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 It is being hosted on the MPA website for archival purposes only and may contain out-of-date information.

This resource is from the Transcripts section. This section contains a transcript of the public session with Mrs J Stichbury on 24 February 2004.

Sections available here:

• Transcript of public session: Chief Constable J Stichbury, Head of the ACPO Personnel Management Business Area
  • Questions by Sir William Morris
  • Questions by Sir Anthony Burden
  • Questions by Miss Weekes

This transcript is also available with original line and page numbering.

Transcript of public session: Chief Constable J Stichbury, Head of the ACPO Personnel Management Business Area

Tuesday, 24 February 2004
2.00 pm

Sir William Morris: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen, and a very good afternoon to you, Chief Constable, to you and your colleagues.

A. Thank you.

Sir William Morris: Can I first of all start by saying thank you very much indeed for accepting our invitation to attend the Inquiry and to give some evidence, and indeed for letting us have your extremely helpful submission.

I appreciate that for some of our witnesses, I suspect not your good self, a process of this nature is probably a daunting one, but that said, I thought nevertheless that it would be helpful if I briefly set out how I propose to conduct the hearing.

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

As you can see, there are two other Panel members. First, someone who will be well-known to you, I think, at least the voice, Sir Anthony Burden, who recently retired as Chief Constable of the South Wales Constabulary, after a very long and distinguished career in the police service; and Ms Anesta Weekes QC, who is an eminent barrister. Anesta sits as a Recorder and as a part-time chair of employment tribunals. She was also counsel to the Lawrence Inquiry.

As you know, Chief Constable, we have been asked by the Metropolitan Police Authority to conduct an inquiry into professional standards and employment matters in the MPS. Our focus is in fact the MPS as an organisation, and not individuals within that organisation. The inquiry we are conducting is inquisitorial and not adversarial by character.

We are keen to enquire into the issues raised in our terms of reference, and to make appropriate recommendations for further good practice, rather than concentrating on making criticisms of the organisation or individuals.

To help us in our task, we are very keen to hear from all our witnesses not just what is wrong with the Metropolitan Police Service but what is right with it, but most importantly, suggestions in putting, if anything wrong, right.

A transcript is being taken, and we are very keen to have a proper record of the evidence given by all our witnesses. The transcript of your evidence will be posted on our website today.

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

Chief Constable, in your written submission which, as I have indicated, will be posted, you have given us the following information. First, the aims of the Association of Chief Police Officers, and the initiative of ACPO's personnel management business area.

You have also enlightened us on the national framework for conflict resolution on issues such as grievance and conduct matters. You have talked about the non-exhaustive list of national examples of best practice, and ACPO's view on the relative merits of the office of constable, and you have outlined for us future issues facing the police force and a number of recommendations, five, I think, to this Inquiry.

We would like to ask you some questions about the material and about your views on this wide range of matters which are of interest to us, but before we raise these issues, however, for the benefit of the transcript, I wonder if you would not mind formally introducing yourself to the Inquiry.

A. Thank you very much, Chairman, Sir Bill.

Good afternoon. I am Jane Stichbury, Chief Constable of Dorset Police, appointed in 1999. You will see from my submission that I spent, prior to that, some 22 years in the Metropolitan Police Service. In terms of my national responsibilities, I have been for the last three years chairman of the personnel management business area, a task that I am soon to relinquish as I pass on to take up some new responsibilities as part of the ACPO presidential team.

Questions by Sir William Morris

Sir William Morris: Thank you. Chief Constable, we have been extremely impressed by your submission. It is wide ranging, it is broadly consistent with the evidence that we have been gathering, and it outlines a whole range of processes and structures within ACPO, and clearly your business area responsibility has been leading a very, very important debate.

But I wonder whether you could take us from the processes which are evolving within these important areas and give us some examples of the outcomes from some of these processes that ACPO has been developing for some time.

A. Right, thank you for that, Chairman. I gather from that that you are keen for me to concentrate on the processes which pertain particularly to resolving conflict?

Sir William Morris: Yes, indeed.

A. And grievance particularly, because my colleague Ken Jones has actually looked at discipline processes.

Sir William Morris: We are very interested in the outcomes.

A. In the outcomes, right. Well, where to start. Conflict resolution; ideally, the whole thrust of our approach is to ensure that it is dealt with at the lowest possible level and resolved quickly. At one continuum, one end of the scale, one would be looking for an early resolution of the complaint that is raised. So that would be one outcome, that we would have – at the very informal end, a complaint would be raised by an individual, a member of staff, to their line manager, and that could be quickly resolved, so that would be one outcome.

Thereafter, there are a number of possibilities really depending on how successful that initial process is, and these frankly go on to consider the grievance procedure, which is broadly focused and relies on the Home Office Circular of 1993, and we have some new processes which have been devised, and rely particularly on guidance which is about to be published called Fairness at Work procedure.

The outcome from that, again in an ideal world, would be to follow the stages through, and there are predominantly two stages; one would hope that again it could be resolved. So again, I would be looking for a successful outcome.

If that were not the case, then there are a number of routes which might be taken. One of them might mean the individual, the employee, decided they wished to go to an employment tribunal; other matters might be raised during the course of consideration of the grievance or the complaint that might mean that the seriousness of it would mean that the issue is deferred either into police staff disciplinary process or police officer disciplinary process.

Obviously, the whole thrust of the work that is taking place at the present time is, by dint of good leadership, having the right policies, procedures and practices in place, to encourage early resolution at a very early stage, close to the point where the complaint is actually made.

Sir William Morris: Thank you. Would you say a little bit more, if you could, about how do you measure the success of these initiatives which ACPO is in fact developing and leading, and promoting. What is the measuring tool, so to speak?

A. Right, well, that is an interesting question, if you do not mind me saying so. I think that how I would measure it, in my own force, would be a range of issues really. Quite clearly, in terms of grievance handling and management, we are scrutinised by a number of bodies, not least HMIC, and certainly in the course of inspection, which is a frequent issue for forces, then grievance handling would come up as one of the issues that would be looked at.

I would take the measures much broader than that; I would be looking at – going back to the whole purpose really of the work of the business area, it is about being able to recruit, retain and develop people, and to ensure that we have got the right people in the right place to deliver a first class policing service.

So there are a whole range of performance indicators potentially which could be drawn together which would give you an idea of the corporate health of the organisation, either at an individual force level or nationally.

Right, those would include retention – well, let us go back one. Your ability to recruit in the first place, have you got people who want to join your organisation. Thereafter, perhaps issues such as fall-out rates during initial training, because as we have seen from a whole range of areas, this can be particularly important.

Going on from there, following a natural progression, I would be looking for retention rates, and how we are actually managing to keep people and retain them. Diversity of the workforce; are we actually attracting a significantly diverse workforce? That is something I would like to come back to later on. Sickness rates, the sickness of the individuals, is it increasing or reducing?

I would personally measure – I have a staff survey, I would personally seek to look at issues of morale, and what staff are saying themselves about the workplace, and whether or not they feel supported, whether they understand what they are there to do, and whether they are content in their workplace environment.

And then you would look at the – the hard outcomes might be the number of cases that actually end up at employment tribunals, complaints and so on, so there is a whole range, which I could happily draw together for you, if that were the Panel's wish, at some stage; certainly they could be drawn together.

Sir William Morris: Just in passing, let me say thanks for the offer, we never refuse an offer around here. So yes, we would find it of great interest.

I recognise from my knowledge, limited as it is, but certainly from your submission, that ACPO is a representative body of chief police officers, and just following the culture of your own submission, there is a very, shall I say, vigorous and healthy debate in respect of two clear principles around; on the one hand, the principles of minimum standards in your business area, and on the other hand, best practice.

I am not sure which is winning at the moment, but I am sure that ACPO representing chief officers would want to aim as high as possible. I do not get the feeling that best practice is in the lead; could you share your thoughts with us on those two principles?

A. Sorry, could you just repeat that last section? You do not get the feeling that best practice is?

Sir William Morris: Is actually in the ascendancy over minimum standards. The picture I get, having read your submission, is that in your business area there are two principles which are being debated. On the one hand, there is minimum standards, and on the other hand there is a debate on the constituency in support of best practice.

What I would like to know is which is winning, because I might have formed a superficial view that minimum standards is winning, but because they are chief police officers I would have thought they would be aiming as high as possible, which would make the argument for best practice. Am I wrong in that?

A. I would probably see it slightly differently. I would not see the two as mutually exclusive, but rather running together. An example might be this morning we have been debating and considering the implementation of the national recruitment standards and a new selection process, and that clearly is relatively new, it is part of the national agenda; we are definitely moving towards the creation of – I would prefer to see a coherent structure and a set of standards that can be applied across various forces.

But I think your question implies that if you have minimum standards, then you are lowering your standards, or there is a sense that it stifles good practice or innovation. I would challenge that, from my own perspective; I would say that what it is about is setting a baseline that we would obviously aspire to be beyond, but certainly in some areas it is very important that we are able to evaluate against what might be a level playing field. We have had some concerns around recruitment practices, for example, and we are very concerned to see that we have a very good standard that all forces sign up to and which can be evaluated.

As far as I am concerned, that does not exclude best practice, and the approach I would see is that we agree – for example, let us stick with national recruitment standards. We have agreed an approach, but we have indicated that there are areas we could see that we might seek to improve upon, and the willingness of all parties to actually look for that sense of continual improvement.

So I would not see the two as mutually exclusive. It is a question of constantly seeking new and better practice, but I would say from a very coherent base, and I think this is particularly relevant if you look into the future, and the drivers that I consider elsewhere in my paper of what a workforce for the future might look like, the sorts of demands that we have to deal with, that I think a coherent strategy across a whole range of personnel issues is appropriate, and it is about setting standards but aspiring to exceed them.

Sir William Morris: I take your point that neither is mutually exclusive, but recognising that neither is mandatory on a particular police service, in that context, should we not just go for best practice, if it is not mandatory in any event?

A. Right. Well, some things – I am thinking of disability discrimination, for example – will be statutorily based as from October, so there is a sense of there will be mandatory standards in my view that we will aspire to.

I really feel that the way we approach things, in terms of constantly looking for improvement, really is the answer. I am at a loss to specifically pinpoint what it is you would like – can you just explore that a little bit further? It might be helpful to me.

Sir William Morris: Well, yes, of course. We have, what, 43 police services, it is a representative body – ACPO, that is – and you have to try and get consensus as the chairperson of this particular area. My experience tells me that in any forum of collective gathering with a representative mandate, there is always a tendency to go towards the lowest common denominator, rather than the highest.

What I wanted to just explore is whether or not the principle of best practice is the key principle which, if you like, denotes the culture that ACPO sets in these discussions.

A. Well, I would say simply –

Sir William Morris: Because some people will do as little as they can get away with.

A. Yes. I am sure that does not apply to chief officers, Chairman, anywhere. The whole thing about ACPO is that it is intended to assist forces and chief officers and others to provide excellence in leadership, and I think – I often use the phrase in terms of staff – nobody wants to come in to work to do a bad job, and that applies to chief officers as well. We are all concerned to actually drive improvement, from the best value processes in forces to wanting to be, frankly, at the leading edge in terms of developing the operational vision and recognition that people are really the key route to delivery of that operational vision, and so I would say that it would be extremely rare for people to feel that they could not sign up to a policy, procedure and practice that has been developed as just that.

When national recruitment standards were launched, I will not pretend that there was not a very energetic debate around the issues, but colleagues and certainly myself, we all understand the rationale for the development, and as I have said, when something is initiated, some new policy or procedure is produced, there is always a sense that it is not cast in concrete; we would look constantly to review it, and see where it can be improved.

Sir William Morris: Yes. Should I assume from that then that – you have mentioned the issue of diversity, for example, earlier on, on which you indicated that you will be giving some further words to us.

A. Yes.

Sir William Morris: Can I assume that all 43 forces or services are pursuing best practice on diversity, and if so, what are the key characteristics of the diversity policy representing best practice?

A. Right. Can you assume all 43? Well, I think it is like anything else, there will be forces at different stages of the journey. Again, back to my issue, which is very fresh in the mind from having discussed it this morning, on recruitment standards, we are already being inspected against the new standards, and quite clearly there will be some who are ahead of others.

I think you would expect to find that, but as I have – to come back to the point that I originally made, we are highly accountable, we are all regularly inspected, and if there are areas where perhaps progress is not as swift as it needs to be, then that is very clearly pointed out.

In terms of what we should be doing in terms of diversity, what does it look like: well, again, I would expect forces to have a very clear commitment to diversity, a very clear diversity strategy. They all have race equality schemes. They will all be monitoring progress and progression and support of our diverse workforce, and by that I mean – I refer to not only race, minority ethnic officers and staff, but also issues such as gender, sexual orientation, increasingly disability, and, of course, when we are looking at our external service, particularly issues such as age, youth and really a whole range that actually go to make up diversity.

But I would expect to see very clear strategic direction, very good policies and practice in place, and then methods for checking reality, implementation, in other words.

I did not mention training, but I am sure you will be aware of the extensive training that has taken place across forces with regard to community and race relations, diversity training, in recent years.

Sir William Morris: Chief Constable, in your submission you very helpfully gave us an appendix, appendix B, which sets out a list of legislation that has enhanced the rights of uniformed police officers, issues around access to tribunals for equal pay, issues around discrimination. It is appendix B in your submission. It is now on the screen.

There are a whole raft of issues there. My feeling is, and please correct me if I am wrong, that none of those rights, as individual rights, has undermined or changed the defining principles of the office of constable, but reading ACPO's debate, I feel that there is probably a feeling that if one further small step was taken to give full employment rights to the sworn officers, the uniformed officers, that might somehow fundamentally affect the defining principles of the office of constable.

Could you share your views with us on that? We understand the point in your submission. We equally have taken on board your recommendations about having the debate, but we wondered whether, in addition to what you have said, you would like to expand and enlighten us any further.

A. Well, first of all, if I can point out that appendix B does not actually define the legislation to which police officers have access, as opposed to police staff; I can give that to the Panel subsequently, but some of the aspects of the Employment Rights Act and so on police officers at the current time do not have access to.

Sir William Morris: For the sake of clarity, am I right in thinking that police officers can access a tribunal on discrimination issues, sex, race?

A. Absolutely, but there are some aspects of employment law that they do not have.

Sir William Morris: Yes, I am not suggesting for a minute that all the legislation listed –

A. That is helpful, I just wanted to be very clear on that point. It might have been more helpful if I had separated those out.

Sir William Morris: That is fine. We have a consensus on that.

A. That is good.

Sir William Morris: It is the principle, I am basically saying.

A. I think the key point about the office of constable, and this is something that has been debated before, and no doubt will be debated in future – and in fact, ACPO is very happy for there to be a debate. The key point it comes down to, if I had to just put it very simply, is that the office of constable has a long and historic tradition, and effectively means that the individual is free from undue political influence, and retains discretion, and operational independence.

Now that is a principle which ACPO feel is hugely important in terms of not only a police constable but indeed a chief constable, and how we relate to our other partners within the tripartite structure, ie Home Office and police authorities. So that is a principle which ACPO is very, very firmly supportive of, and would not seek to change at this point in time.

But, however, as usual, we are very happy to have the debate, and also in my submission I have made it quite clear that there are certain aspects that we feel that we could move towards constables coming more within the remits of other employment law that they do not currently have access to.

Also, again another point I have made in my submission, drawing together rather more closely the processes by which we treat police staff and police constables. This is seen as something which would be achievable without necessarily removing the office of constable.

Now I think it is, if I may just expand a little bit, particularly important that we do have that debate, however contentious it may be; it is important because when I look to the future and look at our overall operational vision, the need to provide very excellent services in increasingly complex and specialised areas, and what may fall out of that – which is the current debate about career paths; what may fall out of that is a more varied and diverse workforce.

We are currently having these debates within the service; with people entering potentially at different stages, it is important, I think, that we have a greater synergy and coherence around how we treat our people and the processes than we have at this current time. Now I certainly think that is a debate that is worth having.

Sir William Morris: Yes, I share that view, but can I just assure you that we have received no evidence at all which suggests that there is any constituency anywhere who wants to change the political impartiality of the police service in any shape or form.

Those that have been canvassed for a point of view about the debate certainly have not couched it or implied it in any terms; indeed, the suggestions, if any have been made, have been made in the context of enhancing the rights and status of uniformed police officers, but not in approaching anyone within, if you like, the political ambit. I think the boundaries are very clearly recognised, and all the evidence we have heard on the point is protected and safeguarded in that important consideration.

It is equally true to say that the relationship which exists between the sworn and those who are not sworn, picking up your description in your submission, would not in any way, from what has been said to us, fundamentally shift that relationship either. People have used the term about civilianisation, which is a term familiar to you, but within the confines of maintaining the conventions and the accountability, as they currently stand. I think it is important to just register that particular point.

A. To clarify that point; that is extremely helpful.

Sir William Morris: Yes, fine. In your submission, Chief Constable, I think at paragraph 12, you have indicated some of the aims of ACPO, one of which is to facilitate and develop excellence in leadership of the service, and I just wondered whether you would like to expand on that. Are we talking about operational leadership, are we talking about, if you like, managerial leadership? I would just like to ask you to expand on that particular observation in your submission at paragraph 12.

A. Right, well, thank you. My view would be that – we come back to your original question really, around how we deal with conflict resolution. Leadership lies at the heart of probably all that we seek to achieve really within the service, and for me, leadership is about not only what chief officers might be exhibiting, but also fundamentally throughout the organisation, at all levels, and whether an individual is a police officer, sworn, or unsworn.

I think everybody – this is my personal philosophy; everybody in their daily life has something to do, some decisions to make which classically really do come back to leadership; and particularly critical areas for conflict resolution are those skills and qualities exhibited by first line supervisors. They are absolutely critical.

So the programme of leadership, quite clearly – you are probably aware of the leadership centre, effectively, at Centrex. We have very recently revised the approach to senior leadership and those who are going through the assessment for chief officer process, that has all been changed to a modular format. There is now a whole programme of work looking at leadership skills below senior officer level. I would say that it is something that we have to address, not only in terms of operational leadership but also in terms of – coming back to your question – managerial leadership.

It is something in my view for everybody, and not just about dealing with an operational event on the streets. Therefore, it is very much needed in terms of how we deal with our people processes, how we deal with financial issues, and certainly in other areas which you might sort of traditionally see as more of a supportive environment, rather than the outward facing service delivery.

Sir William Morris: We have been exploring this whole concept of leadership with other witnesses, and perhaps we ought just to explore it with your good self.

We start from the position where everyone accepts that the job of the Chief Constable is probably the most challenging of all police tasks; he or she has to deal with strategic executive management, managerial leadership, to the service, large or small; he or she has to motivate both the sworn and the employees who are not sworn; manage the budget; and do all the things that executive strategic managers have to do. That is on the one hand.

On the other hand, he or she has to give, again, executive strategic operational leadership, in the context of a changing environment. Some of the issues that are now being debated, in terms of police officers' leadership, strategically, are very important. A year ago there was no debate about sky marshals on aircraft, for example; it is a law and order issue now, detection, prevention. So the whole terrain is changing, and the environment is changing, and the demands on the office of the Chief Constable are not getting any less – I know you will agree that it is expanding, with terrorism.

Do you think, taking those two concepts of leadership, that there are any competing priorities here, and if so, which?

A. Right, well, first of all, I would say that yes, the job of Chief Constable or Commissioner is an incredibly challenging and exciting opportunity for anybody. One has to be the visible leader, outwardly engaging with communities, and that is hugely important, but also to be able to inspire and take one's own staff with one, so it is a very, very important and challenging job. The visibility in that – and I will call it a pinnacle position, because that is how I see it – is second to none, and I mean that.

Are there competing priorities? Well, I think in policing there are competing priorities every day. Your tension that you have outlined particularly was in terms of being that visible operational leader and determiner of the future in some ways, combined with – or as opposed to the general day-to-day perhaps running of the business. This is how your question has come across to me, and I hope that is an accurate interpretation.

Does that compete? Well, my own view is that it does not have to at all. I feel very comfortable that I have got a good team that I work with – well, no, an excellent team, and providing everyone has good clarity around their roles and responsibilities, I think it is much more helpful to have the one point of leadership within that team.

Now I would expect any team to have an individual who can actually look after and lead in terms of financial issues, but ultimately, many things are brought back to the team, and as chief, with ultimate responsibility, you have sometimes to make some hard decisions.

So my answer to you would be yes, there are competing priorities, yes, it is a challenging job, but I feel that one person ultimately – that responsibility is appropriate. I can see that there might be more problems or more difficulties if you have almost two leaders working alongside each other, there might be more potential for lack of clarity.

It seems to me that the accountability and the clarity is absolutely important. Providing you have got a good team, who are very clear about their roles and responsibilities, then you can overcome that.

Sir William Morris: I hear what you say, and we have heard it in the context of this Inquiry, but it leaves me wondering: why is it that a model which works successfully in resource management: people, material, all the resource within the command of the Chief Constable – the same principles apply, of resource management of people and materials, in the private sector. Why is it that a model that works successfully in the private sector, where you have a chief executive managing the shop, and you may have the chairperson articulating, promoting, advocating externally, making sure that the visible face of the institution or the organisation is evident, without any distraction from the management of the resource; why is that model so successful in the private sector, and the suggestion is that it is probably or possibly not workable in the police service?

A. Right, well, let me make my position clear, I am always keen to learn and benefit from other examples of whether it is good practice or things that work and deliver; that is always very persuasive to me. I am very happy to look further and no doubt, since you have some enthusiasm for this, I can imagine we will be looking further at that model.

I think I would say to you in answer, what is different about the private sector from policing, and I suppose I come back to the point that you touched on originally; as a Chief Constable, I still have tremendous operational responsibilities and authorities, for example, that I and I alone must give and so on. I personally feel that it is helpful to have in one person this sense of the operational, and pulling it all together in that one point of leadership.

I think that in terms of the way we work on a daily basis, many of the day-to-day issues are managed effectively or minded by members of my team, and I feel quite comfortable that that actually works.

Sir William Morris: Let me assure you that my exploration of this particular aspect of our Inquiry is not being driven by any enthusiasm, self or otherwise; I have formed no view.

But we have seen evidence in this Inquiry of significant managerial weaknesses, and I use the word "significant" quite deliberately. I believe, therefore, that in the pressures of today's world, the model where the two roles reside in the hands of one single person, with all the competing pressures that I have already indicated and do not want to rehearse, cannot be without exploration for alternatives.

My question to you would be: do you think an alternative model, where the role is split between, say, the chief constable continuing the role that he or she has, the strategic leader operational role, which is expanding, not just from a national perspective but an international perspective, we have got agreement on all those dynamics with, side by side, running side by side, someone – I am not fussed about the title, whether it is a chief executive or a chief operating officer, but someone who would have the responsibility, and we can have a conversation about the reporting structure, but I am talking about the function of responsibility, of managing budgets which run – I do not know what your budget is, but some budgets start from about 2.5 billion –

A. Mine is somewhere less than that, regrettably.

Sir William Morris: We will help you to make a case, Chief Constable. But the drift is that all the budgets I have seen of police services are significant volumes of public expenditure. We have seen weaknesses in managerial issues, and I am trying to explore how we can expand the propensity for operational requirements by added resource. We are seeking to establish whether there are alternative models that could deliver better value for money, let us be clear about it, without any diminution at all of the operational needs and requirements of the policing service.

Some may argue, and we have no view yet, that it might even enhance rather than detract from it. What I think the situation would benefit from is a very open debate, as we have looked at other issues for open debates, for example diversity or professional standards. I would just like to get your views.

A. Thank you, Chairman. I maintain my position that I have had before; I feel that if you have a team round you with responsibilities, I would argue that some of those issues are already, if you like – "contracted out" is the wrong word, but certainly there is a clear responsibility for those other team members to look at budget, and so on, management, and I find it helpful that it comes back, and then as a team we can look at that.

In terms of new models, and whether the time is right for a debate, I am sure that there is always an enthusiasm to look at if things can be improved. In terms of better value for money, the service is embarking on an increasingly sophisticated approach involving activity based costing, and I think we are going to start to see the benefits of that, and of course there are other reviews that are significant, taking place at a national level at the moment, in terms of the Gershom review, the efficiency review, and the HMIC thematic, which I think will also be relevant around civilianisation and the sense of what the workforce and so on will look like in the future.

So I will never close my mind to new ideas. You asked me whether I saw, on the basis of this conversation, you know, whether I was happy or not with how it works at the present time. I have to say that broadly I am, and I would need to be persuaded or need to explore other ideas, but would not close my mind to them.

Sir William Morris: Thank you very much. Just one last question, Chief Constable: you have mentioned employment tribunals on a couple of occasions in your responses. Could I ask you to just indicate to us, please, what is your business area's view as to where the responsibility for employment tribunals should be located in a particular police service?

A. Right. At the current time, as I am sure you are aware, it tends to go through the HR or personnel part of the business, if you like.

Sir William Morris: That is not universal though, is it?

A. Some forces are looking at re-organising, but generally, the employment tribunal issues tend to come up through that route, at the current time. I think one of the issues that we could well look at is how that is joined up; does it work effectively? Does it need to be addressed within one department? In other words, as a continuum, from the point of view of initial complaint, then you might take different routes, it might be a grievance, it might be a dignity at work issue, it might go to employment tribunal, it might be a discipline issue.

Would it make more sense for those to be within one department? Again, it depends on the structure of the organisations, because, for example, in my force, employment tribunals are very much looked after – or those sorts of issues, certainly grievance, are looked after by HR personnel, and yet discipline – we are re-organising our discipline, but that very much comes under the professional standards unit.

But both of those departments come under the auspices or portfolio of the deputy, so you do get that point of crossover and cohesion. So I think it is a question of something that forces are looking at at the current time.

Sir William Morris: Yes, but do I take it that ACPO does not have a specific view about where it thinks it would be best served?

A. Well, at the current time, it is with – our view is with personnel is helpful. A lot of that is around early dispute and conflict resolution and so on, but we are revising it, and I am sure that as the new IPCC comes into being and a whole range of issues come up, then who knows, we may well look at that again.

Sir William Morris: Thank you very much indeed for your responses to my questions. I am now going to ask Sir Anthony to ask questions.

Questions by Sir Anthony Burden

Sir Anthony Burden: Thank you, Chairman.

Can I refer you to your submission, page 16, paragraph 50? It is coming up on the screen. There you very helpfully suggest that this is your personal view, you say, but there should be a national strategy overseeing management issues within the service, and that seems eminently sensible, I must say, to us.

But we could not, I do not think, as a Panel rely on goodwill to see that implemented across the service, and anything that we recommend will have to have bite to ensure that there is compliance.

You understand, and Sir Bill referred to this earlier, that there are 43 policing organisations, but there is a new process in place, as I understand it, with the Policing Centre of Excellence at Bramshill to codify in certain areas. We have not actually had that referred to yet within this Inquiry.

Could I just impact on you at the moment just to give your understanding of the Policing Centre of Excellence and the codification of policies, and what that will mean for the future?

A. Right. The National Centre for Policing Excellence has been set up very recently, currently part of Centrex. It is intended to be very much driving forward key issues – well, driving forward best practice and compliance, in effect, for the service in future.

There are a number of issues which are going to fall within the remit of codification: firearms is one of those, one of the early ones, and then there will be an expectation that forces will sign up. Well, they have to be implemented, and most recently, it has been agreed that there will be assistance from some members of the NCPE in order to assist forces to implement against the codes.

The best, probably, model in practice at the moment is something called the national intelligence model, which will, effectively, finally, have the same sort of status. Forces have been required to implement that, and we have had a great deal of assistance from those who are engaged in that process. I can expand on the national intelligence model if you would find that helpful.

Sir Anthony Burden: No, that explains the system.

A. But the future is to, I have to say, really focus on this; there will be guidance and so on and other layers coming out, but the codes will be something which is non-negotiable, if you like.

Sir Anthony Burden: Yes, that is the important thing, I think, about it.

A. Yes, it is.

Sir Anthony Burden: If the service were to move down this path, of having a national strategy around people management, would you see that being important enough to be codified?

A. That is a very interesting question which colleagues would no doubt wish to debate first. I will go back to some first principles here. Why should there be a national strategy?

Well, this links into very much the ACPO response to the green paper called "Closer to the Citizen", which paints the sort of image and vision for delivering policing in the future, and it just serves to highlight all the tensions that we have, and some of those have been mentioned already today. The need to attract a very diverse workforce, the need to engage with communities, the need for potentially greater accountability, the need to address crime very, very effectively at either level one, which is very much local crime, right the way through to cross-border criminality, and national and international.

That requires increasingly – the requirements of the criminal justice process and other drivers require a sense of specialism and professionalism that we need to go beyond where we are today for; in other words, my premise around coherent career strategy is very much based on thinking about not the service we are supplying today, not the service we are supplying tomorrow, but the service we need to be able to deliver a year, five years, ten years down the track.

So I have painted that operational vision; we have also recently completed a strategic assessment, which sets out some of the attentions and challenges for the police service in the future.

Now I said earlier on that my belief, and ACPO's supposition, is that we deliver and do everything by virtue of our people; without them, without them performing well, we deliver nothing.

So based on that premise I certainly feel, and there is a debate now that is taking place and work taking place on how we actually perform at a higher level even than we actually do today, and that is to say I think we are extremely professional now, but we need to move to another plane, if you like, for the future; the future demands.

A route to do that will be, I believe, through the concept of career pathways, and that would mean potentially that there would be a number of disciplines, and we might bring people in at different levels and train them and focus their activities specifically on, say, for example, detective and investigation skills. It might be community engagement and problem solving in local communities. It might be other areas.

That sort of future for me certainly will engage more police staff, non-sworn officers, in that endeavour.

So if we accept that a proposal for the future is around career pathways, I think that when we look at all these other ways we manage people, it makes absolute logical sense for me that it should be within an overall career development structure; therefore, how we train and develop people, how we recruit people, how we train and develop them, how we deal with conflict resolution, how we deal with graceful exit, they would all come under one coherent strategy, and I believe that it is appropriate, with the increasing movement of staff, whether between forces or between agencies; and the skills for justice, which has just been effectively launched, will promote standards being developed across the criminal justice agencies. There will be more movement in the future between agencies, and that is where I am coming from, in terms of developing a coherent strategy.

Should it be codified? I think that has to be debated. But increasingly, if we are setting a standard, if we set processes, then I think we have to ensure that we are able to maintain them. That is it.

Sir Anthony Burden: And if we as a Panel feel strongly enough, as you obviously do, so do we, about people being treated fairly at work, we do not want to see inconsistencies either within a police service or across services; codification would be a way of actually ensuring compliance.

A. It would be. What I think is important – I am going to go back to my rigours of the national intelligence model. It is important to make sure that we do not have so many absolute priorities. We have got to focus on what is truly important, that is what I am saying. The policing business is increasingly complex, and success depends on being able to say, "That is supremely important, we are going to do it".

Sir Anthony Burden: But I think you said earlier, and I would 100 per cent agree with you, that we are a people organisation, and in addition to that, 85 per cent of our budget goes on people, and they are, if not the most important component of delivery, certainly one of the most important components of delivery; of all the products, absolutely, the national intelligence model is important, but it is only as good as the people actually –

A. Who are implementing it, absolutely right.

Sir Anthony Burden: That is very helpful, thank you. Can I move on to the area of training, only superficially so? Comments are often made about the service drowning under a sea of training, and that has been addressed to us in submissions around some of the issues we are looking at in the Metropolitan Police, inability to train middle managers particularly, because of the pressures on the service generally. So that is another issue central to our considerations.

Is it true to say that the service currently has a culture where professional learning has to take place in the workplace in service time, as a basic principle?

A. Increasingly, and I have hinted at it in my submission, we have to move to a position where individuals – there is an expectation on individuals to have responsibility for their own learning and development. Are we there yet? I do not think we are. I think traditionally there has been a sense of, to train people, it has been training rather than development and learning, and the responsibility has been very much on the organisation, and there has been a sense of making sure that the time is available in work time to do that.

Increasingly technology, among other things, offers us opportunities to look at this differently, and computer based training can be tremendously effective, and it is something that individuals can do, and indeed I think should be expected to do, partly in their own time. It should not all be expected to be at work.

I have to say there are always going to be people who have done things in their own time, a huge amount of work in their own time, but generally there is still an expectation that it is supplied by the employer, if you like, to staff in the course of their work.

Sir Anthony Burden: Again, I would 100 per cent support you in what you are saying. The premise that, "I am a poor manager because nobody has trained me to manage" is not supportable, is it?

A. No. I think we have to – well, this is about again driving to a greater sense of sophistication, really, around the expectations of all our staff.

Sir Anthony Burden: Yes, absolutely.

A. Just because you are not put in a room and somebody does not talk at you, that cannot be an excuse for poor behaviour, so I think there are other routes to upskill.

Sir Anthony Burden: Forgive me, I do not want to put you on the spot here, but does that require a change in anything other than negotiated agreements with staff associations, to actually move to a position where we can place that onus on the individual to be professional, to be well trained, to be aware and to be confident?

A. I do not think it is purely about staff associations. I think this is – it is a cultural shift, probably, that we need to underline through such other processes as the good and effective use of professional development reviews, for example. I see them as absolutely fundamental really, and driving the sense of development for the individual.

Now that process exists in forces now, it is receiving a great deal of attention from the HMI, as you are probably aware, and the key part of that process is not only that an individual should be reported on – certainly not once a year, there should be interim discussions around performance, and a big focus of that is around development. So I think it is part of that, it is changing the culture – and focusing back on the individual, they are important, but they have some ownership in terms of their own development.

Sir Anthony Burden: Yes. If I can give you an example, exactly the example that you have raised there, around annual performance development reporting processes. Supervisors have a very prominent role to play in managing that process. There is a lot, is there not, to be said for a situation where if supervisors realise that new responsibility falling upon them, that they have a right, an absolute right, to draw on the organisation at times to facilitate some training, but the responsibility to be trained, to be able to manage that process, must lie with individuals who have decided to take on the rank responsibility of management?

A. Yes, I think – well, there are a couple of points in there. I think everyone should at some – for certain things, there are quite clearly – if it is, say, firearms training, we all have to have regular firearms training, I would not suggest that is something one goes and self-learns.

Sir Anthony Burden: No, absolutely.

A. But in terms of appraisal, I think there are things that can be taught, but so much about this as well is that it can be developed by the individual. There can be an expectation – it is a bit like expecting an individual to keep themselves up to date with the intelligence system, or with other important facets which have been communicated in the force.

You will have some people who have access to all this information and do not choose to use it, and others who will assiduously search and brief themselves, so it is trying to get to a more sophisticated level, I think. I am sure that happens in many places, but in terms of how we could improve for the future, I think very clearly, from my point of view, there has to be an understanding that there is a responsibility with the individual, and not just if you have a supervisory capacity but I think any individual within the service.

Sir Anthony Burden: Thank you. One last area from me, if I may, and this is something we are addressing with all witnesses coming before us, and that is the issue around diversity, around proportionality. I would like to ask you, if I may, please, with reference to the appointment of women and minority ethnic staff within the service, and their subsequent progression within the service, in your professional opinion, are you starting to see barriers being removed?

A. Yes. I mean, I have to say yes, because in the last, what, six or seven years we have had women reaching very senior positions in the service, and starting to come through.

I have to say, is it as much as I would like or anticipated? Perhaps not quite as much, I have to be honest there, but I think that overall good progress has been made and is being made.

Sir Anthony Burden: But I mean, just to take that further –

A. Would you like me to elaborate?

Sir Anthony Burden: Yes, I would really. I think you have a lot more to tell me.

A. All right, let me go back to first principles again then. What is it that it has been perceived are the blockers or barriers to – you asked me specifically about women, and not around other diversity issues.

Sir Anthony Burden: And minority ethnics as well.

A. All right, back to first principles: what is it that needs to be achieved to ensure that individuals can come through? I think you have to start from strategy, you have to have a strategy which says, "We want to encourage, and we will welcome, and we will support", and see the value of it, that is the point.

I know I have made in my submission the point about putting it back in probably the terms of the private sector, the business case for doing this. If we are talking about our overall service, and engaging with communities, we need to be able to have a far more diverse workforce.

Other drivers include – they are very helpfully articulated within the work of the skills foresight document: the change in demographics. The fact that I think 51 per cent of the workforce available, the workforce pool, within a matter of five years' time, will be women. The fact that we are competing for our workforce in a very competitive environment, so there is no doubt – and I have not articulated all of the drivers there, but there is a very profound and powerful case to ensure that we have a very diverse workforce, where we have members of ethnic minorities, or women, and others represented, sexual orientation, at all levels in the service.

What are the barriers to achieving that position? Well, have we gone as far as I would like to see? The answer to that is no. Has progress been as fast as I think it could have been? My answer to that would be personally, I do not think it has been, but I do think, you know, there have been great strides made, and we should not take that away.

I came in saying that in terms of seniority of women officers, chief constables, and other senior positions, six years ago, perhaps slightly more than that, there was not a prospect, so that is just one benchmark.

It is hugely important to have good and effective and powerful role models, because I feel that that is probably one of the most powerful ways of actually demonstrating support and encouragement to others who would come through. Thereafter, you have to make sure that you have the right policies, procedures, practices and culture in place to actually support individuals, and work is ongoing; there is a great dedication and enthusiasm. Numbers are starting to come up. Certainly in terms of recruitment in gender, some of our intakes will see probably 50 per cent of women.

So the good news is that we are attracting people in. I think that where work is ongoing, and still remains to be delivered, is around progression; how we actually get people through and support them through, and that is where I would like to see a little bit more impetus.

Sir Anthony Burden: Would you agree that the linkages within people management strategies, and the way they are implemented, are quite simply that if you lose the trust and confidence of minority staff, because of the way they perceive they are being treated, through grievance procedures and misconduct procedures, and they see disproportionality, that erosion of trust and confidence will essentially also impact upon those people's willingness to progress through an organisation which they see as basically unfair, discriminating, and not actually –

A. I mean, this comes to the heart of why conflict resolution and handling of grievances is so important. There are a range of cases, and I have personally dealt with some of them, and so on. Sometimes you know it is going to be difficult to ever achieve a satisfactory outcome. There are going to be cases where you cannot easily resolve it.

But I would say the majority – this comes back to my point about not many people come into work and say, "I want to do a lousy job". I do not think many people want to actually get to the point of grievance and take something through to an employment tribunal. It is a very bruising process. In the new Fairness at Work procedures there is a powerful line that says, "There are no winners for anyone in this", and I am very taken by that, I think that is true.

So I think it is undoubtedly true that unless we are able to treat people fairly and make some accommodation and be sensitive and supportive, then we will turn people off, they will not perform, and then you almost get – instead of a virtuous circle, where someone feels confident, has good self-esteem, is able to perform, and then thinks, "Well, I may aspire to do something else", they think the opposite; they are turned off and perhaps they decide either not to get a promotion, not to go into a specialist unit, or perhaps even to leave the service, which is the worst possible scenario.

In everything I have said, and I did not mention making sure that we have a good flexible workforce practices and working practices, which, of course, the service has made huge strides forward on in recent years, and continues to do so, none of that should negate the fact that ultimately, we must always remember this, whatever we are dealing with, that our ultimate responsibility has to be to the public in providing the proper professional policing service, so there is always a balance to be struck, that is the point I am making, between individual needs and organisational needs, but overall, if we are able to treat people well I think they will perform better.

Sir Anthony Burden: And finally, could I just refer to the culture of the service? Do you feel that there has been sufficient cultural shift where minority ethnic staff and women feel safe and comfortable about challenging inappropriate behaviour and unfairness?

A. Right. Well, obviously, I would like to say yes unequivocally, but I think that would be overly complacent. I personally get approached by individuals, so I think, well, I am a senior person, people approach me, so that is a pretty good indicator. But I think sometimes the secret of driving improvement is about not being complacent, so I could not say, yes, 100 per cent, we have got it right. Quite clearly, we always have to learn, and we always have to be looking for the time when you have got an individual who does not feel comfortable about coming forward.

My own philosophy or premise is that it does not matter what environment you are in; you can be in the most supportive one, where there is tremendous leadership, you will still find the opportunity for there to be, even at perhaps a lower level, a degree of what may be perceived, for example, as bullying. You can never be complacent that it is eradicated. Constant vigilance, I think, is what is needed.

Sir Anthony Burden: Thank you very much.

Sir William Morris: Thank you very much indeed, Chief Constable. I should now be moving to Miss Weekes for her questions, but I am looking at the shorthand writers. (Pause). I have just got the nod, thank you. Miss Weekes?

Questions by Miss Weekes

Miss Weekes: Thank you very much.

Chief Constable, can I follow on from Sir Anthony's questions about how officers, white and black, are treated when there is workplace conflict? I am particularly interested in the comments that you have already said about the new procedure that is going to come into place in April of this year in relation to Fairness at Work. That is a national procedure, is it not, that has been adopted by all forces?

I am actually going to come back to the legislative framework at the end, but if I can deal with Fairness at Work, one of the things that you have helpfully said about it, and I would like to go to page 8 of your submission, paragraph 25. It might be useful for the members of the public who are here simply to read this:

"Central to the resolution of disputes is the proposed new national 'Fairness at Work' procedure mentioned previously, which will shortly be published to Forces in the form of a Home Office Circular. Whilst significant consultation has taken place, there remains no differentiation between organisational grievances and inter-employee disputes, and the preferred way forward, for a number of HR professionals in the police service, would be for the Home Office to issue minimum standards in the same way as ACAS, upon which individual forces could build."

Now I want to just ask you about that. It is clear that by the way you are set up, you do have to accept guidance from the Home Office, and undoubtedly the Home Office will consult with police forces about what is good for police forces.

Is there often a difficulty with what you say you would like and what you get, by way of guidance, from the Home Office?

A. Right, I think it is important to make the point that really, particularly with regard to the personnel management business area and all the issues that come within that, we probably as much – or certainly more, possibly, than other areas of work – work hand-in-glove with the key stakeholders, the Home Office and the APA, and we have been this morning jointly considering issues such as career paths and national recruitment standards, and in terms of this guidance, the discussion and debate has taken place with a number of key people, plus staff associations involved in that debate, and it has been some time coming and revises the original circular which dates back as long ago as 1993.

At the end of the day, when you are dealing with a whole range of people, there will always be a slightly different perspective of view coming from somewhere, and frankly, a decision has to be made and a path forward identified, which this document does.

I think, overall, it is extremely helpful, and what I have noted particularly when we are dealing with the Home Office, in terms of formulating policy, is that there is a willingness – if we say we are not entirely happy with something, we will discuss, and develop something which there is a consensus support for.

Back to my original point, nothing is a tablet of stone; if there is something which we feel does need to be revised, then there is always a willingness to listen to that point.

Miss Weekes: Good. We have not yet heard from the Home Office, we have not decided whether we will need to, but it was interesting to have your view about how that relationship works, because undoubtedly they have a role to play in policing as well.

A. Absolutely.

Miss Weekes: Can I ask then about the minimum framework? ACAS is undoubtedly an extremely helpful guidance, and guidance is what it is, but would you agree that it is in fact of great importance and significance if the police service were to adopt the ACAS minimum guidance?

A. Generally, yes, I would say so. I would not want you to have the impression that there is a feeling that this is not happening; it is very clearly the key reference point for forces at the current time.

Miss Weekes: Okay. The Fairness at Work, as it will be in April, still keeps the line manager as being the first port of call for the resolution of disputes, and that undoubtedly must be the case.

Is there, as far as you are aware, in the actual process itself, and in the suggested draft guidance, a very clear suggested procedure for how a line manager must deal with resolution of disputes?

A. Well, and I have not brought all the details before you, but again, I am happy to make a copy available if that would be helpful, which does set out basically the two stages of the process. There is a stage manager for each part. There is very much a focus on dealing with a resolution early and starting off informally, and personally, that is where I feel great success can be achieved, if there is a focus on trying to deal with things as soon as possible, at the lowest possible level, informally. Once you get involved in potentially a process which is more bureaucratic, and people become more entrenched in their positions, I think the opportunities are lost really to achieve a successful outcome.

So the guidance document very much focuses on that. It suggests a process of – without going into the absolute detail – a process of meetings, and dependent on the outcome one would move forward to the second stage and so on. It also suggests and encourages that relevant people would be identified within the organisation who might actually support the individual, not necessarily the line manager.

Miss Weekes: Yes. I want to just explore this a little. Documents can say the right things, and they sound good, but it is always left to the individual line manager and officer to battle it out between themselves, as it were. Are you confident that the right kind of line managers are actually carrying out this crucial personnel relationship and development of trying to resolve disputes?

Sometimes it could be a problem with the tone of voice that is used that might give a female officer the impression she has not been treated fairly; it might give a black officer the impression they are not being treated with respect.

So it always, I think – correct me if I am wrong – comes down to the way that a line manager will interpret the process of Fairness at Work.

A. Right, there are quite a few issues there actually. One is if we have good policies how do we ensure implementation, and I think evaluation of any scheme is hugely important, and one of the more perhaps qualitative ways of evaluating this sort of issue would be through staff surveys. It is not something that is always regarded as entirely attractive, because one may well get some answers one does not like, but nevertheless, it is a risk I feel is worth taking because it does actually help, in an anonymous way, to find out what your staff are actually thinking and feeling, and it gives you something to build on. So it is a bit of a check, if you like, to processes.

In any new policy, there must be a real drive from the top, I suggest, and methods of evaluation put in to ensure that it happens on the ground, so I think that is a very fair comment, and one which I suspect continues to challenge not only police organisations but probably any other organisation anywhere in the world. So a big challenge there in terms of implementation.

The second part of your question was around leadership; am I confident that those people who are potentially seeking to resolve these conflicts or complaints at an early stage are capable of doing so? The first point I would just want to make by clarification is if, for example, the line manager is the person who is complained against, then quite clearly the individual would not go to them; I think that is just worth reiterating.

Am I confident? Well, back to the training issue, and this is again the sense of balance, what we need to train people or give people a very clear feeling for, and dealing with people issues, versus their own responsibility. Certainly I think any supervisor should have an input around grievance or conflict resolution, and that does happen.

I would suggest it happens in terms of initial training for police officers, in terms of their dealings with the public, but all first line supervisors, and certainly sergeants, should have some input on this. I think it is quite right, you cannot expect people to absorb all of this via a computer based programme, so there needs to be an ongoing input around conflict resolution.

Diversity training also ensures that all staff have an input on some of these issues.

Again, I think to say, are you confident that 100 per cent of your staff, in leadership or supervisory positions, are able to deal in a superlative way with these sorts of cases? It would be an extremely bold answer to say, "Absolutely, yes, 100 per cent of the time". Quite clearly people are in different stages in terms of development, they are learning and understanding, and I think it is something we have to recognise. It is crucially important to the individual, and we can never say the job is done, frankly.

I cannot say to you, at the end of this, everyone will have gone through it; it is something that needs constant reinforcement and leadership.

Miss Weekes: You have very helpfully set out further on in your submission, at page 26, some examples of good practice, and a number of those examples, and they are not exhaustive, I think the Chairman said earlier, throw up very good examples where police forces around this country are clearly making great strides to grapple with workplace conflicts.

Is there a procedure for gathering up these very good examples, putting them together on the table, and ensuring that the international police forces share and can adopt them and adapt them?

A. Right, I think it is an area that we could improve upon for the future. At the moment, we are just about to publish, or will be doing so around May of this year, a document currently entitled "Learning the Lessons from Employment Tribunals", but I suspect it might be published under a different name eventually, but the whole focus of that document is about dealing quickly and effectively with conflict resolution.

It captures the Fairness at Work procedure, but also provides a mechanism for actually sharing information, in terms of what we can do better, what we can learn, and that is one of the major focuses really for the business area, how we can actually learn, in terms of dealing with people, and that document actually highlights a number of learning points.

So there will be a process, or there is a process via – and they will be published on the Home Office website, from memory. That will be a good start.

In terms of international examples, I have suggested within the recommendations that this is an area that we could usefully seek to see if there are better examples on a global basis. That sounds like a ticket to travel, does it not? It was not intended to be.

Miss Weekes: It depends which country you were going to suggest. I want to – because some of these examples are, in my view, my personal view, very good examples, but one of them touches upon discrimination, which is often by many people considered to be a very difficult, sensitive – and an area which causes fear on both sides.

But may I, because it will not be necessarily in the public domain immediately, just flag up very quickly one or two of the examples? On page 26 of your document – and I should say fairly that the Metropolitan Police has not been included in your examples, because for good reason, they are going to give evidence before this Inquiry, and it was thought sensible that the evidence that they will give to us directly will deal with our questions as to their own best practice; I think it is fair that I flag that up.

But for example, in Bedfordshire Police, there are two separate procedures for dealing with complaints and grievances:

"The first is for complaints relating to breaches of the force's equal opportunities policy or policy statements regarding harassment and bullying", and then there is a separate one altogether for all other types of grievance.

So in a sense, Bedfordshire Police have flagged up equal opportunities and harassment quite separately to other types of grievance; it happens to work for them.

A. Yes.

Miss Weekes: Devon and Cornwall have a draft policy entitled "Fairness at Work", but quite interestingly, there is emphasis placed on firstly attempting to informally resolve the situation:

"If unsuccessful, the individual can then enter the formal grievance procedure."

Over the page to Lancashire Constabulary, they have inclusion meetings, and they are arranged and co-ordinated by an HR risk management unit, which prepares and then updates on a monthly basis a summary for consideration by the director of resources, the head of personnel, the head of professional standards and the head of the employment law unit.

Now this unit was established to provide specialist legal advice, it happens to have a barrister that works in it, but just to summarise, the advantage of this is that one can look at the weak cases to see why they are weak, to resolve those quicker than the other substantial cases that one would think have to go to tribunal, so they are taking a management procedure about workplace conflict.

And the last example is Norfolk Constabulary, and they use external professional conciliators/facilitators to assist managers and members of staff to deal with a variety of workplace conflicts, so they actually bring people in from the outside.

[A section has been removed from the transcript as it relates to the paragraph in Appendix D of Jane Stitchbury’s evidence that has been redacted because it could lead to the identification of individuals]

Now one is not necessarily going to say that the Met should simply adopt these, but it would be helpful, would it not, for some of those examples to be considered by the Met, because I think you would agree that the sharing of these experiences is bound to be of greater assistance than not sharing.

A. Yes, absolutely. I know, from my own experience in the Metropolitan Police, that they had a great deal of focus on managing grievance effectively, and also the sense of bringing in mediation or others who can assist was always a consideration.

Now I make the point very clearly that the Met have not been asked to commit to these good practice examples; they are only a handful, really, of what I suspect is going on around the country, but I agree entirely with your point that sharing good practice, sharing what works is really effective, and certainly the work I have referred to, "Learning the lessons", will provide a mechanism for doing just that.

Miss Weekes: Can I just ask you this? In your experience, having worked within the Met, it is clear that none of these ideas are then new. They have talked about them before; for example, mediation.

A. I am sure that mediation has been talked about – more likely in terms of restorative justice principles. Certainly that is something that is used in other forces.

Miss Weekes: What has happened to this discussion? Why do we not see any more examples of the alternative dispute resolution?

A. Well, I think there are examples out there, it is just that I am not able to highlight them –

Miss Weekes: I meant particularly in the Met.

A. In all fairness, I think it is probably something they would wish to give examples of themselves. I have not come with examples from the Met.

Miss Weekes: That is fair enough.

A. It is only right that I should say, from my perspective, having worked there, I remember dedicating many hours to efficient and professional grievance resolution.

Miss Weekes: Can I ask, would it be possible to have a fuller list of the good practices, with sufficient time to prepare it, of course, because it might be that that is something that the Panel would find extremely helpful. We appreciate you have only chosen a few examples, and it does not represent the whole.

A. I would be very happy to do that. There is a lot out there.

Miss Weekes: I just want, as a final matter, to flag up the example where discrimination was being dealt with. Just forgive me for one moment, I have lost my flag for it.

Yes, I think it is Northamptonshire Police, on your page 30:

"The Northants experience shows that early intervention at an appropriate level is a key factor in managing conflict resolution, particularly in discrimination or harassment cases. Commitment by senior managers to support a resolution and listen to concerns is also crucial. Restorative conferencing is particularly effective for sensitive harassment cases and Northants will continue to promote this option."

We would be very grateful for any additional detail of that particular best practice, so that we can look at it, because we appreciate, from having heard the evidence from Her Majesty's Inspector, and the Commissioner, that some members of the Metropolitan Police Force find resolution of discrimination, gender and race difficult. So we would appreciate it very much if there was any more detail on that.

A. Right. I am not in a position to highlight any more detail here and now, but again, I would be very happy to provide that for the Panel, along with the other wider examples.

Miss Weekes: Thank you very much.

Sir William Morris: Thanks, Anesta.

Chief Constable, can I first of all thank you very much indeed for your contribution to this Inquiry. We have finished the questions that we had intended to ask you, but you will recall that at the start of my opening comments I said that I would offer you the opportunity for a brief closing comment if you so wished. If you do wish, now is your time.

A. It will be brief, Chairman. Just on behalf of ACPO, may I say that we appreciate very much the opportunity to bring views and details of progress before the Panel. We will be very happy to engage in any subsequent work, and I would just say that I believe that you are engaged in a hugely important area, it is about people, and this is absolutely essential for the future development of the service. We would be happy to help in any way, shape or form. Thank you.

Miss Weekes: Thank you very much.

Sir William Morris: Thank you very much indeed, particularly for your comments about continued support for our work. Can I say, before we adjourn, that as with all our witnesses, it may be that once we have heard other witnesses we may ask for further assistance, we may ask for further questions to be responded to, either in writing, or we may ask witnesses indeed to come back.

If we need to do so, then, of course, we will try and do so in a way which provides the least inconvenience for your good self, or indeed anyone else, but for the moment all that remains for my colleagues and I to do is to say, on our collective behalf, thank you very much indeed for coming, and thank you for your contribution.

A. Thank you very much.

Sir William Morris: It is my intention to adjourn for about five or ten minutes before we take the next witness, but as usual, can I ask members of the public, please, to remain seated whilst the witness leaves the room?

3.35 pm

On this website:

• Evidence: Mrs J Stichbury
  Evidence provided by and documents referred to by Mrs J Stichbury in her appearance at the Inquiry.