Transcripts of public sessions: Assistant Commissioner B Hogan-Howe, Director of Human Resources, MPS; Mr S Marshall, Director of Recruitment, Human Resources Directorate, MPS; Commander S Hussain, MPS Hendon Training Centre; and Mr G McAnuff, Fairness at Work Co-ordinator, Human Resources Directorate, MPS

Monday, 29 March 2004
10.30 am

Sir William Morris: Ladies and gentlemen, good morning to you all, and could I say to Mr Hogan-Howe and your colleagues a very good morning, and indeed welcome.

Mr Hogan-Howe: Thank you, good morning.

Sir William Morris: Can I start, Mr Hogan-Howe, by saying thank you for accepting our invitation to attend the Inquiry today and to give evidence and for letting us have your written submission, which we found extremely helpful.

I do appreciate that for some of our witnesses, any process of this nature may seem a daunting task, so I thought it would be helpful if I set out briefly 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, and I have been asked to chair this Inquiry. As you can see, there are two other panel members, Sir Anthony Burden, who recently retired as Chief Constable of South Wales Constabulary, after a long and distinguished career in the police service; and Anesta Weekes QC. Anesta is an eminent barrister who sits as a recorder and a part-time chairperson of employment tribunals. She was also counsel to the Lawrence Inquiry.

Mr Hogan-Howe, as you know, we have been tasked by the Metropolitan Police Authority to conduct an independent inquiry into professional standards and employment matters in the Metropolitan Police Service.

Our focus is the MPS as an organisation, and not the individuals that make up the organisation. The Inquiry we are conducting is inquisitorial and not adversarial in nature. We are keen to enquire into the issues raised by our terms of reference, so that we can make appropriate recommendation for further good practice, rather than concentrating on making criticisms of the MPS as an organisation, or particular individuals within the MPS.

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

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 on the questions to you, followed by my colleague Miss Weekes, followed by Sir Anthony Burden, and any supplementary questions that I might find necessary.

At the conclusion of our questions, I will offer you the opportunity for brief closing comments, should you should wish.

We have received your written submission which will be posted on the Inquiry's website following your evidence today. In your evidence, you have set out a number of extremely useful information for us, and for the record, you have indicated your role, the work of the Metropolitan Police Service's human relations function, and an explanation of the MPS human resource strategy.

You have offered an explanation of how human resource policies are developed within the Metropolitan Police Service. You have commented on the extent to which professional standards and diversity forms part of your brief, and you have given an explanation of the relevant policies of the MPS that impact on our Inquiry's terms of reference.

You have also indicated the impact of current procedures and human resource strategies, referring to statistics, ethnicity, gender and indeed outcomes, and you have given an explanation of the systems that are in place to ensure that lessons learnt are communicated to relevant officers, and to assimilate best practice from other sources.

And finally, you have commented on whether there are any differences in the policies, practices and procedures that apply to the conduct of recruits and that of established officers.

We would like to ask you some questions about the material in our possession that you have submitted, and to seek your views on those matters that are of interest. But before we raise these issues with you, however, for the benefit of the transcript, I wonder if you would mind formally introducing yourself, and indeed your colleagues, to the Inquiry?

Mr Hogan-Howe: Yes, Sir William. My name is Bernard Hogan-Howe, Assistant Commissioner with the Metropolitan Police, with responsibility for human resources. The gentleman on my left is Simon Marshall, director of recruitment for the Metropolitan Police. The gentleman behind me to my right is Mr George McAnuff, who is our manager for the Fairness at Work procedure, and is our Fairness at Work co-ordinator.

Sir William Morris: Thank you very much.

Before I start the questioning, we are resuming our hearing today after a very short break, and in view of the way that some of our proceedings have been reported in the media, I thought it would be helpful if I were to set out the context in which we are holding these hearings.

As I mentioned when we launched our Inquiry on 21st January, this is an inquiry into professional standards and employment matters in the Metropolitan Police Service. Our focus is the MPS as an organisation and, as I have said, not the individuals who make up the organisation.

We are looking at ways that the service handles complaints, grievance, allegations against individuals, and conflicts within the workplace. In short, we are looking at a range of issues relating to professional standards and workplace relationships. We are not conducting an inquiry into what may or may not have gone wrong in a particular case, although we are asked to learn lessons from the outcomes of recent high-profile cases.

Nor is our inquiry about race or community policing, although we will clearly consider discrimination issues as part of our work.

Our terms of reference identify a number of questions about the way the Metropolitan Police Service deals with its police officers and its police staff. We are examining whether the MPS has the right policies and procedures in place? Are they effective? Are the procedures and structures fair? Are they too complicated? Do they place an unacceptable burden on police officers and police staff? How does the MPS practice compare with other police services and other public organisations? And indeed, how do they compare with best practice? In short, do they meet the demands of a modern police service and command the confidence of the police community they serve? Do they apply discriminatorily to any section of the Metropolitan Police employees?

I said at the launch of the Inquiry, and I say again, we firmly believe that workplace relationships are the key to good policing. If the MPS can get its internal relationships right then the community benefit from the quality of the service, which will be well motivated, better trained and which will have a better understanding of the social evolution and the profile of London's community.

Conversely, if these relationships are poor, the quality of policing will be poorer. We hope that our Inquiry can make a positive contribution to improving professional standards and workplace relationships and, by extension, the quality of policing to London's varied and diverse community.

I wanted, as I have indicated earlier, to place that again on the record because of the misreporting of some aspects of these proceedings.

Questions by Sir William Morris

Sir William Morris: Mr Hogan-Howe, let me now turn to the questions that I would wish to ask of you. We note from the letter that you had submitted to us as a supplementary on Friday afternoon that in October of the year 2000, the Commissioner ordered a complete review of the relationships and people-related departments. The outcome of that has meant a significant re-organisation of different departments. Quoting from the recommendations of the review, I note that personnel has been rebranded as "HR", and that there is a commentary which says despite the rebranding, there is still some distance to travel. That is a quote from the recommendation of the report.

Can I ask you, as the senior officer responsible for the human resource directorate, to help us in understanding how your directorate works, and in simple terms, what does it do?

Mr Hogan-Howe: Yes, Sir William. First of all, the department provides an HR service for all of the Metropolitan Police. I know that you have already picked up on the fact that there are around 43,000 people in the Metropolitan Police Service. We are divided up into directorates, but all together in human resources, we have just over 1,000 people.

Many of those people are based in the training establishment, so something like two thirds are training, of which a large number of those trainees are based at Hendon, which is in the north, obviously, of London. The majority of the training that is carried out there is probational training, although there are significant elements of other types of training, including crime, including diversity, and many other aspects other than the straightforward probational training, but the volume through Hendon is of probational training.

The second part of the directorate we have is represented here today by Simon, that is the directorate of recruitment. I am sure you have picked up, for the last few years, certainly for the last three to four years, probably more like three, we have experienced a great growth; which has been of great benefit but has been a great challenge. Certainly in policing terms, we have grown by 18 per cent in terms of police officers, if you add another 1,800 police staff on top of the 10,000 base. So again, something in the order of 18 to 20 per cent. Also there is a group of people within there which were new to the police service generally, but the largest number came into the Metropolitan Police and they are police community support officers. Over the last 18 months we have recruited about 1,500 of those people as well. So there has been a big piece of work which is about recruiting.

We have a director of people development. There are two parts to his job really. One is about occupational health. Occupational health for the police service is generally quite a large amount of resources. A couple of reasons for that: one is that we try and support people as much as we can in terms of whether they have got problems at work, or alternatively if they are ill and not able to be at work; also we have some issues around recruiting, in terms of making sure of the right physical standards. We also have to manage the police pension scheme. That has meant quite a large medical involvement to make sure we pay that amount out appropriately.

I am director of HR services. My term would be pay and conditions, mainly the policies, pay and conditions around that. I have an immediate deputy who is called Martin Tiplady, and he is my director of human resources. You will have picked up from the review that was carried out back in 2000, apart from other changes that were anticipated, number one was that there would be a new leader in terms of police officers, and that was myself, who arrived in July 2001; and secondly, that that person should be supported by an HR professional.

Well, Martin arrived probably about six months after that. He is my support in terms of the professional approach to HR, and if you like, mine tends to be the policing and the operational acumen and business acumen – if in the police service you can call it business. But that is what about: trying to keep the eye on the ball in terms of delivering on the street. Martin is an HR professional, and we work well together as a team.

And that really is our major team. That is really, as we deliver the service – as you will have picked up, the 43,000 people – it is a two-tier organisation, which means there is not a deal between the centre, which is probably best represented by New Scotland Yard in terms of strategic leaderships. Then there are 100 business units. So you have got the Commissioner and his management board; you have got the leaders who sit on that board, people like myself in charge of personnel, Keith Luck in charge of resources, various leaders that there are there. Then we all relate immediately then to, as I say, about 100 business units, 32 of which are the boroughs of London; so really, there is no intervene between those two areas.

So what we try to do, I suppose, if that gives you a bit of structure, is two things really. One, I always feel what we should do is try and set out what the ideal is. The world is never ideal, but the very least we can do is try and make the policies and the strategies that take us forward. The second thing we do is to monitor if everything is working as we all would hope. In an organisation of 43,000 people, there will be inconsistency. It is inconsistent because clearly even when people are trying hard, they can go off in different directions; and, second, to take feedback from them when we are getting it wrong. So there are times when we have to accept that we get policies wrong or we do not apply things properly. We try our best to get feedback from them and if that means change of policies then I think we have got a pretty good history of trying to do that. So those are probably the three things really: one, set the policy; two, monitor to see whether it is working; three, get feedback when people believe we are not getting it right.

Sir William Morris: Okay, thank you very much. As I understand it from the documentation that we have looked at, the people-related issues and relationships in the MPS look something like the directorate for professional standards, your directorate, HR, the diversity directorate, and of course there is the legal; and there is employment tribunals. All those areas are people-related. There is no employee within the Metropolitan Police Service which is not touched by at least one of these departments in some way.

Could you explain how this structure is joined together, what we call here the golden thread that runs through people related issues in an organisation with excess of 40,000 employees?

Mr Hogan-Howe: Yes, I mean, I can explain how we do our best to make everything work, but there may be things that we need to do differently.

I think what we notice is that with a large amount of the people working within HR, who are responsible for the things I just described, the diversity directorate is responsible particularly in terms of people, in terms of making sure that we take proper regard in terms of dealing with people according to their need, which quite often means minority group representation.

Now they are in separate directorates. The danger is, if we are not careful, we could end up working in parallel lines, which hopefully travel in the same direction. But from time to time there will not be the overlap we need; so what we try and do is make sure that we do as much as possible together. So for example in terms of recruiting, we work very well together on that. We have a series of meetings that we work on at middle management and senior level, which hopefully allow us to keep track of what each group are doing. And finally, obviously, there is the management board at which the deputy represents the diversity directorate and on which I represent the HR directorate. Just as an example, we meet every Monday, Wednesday and Friday morning, in which the first part is generally about: operationally, where are we? Secondly, clearly: are there any issues which are causing particular problems, or alternatively that we need to take action on immediately? We have more formal meetings on that.

So I suppose the drawing together of the thread of diversity, which as you have identified is a separate directorate of HR, occurs at the top, occurs a little further down in the series of meetings, and on actions that we take together.

I can give one example of that, but I hope there are others, and many that we can provide. I am sure you would want to look at progression at some stage. The progression I have picked up from the Inquiry minutes is about obviously the progression of women and the progression of minority groups in terms of seniority. That was identified for us particularly in terms of CID, where we get the progression through; a scheme was designed working with both directorates which helps us to try and progress more people through quickly who are particularly in those two groups.

So there are various examples where we work on that, we work on recruitment together. But they are to some extent, you have to say, in terms of the structure chart, you would have to say, the way we operate, they are slightly different. But we do our best to make sure they work together. I suppose the only analogy I could make is I suppose in some organisations people define quality and then say that you can have a quality department or you can have quality embedded everywhere, and depending on your organisational view depends on how you manage that. But certainly, when you come to a point in an organisation's life and you think what this organisation did four to five years ago, it was not content, I do not think, to allow diversity to be managed by everyone. It wanted someone to take the lead and drive everybody to start considering it seriously. In my view, coming to that a little later, that seems to me to be why we are where we are.

There was a need for a strategic directional push. The Diversity Director was created and has worked well in challenging us all in terms of whether or not we get things right, as a challenger, as an innovator, to make us more flexible. I think that works, but there will always be a challenge about whether we are keeping in touch enough during the working day, during the working year.

Sir William Morris: Who takes the blame when diversity does not apply?

Mr Hogan-Howe: I am not sure really. I suppose it would have to be – we hope not to blame, I suppose we hope to encourage to get better. But I suppose if it was a case that there was a part in my part of the organisation, it would be something to do with me, clearly. And if someone – if Diversity challenges me about something on behalf of HR and says, "Well look at your recruiting practices, look at the way you are dealing with people in terms of policy", then it has to be my responsibility to deal with that. I do not think we can say it is Diversity's responsibility for whether it goes right or wrong. So I quite happy to take that responsibility.

I think the individual managers have to be called to account for their part in it, but obviously, diversity has got a stream of work for which they have to be held to account, making sure that they are delivering. One of the things I suppose would be if they are the challengers, are they challenging? That seems a very reasonable thing to hold them to account for.

Broadly, I would expect line managers to deliver in their areas for most things that they are charged with responsibility for, of which diversity is one of the most important elements.

Sir William Morris: In your submission at paragraph 7, reference BHH13, you drew attention to the fact that industrial tribunals are situated outside your directorate. It finds a home in the directorate for professional standards.

I think you have indicated the uniqueness of that structure. Can you indicate any other police service which has a like structure, and what do you see as the disadvantage of this?

Mr Hogan-Howe: I am not aware of any other force that has that. But then again, I could not honestly – I could offer you my experience in two of the forces, I do not think they did have that particular arrangement, but I could not give you a view of the 43. But I think it is more likely that it is based within personnel that we need employment tribunal cases, so it outside that part of the organisation, but I could not tell you definitively.

It seems to me the danger is, in approaching the employment tribunal – I suppose you can approach it in one of two ways really. One is you can see it as an opportunity to resolve an issue, to change policies, to actually move on. You can alternatively see it as an opportunity – not an opportunity, but a need for the organisation to defend itself if an unwarranted claim is made against the organisation or against a group of people.

I suppose, depending on how you come down in terms of that view, it can depend on where you would see it arriving. It seems to me that the danger is that employment tribunals are seen as a threat, in terms of where they are placed. I suppose, when they are in HR they can be seen as an opportunity.

Sir William Morris: How does the Met see it, threat or opportunity?

Mr Hogan-Howe: I think generally in the past, five or six years ago, probably they have been as a difficult problem to deal with. In terms of the present, I would hope they are seen as a positive opportunity. One of the difficulties for people who are under inquiry, employment tribunals obviously are an opportunity to be under inquiry it is quite difficult to see sometimes whether or not all the evidence, for example, the employment tribunal department has is accurate, objective, comprehensive. So I think for me, there can always be a debate. But I would hope that at the moment we see them as a positive issue, and in general, I think we try to come to settlements with people or we change our policies.

There are times when people obviously make unwarranted claims, I think we have got cases where we see that we challenge that appropriately, but I would hope we see it positively.

Sir William Morris: Diversity: how does the Met see it? Is it seen as a policy or is it a directorate? What is it?

Mr Hogan-Howe: I think it should be a way of doing things, really, a way of being, rather than hopefully a set of policies.

My experience, having come to the Met, is that diversity in its truest sense, of treating people according to their need, is something that something is done about and not just talked about in terms of policy. I think probably some of the biggest strides forward in operational policing have been made by the Metropolitan Police. Most people would acknowledge that. The way we deal with the public, the community; those that want our help.

I think equally, we have made some massive strides in terms of the way we deal with different people inside the organisation. But at times, it can be that our methods, our regulations, our statutes can cause us to deal with people differently. I know that one of the things you will have picked up is, for example, in terms of the difference between a police officer and a member of police staff. You see, when we are trying hard, we still find that there is some difficulty to deal with people on the same playing field. So I think that is an internal difficulty.

But hopefully, broadly, I think we have got some pretty good evidence that we have moved forward tremendously. I would never sit here and pretend we are perfect, because I know we are not, but I think we have moved forward massively, and for me, it does mean something. I think people do do something about diversity. They do not just talk about it. Are there cases where it does not go ideally? Yes. But I think broadly, there is some massive achievement there.

Sir William Morris: Does this policy apply at the Hendon training centre?

Mr Hogan-Howe: Yes, it does. I notice in one of the replies that there was some doubt as to whether it applied at Hendon; but yes it does and so it should. There is nowhere it should not apply.

Sir William Morris: Well, I do not know about doubt, we were told quite specifically that it did not.

Mr Hogan-Howe: Yes, that is what I could not quite understand. I was not quite sure what the reference was to, whether part of the diversity directorate did not cover that. I just did not understand that reference, but clearly diversity should apply at Hendon and does apply at Hendon; whether it is perfect, as I say, is something that we would all have to look at throughout the organisation. But certainly it applies there as it does to everyone. Whether there is a part of the directorate of diversity that is at Hendon might have been the point that was being made, but I do not know because I was not here and I did not hear exactly what the answer was.

Sir William Morris: From what we have read, from what you and others have said, we are concluding that the Metropolitan Police Service is totally committed to the principles, practice, procedures, cultures of diversity, root and branch within the service.

Mr Hogan-Howe: That is right.

Sir William Morris: Okay, fine. From that perspective, would you say that the Metropolitan Police Service, in terms of its commitment to diversity, is a diverse organisation in terms of its managerial structure, its policies, practices and procedures?

Mr Hogan-Howe: I think there are some massive areas in which we can show evidence of progress over the last few years, but there are some areas where we need to do more. In terms of the – it seems to me, pretty good evidence of our progress. If you went right through – if you took diversity being representation as part of it, in terms of the workforce, then the last three years have seen, I think, massive progress. It is not there yet, there are still massive things to do.

But if you may allow me to come back to the context in which we try and do something about that: over the last three years, the biggest challenge has been in terms of police officer representation. It has not been in terms of the other parts of the organisation, which I will come to in a second, but it has in terms of police officers. So certainly three years ago, we had about 1,000 officers who were from minority groups; today, it is just over 1,900. So to achieve that in three years is pretty good evidence that we have moved forward. I am not saying it is overwhelming, I am not saying we could not have tripled it; but, you know, at least it shows evidence of progress.

In terms of our police staff, then the representation there is something in the order of 20 per cent, in terms of different physical ethnic minorities. In terms of the PCSOs who were recruited over the last 18 months, it is around 34 per cent. In terms of our special constables, it is around 18 per cent. So there is some evidence that clearly we have made huge progress and we are representative, as an employer.

Now one of the challenges certainly I looked at when I came into the Met was: why is it we have different representation for police staff compared to police officers? I am not sure there are any easy answers to that. One is that at times, maybe ten to 15 years ago, I hope, is that the reputation of the police service generally did not allow people from some groups to think it was a good career. I hope they do now. And certainly, that has been a difficulty in terms of reputation.

The second thing is one thing that I realised was that the three groups through which we have best representation, which are police staff, PCSOs, police community support officers, and specials, are recruited from London.

Whereas if you were to look at police officers, it has changed over the last three years. In my view it has gone the right way, which is that about three to four years ago, we had a representation from London of about 40 per cent of the people who became police officers; 60 per cent came from the rest of the country. As I say, I will possibly come back to the context in a second. Toady, that has risen to about 60 per cent. Now in my view, that is far better, for two reasons. Certainly in every police service I have worked for, it is better to represent the community you police than it is to seen to be coming from a different environment where you may not fully understand all the issues that are present in the area that you police.

So we have pushed hard to get that representation better. The second very practical thing is if the population in London, as we know at the moment, is represented by around 30 per cent minority groups, then we have a far better chance of getting representation in London than we are to go to other areas of the country. Next year in particular, we are going to concentrate I think almost solely on the London based recruit, but we have seen huge progress, as I say, just these last few years.

If you will allow me just to go into the context which I was mentioning, I think one thing I found is that two things have happened during these last three or four years. Firstly the Met has grown at a huge rate. We have actually taken on 10,000 recruits in three years. There is no police service bigger than that in the United Kingdom. We have got 30,000 officers today. So during the last three years we have actually one in three of our people who are with us today, 30 per cent are probationers. So they have all come in in that great period.

So we have needed to get those numbers obviously to make sure we hit all our targets and make sure we actually provide a good police service. But if you are an officer or somebody who wanted to be a police officer in Cumbria or Northumbria or Scotland or Northern Ireland, those forces have never recruited at the rate we have done over the last three years. So some very good candidates from the rest of the country have actually applied to the Met and competed against people from London and done pretty well.

Some of them then leave to go back to what they regard as their home force. But certainly it is a historical perspective that we have to deal with all the time. We attract people from other parts of the country, some very good candidates who we should not discriminate against; but it does mean that sometimes some of the London candidates struggle at the side of that, in what is a very vibrant economic employment market in London.

So I have gone on a little, but just to provide some context, I think, in terms of some of the issues that we have to deal with, particularly in terms of police recruitment, but the general point would be most of our well represented staff come from London. Many of the police officers we have taken as recruits, roughly about 50/50, if you take it over the last few years, have been from outside the area. I am not saying that is an excuse, I am not saying it is a reason, but it is a factual reality we have to cope with.

Sir William Morris: How diverse is the leadership of your directorate?

Mr Hogan-Howe: In terms of my directorate, then we – I think all my HR board are now men, although until about a year ago there were – probably 18 months ago, two were women. One has just left for a promotion in the Centrex Department. The commander in charge of training is from a visible ethnic minority, but the remainder are white men.

Sir William Morris: How many is in the directorate leadership?

Mr Hogan-Howe: Well, there is myself, Martin Tiplady, and then the other five; so that is seven.

Sir William Morris: Mr Hogan-Howe, at paragraph 137 of your submission, BHH1/50 is the reference, you note that there are problems of female staff and officers climbing the career ladder. You talk further about finding solutions to this, and suggest that a method of streaming and multipoint entry to the service would assist in increasing the proportion of female officers at higher ranks more quickly.

Could you explain why you are considering this type of streaming and application of diversity, but only in the context of possible female officers and not other under-represented groups within the Met?

Mr Hogan-Howe: If that is the impression I have given, and I can see why it would, that was never the intention. The general point I would make is if we were to carry on recruiting at the rate we do, and if we were to carry on allowing normal progress, in terms of the way our officers progress, we are in the danger of never getting the right representation for another generation, and that does not seem to be good enough.

So the general point I am trying to make is it seems that whenever we allow people to join to be an omnicompetent officer – so they join as a probationer – and they could be anything, and they are: I started as a PC; somebody who is represented in the Child Protection Department is a DC will have started the same way. So we try to select people who are omnicompetent. So whenever we do that – so we allow a single point of entry at the PC level, and while we do not allow multilateral entry we will struggle to make a great deal of impact on the minority representation, however described, whether it be by gender, whether it be by race or any of the other minority groups that are under-represented.

It seems to me while there are some other good reasons, ie enriching the senior management teams, enriching the service police management teams with talents we may never select, then it will be wiser to allow them to get in at a higher level. One, better representation; more importantly, it seems to me, talent. And then finally, to show that we are making some progress quickly, because otherwise time will cause people to challenge us all the time about why the representation is poor: well, the system inherently slows people down.

There may be things we can do better and we may talk about those, but it seems to me fundamentally it is possible to do that. The police service traditionally has resisted that on the grounds that it is good to be a chief officer, in particular, having experienced the frontline, and there are many arguments for that. It seems to me the biggest danger is that you always are what you are, and the danger is that you fail to challenge enough and that you do not move things on radically enough. So those are the reasons for that. But definitely not related particularly to woman – sorry, not specifically to women, but generally, I think it is a good opportunity.

Sir William Morris: Sure. Could you give us one or two examples of how the diversity policy, which we all signed up to in the MPS, has enabled employees, staff, or indeed serving police officers with disability to develop and achieve the potential that they have?

Mr Hogan-Howe: I would just answer this slightly differently or at least just provide a point of information; maybe the Inquiry has already picked it up. Until October of this year, the Disability Discrimination Act as an employee has not applied to police officers. I do not celebrate that, I just merely comment, that is the fact, that that is what has happened. So whether or not we have moved forward collectively as a police service –

Sir William Morris: Why do you need legislation to recognise the potential of a group of employees?

Mr Hogan-Howe: I think it is a very fair point. The only difficulty we have had – and you may say we could have been more radical about it in the police service generally – is that there are certain rules about – or regulations and Home Office rules about recruitment which say that you have to be of a certain standard of fitness when you join.

Two reasons for that: one is, are you fit enough to do the job? The second one tends to be a pension decision: would you intend to pay a pension – well, is there a high risk of paying a pension to this person at an earlier point in their career, given the peculiarly demanding nature of the police service role. So that is reason that has been provided for that. And the final decision you have to make, which is at the end point of the person's career, apart from whether or not in terms of time, you know, in terms of age, should they retire, the second has been whether or not they are entitled to medical retirement?

So taken together, and the fact that not all of our jobs are – you know, some people have to have a certain level of physical ability – those have trapped us perhaps in the past, perhaps we could have been more adventurous, but that has been the dilemma that we have been caught in.

Sir William Morris: But is this not what creative HR is about: to lead the debate? Because the politicians are always at the end and the practitioners are at the front for the collective good, but more importantly, for the good of the organisation.

Mr Hogan-Howe: Yes, and I think we can show again some examples within HR. I mean I will come back to your general point, which I think is a fair one. But I think we can show some good examples where we have moved on our various medical standards. Certainly, for example, if you looked at diabetes, then diabetes in the past has been regarded as, first of all, a block to get into the police service as a police officer. Secondly, it has limited you in terms of the rules of deployment.

What was realised certainly by our director of occupational health is that first of all the medical treatment of diabetes has changed, as has the understanding of it. There is no reason that we should put a blanket – for example, there are different types of diabetes, as I learned, and they can be treated in different ways and controlled in different ways. So we have moved on in that respect.

We have changed in terms of placing people on what we term restricted duty. That is a point in time at which they can no longer fully carry out the role of a constable, which tends to be – the main test is can they physically restrain people; can they get involved in the hurly burly of shift work and the frontline work? And we have had a growing group of people, I think we are now up to about 1,000, who are actually on restricted duties. I have to say probably a few years ago, they would probably have been medical pensions. So I think we have tried, within the restrictions – we have got a group of people who are on recuperative duties. They are people who are too ill to do the full duties, but we generally believe they will recover. Usually that lasts for no longer than a year; we try to get people back to work within that time.

We have postings policies that try to place people according to their need. So in the past, it was that control rooms were a place where people who were not fully fit were moved to. There are many other roles, but that is probably the simple example. So we try to treat people according to their needs. We have never strictly adhered to what the statutes have said. We have tried to deal with people as people, and deploy them according to their ability, and only as a final resort have we resorted to things like medical pensions, which we could have resorted to previously.

The best example I can give that there is some evidence that that has – you know, a sea change, if you like, that things have moved differently is that the Met, probably about – I think it was three years ago, medical retirements were running at about 30 per cent. Last year, it was about 20-odd and this year to date which is now, we are nearly at the end of the year, the last time I heard, which was at the end of the tenth month, it was running at 11 per cent. I am not saying that is a knock-down argument, but I think it shows we are willing to confront and to treat people as individuals.

The rules and regs tend to mean that we can usually be driven by the will of the individual. If the person wants to leave us at the point of retirement, quite often, they can determine whether or not we follow the medical advice. But if they want to stay then we do our best to deploy them appropriately. We have probably got it wrong from time to time, it can happen. Because what we need to make sure is if someone has a disability, we deploy them into a job that is real. We do not set up a tension with a member of police staff who is doing a similar job yet getting paid a different amount. So there are some inherent problems that we have to try and manage, but I think we do that reasonably well.

But I think we could, yes, be more radical. One of the things that we will be doing this year is do – we are driven by national recruiting standards, but our main thrust in the future will be: can they actually do the physical job? So if they have one leg, does it matter? Because there is certainly one force that has managed to take someone with one leg, so why cannot we? It would be something that we are prepared to look at, and we will do something about – but it is a constant challenge.

I only refer to the fact that the statute changed in terms of context, not that I hope we have not tried to do our best, but sometimes we are a little restricted by regulations.

And just possibly one final contextual issue is that the medical pensions issue – because the pensions are – I know it sounds like I am going on about it, but it is an important thing we have to manage. Because the pensions are part of our £2.5 billion of funding, it is not only a matter for the MPS. The Police Authority quite properly hold us to account on that, and the amounts we are talking about are not insignificant. From memory – so I may be wrong, it possibly could be checked – we are talking about something in the order of 12 to 14 per cent of the budget are managed through pensions, so they are – it is a significant amount of cash that we have to think about in the budget as well, and we are held to account for that.

Sir William Morris: At paragraph 14 of your submission, you say, and I quote:

"HR should set the standard for managers and staff and set an example in all our activity."

Naturally, very naturally, we are assuming you mean the best and highest standard.

What we would like you to share with us is: how do you measure whether those standards are reaching the objectives, and what are the measuring tools?

Mr Hogan-Howe: There are two ways. One is a very paper based one which we do in meetings; so that is where every month, I sit down with each of my directors and go through a series of performance management information, and you can imagine, there are a lot of performance indicators. That can be quite a laborious process. But it is really important because what it enables you to do from time to time is spot the blindingly obvious that others have spotted with their experience. But we do that, and I sit there with each of my directors on a one-to-one and we have an HR board meeting, which we call the performance meeting.

For me, more importantly, over the last 18 months, we have had a COMSTAT process for HR managers. One of the difficulties – even when people are trying hard in a large organisation, there can be misunderstanding about policies, unusual practices can develop, and in fact, people compromise rather than, obviously, doing the ideal.

What that meant is that once a month, we have about nine of the business units, the OCUs, into – we have been using the Police Authority, a room in there. Before that meeting, a team of three or four people have visited the OCU and got their information about various HR processes, and then within the meeting, we share with peers how well things are going.

We try and do two things really. The first one is we look at the performance information to see whether they are appraising properly, whether or not they are managing sickness properly. In fact, across the nine HR processes that exist, we try and pick out some really good practice. Where it is working well, we encourage people to say two things really. One, why do they think it is, and two, what could they do better?

Quite often you find that common themes emerge. The first one is that people who set clear standards, check to see whether they happened and then feed back to individuals how well they are doing. Simple, but not everybody does it too often.

And secondly, there are some really good innovative things out there. So it helps us to challenge, one, whether or not the policies we have set are working. Sometimes, to be fair, people come back to us and say and say "That policy is totally impractical", and they will tell us why, and we will go away and actually do our best to improve at the centre. There have been times when people have challenged the occupational health tests and various other things that we have gone away and done things about.

So that is probably one big way in which we try and keep our eye on 43,000 people.

I get together with my director of HR with the personnel managers. There are 100 personnel managers. One of the things I found when I came here was there was a big gap between, if you like, myself or my role, and their role. So we now have three meetings a month at which any one of them can attend, or their representatives attend. We do two things, really. One, pass out information and also seek it, and challenge each other about whether or not policies are being adhered to.

That seems to work pretty well. There has been times when both of us have found it a challenge in terms of the time commitment, because that is usually three half days. But we have stuck to it rigidly. It seems to have helped in terms of filling that gap about what should be happening and what is happening, and has caused us to quite often change our policies.

I think possibly just one final thing I would mention, I do not know if the Commissioner mentioned, but I think is a really important piece of work, is the Commissioner about every six weeks has a "Mission Vision Values" meeting. The largest, that means the Westminster City Hall down at the end of the street, which can take 2,000, and the smallest one we have had is a few hundred. The Commissioner gives a briefing and then seeks feedback. People come forward from the audience and they tell us very clearly how they feel.

And what we find is two things. Sometimes we celebrate success, but sometimes individuals in 43,000 get lost, and sometimes our policies are not quick enough. So that is a really good method that we have found for making sure that, you know, we are sharp and that our policies are working.

I said "final", but there is one final thing, which is that starting two years ago, I think it is now, we got a live intranet forum. That operates every – I think every fourth Thursday, where what is said to any member of the organisation for an hour is I sit together with my team in my office and they can – on air, if you like, they will e-mail in a question, and they will get an answer within a further hour. They challenge us about all sorts of policies; about whether or not they have a local management problem.

That seems to have been well received by the organisation, because they can talk to the person who is at the top in terms of HR, and it is not always an HR policy. Quite often we find it is a local issue, but exposing the issue at a higher level allows people to actually have an opportunity to challenge, and each week we – sorry, each time we run this, we get probably about 60 questions.

Some are simple things that can be put right simply. Some are very complex and take, you know – we are sat here trying to resolve some of the issues, we are trying to resolve them in a hour. In between that, there are points of intervention that we do use, and nobody goes away from it without an answer or without somebody from my team having contacted them personally and then looked into it. And we have achieved quite a lot of change as a result of that.

So those are probably the main ways that we would offer that we try and keep track of what is a big organisation.

Sir William Morris: Yes. Just sticking with these standards, and I say again, we properly assume that they are the highest standards, but I am old-fashioned enough to think that HR represents the voice, the eyes and the ears of the employees in the decision-making process. It is proactive, and it ensures that all the people-related agencies and streams of management do their job.

With that in mind, can you explain to us how can an officer be suspended and feel abandoned with little or no contact or support from his or her employer for months, years, half a decade in some instances, several years is the top performer at the moment; welfare officers who are changed without any reference, we have received letters suggesting that. People find themselves allocated a welfare officer who is the person complained against. Complaints being withdrawn from the public against officers, and five months elapse before ...

Is that the highest standards that HR is setting for communicating and looking after the interests of the police officers and staff within the Met?

Mr Hogan-Howe: If those are cases representative of normality, you know, the general, then I would be very disappointed if that is happening.

It is not an area – the officers who are off sick tend to get managed in a certain way. They are not exactly outside HR policy but we do not manage them directly. But there are two groups who should. One is their immediate supervisors, because with regards to the fact that there is a discipline process going off, you would expect that they keep in touch with them. There are difficulties sometimes if, as you say, then the reason for the complaint is to do with any internal relationships. And secondly, obviously, the Discipline Department who are dealing with their case should keep them informed of progress. So I would hope that both of those things happen.

If it is happening in the way you describe, then it does not sound very good, but I could not comment directly on how representative that is of the norm, but if there are cases like that, that would not be good enough.

Sir William Morris: I do not know how you describe a deluge, but certainly, let me say to you that we have received a tremendous amount of personal submissions indicating that trend. But I started my line of questioning on the basis that the structure within the organisation does not, at first sight, seem to offer joined up management, joined up thinking; no golden thread.

Now you are saying that an officer who is under discipline is managed and communicated with by his or her supervisor, superintendent or what have you. Where does HR responsibility come in for all the employees, whether or not they are under discipline to ensure fairness of treatment and defending the reputation of the employer?

Mr Hogan-Howe: I mean, we do not have an explicit role within the discipline process that you mentioned, but I would expect that people are managed according to their job policies generally. I know that within the DPS policies there are very definite arrangements that should be adhered to by the supervisors and by their own department in terms of DPS.

I mean, there are – I can give you examples where – I ran through some, where we try to make sure that processes are kept fair and are kept reasonable and are kept objective. But there are others where there are big challenges, for example in terms of our postings policy; there are challenges in terms of who we promote and whether or not people think the process has been fair.

What we try to do at the centre is while you cannot manage every single interaction, we cannot directly manage the 100 business units, we look out for the most important. Particularly, promotion and postings are things that cause real problems for individuals. Where they are not happy with the decisions that are made, we have an appeals process that we run through the centre, which is massively intensive in terms of people, but we think is pretty important, because we know a lot of the issues that can arise are when people have dissatisfaction with the process; sometimes with the decision as well. But if they are not happy with the process, then that can actually cause them to not have a good view of the decision, regardless of which way it goes.

So we try and manage those two processes in particular through the centre, and make sure that the systems have been adhered to as fairly as possible. If we find things that are wrong, then we have quite a good history I think of making sure those decisions are put right. And if you look at it in terms of the promotions appeals process, people have gone through on promotion through the appeals process. In terms of the postings policy, we have shown interventions there where individuals seem to have been disadvantaged and we try to put it right.

To be fair to the local managers, sometimes it is not within their power to put it right so it is only us who could do something about it. So I think we have good evidence of that. Would it be perfect right round? I am not sure. But I think there is some good evidence that in fact we do intervene, we do follow up on the policies and do not make it lip service.

Sir William Morris: Let me take you to evidence that has been submitted to us. It has been suggested to us that the current disciplinary arrangement is inefficient, outdated, should be swept away and replaced by a structure of ordinary employment law. Indeed, it is a point that you have touched on at paragraph 120 of your submission.

Can I ask, has the human resource directorate considered the implication of this policy?

Mr Hogan-Howe: Yes, Sir William, I think what we would say – I mean, in terms of the future for police officers generally, I would probably just make four contextual points who we, and through ACPO, would like to see things progress.

One is if we could have multilateral entry, together with the streaming that I referred to. If we could have flexibility in terms of terms and conditions. It remains an issue that police officers who join the pension scheme cannot transfer their benefits over to another scheme, and therefore struggle to be flexible in terms – you know, generally, we would keep people 30 years. That can be a positive thing in terms of loyalty and experience. Also we do not get the turnover we might generate which might be actually a healthy turnover.

And then fourthly is a point you referred to: terms and conditions between police officers and police staff being brought as near as physically possible without destroying the special nature of the rank of constable, or the status of constable. And certainly in terms of how we think it can go forward, to get the – the individual in some areas is getting the benefits of being an employee: access to employment tribunals where you have a discrimination in terms of race, gender and then more recently disability and faith. But it seems to us that there are some more benefits that can accrue from being treated as our other employees are treated in terms of police staff. It seems odd that we have two groups of people both could commit a similar offence, and yet we deal with them in very different ways.

It will become more complex probably in April, when the IPCC starts to deal with people again differently. A member of police staff could be treated one way in terms of police staff discipline, then could be joined in a complaint from a member of the public about how they have dealt with someone – with a police officer, and investigated in an entirely different way.

It seems to us it would be better not to actually separate but actually to get together and remove the differences, not to increase them.

So we think it can work, particularly around the discipline area, because I think a lot of the evidence you have heard is about delay and about various layers of complexity that for us are a problem to actually administer.

Sir William Morris: But what I am seeking to establish is whether or not your directorate has produced a discussion paper for the senior managers within MPS, and that what – and if you could tell us, if that is the case, at what stage is this discussion?

Mr Hogan-Howe: Right, we certainly have not got a discussion paper. I think in terms of the debate, where we are is twofold really, in terms of the Met and in terms of ACPO. There has been a debate running for two years about how we might change the terms and conditions of police officers.

The first round of police reform which actually concluded last year made some changes, but there is a green paper which is out at the moment which the Met has responded to, and I certainly could probably get you a copy of our response to that. Also ACPO has responded to the green paper as well, as a separate response; I am certain we could get that to you, to show really the four legs of what we have talked through.

But essentially, I think, you know, it is to get more similarity with employment law, not less, and that the distinct nature of a constable does not need to be marked in terms of a different form of employment.

Sir William Morris: In your policy development on this particular issue, has the Police Federation and the other representative groups been consulted on these proposals?

Mr Hogan-Howe: Not at this stage, as far as I am aware, although we have meetings with the Police Federation every four weeks, but certainly in general terms, this debate has been going on for some time, but because the proposal has not become a very firm proposal, I do not think there has been any formal negotiations about that yet.

Sir William Morris: So you only consult your representatives when you have a concrete proposal?

Mr Hogan-Howe: Well no, I think – all I was saying is there have been informal discussions and we have talked about this way forward over the last few years. I know the Federation have a very strong view: they would prefer to preserve the special status of constable with the protections that surround it. I have to say, there are some good constitutional and some very good pragmatic arguments for that, and I will air just two.

One is that constitutionally to have a position where a constable can be directed by someone else may or may not be a good thing. I know you have seen evidence where, certainly if it was a Police Authority directing an employee, and if that Police Authority was not representative of the community and had extremes in it, then that would be quite a danger.

The second reason why it is quite important to have separate arrangements, I think, is to think about the nature of people that we deal with in terms of criminal trials. Clearly some of them have a motivation for actually attacking officers and are capable of denigrating them in the way that would be difficult for a normal employer/employee tribunal to try to get to the bottom of.

Now that therefore means that we have our own separate system, including lawyers. I know that there are lawyers represented here in the tribunal today, but for me to involve lawyers in that discipline process, as a protection, because people are generally not allowed access to an employment tribunal, has not generally served the best interests of speed. It has certainly not – I do not think it has been the most efficacious method of actually taking things forward. If you will allow me just to say one thing briefly there, which is about just an experience of how lawyers can be of great benefit, actually can seek clarity. But how I think at times – I just wonder whether it adds quality.

Certainly during my time here I have carried out an Assistant Commissioner's review, which is a review of a penalty imposed by a previous tribunal, and there were two people before me about the same incident. One had had a significant fine imposed upon them, and one had been found, if you like, guilty of the offence, but had had a sanction imposed of no further action. There could have been no lower sanction imposed.

But both were represented before me by two barristers. I wondered whether that was necessary; whether it actually improved the quality of the decision. The reason for that was because at the first hearing, they would run the risk of losing their rank and their employment, and I understood that. But I did just wonder whether or not we were getting too legally focused, and not actually – and missing the point. Which is about, you know, where we need to seek discipline, you know, quickly and effectively; and where members of the public deserve to see a sanction imposed or to have their complaint challenged, and we are not doing that quickly enough either.

So I merely offered them examples where I think our process could get sharper, and the present system, I do not think helps.

Sir William Morris: At paragraph 139 of your submission, you refer to the reluctance of line managers to deal with complaints informally at local level, and you speak, and I quote, of a tendency in the MPS to invoke formal procedures very quickly.

Have you prepared any code or guidelines from HR to your local line managers to adopt a more informal approach to management as against the automatic suspension, if you like, the more formal procedures? What sort of guidance and support are being given to line managers down this line?

Mr Hogan-Howe: Well, generally, there is guidance within the policies; I think it is more about the culture that certainly I have experienced while I have been here. I think the great joy of the Met is that in terms of dealing with critical incidents, is that where race or any minority group are represented in the incident, then there is an excellent response; people are very thorough, they try to be caring; they try to be compassionate; they try to deal with people according to their need.

In my view, the irony is that when we then turn the focus internally, there is a tendency, when any of those factors are present, to use the same thorough, comprehensive, some may say professional, but in my view just a little too formalistic response to what can be otherwise dealt with as matters where words of advice, or where in fact, you know, a less formal approach might actually get this resolved quicker.

So I think within the policies embedded actually are the options for carrying this out. But, for whatever reason, I think there is a tendency to apply the same rigour that we do externally to our own people. In my view, it could at times be dealt with more compassionately, and more – you know, in a wiser way, without what is perceived – I think, to be fair for the people who are doing it, see it as a very thorough response: trying to convince the person who has a problem they are taking it seriously.

I think by the time the whole panoply has been run through, the person is not always persuaded that was the case. Although obviously there are occasions where people are satisfied with the outcome.

Sir William Morris: Along with other submissions that we have had from MPS, you at paragraph 140 of your submission talked about the sensitivity of supervisors and managers in dealing with race issues, and it could be said that it is a sort of model of management by retreat, using the formality without exploring the issues.

What I want to ask you is: what are the HR directorate doing to building a management competency and management confidence in managing fairly and appropriately at all levels in general terms, specifically at local level, where it seems to manifest itself more, because that is what is coming through the various submissions. What is happening to change this situation?

Mr Hogan-Howe: I think first of all, what we certainly realise within – I think you will see in terms of the Fairness at Work complaints that came through, certainly for last year, and it is true, replicated I think around the country, is that the majority of incidents tend to be around the first line manager.

That does not mean to say the most junior, but certainly the first line. Which is not unusual given that that is possibly where personality conflicts can come in as well as whether people are being managed properly or the individual is performing properly.

So where we have invested most of our time is in terms of that first line, certainly in terms of the most junior. So what we have for the sergeants and inspectors and for the police staff first line managers is a classroom-based training, as it happens, at Hendon – which, in fact, has got to your point earlier, you know: where does diversity run through things?

Well, I think you can see evidence, and if we have not presented it, we can show it, where those courses are designed to actually do two things. First of all, if your most important thing is to manage people, how do you deal with those incidents? Rather than, what does the rule book say? And the second thing is to try to show, where diversity is an issue, to show how you might try and deal with it a little differently, or at least not to be rigid and to be bound by the process.

Certainly if you look through those courses, I think you will see, for example, there is an example within one of the courses of an Asian officer who is on a high potential development scheme who is not performing well: how are you going to deal with that? You could say, "Oh well, there is a piece of policy that means X happens or Y". It is more intended to say, how are you going to deal with the person? Are you going to sit down with them and talk to them? Are you going to record what you do, have a plan? Are you going to take things forward.

So I think those are big things. In terms of the personnel managers who are based on the different OCUs, as I say, in each of the Boroughs there is a personnel manager and in each of the various business units. Most of those people are CIPD trained. So there is actually – they have actually taken forward, sometimes with our financial support, that they actually are people who are qualified and are able to – you know, at least have got the knowledge and hopefully the ability to actually make sure that things are managed properly.

And in terms of the people who are now at chief inspectors and chief superintendent and police staff equivalent, then usually, we would have expected they would pass through the same system that helps them to actually make sure that these things are managed strategically – at least on a managerial level – in the most appropriate way.

So those are some major things that we do. I think you have also heard a little about what started off in about 2000, known as leadership development training. That is the same with our more senior managers, with a view to doing two things: one to realise some of the complexity of some of the organisation we manage; and two, to say something about how complex it is to manage London. People are being put through that course with a view to, one, understanding the complexity; and secondly, how they impact on others in terms of the way that they manage change and how they manage our staff.

So those are some big pieces of work. While it is always possible we could do more in terms of management, in terms of the various demands that we have in terms of management training, there have been some significant investments there. Whether there could be more is obviously open for debate.

Sir William Morris: Just one final question, Mr Hogan-Howe: we have received a lot of submissions and individual letters; a common complaint is the Met is very rich in policy or in implementation and when management fail to apply the accepted standards, there are, in some instances, victims. But no action is ever taken against those who are responsible for either the misjudgment or the wrong decision, however taken.

Basically, what they are saying, the victim suffers and nobody else does. How do you respond to that? Is that a fair criticism?

Mr Hogan-Howe: I am not sure it is fair. It is difficult until I see all the cases, but I mean, my experience is where people have been – have acted contrary to codes of conduct, they are challenged, first of all; and secondly, if it is appropriate, they are disciplined. Is that always the most appropriate thing to do? Then that is a challenge that is put to us as an organisation, so in these cases it would be difficult without knowing the details. Are there cases where people should have been challenged and have not been? I am sure there may be.

But generally, I think, where there is a discipline case found, first of all, it is investigated; whether or not, as I say, for the reasons we have said, it is the best route all the time, I could not be sure. But I would hope that people are challenged and that where there is a discipline need, I think there is evidence that people have been disciplined for that type of behaviour. The alternatives are that always their careers do not move at the pace at which they might have expected, and possibly we might have, before a particular challenge comes in. So therefore the appraisal route would be something where we might decide not to discipline someone. But their career may not move at the same rate or in the same direction as they first intended. That can be difficult to see from below and it can be difficult to expose openly when people remain in a management role, because they have to have a position of respect and obviously we have to keep some things confidential. But from the complainer's point of view, I can understand why they believe sometimes nothing happened.

Without knowing the particular case, I am not sure it would be fair to say that people are not challenged and action is not taken.

Sir William Morris: Okay. Mr Hogan-Howe, can I first of all thank you very much indeed for responding to the questions that I have to put to you. The next line of questioning will come from Anesta Weekes. Before we start the questioning, for the benefit of the transcript writers, I am going to suggest that we adjourn for about five or ten minutes, at a maximum, and then we will resume.

Mr Hogan-Howe: Is it possible just to add one point, would you mind, to one of the last comments I made, in terms of how we develop people, which is just about the fact that we have a mentoring scheme which is in partnership with London First where we have paired up our Borough commanders and other OCU commanders to try and develop a relationship outside the organisation which seems to work pretty well. Details can be provided and I suspect other people have mentioned that, but if it had not been, I thought I ought to mention it for completeness.

Sir William Morris: We will adjourn for ten minutes, thank you very much indeed.

11.45 am
(A short break)
11.56 am

Sir William Morris: Okay, Mr Hogan-Howe, we resume with Miss Weekes leading the questions.

Questions by Miss Weekes

Miss Weekes: Mr Hogan-Howe, thank you for your written submissions. I am going to start with Fairness at Work. I do not know which of you would like to deal with the sequence of questions?

Mr Hogan-Howe: George McAnuff is here to help with some detail, if that would be okay for him to join me.

Miss Weekes: It is entirely a matter for you as to who deals with the topic.

Mr Hogan-Howe: If George is available to help, I would appreciate it.

Miss Weekes: Thank you very much. I have looked at your page 127 of your submission, just to remind yourself of what you have told us about Fairness at Work. Page 127, BHH127.

Thank you very much. Those are the paragraphs dealing there with the Fairness at Work procedure, but I would like to take it perhaps beyond what you have said there.

Just first of all in general terms, how do you think this process is working?

Mr Hogan-Howe: I think there is some evidence of two big benefits. I think one is that – and this is a tension, because numbers sometimes mean it is worse or better, but there are more people using it. Now the danger is that actually says that more people are unhappy, or alternatively, more people are confident in the process.

I think my view is I think the three years previous to that, when the grievance process was in place, gradually descending numbers of people were using it, I think it got down to about 70-odd in the year. Now last year, with the new process, there was around 155. That was back to what the grievance process had been at its highest point.

The feeling was one of the reasons for the change in process was that people were less confident in the grievance process and therefore using it less, so there is some evidence there that people are more confident. But I cannot substantiate that, it is just a sense.

The second point was whether or not these processes were taking too long. Now there is some evidence that these are getting resolved quicker, but I am not sure if they are as quick as they could be; and finally, because there has been a stage of the process taken out altogether, there used to be a three stage process, that would logically hopefully make more sense.

I think my sense is that it seems to be a better system. Roughly two thirds of the people who have used it seem to believe that it is – you know, it has resolved their issue, which means that a third obviously did not.

So broadly, it seems to have had a good start, but I could not sit here and say I have got a huge amount of objective evidence to say after one year of use that it is the answer to all the issues, and I think there are some creative ways that we can carry on and move it forward.

Miss Weekes: This procedure now takes over completely grievance. It captivates what I would call the nitty-gritty of workplace conflicts, the sort of thing that you do not want to develop into an employment law claim. It deals with the first line tier managers, and it deals with a lot of staff, so it is important.

Mr Hogan-Howe: Mm.

Miss Weekes: I am going to deal with four criticisms that I have flagged up in my reading of the other submissions that have been sent to this Inquiry, and the first is the criteria for appointment of a Fairness at Work advisor. How are they appointed?

Mr Hogan-Howe: First of all is that at the first point of that stage of the process, someone is selected from within the OCU in which that person in serving. Now the dilemma is whether or not that is – there is the immediate challenge of whether or not that is the best, if there is in fact an internal problem, but I think that is an attempt to be pragmatic initially about how many of these issues can be dealt with from people moving between the various OCUs to try and manage that process.

But that is how we do it from within, someone has suggested – first of all, there is a list of people who are trained and selected that are within the OCU, that is a point of reference made to the Fairness at Work co-ordinator. If that person is agreed, then that is offered to the individual to see whether or not they find that person acceptable.

It is quite possible within the policy for them to say they do not like the selection of that person for the first stage. And if that is the case, George may give detail about how we may be able to do something about that, but generally, we would expect to respect that and find someone else.

So there is a training process to get people on to a list; there is a process by which the person is selected by the Fairness at Work co-ordinator. The individual who has raised the Fairness at Work process is allowed to challenge that appointment, and then finally, if that is okay or we find another person, then the stage starts – certainly the first stage.

I do not know if you wanted to move on to this, but obviously at the appeals process point, there is a very clear convention which says that the person at the point of appeal must be from a different part of the organisation, from another OCU, to hopefully inject – selected again from people who are trained at appeals stage process, and hopefully to give more objectivity if it is believed that has been an issue during the first stage.

Miss Weekes: But how do you ensure independence then if you are selecting from inside the same department?

Mr Hogan-Howe: There is always a risk of it not being seen as independent, but I think by first of all giving the person who is raising the Fairness at Work issue the opportunity to object, I think that is one prevent – yes, one guarantee, hopefully, that things are okay.

Secondly, some of our OCUs are huge, certainly in policing terms anyway. I mean, if you looked at the Lambeth OCU, we have got about 1,400 people there, so you could quite easily select a Fairness at Work person or co-ordinator who will actually not even know the person that they are actually trying to resolve the issue for. It is not necessary for one of those co-ordinators to be a line manager. As I said, we wanted the right skills, not necessarily seniority.

So I think there are quite a few guarantees within the system. Could it be more objective? It is always possible. But I have to say, the feedback we have had in the first year of operation has not tended to be about issues about whether it has been the most appropriate choice. I do not think we have had too many challenges about individuals.

Miss Weekes: I would like to turn to see what the unions have said about this, that is MET-TUS, who represent quite a large number of staff. This reference is at MXT1, page 18. Just give us a little time to bring that up for you. Paragraph 8.10; if you just have a look at that paragraph – because you may not have read this. Have you read it?

Mr Hogan-Howe: I have not, no.

Miss Weekes: Well, I think you ought to read it. (Pause).

Mr Hogan-Howe: Right.

Miss Weekes: Now what has been said by this organisation is quite important because they represent a very large number of staff, do they not?

Mr Hogan-Howe: That is right.

Miss Weekes: And they are made up of three quite large unions. They say this; they were instrumental in developing the policy of Fairness at Work and they supported the underlying principles, but they go on to say this:

"We were forced to withdraw our support for the policy when the MPS insisted that local personnel managers identify and select Fairness at Work advisors for their own units."

So it is very much what you have just explained to me. Well, is that right?

Mr Hogan-Howe: I remember talking to the trade unions about this, and I think they have a fair point. The only two things I would say is that when – this Fairness at Work policy, as you have probably picked up, took quite a while to actually come to a consensus about. There were various debates about whether it was the right way, whether or not we were doing it exactly in the way that everybody would say is ideal.

At the point of implementation, what the unions would have preferred – and I do understand why they said this – was in fact some central selection process for these people to be selected. It was only, really, on the grounds of pragmatism that we actually were forced to do something reasonably quickly.

But for me, I think I said to them at the time, I would never say that we would not go back to that after we had had a reasonable amount of time at least to get the thing running, and the danger was we could have taken another three or four months to select.

One of the things certainly I found in the Met is a challenge all the time; every time you press the button at the centre, and I think we have now got something in the order of a few hundred Fairness at Work advisors and appeals people, is that to select that many people entails a huge process if you are in it at the centre.

So in the end, it was my decision that we had to do something pragmatic in the first year to get this thing kicked off, because people were not happy with what they got. Nobody liked the grievance process, so we had to do something.

Certainly in the first year, my decision was we would go with that first selection process. I acknowledge the unions have got a point, and I would be quite happy to go back afterwards and start to work through: have we got the right people in? But on balance, I decided that it would be better to go forward rather than to tread water for a further six months, when I think we had been waiting something like 18 months to two years to even get the policy agreed.

So for right or wrong, that was my judgment, but it is something certainly that we are prepared to revisit.

Miss Weekes: Well, it certainly looks as if you may have to visit it fairly promptly, because this procedure is the procedure now for every grievance with a staff member. This is the first port of call, is it not?

Mr Hogan-Howe: That is right.

Miss Weekes: Training appears to rear its head on almost every single Inquiry document that I have read. Everybody says at some point, "more training"; I suppose you are rather sick of that?

Mr Hogan-Howe: I would not say I am sick of it, because I suppose one of the great things that has come home to me, being head of HR, is I have been one of the people on the other end of that debate sometimes as head of operations, saying actually, we need more training for this.

I am not sick of it, I think it is a very natural reaction. I think there are two things. First of all, the organisation has a responsibility for delivering core training, for those things that people need to be able to do the job.

We then move into an area where it would be ideal or frankly, sometimes, the individual has to take a responsibility for developing themselves; I think certainly at the more senior levels, we would expect that people do take some responsibility for doing that.

It is a great challenge; in terms of public service generally, training is a huge abstraction. In terms of the police service, and the Met is no different in this, you can be talking per person of abstractions of something in the order of 10 to 15 days a year. That does not sound much until you realise that is three working weeks per person.

Miss Weekes: Well, I am going to take a little time to explore this, because the word "training" really appears to have been used ad nauseam. What precisely is the difficulty with training people adequately in the Met? If you had to give me four major points, what is the difficulty?

Mr Hogan-Howe: I think the major – probably the first difficulty, I am not sure it is – I think the first thing is we have to challenge whether or not training is always the most appropriate solution, and I am not sure it always is.

I think it is the first thing that we fall to, but I am not sure it is always the most appropriate solution, but where it is important, the big challenge is just delivering – certainly during the last few years, just the volume. So, for example, I have mentioned already that probation training is taken – we have put 10,000 people through. That is a huge commitment in terms of the training establishment.

We have to train all our people to drive to a certain standard – and I am only giving these as examples, but we could go on; where every time we train people, we are expected to do it because we are tested in public inquiries, coroner's courts, courts, quite properly: what is the level of training you give? Sometimes that is taken to be longevity rather than quality.

But certainly, there are some significant chunks of training which are core and are always there. I think the second thing is from time to time we are pushed by events into making sure that we have got the training right in certain areas, and this Inquiry may come to some conclusions, but previous inquiries have, about the quality of training.

If you took the Met's history over the last three years, we had a big challenge in terms of health and safety. Well, it was not acceptable for the organisation to turn round and say we were not able to deliver more health and safety training. We have, and I think we have put a few thousand people through that this last year.

So the challenge is usually – first of all, volume; and secondly, the challenge about delivery, because most of the performance indicators that we have are driven by whether or not we deliver on street crime, do we deliver on – in terms of our response rates to people: how do we deal with them when we get there?

But the training measures, it is not okay to say, well, you have got an abstraction level of four weeks, and that is okay, to not deliver these performance indicators. So I think that is a big challenge, but we do have performance indicators as well for training.

The only possible –

Miss Weekes: But you have had this challenge now for well over five to eight years. If you look back at all the major reports that have occurred, every time it is officers just not trained very well, and this particular topic, about first line personnel managers, they need more training.

Mr Hogan-Howe: I think for me, I think the challenge – as you say, if people are not doing the job, there can be two things – probably three things really, but the first one is: have they got policies to work to? The second one, have they been trained? And the third thing is are they being monitored to see whether or not all those things they have been trained to do, the policies for which we thought we had got agreement, are they actually delivering?

I think you have to have the three things running together. I think we can show clear evidence that we have trained managers; with a big organisation, is it all happening consistently? I think that is a bigger challenge? But broadly, the training responsibility falls to the centre, and I think in terms of structural issues, I will just mention this: if the Met has to provide training, generally we provide it. We have Centrex who provide some national training courses, and they are pretty good, although they do not provide our probational training.

But we do not have too many other providers. Now it may well be – and certainly, I would not want to push us towards getting other providers, which still needs to find resources, but there are two tests generally of training. One is, how much does it cost? The second one is, how much time does it take?

I think a major challenge to us all the time is making sure the job gets done while making sure we get the appropriate level of training. As I say, I do not think there are any other organisations that train at the level we do. Because certainly, in terms of a police officer's career, you are talking about significant abstractions during the year, whether it be public service and certainly commercial: if you look at the commercial world, the average training days per year is something in the order of two to three days, and ours is more in the order of, as I say, 10 to 15.

So there are certain things we have to do, and are a real inertia in getting some of the new things through, but those are some of the challenges you say that we have had for a long time; we do try and manage the demand, but there is always a bit every time something changes a little to retrain.

Miss Weekes: Some members of the public may think that you are simply not handling the challenge very well, because if after five to eight years, there is still the debate of: do we really need to train, how can we get the officers to come out for 10 to 15 days, how can we monitor? It is obvious you have got those stages right and they are, to my mind, the correct considerations, but what is the answer, after eight years of talking about training?

Mr Hogan-Howe: Well, I think there are two things. One, I think we have done things structurally to try and manage that, and I think that debate will always be there. There will always, I suspect, but I may be wrong – but I suspect there will always be too much demand for the amount of training we can offer, and we have to prioritise.

The prioritisation method we use is that each of the business units, so if you remember we have got territorial policing, specialist operations and so on, have their own training board. So what we ask those people to do is to first of all, within their own directorate, to make their prioritisation of what are those things that they say have to happen, and it is better frankly that they do it than someone like me or the commander in training tries to impose his or my priorities.

So they are expected to prioritise, and they do two things in that. The first one is: is it a fair request for training? The second thing is, if it is a fair request and they want to take time to do it, can their part of the business cope with that amount of abstraction, and can we afford it?

The next level – those training boards then meet under a strategic training committee chaired by the Deputy Commissioner, and the reason for that is that quite often, we get competing demands in terms of the amount of training that is available. Then the idea is to prioritise within the organisation, if there are extraordinary demands, as I mentioned, health and safety, what can we afford to do? What can we afford not to do? And to make sure – so for right or wrong, that is our mechanism, trying to prioritise each year, but I think acknowledging that it is never the perfect fit for the amount of training that is demanded.

Miss Weekes: Well if, just at a guess, a naive guess – because this is a matter which we, the panel, have not yet decided on – I said that I think personally training of PR and personal management is at the top of the list, because it is going to avoid you having an expensive tribunal claim, and it will make your staff happy, would I be right?

Mr Hogan-Howe: It is certainly one at the top of the priority list, because – I mean, it seems to me there are two things about leaders. One is they have to be professionally competent in the area in which they lead, and they also have to look after the people. If you look after the people generally they deliver for you. So certainly it has to be a very important issue, and I would say, one of the major priorities.

I think there is clear evidence that as an organisation, we acknowledge that. So if you look at the sergeants' and the inspectors' training processes, if you looked at the strategic command course that is delivered through Centrex and takes six months – well, it is spread over six months, to be fair; that is a pretty impressive piece of training that is delivered nationally.

There is some separate training that is delivered at Centrex for superintendents, chief inspectors and chief supers, and police staff are able to attend that training as well. I think we have got some pretty clear evidence that we have prioritised the way we deal with people.

The personnel managers I have indicated are CIPD trained, and we are working with them in terms of first line management in making sure that they are trained to do properly the things that they ought to do.

I think the bigger challenge for us in my view, and I may be wrong, it may be seen as a biased view, is whether or not we monitor enough, and whether we challenge enough when things are not going as we would expect, and whether or not we prioritise it enough in terms of the day to day, when in fact the day to day also means the public are asking us to deliver on attending their incidents, making sure that we detect offences, making sure that we deal with their problems.

Whether or not it is always the biggest priority – that is why I say it is one of our priorities. But the public, I think, have the right to demand of us deliverance of operational policing, and that is the usual debate. But I am sure it is true of many organisations as well.

Miss Weekes: So you are not recommending to us that it is principally one of the most important, that is not what you are saying?

Mr Hogan-Howe: No, if I was heard to say that, I did not intend to. I am saying it is one of the major priorities. I was just responding to your point: is it the priority? I am just trying to be open, in saying I think it is one of the major priorities; I am not sure I could always agree that it will always be the first, because I know, in reality, it will struggle to make its voice heard at times.

Miss Weekes: What are your views about going back to the centralisation of dealing with complaints or workplace conflict? This is a suggestion by the Metropolitan Police Federation.

Mr Hogan-Howe: I am not quite sure exactly –

Miss Weekes: Shall we turn to it? It is MPF1, at page 25, if we just pause and bring that up, so you can have a look at it. (Pause).

"It is our opinion that the MPS should consider whether the current scheme can be sustained."

They are talking about the Fairness at Work scheme:

"Perhaps a central unit to deal with these matters is a more favourable option. This will allow Fairness at Work advisors to be appointed from outside the workplace subject to the grievance."

Is that too radical?

Mr Hogan-Howe: No, I think it would certainly be one of the options we could look at. I think there are other options as well. I mean, first of all, it is an option, and I would not dismiss it, but one of the things we have to look at are the resourcing implications and whether people who were coming into that system would feel that central control was better than local control.

I am not sure – and obviously the Federation believe that would be better, and it is a view we would have to certainly take into consideration.

Miss Weekes: Has there been a major discussion about this option?

Mr Hogan-Howe: Not really, no, but I think to be fair to everybody concerned, that is possibly because we are only, you know, in the 12th month of the implementation, so I would not criticise at all for that, but it is certainly an option that we could have a look at.

I mean, I think there are others, and I know that you looked at the Northamptonshire model; it seems to me that there are two things I think we could explore over the coming year. One is about independent involvement in the process; now it may be this is a substitution for independence, is the centre.

I think the second one is I am very attracted – I was when we implemented this, but the thing got such a momentum, it just was not practical to start to change things late – to the idea of getting people together with a person, I would align it to sort of small claims in a County Court, where an adjudicator sits there, people sit there without – possibly with representation but without lawyers. I am not having a go at lawyers, I seem to have referred to it a couple of times, but I am not sure this would help in this bit of the process.

They sit in a room and they share what they feel about the incident, and they try to resolve it in that room, and they can each bring their evidence. Because my biggest concern about some of the Fairness at Work processes and grievances that preceded it is that people – an investigator goes off, talks to individuals; if you are not careful, what they find is never shared properly with the other party. Sometimes, just by sharing information, people suddenly discover that the thing they were worried about was for a different motive entirely, or actually are persuaded by the explanation, and I do not think we do enough of sitting down as adults with people in the same room and trying to manage that.

So what I found attractive in the Northamptonshire process, and although I think there is only about 12 people gone through it in a year, but what I found attractive was the fact that you had a trained facilitator there, and you tried to come to some agreement with the people in the room.

I think ours is, you know, independent strands, and I think suspicion, prejudice builds up and by the time it takes to see everybody in an inquiry, it ends up where it becomes a big inquiry, and nobody is persuaded necessarily by the outcome. So that is how I would like to see it progress, but the Federation option is one certainly to be looked at.

Miss Weekes: That leads me, I think, conveniently, into informal resolution of workplace conflicts. I have raised some of the concerns of others within the Met as to how the new procedure is working, and it seems that nobody everybody is happy with it; I think that is fair, at the moment. It would be regrettable to have to go back to square one, but you may have to.

But in any event, is there a culture within the Met of resolving disputes informally that has nothing to do with the statute, that has nothing to do with the expected procedure?

Mr Hogan-Howe: I would hope there is, although it is clear from some of the examples we have seen that that has not happened all the time.

Miss Weekes: Can I be a little bit more strict with you? You have used the word "hope". You are head of HR. Do you know whether there is a culture within the Met?

Mr Hogan-Howe: That is what I was just going to go on to, is that as a result – I think that question has been raised earlier in the Inquiry. So what we did was we went to 15 managers within the various OCUs – there are 100, so it is a sample, it is not all of it – and asked them, in their view, how many of these cases would have come to them? Quite often them being a personnel manager, or a senior person, to their knowledge, in each of their business units, or each of their boroughs quite often.

They reckoned it varied, as you might imagine, but something in the order of four to five a week might be cases that never made it to the formal Fairness at Work process, that were things that had to be resolved by some management intervention beyond the first line manager.

Now what is ever so hard to get below that is if a sergeant is talking to a PC, and they end up with a dispute, is that an issue about – and they do not resolve it, at the point at which the harm is so great that we need to invoke a more formal process, it is hard, but it seemed to be that people thought something in the order of five incidents a week – no, it was a month, were in fact issues that in any OCU – one of the other things is that each of the OCUs are differently sized, so you can talk about Lambeth, at 1,500, bigger than many – well, some police forces, and down to smaller OCUs that might be probably 50 or 60 people, but broadly it is something of that order, if that helps.

Miss Weekes: How would you encourage this? How would you enc

Skip Navigation \| Accessible

Accessibility About the Inquiry Contacts Search
Home News Schedule Transcripts Evidence Report Links
Transcripts > Mr B Hogan-Howe, Mr S Marshall, Commander S Hussain and Mr G McAnuff (29 Mar 04)
QuickSearch See also On this website: Evidence: Assistant Commissioner B Hogan-Howe Evidence: George McAnuff Transcript: Assistant Commissioner B Hogan-Howe (15 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 transcripts of the public sessions with Mr B Hogan-Howe, Mr S Marshall, Commander S Hussain and Mr G McAnuff on 29 March 2004. Sections available here: Questions by Sir William Morris Questions by Miss Weekes Questions by Sir Anthony Burden Alternative versions These transcripts are available as plain text documents with original line and page numbering. Morning session Afternoon session Content Transcripts of public sessions: Assistant Commissioner B Hogan-Howe, Director of Human Resources, MPS; Mr S Marshall, Director of Recruitment, Human Resources Directorate, MPS; Commander S Hussain, MPS Hendon Training Centre; and Mr G McAnuff, Fairness at Work Co-ordinator, Human Resources Directorate, MPS Monday, 29 March 2004 10.30 am Sir William Morris: Ladies and gentlemen, good morning to you all, and could I say to Mr Hogan-Howe and your colleagues a very good morning, and indeed welcome. Mr Hogan-Howe: Thank you, good morning. Sir William Morris: Can I start, Mr Hogan-Howe, by saying thank you for accepting our invitation to attend the Inquiry today and to give evidence and for letting us have your written submission, which we found extremely helpful. I do appreciate that for some of our witnesses, any process of this nature may seem a daunting task, so I thought it would be helpful if I set out briefly 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, and I have been asked to chair this Inquiry. As you can see, there are two other panel members, Sir Anthony Burden, who recently retired as Chief Constable of South Wales Constabulary, after a long and distinguished career in the police service; and Anesta Weekes QC. Anesta is an eminent barrister who sits as a recorder and a part-time chairperson of employment tribunals. She was also counsel to the Lawrence Inquiry. Mr Hogan-Howe, as you know, we have been tasked by the Metropolitan Police Authority to conduct an independent inquiry into professional standards and employment matters in the Metropolitan Police Service. Our focus is the MPS as an organisation, and not the individuals that make up the organisation. The Inquiry we are conducting is inquisitorial and not adversarial in nature. We are keen to enquire into the issues raised by our terms of reference, so that we can make appropriate recommendation for further good practice, rather than concentrating on making criticisms of the MPS as an organisation, or particular individuals within the MPS. To help us in our task, we are keen to hear from all our witnesses not just what is wrong with the Metropolitan Police Service, but what is right with it, and most importantly, your suggestion in putting things right. 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 on the questions to you, followed by my colleague Miss Weekes, followed by Sir Anthony Burden, and any supplementary questions that I might find necessary. At the conclusion of our questions, I will offer you the opportunity for brief closing comments, should you should wish. We have received your written submission which will be posted on the Inquiry's website following your evidence today. In your evidence, you have set out a number of extremely useful information for us, and for the record, you have indicated your role, the work of the Metropolitan Police Service's human relations function, and an explanation of the MPS human resource strategy. You have offered an explanation of how human resource policies are developed within the Metropolitan Police Service. You have commented on the extent to which professional standards and diversity forms part of your brief, and you have given an explanation of the relevant policies of the MPS that impact on our Inquiry's terms of reference. You have also indicated the impact of current procedures and human resource strategies, referring to statistics, ethnicity, gender and indeed outcomes, and you have given an explanation of the systems that are in place to ensure that lessons learnt are communicated to relevant officers, and to assimilate best practice from other sources. And finally, you have commented on whether there are any differences in the policies, practices and procedures that apply to the conduct of recruits and that of established officers. We would like to ask you some questions about the material in our possession that you have submitted, and to seek your views on those matters that are of interest. But before we raise these issues with you, however, for the benefit of the transcript, I wonder if you would mind formally introducing yourself, and indeed your colleagues, to the Inquiry? Mr Hogan-Howe: Yes, Sir William. My name is Bernard Hogan-Howe, Assistant Commissioner with the Metropolitan Police, with responsibility for human resources. The gentleman on my left is Simon Marshall, director of recruitment for the Metropolitan Police. The gentleman behind me to my right is Mr George McAnuff, who is our manager for the Fairness at Work procedure, and is our Fairness at Work co-ordinator. Sir William Morris: Thank you very much. Before I start the questioning, we are resuming our hearing today after a very short break, and in view of the way that some of our proceedings have been reported in the media, I thought it would be helpful if I were to set out the context in which we are holding these hearings. As I mentioned when we launched our Inquiry on 21st January, this is an inquiry into professional standards and employment matters in the Metropolitan Police Service. Our focus is the MPS as an organisation and, as I have said, not the individuals who make up the organisation. We are looking at ways that the service handles complaints, grievance, allegations against individuals, and conflicts within the workplace. In short, we are looking at a range of issues relating to professional standards and workplace relationships. We are not conducting an inquiry into what may or may not have gone wrong in a particular case, although we are asked to learn lessons from the outcomes of recent high-profile cases. Nor is our inquiry about race or community policing, although we will clearly consider discrimination issues as part of our work. Our terms of reference identify a number of questions about the way the Metropolitan Police Service deals with its police officers and its police staff. We are examining whether the MPS has the right policies and procedures in place? Are they effective? Are the procedures and structures fair? Are they too complicated? Do they place an unacceptable burden on police officers and police staff? How does the MPS practice compare with other police services and other public organisations? And indeed, how do they compare with best practice? In short, do they meet the demands of a modern police service and command the confidence of the police community they serve? Do they apply discriminatorily to any section of the Metropolitan Police employees? I said at the launch of the Inquiry, and I say again, we firmly believe that workplace relationships are the key to good policing. If the MPS can get its internal relationships right then the community benefit from the quality of the service, which will be well motivated, better trained and which will have a better understanding of the social evolution and the profile of London's community. Conversely, if these relationships are poor, the quality of policing will be poorer. We hope that our Inquiry can make a positive contribution to improving professional standards and workplace relationships and, by extension, the quality of policing to London's varied and diverse community. I wanted, as I have indicated earlier, to place that again on the record because of the misreporting of some aspects of these proceedings. Questions by Sir William Morris Sir William Morris: Mr Hogan-Howe, let me now turn to the questions that I would wish to ask of you. We note from the letter that you had submitted to us as a supplementary on Friday afternoon that in October of the year 2000, the Commissioner ordered a complete review of the relationships and people-related departments. The outcome of that has meant a significant re-organisation of different departments. Quoting from the recommendations of the review, I note that personnel has been rebranded as "HR", and that there is a commentary which says despite the rebranding, there is still some distance to travel. That is a quote from the recommendation of the report. Can I ask you, as the senior officer responsible for the human resource directorate, to help us in understanding how your directorate works, and in simple terms, what does it do? Mr Hogan-Howe: Yes, Sir William. First of all, the department provides an HR service for all of the Metropolitan Police. I know that you have already picked up on the fact that there are around 43,000 people in the Metropolitan Police Service. We are divided up into directorates, but all together in human resources, we have just over 1,000 people. Many of those people are based in the training establishment, so something like two thirds are training, of which a large number of those trainees are based at Hendon, which is in the north, obviously, of London. The majority of the training that is carried out there is probational training, although there are significant elements of other types of training, including crime, including diversity, and many other aspects other than the straightforward probational training, but the volume through Hendon is of probational training. The second part of the directorate we have is represented here today by Simon, that is the directorate of recruitment. I am sure you have picked up, for the last few years, certainly for the last three to four years, probably more like three, we have experienced a great growth; which has been of great benefit but has been a great challenge. Certainly in policing terms, we have grown by 18 per cent in terms of police officers, if you add another 1,800 police staff on top of the 10,000 base. So again, something in the order of 18 to 20 per cent. Also there is a group of people within there which were new to the police service generally, but the largest number came into the Metropolitan Police and they are police community support officers. Over the last 18 months we have recruited about 1,500 of those people as well. So there has been a big piece of work which is about recruiting. We have a director of people development. There are two parts to his job really. One is about occupational health. Occupational health for the police service is generally quite a large amount of resources. A couple of reasons for that: one is that we try and support people as much as we can in terms of whether they have got problems at work, or alternatively if they are ill and not able to be at work; also we have some issues around recruiting, in terms of making sure of the right physical standards. We also have to manage the police pension scheme. That has meant quite a large medical involvement to make sure we pay that amount out appropriately. I am director of HR services. My term would be pay and conditions, mainly the policies, pay and conditions around that. I have an immediate deputy who is called Martin Tiplady, and he is my director of human resources. You will have picked up from the review that was carried out back in 2000, apart from other changes that were anticipated, number one was that there would be a new leader in terms of police officers, and that was myself, who arrived in July 2001; and secondly, that that person should be supported by an HR professional. Well, Martin arrived probably about six months after that. He is my support in terms of the professional approach to HR, and if you like, mine tends to be the policing and the operational acumen and business acumen – if in the police service you can call it business. But that is what about: trying to keep the eye on the ball in terms of delivering on the street. Martin is an HR professional, and we work well together as a team. And that really is our major team. That is really, as we deliver the service – as you will have picked up, the 43,000 people – it is a two-tier organisation, which means there is not a deal between the centre, which is probably best represented by New Scotland Yard in terms of strategic leaderships. Then there are 100 business units. So you have got the Commissioner and his management board; you have got the leaders who sit on that board, people like myself in charge of personnel, Keith Luck in charge of resources, various leaders that there are there. Then we all relate immediately then to, as I say, about 100 business units, 32 of which are the boroughs of London; so really, there is no intervene between those two areas. So what we try to do, I suppose, if that gives you a bit of structure, is two things really. One, I always feel what we should do is try and set out what the ideal is. The world is never ideal, but the very least we can do is try and make the policies and the strategies that take us forward. The second thing we do is to monitor if everything is working as we all would hope. In an organisation of 43,000 people, there will be inconsistency. It is inconsistent because clearly even when people are trying hard, they can go off in different directions; and, second, to take feedback from them when we are getting it wrong. So there are times when we have to accept that we get policies wrong or we do not apply things properly. We try our best to get feedback from them and if that means change of policies then I think we have got a pretty good history of trying to do that. So those are probably the three things really: one, set the policy; two, monitor to see whether it is working; three, get feedback when people believe we are not getting it right. Sir William Morris: Okay, thank you very much. As I understand it from the documentation that we have looked at, the people-related issues and relationships in the MPS look something like the directorate for professional standards, your directorate, HR, the diversity directorate, and of course there is the legal; and there is employment tribunals. All those areas are people-related. There is no employee within the Metropolitan Police Service which is not touched by at least one of these departments in some way. Could you explain how this structure is joined together, what we call here the golden thread that runs through people related issues in an organisation with excess of 40,000 employees? Mr Hogan-Howe: Yes, I mean, I can explain how we do our best to make everything work, but there may be things that we need to do differently. I think what we notice is that with a large amount of the people working within HR, who are responsible for the things I just described, the diversity directorate is responsible particularly in terms of people, in terms of making sure that we take proper regard in terms of dealing with people according to their need, which quite often means minority group representation. Now they are in separate directorates. The danger is, if we are not careful, we could end up working in parallel lines, which hopefully travel in the same direction. But from time to time there will not be the overlap we need; so what we try and do is make sure that we do as much as possible together. So for example in terms of recruiting, we work very well together on that. We have a series of meetings that we work on at middle management and senior level, which hopefully allow us to keep track of what each group are doing. And finally, obviously, there is the management board at which the deputy represents the diversity directorate and on which I represent the HR directorate. Just as an example, we meet every Monday, Wednesday and Friday morning, in which the first part is generally about: operationally, where are we? Secondly, clearly: are there any issues which are causing particular problems, or alternatively that we need to take action on immediately? We have more formal meetings on that. So I suppose the drawing together of the thread of diversity, which as you have identified is a separate directorate of HR, occurs at the top, occurs a little further down in the series of meetings, and on actions that we take together. I can give one example of that, but I hope there are others, and many that we can provide. I am sure you would want to look at progression at some stage. The progression I have picked up from the Inquiry minutes is about obviously the progression of women and the progression of minority groups in terms of seniority. That was identified for us particularly in terms of CID, where we get the progression through; a scheme was designed working with both directorates which helps us to try and progress more people through quickly who are particularly in those two groups. So there are various examples where we work on that, we work on recruitment together. But they are to some extent, you have to say, in terms of the structure chart, you would have to say, the way we operate, they are slightly different. But we do our best to make sure they work together. I suppose the only analogy I could make is I suppose in some organisations people define quality and then say that you can have a quality department or you can have quality embedded everywhere, and depending on your organisational view depends on how you manage that. But certainly, when you come to a point in an organisation's life and you think what this organisation did four to five years ago, it was not content, I do not think, to allow diversity to be managed by everyone. It wanted someone to take the lead and drive everybody to start considering it seriously. In my view, coming to that a little later, that seems to me to be why we are where we are. There was a need for a strategic directional push. The Diversity Director was created and has worked well in challenging us all in terms of whether or not we get things right, as a challenger, as an innovator, to make us more flexible. I think that works, but there will always be a challenge about whether we are keeping in touch enough during the working day, during the working year. Sir William Morris: Who takes the blame when diversity does not apply? Mr Hogan-Howe: I am not sure really. I suppose it would have to be – we hope not to blame, I suppose we hope to encourage to get better. But I suppose if it was a case that there was a part in my part of the organisation, it would be something to do with me, clearly. And if someone – if Diversity challenges me about something on behalf of HR and says, "Well look at your recruiting practices, look at the way you are dealing with people in terms of policy", then it has to be my responsibility to deal with that. I do not think we can say it is Diversity's responsibility for whether it goes right or wrong. So I quite happy to take that responsibility. I think the individual managers have to be called to account for their part in it, but obviously, diversity has got a stream of work for which they have to be held to account, making sure that they are delivering. One of the things I suppose would be if they are the challengers, are they challenging? That seems a very reasonable thing to hold them to account for. Broadly, I would expect line managers to deliver in their areas for most things that they are charged with responsibility for, of which diversity is one of the most important elements. Sir William Morris: In your submission at paragraph 7, reference BHH13, you drew attention to the fact that industrial tribunals are situated outside your directorate. It finds a home in the directorate for professional standards. I think you have indicated the uniqueness of that structure. Can you indicate any other police service which has a like structure, and what do you see as the disadvantage of this? Mr Hogan-Howe: I am not aware of any other force that has that. But then again, I could not honestly – I could offer you my experience in two of the forces, I do not think they did have that particular arrangement, but I could not give you a view of the 43. But I think it is more likely that it is based within personnel that we need employment tribunal cases, so it outside that part of the organisation, but I could not tell you definitively. It seems to me the danger is, in approaching the employment tribunal – I suppose you can approach it in one of two ways really. One is you can see it as an opportunity to resolve an issue, to change policies, to actually move on. You can alternatively see it as an opportunity – not an opportunity, but a need for the organisation to defend itself if an unwarranted claim is made against the organisation or against a group of people. I suppose, depending on how you come down in terms of that view, it can depend on where you would see it arriving. It seems to me that the danger is that employment tribunals are seen as a threat, in terms of where they are placed. I suppose, when they are in HR they can be seen as an opportunity. Sir William Morris: How does the Met see it, threat or opportunity? Mr Hogan-Howe: I think generally in the past, five or six years ago, probably they have been as a difficult problem to deal with. In terms of the present, I would hope they are seen as a positive opportunity. One of the difficulties for people who are under inquiry, employment tribunals obviously are an opportunity to be under inquiry it is quite difficult to see sometimes whether or not all the evidence, for example, the employment tribunal department has is accurate, objective, comprehensive. So I think for me, there can always be a debate. But I would hope that at the moment we see them as a positive issue, and in general, I think we try to come to settlements with people or we change our policies. There are times when people obviously make unwarranted claims, I think we have got cases where we see that we challenge that appropriately, but I would hope we see it positively. Sir William Morris: Diversity: how does the Met see it? Is it seen as a policy or is it a directorate? What is it? Mr Hogan-Howe: I think it should be a way of doing things, really, a way of being, rather than hopefully a set of policies. My experience, having come to the Met, is that diversity in its truest sense, of treating people according to their need, is something that something is done about and not just talked about in terms of policy. I think probably some of the biggest strides forward in operational policing have been made by the Metropolitan Police. Most people would acknowledge that. The way we deal with the public, the community; those that want our help. I think equally, we have made some massive strides in terms of the way we deal with different people inside the organisation. But at times, it can be that our methods, our regulations, our statutes can cause us to deal with people differently. I know that one of the things you will have picked up is, for example, in terms of the difference between a police officer and a member of police staff. You see, when we are trying hard, we still find that there is some difficulty to deal with people on the same playing field. So I think that is an internal difficulty. But hopefully, broadly, I think we have got some pretty good evidence that we have moved forward tremendously. I would never sit here and pretend we are perfect, because I know we are not, but I think we have moved forward massively, and for me, it does mean something. I think people do do something about diversity. They do not just talk about it. Are there cases where it does not go ideally? Yes. But I think broadly, there is some massive achievement there. Sir William Morris: Does this policy apply at the Hendon training centre? Mr Hogan-Howe: Yes, it does. I notice in one of the replies that there was some doubt as to whether it applied at Hendon; but yes it does and so it should. There is nowhere it should not apply. Sir William Morris: Well, I do not know about doubt, we were told quite specifically that it did not. Mr Hogan-Howe: Yes, that is what I could not quite understand. I was not quite sure what the reference was to, whether part of the diversity directorate did not cover that. I just did not understand that reference, but clearly diversity should apply at Hendon and does apply at Hendon; whether it is perfect, as I say, is something that we would all have to look at throughout the organisation. But certainly it applies there as it does to everyone. Whether there is a part of the directorate of diversity that is at Hendon might have been the point that was being made, but I do not know because I was not here and I did not hear exactly what the answer was. Sir William Morris: From what we have read, from what you and others have said, we are concluding that the Metropolitan Police Service is totally committed to the principles, practice, procedures, cultures of diversity, root and branch within the service. Mr Hogan-Howe: That is right. Sir William Morris: Okay, fine. From that perspective, would you say that the Metropolitan Police Service, in terms of its commitment to diversity, is a diverse organisation in terms of its managerial structure, its policies, practices and procedures? Mr Hogan-Howe: I think there are some massive areas in which we can show evidence of progress over the last few years, but there are some areas where we need to do more. In terms of the – it seems to me, pretty good evidence of our progress. If you went right through – if you took diversity being representation as part of it, in terms of the workforce, then the last three years have seen, I think, massive progress. It is not there yet, there are still massive things to do. But if you may allow me to come back to the context in which we try and do something about that: over the last three years, the biggest challenge has been in terms of police officer representation. It has not been in terms of the other parts of the organisation, which I will come to in a second, but it has in terms of police officers. So certainly three years ago, we had about 1,000 officers who were from minority groups; today, it is just over 1,900. So to achieve that in three years is pretty good evidence that we have moved forward. I am not saying it is overwhelming, I am not saying we could not have tripled it; but, you know, at least it shows evidence of progress. In terms of our police staff, then the representation there is something in the order of 20 per cent, in terms of different physical ethnic minorities. In terms of the PCSOs who were recruited over the last 18 months, it is around 34 per cent. In terms of our special constables, it is around 18 per cent. So there is some evidence that clearly we have made huge progress and we are representative, as an employer. Now one of the challenges certainly I looked at when I came into the Met was: why is it we have different representation for police staff compared to police officers? I am not sure there are any easy answers to that. One is that at times, maybe ten to 15 years ago, I hope, is that the reputation of the police service generally did not allow people from some groups to think it was a good career. I hope they do now. And certainly, that has been a difficulty in terms of reputation. The second thing is one thing that I realised was that the three groups through which we have best representation, which are police staff, PCSOs, police community support officers, and specials, are recruited from London. Whereas if you were to look at police officers, it has changed over the last three years. In my view it has gone the right way, which is that about three to four years ago, we had a representation from London of about 40 per cent of the people who became police officers; 60 per cent came from the rest of the country. As I say, I will possibly come back to the context in a second. Toady, that has risen to about 60 per cent. Now in my view, that is far better, for two reasons. Certainly in every police service I have worked for, it is better to represent the community you police than it is to seen to be coming from a different environment where you may not fully understand all the issues that are present in the area that you police. So we have pushed hard to get that representation better. The second very practical thing is if the population in London, as we know at the moment, is represented by around 30 per cent minority groups, then we have a far better chance of getting representation in London than we are to go to other areas of the country. Next year in particular, we are going to concentrate I think almost solely on the London based recruit, but we have seen huge progress, as I say, just these last few years. If you will allow me just to go into the context which I was mentioning, I think one thing I found is that two things have happened during these last three or four years. Firstly the Met has grown at a huge rate. We have actually taken on 10,000 recruits in three years. There is no police service bigger than that in the United Kingdom. We have got 30,000 officers today. So during the last three years we have actually one in three of our people who are with us today, 30 per cent are probationers. So they have all come in in that great period. So we have needed to get those numbers obviously to make sure we hit all our targets and make sure we actually provide a good police service. But if you are an officer or somebody who wanted to be a police officer in Cumbria or Northumbria or Scotland or Northern Ireland, those forces have never recruited at the rate we have done over the last three years. So some very good candidates from the rest of the country have actually applied to the Met and competed against people from London and done pretty well. Some of them then leave to go back to what they regard as their home force. But certainly it is a historical perspective that we have to deal with all the time. We attract people from other parts of the country, some very good candidates who we should not discriminate against; but it does mean that sometimes some of the London candidates struggle at the side of that, in what is a very vibrant economic employment market in London. So I have gone on a little, but just to provide some context, I think, in terms of some of the issues that we have to deal with, particularly in terms of police recruitment, but the general point would be most of our well represented staff come from London. Many of the police officers we have taken as recruits, roughly about 50/50, if you take it over the last few years, have been from outside the area. I am not saying that is an excuse, I am not saying it is a reason, but it is a factual reality we have to cope with. Sir William Morris: How diverse is the leadership of your directorate? Mr Hogan-Howe: In terms of my directorate, then we – I think all my HR board are now men, although until about a year ago there were – probably 18 months ago, two were women. One has just left for a promotion in the Centrex Department. The commander in charge of training is from a visible ethnic minority, but the remainder are white men. Sir William Morris: How many is in the directorate leadership? Mr Hogan-Howe: Well, there is myself, Martin Tiplady, and then the other five; so that is seven. Sir William Morris: Mr Hogan-Howe, at paragraph 137 of your submission, BHH1/50 is the reference, you note that there are problems of female staff and officers climbing the career ladder. You talk further about finding solutions to this, and suggest that a method of streaming and multipoint entry to the service would assist in increasing the proportion of female officers at higher ranks more quickly. Could you explain why you are considering this type of streaming and application of diversity, but only in the context of possible female officers and not other under-represented groups within the Met? Mr Hogan-Howe: If that is the impression I have given, and I can see why it would, that was never the intention. The general point I would make is if we were to carry on recruiting at the rate we do, and if we were to carry on allowing normal progress, in terms of the way our officers progress, we are in the danger of never getting the right representation for another generation, and that does not seem to be good enough. So the general point I am trying to make is it seems that whenever we allow people to join to be an omnicompetent officer – so they join as a probationer – and they could be anything, and they are: I started as a PC; somebody who is represented in the Child Protection Department is a DC will have started the same way. So we try to select people who are omnicompetent. So whenever we do that – so we allow a single point of entry at the PC level, and while we do not allow multilateral entry we will struggle to make a great deal of impact on the minority representation, however described, whether it be by gender, whether it be by race or any of the other minority groups that are under-represented. It seems to me while there are some other good reasons, ie enriching the senior management teams, enriching the service police management teams with talents we may never select, then it will be wiser to allow them to get in at a higher level. One, better representation; more importantly, it seems to me, talent. And then finally, to show that we are making some progress quickly, because otherwise time will cause people to challenge us all the time about why the representation is poor: well, the system inherently slows people down. There may be things we can do better and we may talk about those, but it seems to me fundamentally it is possible to do that. The police service traditionally has resisted that on the grounds that it is good to be a chief officer, in particular, having experienced the frontline, and there are many arguments for that. It seems to me the biggest danger is that you always are what you are, and the danger is that you fail to challenge enough and that you do not move things on radically enough. So those are the reasons for that. But definitely not related particularly to woman – sorry, not specifically to women, but generally, I think it is a good opportunity. Sir William Morris: Sure. Could you give us one or two examples of how the diversity policy, which we all signed up to in the MPS, has enabled employees, staff, or indeed serving police officers with disability to develop and achieve the potential that they have? Mr Hogan-Howe: I would just answer this slightly differently or at least just provide a point of information; maybe the Inquiry has already picked it up. Until October of this year, the Disability Discrimination Act as an employee has not applied to police officers. I do not celebrate that, I just merely comment, that is the fact, that that is what has happened. So whether or not we have moved forward collectively as a police service – Sir William Morris: Why do you need legislation to recognise the potential of a group of employees? Mr Hogan-Howe: I think it is a very fair point. The only difficulty we have had – and you may say we could have been more radical about it in the police service generally – is that there are certain rules about – or regulations and Home Office rules about recruitment which say that you have to be of a certain standard of fitness when you join. Two reasons for that: one is, are you fit enough to do the job? The second one tends to be a pension decision: would you intend to pay a pension – well, is there a high risk of paying a pension to this person at an earlier point in their career, given the peculiarly demanding nature of the police service role. So that is reason that has been provided for that. And the final decision you have to make, which is at the end point of the person's career, apart from whether or not in terms of time, you know, in terms of age, should they retire, the second has been whether or not they are entitled to medical retirement? So taken together, and the fact that not all of our jobs are – you know, some people have to have a certain level of physical ability – those have trapped us perhaps in the past, perhaps we could have been more adventurous, but that has been the dilemma that we have been caught in. Sir William Morris: But is this not what creative HR is about: to lead the debate? Because the politicians are always at the end and the practitioners are at the front for the collective good, but more importantly, for the good of the organisation. Mr Hogan-Howe: Yes, and I think we can show again some examples within HR. I mean I will come back to your general point, which I think is a fair one. But I think we can show some good examples where we have moved on our various medical standards. Certainly, for example, if you looked at diabetes, then diabetes in the past has been regarded as, first of all, a block to get into the police service as a police officer. Secondly, it has limited you in terms of the rules of deployment. What was realised certainly by our director of occupational health is that first of all the medical treatment of diabetes has changed, as has the understanding of it. There is no reason that we should put a blanket – for example, there are different types of diabetes, as I learned, and they can be treated in different ways and controlled in different ways. So we have moved on in that respect. We have changed in terms of placing people on what we term restricted duty. That is a point in time at which they can no longer fully carry out the role of a constable, which tends to be – the main test is can they physically restrain people; can they get involved in the hurly burly of shift work and the frontline work? And we have had a growing group of people, I think we are now up to about 1,000, who are actually on restricted duties. I have to say probably a few years ago, they would probably have been medical pensions. So I think we have tried, within the restrictions – we have got a group of people who are on recuperative duties. They are people who are too ill to do the full duties, but we generally believe they will recover. Usually that lasts for no longer than a year; we try to get people back to work within that time. We have postings policies that try to place people according to their need. So in the past, it was that control rooms were a place where people who were not fully fit were moved to. There are many other roles, but that is probably the simple example. So we try to treat people according to their needs. We have never strictly adhered to what the statutes have said. We have tried to deal with people as people, and deploy them according to their ability, and only as a final resort have we resorted to things like medical pensions, which we could have resorted to previously. The best example I can give that there is some evidence that that has – you know, a sea change, if you like, that things have moved differently is that the Met, probably about – I think it was three years ago, medical retirements were running at about 30 per cent. Last year, it was about 20-odd and this year to date which is now, we are nearly at the end of the year, the last time I heard, which was at the end of the tenth month, it was running at 11 per cent. I am not saying that is a knock-down argument, but I think it shows we are willing to confront and to treat people as individuals. The rules and regs tend to mean that we can usually be driven by the will of the individual. If the person wants to leave us at the point of retirement, quite often, they can determine whether or not we follow the medical advice. But if they want to stay then we do our best to deploy them appropriately. We have probably got it wrong from time to time, it can happen. Because what we need to make sure is if someone has a disability, we deploy them into a job that is real. We do not set up a tension with a member of police staff who is doing a similar job yet getting paid a different amount. So there are some inherent problems that we have to try and manage, but I think we do that reasonably well. But I think we could, yes, be more radical. One of the things that we will be doing this year is do – we are driven by national recruiting standards, but our main thrust in the future will be: can they actually do the physical job? So if they have one leg, does it matter? Because there is certainly one force that has managed to take someone with one leg, so why cannot we? It would be something that we are prepared to look at, and we will do something about – but it is a constant challenge. I only refer to the fact that the statute changed in terms of context, not that I hope we have not tried to do our best, but sometimes we are a little restricted by regulations. And just possibly one final contextual issue is that the medical pensions issue – because the pensions are – I know it sounds like I am going on about it, but it is an important thing we have to manage. Because the pensions are part of our £2.5 billion of funding, it is not only a matter for the MPS. The Police Authority quite properly hold us to account on that, and the amounts we are talking about are not insignificant. From memory – so I may be wrong, it possibly could be checked – we are talking about something in the order of 12 to 14 per cent of the budget are managed through pensions, so they are – it is a significant amount of cash that we have to think about in the budget as well, and we are held to account for that. Sir William Morris: At paragraph 14 of your submission, you say, and I quote: "HR should set the standard for managers and staff and set an example in all our activity." Naturally, very naturally, we are assuming you mean the best and highest standard. What we would like you to share with us is: how do you measure whether those standards are reaching the objectives, and what are the measuring tools? Mr Hogan-Howe: There are two ways. One is a very paper based one which we do in meetings; so that is where every month, I sit down with each of my directors and go through a series of performance management information, and you can imagine, there are a lot of performance indicators. That can be quite a laborious process. But it is really important because what it enables you to do from time to time is spot the blindingly obvious that others have spotted with their experience. But we do that, and I sit there with each of my directors on a one-to-one and we have an HR board meeting, which we call the performance meeting. For me, more importantly, over the last 18 months, we have had a COMSTAT process for HR managers. One of the difficulties – even when people are trying hard in a large organisation, there can be misunderstanding about policies, unusual practices can develop, and in fact, people compromise rather than, obviously, doing the ideal. What that meant is that once a month, we have about nine of the business units, the OCUs, into – we have been using the Police Authority, a room in there. Before that meeting, a team of three or four people have visited the OCU and got their information about various HR processes, and then within the meeting, we share with peers how well things are going. We try and do two things really. The first one is we look at the performance information to see whether they are appraising properly, whether or not they are managing sickness properly. In fact, across the nine HR processes that exist, we try and pick out some really good practice. Where it is working well, we encourage people to say two things really. One, why do they think it is, and two, what could they do better? Quite often you find that common themes emerge. The first one is that people who set clear standards, check to see whether they happened and then feed back to individuals how well they are doing. Simple, but not everybody does it too often. And secondly, there are some really good innovative things out there. So it helps us to challenge, one, whether or not the policies we have set are working. Sometimes, to be fair, people come back to us and say and say "That policy is totally impractical", and they will tell us why, and we will go away and actually do our best to improve at the centre. There have been times when people have challenged the occupational health tests and various other things that we have gone away and done things about. So that is probably one big way in which we try and keep our eye on 43,000 people. I get together with my director of HR with the personnel managers. There are 100 personnel managers. One of the things I found when I came here was there was a big gap between, if you like, myself or my role, and their role. So we now have three meetings a month at which any one of them can attend, or their representatives attend. We do two things, really. One, pass out information and also seek it, and challenge each other about whether or not policies are being adhered to. That seems to work pretty well. There has been times when both of us have found it a challenge in terms of the time commitment, because that is usually three half days. But we have stuck to it rigidly. It seems to have helped in terms of filling that gap about what should be happening and what is happening, and has caused us to quite often change our policies. I think possibly just one final thing I would mention, I do not know if the Commissioner mentioned, but I think is a really important piece of work, is the Commissioner about every six weeks has a "Mission Vision Values" meeting. The largest, that means the Westminster City Hall down at the end of the street, which can take 2,000, and the smallest one we have had is a few hundred. The Commissioner gives a briefing and then seeks feedback. People come forward from the audience and they tell us very clearly how they feel. And what we find is two things. Sometimes we celebrate success, but sometimes individuals in 43,000 get lost, and sometimes our policies are not quick enough. So that is a really good method that we have found for making sure that, you know, we are sharp and that our policies are working. I said "final", but there is one final thing, which is that starting two years ago, I think it is now, we got a live intranet forum. That operates every – I think every fourth Thursday, where what is said to any member of the organisation for an hour is I sit together with my team in my office and they can – on air, if you like, they will e-mail in a question, and they will get an answer within a further hour. They challenge us about all sorts of policies; about whether or not they have a local management problem. That seems to have been well received by the organisation, because they can talk to the person who is at the top in terms of HR, and it is not always an HR policy. Quite often we find it is a local issue, but exposing the issue at a higher level allows people to actually have an opportunity to challenge, and each week we – sorry, each time we run this, we get probably about 60 questions. Some are simple things that can be put right simply. Some are very complex and take, you know – we are sat here trying to resolve some of the issues, we are trying to resolve them in a hour. In between that, there are points of intervention that we do use, and nobody goes away from it without an answer or without somebody from my team having contacted them personally and then looked into it. And we have achieved quite a lot of change as a result of that. So those are probably the main ways that we would offer that we try and keep track of what is a big organisation. Sir William Morris: Yes. Just sticking with these standards, and I say again, we properly assume that they are the highest standards, but I am old-fashioned enough to think that HR represents the voice, the eyes and the ears of the employees in the decision-making process. It is proactive, and it ensures that all the people-related agencies and streams of management do their job. With that in mind, can you explain to us how can an officer be suspended and feel abandoned with little or no contact or support from his or her employer for months, years, half a decade in some instances, several years is the top performer at the moment; welfare officers who are changed without any reference, we have received letters suggesting that. People find themselves allocated a welfare officer who is the person complained against. Complaints being withdrawn from the public against officers, and five months elapse before ... Is that the highest standards that HR is setting for communicating and looking after the interests of the police officers and staff within the Met? Mr Hogan-Howe: If those are cases representative of normality, you know, the general, then I would be very disappointed if that is happening. It is not an area – the officers who are off sick tend to get managed in a certain way. They are not exactly outside HR policy but we do not manage them directly. But there are two groups who should. One is their immediate supervisors, because with regards to the fact that there is a discipline process going off, you would expect that they keep in touch with them. There are difficulties sometimes if, as you say, then the reason for the complaint is to do with any internal relationships. And secondly, obviously, the Discipline Department who are dealing with their case should keep them informed of progress. So I would hope that both of those things happen. If it is happening in the way you describe, then it does not sound very good, but I could not comment directly on how representative that is of the norm, but if there are cases like that, that would not be good enough. Sir William Morris: I do not know how you describe a deluge, but certainly, let me say to you that we have received a tremendous amount of personal submissions indicating that trend. But I started my line of questioning on the basis that the structure within the organisation does not, at first sight, seem to offer joined up management, joined up thinking; no golden thread. Now you are saying that an officer who is under discipline is managed and communicated with by his or her supervisor, superintendent or what have you. Where does HR responsibility come in for all the employees, whether or not they are under discipline to ensure fairness of treatment and defending the reputation of the employer? Mr Hogan-Howe: I mean, we do not have an explicit role within the discipline process that you mentioned, but I would expect that people are managed according to their job policies generally. I know that within the DPS policies there are very definite arrangements that should be adhered to by the supervisors and by their own department in terms of DPS. I mean, there are – I can give you examples where – I ran through some, where we try to make sure that processes are kept fair and are kept reasonable and are kept objective. But there are others where there are big challenges, for example in terms of our postings policy; there are challenges in terms of who we promote and whether or not people think the process has been fair. What we try to do at the centre is while you cannot manage every single interaction, we cannot directly manage the 100 business units, we look out for the most important. Particularly, promotion and postings are things that cause real problems for individuals. Where they are not happy with the decisions that are made, we have an appeals process that we run through the centre, which is massively intensive in terms of people, but we think is pretty important, because we know a lot of the issues that can arise are when people have dissatisfaction with the process; sometimes with the decision as well. But if they are not happy with the process, then that can actually cause them to not have a good view of the decision, regardless of which way it goes. So we try and manage those two processes in particular through the centre, and make sure that the systems have been adhered to as fairly as possible. If we find things that are wrong, then we have quite a good history I think of making sure those decisions are put right. And if you look at it in terms of the promotions appeals process, people have gone through on promotion through the appeals process. In terms of the postings policy, we have shown interventions there where individuals seem to have been disadvantaged and we try to put it right. To be fair to the local managers, sometimes it is not within their power to put it right so it is only us who could do something about it. So I think we have good evidence of that. Would it be perfect right round? I am not sure. But I think there is some good evidence that in fact we do intervene, we do follow up on the policies and do not make it lip service. Sir William Morris: Let me take you to evidence that has been submitted to us. It has been suggested to us that the current disciplinary arrangement is inefficient, outdated, should be swept away and replaced by a structure of ordinary employment law. Indeed, it is a point that you have touched on at paragraph 120 of your submission. Can I ask, has the human resource directorate considered the implication of this policy? Mr Hogan-Howe: Yes, Sir William, I think what we would say – I mean, in terms of the future for police officers generally, I would probably just make four contextual points who we, and through ACPO, would like to see things progress. One is if we could have multilateral entry, together with the streaming that I referred to. If we could have flexibility in terms of terms and conditions. It remains an issue that police officers who join the pension scheme cannot transfer their benefits over to another scheme, and therefore struggle to be flexible in terms – you know, generally, we would keep people 30 years. That can be a positive thing in terms of loyalty and experience. Also we do not get the turnover we might generate which might be actually a healthy turnover. And then fourthly is a point you referred to: terms and conditions between police officers and police staff being brought as near as physically possible without destroying the special nature of the rank of constable, or the status of constable. And certainly in terms of how we think it can go forward, to get the – the individual in some areas is getting the benefits of being an employee: access to employment tribunals where you have a discrimination in terms of race, gender and then more recently disability and faith. But it seems to us that there are some more benefits that can accrue from being treated as our other employees are treated in terms of police staff. It seems odd that we have two groups of people both could commit a similar offence, and yet we deal with them in very different ways. It will become more complex probably in April, when the IPCC starts to deal with people again differently. A member of police staff could be treated one way in terms of police staff discipline, then could be joined in a complaint from a member of the public about how they have dealt with someone – with a police officer, and investigated in an entirely different way. It seems to us it would be better not to actually separate but actually to get together and remove the differences, not to increase them. So we think it can work, particularly around the discipline area, because I think a lot of the evidence you have heard is about delay and about various layers of complexity that for us are a problem to actually administer. Sir William Morris: But what I am seeking to establish is whether or not your directorate has produced a discussion paper for the senior managers within MPS, and that what – and if you could tell us, if that is the case, at what stage is this discussion? Mr Hogan-Howe: Right, we certainly have not got a discussion paper. I think in terms of the debate, where we are is twofold really, in terms of the Met and in terms of ACPO. There has been a debate running for two years about how we might change the terms and conditions of police officers. The first round of police reform which actually concluded last year made some changes, but there is a green paper which is out at the moment which the Met has responded to, and I certainly could probably get you a copy of our response to that. Also ACPO has responded to the green paper as well, as a separate response; I am certain we could get that to you, to show really the four legs of what we have talked through. But essentially, I think, you know, it is to get more similarity with employment law, not less, and that the distinct nature of a constable does not need to be marked in terms of a different form of employment. Sir William Morris: In your policy development on this particular issue, has the Police Federation and the other representative groups been consulted on these proposals? Mr Hogan-Howe: Not at this stage, as far as I am aware, although we have meetings with the Police Federation every four weeks, but certainly in general terms, this debate has been going on for some time, but because the proposal has not become a very firm proposal, I do not think there has been any formal negotiations about that yet. Sir William Morris: So you only consult your representatives when you have a concrete proposal? Mr Hogan-Howe: Well no, I think – all I was saying is there have been informal discussions and we have talked about this way forward over the last few years. I know the Federation have a very strong view: they would prefer to preserve the special status of constable with the protections that surround it. I have to say, there are some good constitutional and some very good pragmatic arguments for that, and I will air just two. One is that constitutionally to have a position where a constable can be directed by someone else may or may not be a good thing. I know you have seen evidence where, certainly if it was a Police Authority directing an employee, and if that Police Authority was not representative of the community and had extremes in it, then that would be quite a danger. The second reason why it is quite important to have separate arrangements, I think, is to think about the nature of people that we deal with in terms of criminal trials. Clearly some of them have a motivation for actually attacking officers and are capable of denigrating them in the way that would be difficult for a normal employer/employee tribunal to try to get to the bottom of. Now that therefore means that we have our own separate system, including lawyers. I know that there are lawyers represented here in the tribunal today, but for me to involve lawyers in that discipline process, as a protection, because people are generally not allowed access to an employment tribunal, has not generally served the best interests of speed. It has certainly not – I do not think it has been the most efficacious method of actually taking things forward. If you will allow me just to say one thing briefly there, which is about just an experience of how lawyers can be of great benefit, actually can seek clarity. But how I think at times – I just wonder whether it adds quality. Certainly during my time here I have carried out an Assistant Commissioner's review, which is a review of a penalty imposed by a previous tribunal, and there were two people before me about the same incident. One had had a significant fine imposed upon them, and one had been found, if you like, guilty of the offence, but had had a sanction imposed of no further action. There could have been no lower sanction imposed. But both were represented before me by two barristers. I wondered whether that was necessary; whether it actually improved the quality of the decision. The reason for that was because at the first hearing, they would run the risk of losing their rank and their employment, and I understood that. But I did just wonder whether or not we were getting too legally focused, and not actually – and missing the point. Which is about, you know, where we need to seek discipline, you know, quickly and effectively; and where members of the public deserve to see a sanction imposed or to have their complaint challenged, and we are not doing that quickly enough either. So I merely offered them examples where I think our process could get sharper, and the present system, I do not think helps. Sir William Morris: At paragraph 139 of your submission, you refer to the reluctance of line managers to deal with complaints informally at local level, and you speak, and I quote, of a tendency in the MPS to invoke formal procedures very quickly. Have you prepared any code or guidelines from HR to your local line managers to adopt a more informal approach to management as against the automatic suspension, if you like, the more formal procedures? What sort of guidance and support are being given to line managers down this line? Mr Hogan-Howe: Well, generally, there is guidance within the policies; I think it is more about the culture that certainly I have experienced while I have been here. I think the great joy of the Met is that in terms of dealing with critical incidents, is that where race or any minority group are represented in the incident, then there is an excellent response; people are very thorough, they try to be caring; they try to be compassionate; they try to deal with people according to their need. In my view, the irony is that when we then turn the focus internally, there is a tendency, when any of those factors are present, to use the same thorough, comprehensive, some may say professional, but in my view just a little too formalistic response to what can be otherwise dealt with as matters where words of advice, or where in fact, you know, a less formal approach might actually get this resolved quicker. So I think within the policies embedded actually are the options for carrying this out. But, for whatever reason, I think there is a tendency to apply the same rigour that we do externally to our own people. In my view, it could at times be dealt with more compassionately, and more – you know, in a wiser way, without what is perceived – I think, to be fair for the people who are doing it, see it as a very thorough response: trying to convince the person who has a problem they are taking it seriously. I think by the time the whole panoply has been run through, the person is not always persuaded that was the case. Although obviously there are occasions where people are satisfied with the outcome. Sir William Morris: Along with other submissions that we have had from MPS, you at paragraph 140 of your submission talked about the sensitivity of supervisors and managers in dealing with race issues, and it could be said that it is a sort of model of management by retreat, using the formality without exploring the issues. What I want to ask you is: what are the HR directorate doing to building a management competency and management confidence in managing fairly and appropriately at all levels in general terms, specifically at local level, where it seems to manifest itself more, because that is what is coming through the various submissions. What is happening to change this situation? Mr Hogan-Howe: I think first of all, what we certainly realise within – I think you will see in terms of the Fairness at Work complaints that came through, certainly for last year, and it is true, replicated I think around the country, is that the majority of incidents tend to be around the first line manager. That does not mean to say the most junior, but certainly the first line. Which is not unusual given that that is possibly where personality conflicts can come in as well as whether people are being managed properly or the individual is performing properly. So where we have invested most of our time is in terms of that first line, certainly in terms of the most junior. So what we have for the sergeants and inspectors and for the police staff first line managers is a classroom-based training, as it happens, at Hendon – which, in fact, has got to your point earlier, you know: where does diversity run through things? Well, I think you can see evidence, and if we have not presented it, we can show it, where those courses are designed to actually do two things. First of all, if your most important thing is to manage people, how do you deal with those incidents? Rather than, what does the rule book say? And the second thing is to try to show, where diversity is an issue, to show how you might try and deal with it a little differently, or at least not to be rigid and to be bound by the process. Certainly if you look through those courses, I think you will see, for example, there is an example within one of the courses of an Asian officer who is on a high potential development scheme who is not performing well: how are you going to deal with that? You could say, "Oh well, there is a piece of policy that means X happens or Y". It is more intended to say, how are you going to deal with the person? Are you going to sit down with them and talk to them? Are you going to record what you do, have a plan? Are you going to take things forward. So I think those are big things. In terms of the personnel managers who are based on the different OCUs, as I say, in each of the Boroughs there is a personnel manager and in each of the various business units. Most of those people are CIPD trained. So there is actually – they have actually taken forward, sometimes with our financial support, that they actually are people who are qualified and are able to – you know, at least have got the knowledge and hopefully the ability to actually make sure that things are managed properly. And in terms of the people who are now at chief inspectors and chief superintendent and police staff equivalent, then usually, we would have expected they would pass through the same system that helps them to actually make sure that these things are managed strategically – at least on a managerial level – in the most appropriate way. So those are some major things that we do. I think you have also heard a little about what started off in about 2000, known as leadership development training. That is the same with our more senior managers, with a view to doing two things: one to realise some of the complexity of some of the organisation we manage; and two, to say something about how complex it is to manage London. People are being put through that course with a view to, one, understanding the complexity; and secondly, how they impact on others in terms of the way that they manage change and how they manage our staff. So those are some big pieces of work. While it is always possible we could do more in terms of management, in terms of the various demands that we have in terms of management training, there have been some significant investments there. Whether there could be more is obviously open for debate. Sir William Morris: Just one final question, Mr Hogan-Howe: we have received a lot of submissions and individual letters; a common complaint is the Met is very rich in policy or in implementation and when management fail to apply the accepted standards, there are, in some instances, victims. But no action is ever taken against those who are responsible for either the misjudgment or the wrong decision, however taken. Basically, what they are saying, the victim suffers and nobody else does. How do you respond to that? Is that a fair criticism? Mr Hogan-Howe: I am not sure it is fair. It is difficult until I see all the cases, but I mean, my experience is where people have been – have acted contrary to codes of conduct, they are challenged, first of all; and secondly, if it is appropriate, they are disciplined. Is that always the most appropriate thing to do? Then that is a challenge that is put to us as an organisation, so in these cases it would be difficult without knowing the details. Are there cases where people should have been challenged and have not been? I am sure there may be. But generally, I think, where there is a discipline case found, first of all, it is investigated; whether or not, as I say, for the reasons we have said, it is the best route all the time, I could not be sure. But I would hope that people are challenged and that where there is a discipline need, I think there is evidence that people have been disciplined for that type of behaviour. The alternatives are that always their careers do not move at the pace at which they might have expected, and possibly we might have, before a particular challenge comes in. So therefore the appraisal route would be something where we might decide not to discipline someone. But their career may not move at the same rate or in the same direction as they first intended. That can be difficult to see from below and it can be difficult to expose openly when people remain in a management role, because they have to have a position of respect and obviously we have to keep some things confidential. But from the complainer's point of view, I can understand why they believe sometimes nothing happened. Without knowing the particular case, I am not sure it would be fair to say that people are not challenged and action is not taken. Sir William Morris: Okay. Mr Hogan-Howe, can I first of all thank you very much indeed for responding to the questions that I have to put to you. The next line of questioning will come from Anesta Weekes. Before we start the questioning, for the benefit of the transcript writers, I am going to suggest that we adjourn for about five or ten minutes, at a maximum, and then we will resume. Mr Hogan-Howe: Is it possible just to add one point, would you mind, to one of the last comments I made, in terms of how we develop people, which is just about the fact that we have a mentoring scheme which is in partnership with London First where we have paired up our Borough commanders and other OCU commanders to try and develop a relationship outside the organisation which seems to work pretty well. Details can be provided and I suspect other people have mentioned that, but if it had not been, I thought I ought to mention it for completeness. Sir William Morris: We will adjourn for ten minutes, thank you very much indeed. 11.45 am (A short break) 11.56 am Sir William Morris: Okay, Mr Hogan-Howe, we resume with Miss Weekes leading the questions. Questions by Miss Weekes Miss Weekes: Mr Hogan-Howe, thank you for your written submissions. I am going to start with Fairness at Work. I do not know which of you would like to deal with the sequence of questions? Mr Hogan-Howe: George McAnuff is here to help with some detail, if that would be okay for him to join me. Miss Weekes: It is entirely a matter for you as to who deals with the topic. Mr Hogan-Howe: If George is available to help, I would appreciate it. Miss Weekes: Thank you very much. I have looked at your page 127 of your submission, just to remind yourself of what you have told us about Fairness at Work. Page 127, BHH127. Thank you very much. Those are the paragraphs dealing there with the Fairness at Work procedure, but I would like to take it perhaps beyond what you have said there. Just first of all in general terms, how do you think this process is working? Mr Hogan-Howe: I think there is some evidence of two big benefits. I think one is that – and this is a tension, because numbers sometimes mean it is worse or better, but there are more people using it. Now the danger is that actually says that more people are unhappy, or alternatively, more people are confident in the process. I think my view is I think the three years previous to that, when the grievance process was in place, gradually descending numbers of people were using it, I think it got down to about 70-odd in the year. Now last year, with the new process, there was around 155. That was back to what the grievance process had been at its highest point. The feeling was one of the reasons for the change in process was that people were less confident in the grievance process and therefore using it less, so there is some evidence there that people are more confident. But I cannot substantiate that, it is just a sense. The second point was whether or not these processes were taking too long. Now there is some evidence that these are getting resolved quicker, but I am not sure if they are as quick as they could be; and finally, because there has been a stage of the process taken out altogether, there used to be a three stage process, that would logically hopefully make more sense. I think my sense is that it seems to be a better system. Roughly two thirds of the people who have used it seem to believe that it is – you know, it has resolved their issue, which means that a third obviously did not. So broadly, it seems to have had a good start, but I could not sit here and say I have got a huge amount of objective evidence to say after one year of use that it is the answer to all the issues, and I think there are some creative ways that we can carry on and move it forward. Miss Weekes: This procedure now takes over completely grievance. It captivates what I would call the nitty-gritty of workplace conflicts, the sort of thing that you do not want to develop into an employment law claim. It deals with the first line tier managers, and it deals with a lot of staff, so it is important. Mr Hogan-Howe: Mm. Miss Weekes: I am going to deal with four criticisms that I have flagged up in my reading of the other submissions that have been sent to this Inquiry, and the first is the criteria for appointment of a Fairness at Work advisor. How are they appointed? Mr Hogan-Howe: First of all is that at the first point of that stage of the process, someone is selected from within the OCU in which that person in serving. Now the dilemma is whether or not that is – there is the immediate challenge of whether or not that is the best, if there is in fact an internal problem, but I think that is an attempt to be pragmatic initially about how many of these issues can be dealt with from people moving between the various OCUs to try and manage that process. But that is how we do it from within, someone has suggested – first of all, there is a list of people who are trained and selected that are within the OCU, that is a point of reference made to the Fairness at Work co-ordinator. If that person is agreed, then that is offered to the individual to see whether or not they find that person acceptable. It is quite possible within the policy for them to say they do not like the selection of that person for the first stage. And if that is the case, George may give detail about how we may be able to do something about that, but generally, we would expect to respect that and find someone else. So there is a training process to get people on to a list; there is a process by which the person is selected by the Fairness at Work co-ordinator. The individual who has raised the Fairness at Work process is allowed to challenge that appointment, and then finally, if that is okay or we find another person, then the stage starts – certainly the first stage. I do not know if you wanted to move on to this, but obviously at the appeals process point, there is a very clear convention which says that the person at the point of appeal must be from a different part of the organisation, from another OCU, to hopefully inject – selected again from people who are trained at appeals stage process, and hopefully to give more objectivity if it is believed that has been an issue during the first stage. Miss Weekes: But how do you ensure independence then if you are selecting from inside the same department? Mr Hogan-Howe: There is always a risk of it not being seen as independent, but I think by first of all giving the person who is raising the Fairness at Work issue the opportunity to object, I think that is one prevent – yes, one guarantee, hopefully, that things are okay. Secondly, some of our OCUs are huge, certainly in policing terms anyway. I mean, if you looked at the Lambeth OCU, we have got about 1,400 people there, so you could quite easily select a Fairness at Work person or co-ordinator who will actually not even know the person that they are actually trying to resolve the issue for. It is not necessary for one of those co-ordinators to be a line manager. As I said, we wanted the right skills, not necessarily seniority. So I think there are quite a few guarantees within the system. Could it be more objective? It is always possible. But I have to say, the feedback we have had in the first year of operation has not tended to be about issues about whether it has been the most appropriate choice. I do not think we have had too many challenges about individuals. Miss Weekes: I would like to turn to see what the unions have said about this, that is MET-TUS, who represent quite a large number of staff. This reference is at MXT1, page 18. Just give us a little time to bring that up for you. Paragraph 8.10; if you just have a look at that paragraph – because you may not have read this. Have you read it? Mr Hogan-Howe: I have not, no. Miss Weekes: Well, I think you ought to read it. (Pause). Mr Hogan-Howe: Right. Miss Weekes: Now what has been said by this organisation is quite important because they represent a very large number of staff, do they not? Mr Hogan-Howe: That is right. Miss Weekes: And they are made up of three quite large unions. They say this; they were instrumental in developing the policy of Fairness at Work and they supported the underlying principles, but they go on to say this: "We were forced to withdraw our support for the policy when the MPS insisted that local personnel managers identify and select Fairness at Work advisors for their own units." So it is very much what you have just explained to me. Well, is that right? Mr Hogan-Howe: I remember talking to the trade unions about this, and I think they have a fair point. The only two things I would say is that when – this Fairness at Work policy, as you have probably picked up, took quite a while to actually come to a consensus about. There were various debates about whether it was the right way, whether or not we were doing it exactly in the way that everybody would say is ideal. At the point of implementation, what the unions would have preferred – and I do understand why they said this – was in fact some central selection process for these people to be selected. It was only, really, on the grounds of pragmatism that we actually were forced to do something reasonably quickly. But for me, I think I said to them at the time, I would never say that we would not go back to that after we had had a reasonable amount of time at least to get the thing running, and the danger was we could have taken another three or four months to select. One of the things certainly I found in the Met is a challenge all the time; every time you press the button at the centre, and I think we have now got something in the order of a few hundred Fairness at Work advisors and appeals people, is that to select that many people entails a huge process if you are in it at the centre. So in the end, it was my decision that we had to do something pragmatic in the first year to get this thing kicked off, because people were not happy with what they got. Nobody liked the grievance process, so we had to do something. Certainly in the first year, my decision was we would go with that first selection process. I acknowledge the unions have got a point, and I would be quite happy to go back afterwards and start to work through: have we got the right people in? But on balance, I decided that it would be better to go forward rather than to tread water for a further six months, when I think we had been waiting something like 18 months to two years to even get the policy agreed. So for right or wrong, that was my judgment, but it is something certainly that we are prepared to revisit. Miss Weekes: Well, it certainly looks as if you may have to visit it fairly promptly, because this procedure is the procedure now for every grievance with a staff member. This is the first port of call, is it not? Mr Hogan-Howe: That is right. Miss Weekes: Training appears to rear its head on almost every single Inquiry document that I have read. Everybody says at some point, "more training"; I suppose you are rather sick of that? Mr Hogan-Howe: I would not say I am sick of it, because I suppose one of the great things that has come home to me, being head of HR, is I have been one of the people on the other end of that debate sometimes as head of operations, saying actually, we need more training for this. I am not sick of it, I think it is a very natural reaction. I think there are two things. First of all, the organisation has a responsibility for delivering core training, for those things that people need to be able to do the job. We then move into an area where it would be ideal or frankly, sometimes, the individual has to take a responsibility for developing themselves; I think certainly at the more senior levels, we would expect that people do take some responsibility for doing that. It is a great challenge; in terms of public service generally, training is a huge abstraction. In terms of the police service, and the Met is no different in this, you can be talking per person of abstractions of something in the order of 10 to 15 days a year. That does not sound much until you realise that is three working weeks per person. Miss Weekes: Well, I am going to take a little time to explore this, because the word "training" really appears to have been used ad nauseam. What precisely is the difficulty with training people adequately in the Met? If you had to give me four major points, what is the difficulty? Mr Hogan-Howe: I think the major – probably the first difficulty, I am not sure it is – I think the first thing is we have to challenge whether or not training is always the most appropriate solution, and I am not sure it always is. I think it is the first thing that we fall to, but I am not sure it is always the most appropriate solution, but where it is important, the big challenge is just delivering – certainly during the last few years, just the volume. So, for example, I have mentioned already that probation training is taken – we have put 10,000 people through. That is a huge commitment in terms of the training establishment. We have to train all our people to drive to a certain standard – and I am only giving these as examples, but we could go on; where every time we train people, we are expected to do it because we are tested in public inquiries, coroner's courts, courts, quite properly: what is the level of training you give? Sometimes that is taken to be longevity rather than quality. But certainly, there are some significant chunks of training which are core and are always there. I think the second thing is from time to time we are pushed by events into making sure that we have got the training right in certain areas, and this Inquiry may come to some conclusions, but previous inquiries have, about the quality of training. If you took the Met's history over the last three years, we had a big challenge in terms of health and safety. Well, it was not acceptable for the organisation to turn round and say we were not able to deliver more health and safety training. We have, and I think we have put a few thousand people through that this last year. So the challenge is usually – first of all, volume; and secondly, the challenge about delivery, because most of the performance indicators that we have are driven by whether or not we deliver on street crime, do we deliver on – in terms of our response rates to people: how do we deal with them when we get there? But the training measures, it is not okay to say, well, you have got an abstraction level of four weeks, and that is okay, to not deliver these performance indicators. So I think that is a big challenge, but we do have performance indicators as well for training. The only possible – Miss Weekes: But you have had this challenge now for well over five to eight years. If you look back at all the major reports that have occurred, every time it is officers just not trained very well, and this particular topic, about first line personnel managers, they need more training. Mr Hogan-Howe: I think for me, I think the challenge – as you say, if people are not doing the job, there can be two things – probably three things really, but the first one is: have they got policies to work to? The second one, have they been trained? And the third thing is are they being monitored to see whether or not all those things they have been trained to do, the policies for which we thought we had got agreement, are they actually delivering? I think you have to have the three things running together. I think we can show clear evidence that we have trained managers; with a big organisation, is it all happening consistently? I think that is a bigger challenge? But broadly, the training responsibility falls to the centre, and I think in terms of structural issues, I will just mention this: if the Met has to provide training, generally we provide it. We have Centrex who provide some national training courses, and they are pretty good, although they do not provide our probational training. But we do not have too many other providers. Now it may well be – and certainly, I would not want to push us towards getting other providers, which still needs to find resources, but there are two tests generally of training. One is, how much does it cost? The second one is, how much time does it take? I think a major challenge to us all the time is making sure the job gets done while making sure we get the appropriate level of training. As I say, I do not think there are any other organisations that train at the level we do. Because certainly, in terms of a police officer's career, you are talking about significant abstractions during the year, whether it be public service and certainly commercial: if you look at the commercial world, the average training days per year is something in the order of two to three days, and ours is more in the order of, as I say, 10 to 15. So there are certain things we have to do, and are a real inertia in getting some of the new things through, but those are some of the challenges you say that we have had for a long time; we do try and manage the demand, but there is always a bit every time something changes a little to retrain. Miss Weekes: Some members of the public may think that you are simply not handling the challenge very well, because if after five to eight years, there is still the debate of: do we really need to train, how can we get the officers to come out for 10 to 15 days, how can we monitor? It is obvious you have got those stages right and they are, to my mind, the correct considerations, but what is the answer, after eight years of talking about training? Mr Hogan-Howe: Well, I think there are two things. One, I think we have done things structurally to try and manage that, and I think that debate will always be there. There will always, I suspect, but I may be wrong – but I suspect there will always be too much demand for the amount of training we can offer, and we have to prioritise. The prioritisation method we use is that each of the business units, so if you remember we have got territorial policing, specialist operations and so on, have their own training board. So what we ask those people to do is to first of all, within their own directorate, to make their prioritisation of what are those things that they say have to happen, and it is better frankly that they do it than someone like me or the commander in training tries to impose his or my priorities. So they are expected to prioritise, and they do two things in that. The first one is: is it a fair request for training? The second thing is, if it is a fair request and they want to take time to do it, can their part of the business cope with that amount of abstraction, and can we afford it? The next level – those training boards then meet under a strategic training committee chaired by the Deputy Commissioner, and the reason for that is that quite often, we get competing demands in terms of the amount of training that is available. Then the idea is to prioritise within the organisation, if there are extraordinary demands, as I mentioned, health and safety, what can we afford to do? What can we afford not to do? And to make sure – so for right or wrong, that is our mechanism, trying to prioritise each year, but I think acknowledging that it is never the perfect fit for the amount of training that is demanded. Miss Weekes: Well if, just at a guess, a naive guess – because this is a matter which we, the panel, have not yet decided on – I said that I think personally training of PR and personal management is at the top of the list, because it is going to avoid you having an expensive tribunal claim, and it will make your staff happy, would I be right? Mr Hogan-Howe: It is certainly one at the top of the priority list, because – I mean, it seems to me there are two things about leaders. One is they have to be professionally competent in the area in which they lead, and they also have to look after the people. If you look after the people generally they deliver for you. So certainly it has to be a very important issue, and I would say, one of the major priorities. I think there is clear evidence that as an organisation, we acknowledge that. So if you look at the sergeants' and the inspectors' training processes, if you looked at the strategic command course that is delivered through Centrex and takes six months – well, it is spread over six months, to be fair; that is a pretty impressive piece of training that is delivered nationally. There is some separate training that is delivered at Centrex for superintendents, chief inspectors and chief supers, and police staff are able to attend that training as well. I think we have got some pretty clear evidence that we have prioritised the way we deal with people. The personnel managers I have indicated are CIPD trained, and we are working with them in terms of first line management in making sure that they are trained to do properly the things that they ought to do. I think the bigger challenge for us in my view, and I may be wrong, it may be seen as a biased view, is whether or not we monitor enough, and whether we challenge enough when things are not going as we would expect, and whether or not we prioritise it enough in terms of the day to day, when in fact the day to day also means the public are asking us to deliver on attending their incidents, making sure that we detect offences, making sure that we deal with their problems. Whether or not it is always the biggest priority – that is why I say it is one of our priorities. But the public, I think, have the right to demand of us deliverance of operational policing, and that is the usual debate. But I am sure it is true of many organisations as well. Miss Weekes: So you are not recommending to us that it is principally one of the most important, that is not what you are saying? Mr Hogan-Howe: No, if I was heard to say that, I did not intend to. I am saying it is one of the major priorities. I was just responding to your point: is it the priority? I am just trying to be open, in saying I think it is one of the major priorities; I am not sure I could always agree that it will always be the first, because I know, in reality, it will struggle to make its voice heard at times. Miss Weekes: What are your views about going back to the centralisation of dealing with complaints or workplace conflict? This is a suggestion by the Metropolitan Police Federation. Mr Hogan-Howe: I am not quite sure exactly – Miss Weekes: Shall we turn to it? It is MPF1, at page 25, if we just pause and bring that up, so you can have a look at it. (Pause). "It is our opinion that the MPS should consider whether the current scheme can be sustained." They are talking about the Fairness at Work scheme: "Perhaps a central unit to deal with these matters is a more favourable option. This will allow Fairness at Work advisors to be appointed from outside the workplace subject to the grievance." Is that too radical? Mr Hogan-Howe: No, I think it would certainly be one of the options we could look at. I think there are other options as well. I mean, first of all, it is an option, and I would not dismiss it, but one of the things we have to look at are the resourcing implications and whether people who were coming into that system would feel that central control was better than local control. I am not sure – and obviously the Federation believe that would be better, and it is a view we would have to certainly take into consideration. Miss Weekes: Has there been a major discussion about this option? Mr Hogan-Howe: Not really, no, but I think to be fair to everybody concerned, that is possibly because we are only, you know, in the 12th month of the implementation, so I would not criticise at all for that, but it is certainly an option that we could have a look at. I mean, I think there are others, and I know that you looked at the Northamptonshire model; it seems to me that there are two things I think we could explore over the coming year. One is about independent involvement in the process; now it may be this is a substitution for independence, is the centre. I think the second one is I am very attracted – I was when we implemented this, but the thing got such a momentum, it just was not practical to start to change things late – to the idea of getting people together with a person, I would align it to sort of small claims in a County Court, where an adjudicator sits there, people sit there without – possibly with representation but without lawyers. I am not having a go at lawyers, I seem to have referred to it a couple of times, but I am not sure this would help in this bit of the process. They sit in a room and they share what they feel about the incident, and they try to resolve it in that room, and they can each bring their evidence. Because my biggest concern about some of the Fairness at Work processes and grievances that preceded it is that people – an investigator goes off, talks to individuals; if you are not careful, what they find is never shared properly with the other party. Sometimes, just by sharing information, people suddenly discover that the thing they were worried about was for a different motive entirely, or actually are persuaded by the explanation, and I do not think we do enough of sitting down as adults with people in the same room and trying to manage that. So what I found attractive in the Northamptonshire process, and although I think there is only about 12 people gone through it in a year, but what I found attractive was the fact that you had a trained facilitator there, and you tried to come to some agreement with the people in the room. I think ours is, you know, independent strands, and I think suspicion, prejudice builds up and by the time it takes to see everybody in an inquiry, it ends up where it becomes a big inquiry, and nobody is persuaded necessarily by the outcome. So that is how I would like to see it progress, but the Federation option is one certainly to be looked at. Miss Weekes: That leads me, I think, conveniently, into informal resolution of workplace conflicts. I have raised some of the concerns of others within the Met as to how the new procedure is working, and it seems that nobody everybody is happy with it; I think that is fair, at the moment. It would be regrettable to have to go back to square one, but you may have to. But in any event, is there a culture within the Met of resolving disputes informally that has nothing to do with the statute, that has nothing to do with the expected procedure? Mr Hogan-Howe: I would hope there is, although it is clear from some of the examples we have seen that that has not happened all the time. Miss Weekes: Can I be a little bit more strict with you? You have used the word "hope". You are head of HR. Do you know whether there is a culture within the Met? Mr Hogan-Howe: That is what I was just going to go on to, is that as a result – I think that question has been raised earlier in the Inquiry. So what we did was we went to 15 managers within the various OCUs – there are 100, so it is a sample, it is not all of it – and asked them, in their view, how many of these cases would have come to them? Quite often them being a personnel manager, or a senior person, to their knowledge, in each of their business units, or each of their boroughs quite often. They reckoned it varied, as you might imagine, but something in the order of four to five a week might be cases that never made it to the formal Fairness at Work process, that were things that had to be resolved by some management intervention beyond the first line manager. Now what is ever so hard to get below that is if a sergeant is talking to a PC, and they end up with a dispute, is that an issue about – and they do not resolve it, at the point at which the harm is so great that we need to invoke a more formal process, it is hard, but it seemed to be that people thought something in the order of five incidents a week – no, it was a month, were in fact issues that in any OCU – one of the other things is that each of the OCUs are differently sized, so you can talk about Lambeth, at 1,500, bigger than many – well, some police forces, and down to smaller OCUs that might be probably 50 or 60 people, but broadly it is something of that order, if that helps. Miss Weekes: How would you encourage this? How would you enc