should make it clear I am an elected politician, just in case there is any suggestion that I have not made that clear. Miss Weekes: Yes, I do know you are. Lord Harris: I mean, what we are trying to define here is not where MPA members, whether they are elected, independent or magistrate members, are directly changing the way in which things are done. What we are saying is that it is about a process of challenge and holding to account, and trying to improve the process. But it would be possible to define in different ways – I am flanked by two colleagues who are magistrate members. It would be perfectly possible, if people needed reassuring that there was no nasty political influence – I use the word "nasty" to caricature what some might feel – that could be addressed by making the oversight explicitly the responsibility of magistrate members of the MPA, if people felt more comfortable with that. I do not know, Reshard, whether you want to say more? Mr Auladin: Going back to the paragraph in the submission itself, there are two strands to this; one which is continuing some of the work that we already do, which is oversight of professional standards in general. What we are not suggesting is taking over professional standards as a whole, completely; we are looking only at the investigation side of things, which is already happening, say, for example with the PCA now, and will happen with the IPCC in the future, where they will be able to have an officer of the IPCC managing or supervising an investigation, to bring about independence. The suggestion or proposal is to do with investigation only at this stage, where investigation has been carried out by a unit which is at arm's length from the Met; hopefully then engendering confidence from complainers and people who have been complained of. Again, it will not be day-to-day management of the investigation itself, but it would be to have an oversight, as the Chairman was talking about earlier on, which is about supervision and oversight of that process. Discipline itself will remain with the Commissioner, it always has been and will be, even when the IPCC takes control. When they have carried out an investigation, it will be something they will pass to the Commissioner for discipline matters to be dealt with, so it is only to do with investigation. The other strand I was talking about, which is the oversight of professional standards in general, it is being a little bit more proactive; the Chair has already talked about us not sitting on the sidelines, but having a say in the direction that certain processes are taking; reviewing processes, and also evaluating the processes that are already there and being able to make changes to those. Miss Weekes: One gets the feeling that here is yet another set of individuals to be involved in a decision on complaints, because at the moment many of our witnesses have said, "It is complex, it has to go through many people for many decisions"; are you not adding yet another process? Mr Auladin: I think we are substituting one. Instead of the accountability being directly to the command structure within the Met, you are looking at a different structure. The discipline would be as it is now. Lord Harris: Could I just draw a couple of analogies, which is about where lines of accountability and lines of responsibility go within the organisation. At the moment, the internal audit function for the Met is located as accountable within the MPA. The purpose for that is to have an arm's length relationship with the rest of the organisation. We are currently in discussion about how best to manage responsibilities for health and safety, for very similar reasons, about the need to be in an arm's length relationship, so as to avoid – I am not suggesting this would happen, but avoid a situation in which the line management, the operational line management pressures override what might be important audit or health and safety judgments; suggesting something similar in respect of this area of activity. Miss Weekes: Is it not important, I suggest, simply to challenge and understand your reform, that the Metropolitan Police stand on its own and create its own independency, to give the message to the public that it can deal with its own professional standards, and when those standards slip, that it can deal with the slippage without having to move a department under the umbrella of the MPA? Lord Harris: I think the problem that the Met or any police service has is that it is still regarded as the police investigating themselves, and this – I agree with you that the outcome must be clear, it must be seen that issues have been dealt with appropriately and firmly, but the process of investigation, which will often produce a result which says there is no case to answer – if that is seen to be done slightly at arm's length, then that would be helpful to public confidence. Miss Weekes: Okay. Can I move to the second half of your first comment, which was the overhaul of the statutory provisions, regulations, policies, guidance, underpinning the MPS dealing with complaints, both external and internal? I am going to come to the IPCC in a moment. You are not the first witness who has used the term "overhaul"; how long have you felt that those statutory provisions were in need of being overhauled? How long have you felt this? Lord Harris: I think we have felt it since the point at which we began to try and make use of them. Miss Weekes: When was this, in terms of years? Lord Harris: Well, in terms of the first major case that the MPA had to deal with since it was set up in 2000. I mean, Reshard has been involved throughout, first as deputy chair and now chair of the relevant committee. I do not know if you want to answer that. Mr Auladin: Well, there are two points here again. If we can be specific about one aspect of our work, which is looking at complaints for chief police officers, this has been a minefield for us in that not many other police authorities have experience of dealing with complaints against chief police officers, and trying to make the regulations work has been a very difficult problem for us. I think to this day we still have problems in making the regulations – or rather, trying to understand the regulations. Miss Weekes: Who have you discussed this problem with? We as a Panel are receiving this feeling and these views all the time, and one does wonder: well, how long have you known of it, and who have you talked to about it, and what attempts have been made to remedy this? Mr Auladin: There are a number of attempts we have made. First of all, we have sought legal advice, and we have to say that we have had different advice from different firms, in terms of clarity of other regulations. Miss Weekes: Lawyers are a bit like that, are they not? So you have had different legal advice about how to simplify and reform the complexity. Mr Auladin: We have also taken our concerns to the Association of Police Authorities, to see whether they have experience of dealing with those things, and they have reported really the same sort of problems that we have had. We have made, through the clerk to the Authority, representations to the Home Office on a number of occasions, and I know at one stage there was a working party looking at these regulations; if I am not wrong, they are still looking at these regulations. Miss Weekes: Can you just give me the name of that working party? Is it a Home Office working party? Mr Auladin: It is a Home Office process, yes. I am not sure of the name. Miss Weekes: And this has been since 2000 that these different processes of trying to find a solution has been going on? Mr Auladin: Yes. I think we also made submissions to the Police (Reform) Act when it was being considered by Parliament. Miss Weekes: So really to date no breakthrough of any clear way ahead? Mr Auladin: To date, not really, no. Miss Weekes: I think again for the benefit of the public, we should put this discussion against the background that there is a major Act coming into place in April, that is the Police (Reform) Act 2002, and it will bite in April. Well, it is already enacted, but the majority of those provisions will come in, and one of the principal reforms, of course, is the Independent Police Complaints Commission, what we call the IPCC. But that does not get rid of the remaining regulations that still exist for the treatment of senior officers who receive complaint, the treatment of other officers, the difference with police staff and police officers, the numerous guidances and numerous policies; am I correct? It does not actually get rid of that, the 2002. Mr Auladin: I do not think it does. From our point of view, I think it is an opportunity missed, but there are a number of submissions that various bodies made, including the Association of Police Authorities, sadly that were not included in that Act. Miss Weekes: Do you know why they were not? Mr Auladin: I am afraid that I do not know. Lord Harris: I think it was put in the "too difficult" pile. Miss Weekes: The "too difficult" pile. That is part of the inertia that you have probably mentioned. Forgive me for asking these questions, but we have to grapple with this, because everybody who comes to us says, "Too many, too difficult, too complex"; it is making life difficult for officers, it is making life difficult for the service to deal with what will always be on their table, which is complaints. You are never going to get rid of them. So if you can identify any document that might assist us, myself and my colleagues, that contains the best resolution for this particular issue, we would be grateful, because we have not necessarily read some of the things that you have just kindly referred me to. Lord Harris: We will see whether we can submit a further paper to the Inquiry on those points. Miss Weekes: If you did find any of the lawyers' advice helpful and you could, without breaching privilege, give us that, we would also be grateful. Lord Harris: We will see what we can provide. Miss Weekes: Can I then move on to the difference between the way senior officers are treated – I know you oversee ACPO officers. Why is there a need for the difference of approach to the way officers of ACPO rank are treated when they receive complaints, and other police officers and police staff? There probably is a very good reason for such a naive question, so please forgive me for asking, because there are different regulations and different guidance; whenever I pick up a paper on senior officers I have to remind myself that it is completely different to ordinary officers. Is it necessary? There must be a good reason. Lord Harris: I assume that the origin is in terms of the differing processes for appointment of officers, in the sense that the more senior officers, the ACPO ranks, are appointed by police authorities as opposed to it simply being an internal process. Whether that justifies the difference in the regulations, I would need to be convinced. Miss Weekes: I was just about to ask that very question. I do not know whether your colleague – does it justify it? Mr Auladin: I do not think it does. I think it is purely for the sake of the people who are working for the organisation; I think they do ask questions about the different strands of the discipline process, but to a certain extent, the advent of the IPCC will address some of that, or they will be responsible for chief police officers' complaints as well, although we may still be responsible for carrying out investigations and so on, but in terms of oversight and supervision they will be responsible, so there is a degree of standardisation taking place there. Miss Weekes: Do I understand, will the 2002 Act revoke or get rid of these different regulations that I keep looking – will they be gone? I think that is what you are saying. Mr Auladin: I do not think they will go completely, but in terms of oversight, the IPCC will be taking oversight of all complaints cases. Lord Harris: I think it will be simplified quite significantly. Miss Weekes: All right. High-profile cases: you have mentioned the lessons to be learnt from the Lancet Review, and we have read that, my colleagues and I, and many other individuals have mentioned it. I would like to specifically look at two aspects of high-profile cases. A high-profile case often simply becomes high-profile because the press are interested, and they write about it a lot. It might have to do with the profile of the officer concerned; it may not. It might have to do with the conduct complained of. Do you have any views or comments or recommendations about the role of the press in terms of the press attached to the overseeing of the MPS, and how often things do get into the press domain, because undoubtedly it does affect the investigation, does it not? Lord Harris: I think there are several aspects to this. I mean, one is that I would be very reluctant if there were some sort of blanket prohibition on the press reporting such matters, because it is about public confidence. Miss Weekes: I should think you would see yourself in the High Court very quickly if you did. Lord Harris: And the impact on community confidence of these cases is potentially very large, so there needs to be a transparency. We are concerned that whether formally or, we rather suspect, informally, often details of cases emerge in the public domain in a way which is inappropriate, and that – I mean, it appears to be not uncommon in police services that the hotline to the local journalists who tell them of interesting burglaries that have taken place over the weekend seems to extend to all sorts of activities. In our view, it is the case that it appears that there has been briefing for or against individuals, or in respect of individual high-profile cases, to the press; I am sure that is not done formally, but it is certainly happening informally, and that is obviously very unhelpful in that it is designed to create more public debate, or put pressure on the way in which things are resolved in a particular incident. Miss Weekes: I would like to just touch on two aspects of that answer. Getting early sensitive information into the press domain does not help resolution, clearly, because there would then be naturally an obligation on the MPS to ensure that they are defended or they are defending their reputation; is that reasonable to expect that that is a reaction? Lord Harris: Well, it is not just a question of the Met, I think any of the individuals involved would wish to defend their position and their reputation. Miss Weekes: How can we improve on that? Lord Harris: Well, I think it should be in the same way that a very firm line is taken on integrity in other aspects of police work; integrity in terms of releasing confidential information or information which applies to a particular disciplinary or investigation should be taken extremely seriously. Miss Weekes: Which department do we go to to deal with this particular aspect, within the MPS? Lord Harris: Well, there is the Directorate of Public Affairs which is responsible for media relations, but I think it is also a question of the way in which discipline is applied to officers who are thought to have leaked sensitive information. It may not be officers, it may be staff, and, of course, the leaks may have come from other sources as well. Miss Weekes: Thank you for that. Again, as you are the overseer of a number of these complaints, if a case does become high-profile, do you see any evidence that decisions made, procedures adopted, discretion carried out, is affected by the fact that it has become high-profile? Lord Harris: I talked earlier on about the rabbit in the headlights syndrome; I think that applies in respect of high-profile cases, and necessarily, I think that influences the way in which work is carried on. At another level, it impacts on the Authority and other organisations in terms of the way in which the Met decides when and how to involve members of the Authority, or members of independent advisory groups or community figures in oversight of particular cases, and our own view is that this is done in a very informal way, and without necessarily a clear set of guidelines as to when it is appropriate to involve external people for oversight; nor is there a clear protocol as to how that is done, either in respect of the Authority or indeed of other bodies, in terms of calling on that expertise. Miss Weekes: Do I understand you – you clearly want a clear protocol, but you would want to keep flexibility and informality about when you do employ outside independent agencies; is that right? Lord Harris: Well, there is a need very clearly for a protocol in respect of members of the Authority, because we do not want to be in a position where our independence is compromised, or the statutory responsibility we might subsequently have in respect of cases is compromised, but I suspect the gains that the Met has had from involving lay people in gold groups or particular investigations has been very substantial; we would not want to throw any of that away. What we do think is that it ought to be systematised, to the extent that there is a clear decision trail, an audit trail, as to why decisions were taken to involve this person rather than that person, or to involve people in the particular parts of the process; that has not always been very clear. Miss Weekes: Is there anything else that either of the three of you would like to assist us with on high-profile cases? I note what you have said in your paragraph 36. I do not know whether there is anything else that you might be able to assist us on? Lord Harris: I think just one point I would want to make is that we are very conscious of the level of resources that end up being devoted to some of these cases. Sometimes those levels of resources are very difficult to explain to the public; that may simply be a statement about the cost of police investigations per se, but it is part of – I would see our responsibility, in terms of delivering an efficient and effective police service, that we ask those questions about resources and we are probably informed about those, in terms of the decisions which are taken to deploy resources at that level, the proportionality of those resources. Miss Weekes: I have not touched a great deal upon the proportionality point, because you deal with it very well, and as a Panel we should welcome and anticipate that the IPCC will follow the Lancet Review in having clear terms of reference for each case, and a review frequently upon the proportionality that turns up for the whole of the process, not just at the beginning or at the end. Have I summarised that correctly? We cannot anticipate it, we have to hope that it is going to work. Lord Harris: Yes, I mean, certainly we have had some initial discussions with the IPCC, and we are keen to pass on to them what we think are our conclusions about the way in which the system works, and they will make their own judgment about how best to organise their own work. Miss Weekes: What is the most important message you would want publicly to say to the work that the IPCC is going to take into account? I note what you say about delays, but is there anything that particularly is on your mind in terms of lessons to be learnt for the IPCC? Lord Harris: I am very conscious of the lessons that the Met has learnt since the Stephen Lawrence Inquiry about managing critical incidents, working with communities, supporting families, and I think it is important that the IPCC applies those same lessons, in terms of the way in which they handle some of the high-profile incidents, or indeed any incident that is referred to them. Miss Weekes: Okay. I want to ask about how officers are treated during the process of a complaint, especially if the complaint takes two or three years before resolution. Is there an agreed policy? Is there someone who oversees how officers are treated in terms of the stress that they will receive, because not all officers will be found guilty of a piece of conduct. Some will, some will not. How are they treated in terms of coming back to work when they have missed two or three years, and several new policies have been put on the table in their absence? Those sorts of things; who looks after officers? Lord Harris: My impression is that this is very ad hoc. We have been conducting some work as a police authority on fatal incidents and police suspensions, and I remember quite vividly a focus group we had with firearms officers, and the descriptions that they gave us of the way in which some of those people in that room had been treated after serious incidents; the length of time, the lack of information, lack of information to their families. That certainly leads me to believe that there needs to be a very clear policy in terms of support of the officers, just as much as there needs to be family support for victims of incidents and so on. That is a lesson that has not been applied internally, but is much better now applied externally in terms of high-profile cases. In some of the cases where I have been individually involved, where an officer has returned to work, I am aware of the complexities and difficulties of ensuring that that re-entry process is managed sensitively, fairly and appropriately. That is not easy, and it is probably a specialist requirement that there be people within the organisation who understand how best to do that. Miss Weekes: But what is clear is that you are not aware of any accepted policy for the Met, and indeed for other forces? Lord Harris: I am not aware of it. There may be one somewhere, but as we have said, the Met is policy-rich but not always terribly good at implementing those policies. Miss Weekes: That moves me conveniently on to what you think of the fairly new Fairness at Work process, which came about in April 2003, or certainly has been enacted in April 2003, so it is still quite new, and there will not be a huge amount of results and cases for us to look at, but there will be some. Are you happy that this new procedure is going to effectively deal with all the complaints about the past grievance procedure which was used by the MPS? Lord Harris: I think we certainly see it as a substantial step forward. I think we need to see a little bit more how it is implemented in practice, the extent to which people understand its use, both at managerial level and in terms of those who might use the system, to assess whether or not it has effectively dealt with all the concerns that have been expressed about the grievance procedure in the past. Miss Weekes: It raises two things for me, on my reading of it. The resolution of workplace conflicts with staff and officers still rests with supervisors and line managers, so it still remains that you are going to be lucky if you have a good one, or you are going to be lucky if you have one trained in personnel management; am I right? Lord Harris: I think that is a fair statement, although I think it is important that most matters are dealt with at the line management level on that point. What it raises for us are issues about the extent to which sufficient training, sufficient emphasis is put on equipping those who are given management responsibilities with the skills that they need. I commented earlier about the very difficult position that borough commanders are in. Borough commanders have an almost impossible range of responsibilities. I am concerned that they are not provided with the support and training to enable them to be as effective as they should be in those roles, and they are being asked to carry out very complicated, very difficult roles without those support structures and without necessarily the full range of training that they need. Miss Weekes: I have read the Fairness at Work quite carefully, and I might be wrong, but I see nowhere within the document a detailed guidance at resolution of a dispute, and how an officer approaches the resolution of a dispute, because you are, I think, right – my personal view is that you are right. We do have to make line managers and supervisors resolve it. Lord Harris: I think there is a sort of assumption that you will recognise it when you see it, in terms of a satisfactory resolution; well, in terms of management, that may well not be the case. People have to have an understanding as to what is an appropriate resolution. Miss Weekes: Well, if you agree that it is not within the document, where are line managers getting the understanding of how they should resolve disputes? Lord Harris: I suspect it is by osmosis. I think Reshard wanted to come in. Mr Auladin: I think, to be fair, the Professional Standards Directorate within the Met over the last three or four years has made considerable progress in looking at some of these issues. They carried out a best value review in, I think, the year 2000, and as a result of some of the recommendations of that review, they have changed their own structure of dealing with complaints, and their management structure and so on. Part of that change is what is happening in the boroughs now. If, for example, there is a conflict which a borough commander is passing on to the Professional Standards Directorate, the person responsible will look at that problem and decide whether this is something that should go back to the borough commander in terms of informal resolution, and they are doing so in two or three ways; one which is giving people guidance; there is also a great deal of co-ordination between professional standards staff and borough commander staff, and there is also a great deal of training that is taking place. In terms of training their own people, again, to be fair, they are now doing a better job of training investigating officers, and they have better systems in place in looking at timescale and time management when they are dealing with complaints. Miss Weekes: Thank you very much for that. I just want to move on, I think, to the last area, which will be local resolution and alternative ways of dealing with complaints, a matter that my colleague, Sir Anthony, touched on. I am simply going to read from the Police Complaints Authority booklet on justice in police complaints; you have probably all read it. I do not have the system number for it, but it might help if I simply read it. They outline, quite helpfully, some principles of fairness, and I know you have just now very helpfully summarised what the Metropolitan Police are now doing. I just want to find out whether you agree that this is embedded in what you have just told us: "Three principles of fair process: Engagement. Involving individuals in decisions that affect them by asking for their input and allowing them to refute the merit of one another's idea and assumptions." Is that within this new approach? Mr Auladin: I think we come back to regulations, where some of the problems will continue to exist, because I think there is, on occasion, police officers' willingness to actually deal with things informally, but there is that fear that if they start talking openly, that material could be used against them, either in criminal or disciplinary matters. It is about looking at it for a resolution first and foremost, in a framework that does not have consequences further down the line. And in certain situations, you have to serve police officers with a regulation notice before you start interviewing them, for example, so these are problems that I think need to be resolved before we are fully capable of going down the line of informal resolution. But I think we are already asking the Met to do some of that; we have talked about carrying out a couple of pilot schemes, where we are going to get police officers and complainants who are willing to look at informal resolution; even, if necessary, to bring third parties in as volunteers, to act as mediators to deal with informal resolution. That is at a very early stage, and we are watching this space with a great deal of interest. Ms Wright: And it is true to say that in some boroughs, borough commanders are inviting the Director of Professional Standards to come and talk to their senior management team, so they are locally – I am not going to say every borough is doing that, but some borough commanders are being very proactive in the way they want to deal with things locally, and are actively seeking advice. Miss Weekes: Right. And the second explanation: "Everyone involved and affected should understand why final decisions are made as they are. Creates a powerful feedback loop that enhances learning." And if I may add to that, both the public and the officer complained of has a right to know about the stages and decisions that are being made as the complaint progresses. So that section, do you think that has helpfully now been taken forward by the MPS, or is there still room for improvement? Mr Auladin: I do think there is still room for improvement. It is something that I think the MPS would accept themselves, that it is not quite right, in terms of informing police officers, as well as members of the public who have complained. They have some processes in place, but we have not got it quite right. Miss Weekes: What is not quite right about it, so we can make sure we understand you? Mr Auladin: I think it is about the interval at which people hear information, but also it is about management of information that you already have; maybe the need to have better training as to at what stage a certain amount of information has become something that you can disclose to parties that are interested. And if we do go along the route of informal resolution, you could set a framework at the very start of a particular case, terms of reference which all parties will abide by, including sharing information at a later stage. Miss Weekes: Lastly: "Expectation; Clarity. Once decisions are made, new rules are clearly stated, so employees understand new standards and penalties for failure." Has that been adequately adopted, do you think? Ms Wright: I would not say right across the board. Again, there are pockets of good practice. Miss Weekes: That brings me finally on to mediation, early resolution, local resolution, restorative justice; they sort of really fit under one umbrella, and it is the principle I want to go to. I have not yet read, but it may exist, of a very clear guidance policy that indicates the categories of cases that are clearly suitable for local resolution/early resolution, and that must go through early resolution process; the category of cases that are not suitable, because sometimes it is not suitable, if an officer is charged with a criminal serious offence, for there to be early resolution; and finally, the process by which you early resolve, because some cases are more suitable to other forms than not. I have summarised what I think this policy document would look like; does it exist? Mr Auladin: I do not think it does at this stage. There are some strands of work that I think are being developed, I have not seen those, but there is, I think, clearly a need for that; it is something that the Authority itself, through its Professional Standards Committee, is asking for, which is to look at ways of dealing with more cases by way of informal resolution, and for us to be able to do so, we need that protocol that you have talked about. Clearly, it is something that I think further work needs to be done on. Miss Weekes: Because, of course, we could not ourselves recommend which kind of cases should – it is really a matter for the profession, is it not, to put that category clearly in, but if there was a clear protocol and policy, then at least officers and line managers would have something to work to; do you agree? Mr Auladin: We agree, yes. Miss Weekes: One final question: not everything that is done by lawyers is good, but I am going to share something with you that you might think you want to consider, not necessarily adopt. Lord Woolf brought forward some rather important reforms in relation to how civil cases should be resolved, and an important reform was that in every case that comes to the High Court, the parties are asked to go away and settle and resolve it, and to adopt mediation where it is helpful. That has resulted in at least 35 per cent of cases not coming to court, and far less money for lawyers, and less work in the High Court, because people just do not lodge cases any more. If, in this new protocol, you considered almost statutory, but not quite, the mandatory approach, "These cases must be mediated, must be resolved", would that work for the Metropolitan Police Service? Mr Auladin: There are two points here; one which is about case management, which is very similar to what happens in the courts. I would see a case where parties have to submit their evidence to a case management court or tribunal, if you like, to look at what the evidence is, to look at what the aspects of that case are, to look at what the complaint is all about, and to make a decision as to whether this is something that should go back to the parties in terms of resolution. If there is a very strong case for informal resolution, then directions would be given, and as you are suggesting, that case could be so resolved, but I think you are looking at a way of managing cases first of all, that is how the protocol will feed into it, but also the way you manage every single case; it is about looking at the case from the very starting point. Miss Weekes: And who is going to draft this protocol for us to look at? Mr Auladin: Well, we are hoping the IPCC would do that. Miss Weekes: I am very grateful. Thank you very much for your assistance. Sir William Morris: Thank you very much indeed, Lord Harris, for your response, and indeed your colleague. Can I just say that we have come to the end of the formal questions that we wanted to ask you, but you will recall that in my opening statement, I said that we would offer you the opportunity, and indeed your colleagues, for a brief closing comment, should you wish to make one. If you do, then now is your time. Lord Harris: Okay. I mean, I will be very brief, it is really just to emphasise some of the points that we have made. Firstly, I think the Met has made gigantic strides in managing diversity in relation to the delivering of policing to the community since the Lawrence Inquiry report; there are still some large areas of concern, but in terms of community relations and the management of critical incidents, the Met has done very well and is at the leading edge, but the lessons learnt there have not been applied to other organisational problems. It is certainly our view that the HR function in the Met is undervalued and underresourced, especially at borough command unit level, though it would apply to other operational commands. This lack of professional support, combined with lack of training for line managers in dealing with difficult HR issues, has resulted in the sort of pressure cooker situation we have referred to in our evidence. Issues fester until they blow, because there is no will or no ability to resolve them. The Met is sometimes too oriented to investigation and not oriented to problem solving on difficult HR issues. We recognise the need to balance the thoroughness of investigation with speed of resolution, especially where issues of corruption are involved. We believe that the balance is not yet right. One other point which I just want to come back to is the question of the status of police officers as officers of the Crown, and I think that this Inquiry will do a great service if it just looks at what that is about, and whether that adds something in the modern world, and whether, if we could get to a position where the discipline of police officers was put on to the same footing as in general employment law, with the safeguards and protections of unfair dismissals and ETs, but not the wrapping round it of court martial-like procedures, I think that would be of great benefit. We, as an Authority, will make some further submissions; you have specifically asked questions around the regulations and how they could be improved. I think we have promised you a draft protocol for the involvement of ourselves in oversight of sensitive cases, and a copy of our revised protocol for complaints and discipline cases for ACPO level officers to reflect the new IPCC regime. Sir William Morris: Thank you very much. We naturally look forward to receiving the documentation that you have just referred to. Just one final comment – Ms Wright: I actually wanted to make a comment, because I do not think that the Inquiry will be complete, in my humble opinion, unless we talk about something about race and diversity. Although we accept that the MPS has made great strides, that does not translate into the feeling of its black staff, and I think somewhere in this report, there must be something about the perception of black and ethnic minority staff within the force, about how they are treated, and whether they are valued, and whether their contribution to policing in London is valued. Sir William Morris: Can I just clarify, when you use the word "staff", are you making reference to police officers, as we understand the term, or are you making reference to – Ms Wright: I am saying police officers and staff, because the perception of black and ethnic minority people, depending on who you talk to, is a bit skewed and I think people would – I myself, as a member of the Authority, would want to see something about the acceptance or the realisation that a lot of problems stem from the way people feel about how they are dealt with as an ethnic minority person. Sir William Morris: Does your colleague want to say anything? Mr Auladin: No, thank you. Sir William Morris: Just before we conclude, can I just say that as with all our witnesses, it may be necessary that once we have heard from other witnesses, we might want to ask you to come back for a few more questions, or indeed we may ask you to submit further documentation that you have volunteered, documentation additional in any event, but whatever we determine, we will seek to minimise any inconvenience that it may cause to you in providing us with further information. For the moment, all that remains is for me, on behalf of my colleagues and myself, to thank you for your written submission and indeed your oral contribution this morning to the work of the Inquiry. Thank you very much to you and your colleagues. Lord Harris: Thank you. Sir William Morris: It is my intention to adjourn the Inquiry until 2.00 pm this afternoon. Could I ask members of the public to remain seated while the witness and the members leave the room, please? Thank you very much. We stand adjourned until 2.00. 12.30 pm Internal links On this website: Evidence: Metropolitan Police Authority Evidence provided by and documents referred to by Lord Toby Harris of the Metropolitan Police Authority in his appearance at the Inquiry. Transcript: Metropolitan Police Authority (8 June 2004) The full transcript of the second public session with Mr R Auladin and Mr D Riddle of the Metropolitan Police Authority, held at 2pm on 8 June 2004.
	Previous Next
Transcripts > Metropolitan Police Authority (23 Feb 04)
© Copyright 2004, The Morris Inquiry. Standards compliant HTML. Designed and maintained by Netfundi