Important note: This is an archive of the website that was formerly at www.morrisinquiry.gov.uk. It is being hosted on the MPA website for archival purposes only and may contain out-of-date information.

This resource is from the Transcripts section. This section contains a transcript of the public session with Mr R Pull and Mr A Cameron of the Christian Police Association (London Branch) on 30 March 2004.

Sections available here:

• Transcript of public session: Mr B Pull and Mr A Cameron of the Christian Police Association
  • Questions by Sir William Morris
  • Questions by Miss Weekes
  • Questions by Sir Anthony Burden

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

Transcript of public session: Mr B Pull and Mr A Cameron of the Christian Police Association

Tuesday, 30 March 2004
2 pm

Sir William Morris: Mr Pull, good afternoon to you. Can I first of all thank you very much indeed for accepting our invitation to attend the Inquiry and give evidence, and thank you also for letting us have your written submission. This has been found to be extremely helpful to us.

Let me say straight away that I appreciate that for some of our witnesses, any process of this nature may seem rather daunting, so I thought it would be helpful if I set out very briefly how we propose to conduct the hearing this afternoon.

But first, let me introduce myself and 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 members of the panel: on my right is Sir Anthony Burden, who recently retired as Chief Constable of South Wales Constabulary, after a very long and distinguished career in the police service; and on my left is Miss Anesta Weekes QC, who is an eminent barrister. Anesta sits as a recorder and part-time chairperson of employment tribunals and she was also counsel to the Lawrence Inquiry.

Mr Pull, 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 who make up the organisation. The inquiry that we are conducting is inquisitorial and not adversarial in nature or character.

We are very 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 any criticisms of the MPS as an organisation, and particular individuals who work for it.

To help us in our task, we are very keen to hear from all our witnesses not only what is wrong with the Met but what is right with it; most importantly, we are keen to hear any suggestion for putting matters right.

Let me say that a transcript is being taken, so that we have a proper record of the evidence given by all our witnesses. This will be posted on our website some time today.

At the end of these introductory remarks, I will lead on the questions to you, followed by my colleagues; Miss Weekes first, and then Sir Anthony Burden, and then any supplementary questions that I might find necessary.

At the conclusion of our questions, I will offer you the opportunity for a brief closing comment.

In your written submission, you have given us some very interesting pointers. This submission will be posted on the website as well, but you have also set out for our information a number of headings that I will just recite back to you.

First, an introduction to and the aims of the Christian Police Association. Second, the CPA's introduction to the discrimination it sees in the Metropolitan Police Service, including historical and recent experience.

You go on to address emerging themes, diversity training, disciplinary issues, and finally, staff support associations.

We would like to ask you some questions on these themes, and seek your views on a range of matters that are of interest to us.

Before we raise these issues, however, for the benefit of the transcript, I wonder if you would mind formally introducing yourself and, of course, your colleague.

Mr Pull: Yes, my name is Inspector Bob Pull, I have been in the police service since 1976; this is my 28th year. I am the current leader of the Christian Police Association, and I work in the diversity directorate, which is DCC4, at New Scotland Yard. I have worked in the directorate for the last four and a half years, working initially on recommendation 16 of the Lawrence Inquiry report; I also, as part of my work, deal as lead for faith issues in public reassurance for the MPS.

In addition to that, I am currently training to be a minister within the Baptist Union.

Sir William Morris: Okay, and your colleague?

Mr Cameron: I am Andrew Cameron, I am a police sergeant. I am what is now classified as a diversity trainer. We have recently been transferred back through to DCC4 from HR. I have been in the Metropolitan Police since 1988. My first policing experience was in the West End, where I concentrated on community policing.

On promotion, I went to the London Borough of Southwark, where I worked as a community sector sergeant at Walworth. I policed the Lawrence Inquiry on a day-to-day basis, and took a lead in dealing with refugee and community issue problems in that borough.

Sir William Morris: Okay, thank you both very much.

Questions by Sir William Morris

Sir William Morris: Can I start by saying that I feel fairly confident that you have both read our terms of reference, and no doubt you have followed the progress of our Inquiry.

With this in mind, and taking account of your association's particular concern, I just wondered if you would mind setting out for us what your association thinks is probably the most important issue that our Inquiry needs to learn from your association's experience?

Mr Pull: From the evidence that we have provided, the overall assessment is that the Metropolitan Police has done a great deal in the last five years in particular to address some of the issues for which this Inquiry has been set up. Despite all that good work, in terms of policy and procedures, there is still a great deal to be done.

Our submission, in particular, was we have not actually looked at race: we have looked at all diversity issues. It is clear that some of our members, friends and associates have actually been, one would say, victims of some issues which relate to gender issues, in terms of disability, in terms of race, et cetera.

What we would like to see in our agenda is that firstly, we would like to support those members, in order that they can actually perform to the best of their ability within the Metropolitan Police, and also, to assist the Metropolitan Police in order that that can be done as well.

It is our observations at the moment, bearing in mind since 2001 we have, as an association, asked for and sought help from the association, both financially and for staffing, and that has not been forthcoming.

I think in terms of a way forward in the short term, for the staff support associations to get greater support from the MPS than they do currently, because of the disproportionality of resources given to two associations, namely the Black Police Association and the Sikh Association, both of whom also deserve those resources, please do not get me wrong on that.

When I say short term, I have made observations about the Police Federation, because I truly believe that some of the work we are doing as staff support associations is something that the Police Federation should have been doing.

They do try to do that, but the difficulties are that the regulations that are there for the Police Federation prevent them from actually having a diverse membership voted on to the executives, et cetera. So therefore, what you have is a predominantly white Police Federation which cannot, I believe, really truly understand its workforce, because of the regulations which are in place.

So what I would ask from this Inquiry, I know that it would be difficult initially, but one of the recommendations would be for the Police Federation nationally to be looked at, in order that there would be a more diverse representation, therefore negating the need for staff support associations other than for a social function.

Sir William Morris: Let me try and understand you here. The Police Federation is an independent trade union. I know of its statutory underpinning. Are you saying that the composition of its executive council and other structures of governance is prescribed statutorily?

Mr Pull: Yes, it is.

Sir William Morris: I see. You obviously have been in dialogue with the Federation's representatives.

Mr Pull: I have spoken with Glenn Smythe on this particular subject in the past, but I think the difficulties are again – because the Metropolitan Police is such a large organisation, for things to change actually takes quite a long time. Obviously, over 28 years, as the organisation grinds on, things do change. The last few years in particular have been very fast in changing.

But in terms of the Federation, it is very difficult for them actually to represent the needs of everyone, from the point of view – on a particular borough, if you have a majority of white officers, there is an opportunity then really that whoever represents them will generally be a white officer, and I think that is the difficulty. But if there are systems put in place which enable consultation, perhaps using some sort of positive action to enable those from minority groups to be part of the Federation, then I think it would actually assist in the long term.

But in the short term, my view is that the staff support associations in the Metropolitan Police have genuinely tried to help in terms of recruitment, in terms of retention of staff, and whilst we have been appreciated on a number of occasions, whereby the Commissioner and other members of management board have said that they appreciate our work, often the resources given to us are not consistent.

Sir William Morris: Thank you for that, but there are two steps here, as I see it. Firstly, there is the policy position which declares the intents, and then of course that needs support of the general membership. I am talking about change of the constitution to accommodate the representation that you, I am sure, would like to see, and just alluded to.

Secondly, it is to then persuade the legislators to change the regulation. What I would like to explore, and perhaps it is best left to be explored with the Federation when they address you, but let me ask you: do you know of any past exercise where there has been a debate about change in the policy to facilitate the statute?

Mr Pull: Well, the Police Federation have gone towards – they do have a focus group whereby people from various associations will actually meet with the Federation, and that to me is a step forward. The relationship, may I say, between the Federation and the staff support associations is a very good relationship. There is not the perceived animosity which in some quarters may have been voiced.

Sir William Morris: I note that from your respective portfolios, if I can put it in those terms, you bring tremendous experience in terms of the diversity issue; your good self works in the directorate, and Mr Cameron said that community policing was your first footing, so to speak, in the West End; that is extremely helpful for us.

Against that background, could you give us some examples where your members have benefitted from the MPS' policy on diversity?

Mr Pull: Well, I personally have benefitted, from the point of view that whilst I work in the diversity directorate, I have been enabled to go to college, which is something which I would never have thought of in the past. As the regulations have changed, there is an acknowledgment that people are actually worth the investment in going off and getting further education as well, so for me personally, that has certainly been a benefit, because of the changes.

I recognise also that there have been some significant – some because of legislation, but there have been some significant changes in terms of employment in respect of work and lifestyle, et cetera. I think that the Metropolitan Police should be congratulated that they have actually risen to that.

It is just these other issues which I have raised in the report which really I would like to highlight. When it comes to – I think the vast majority of our members would actually say, "Well, actually, the Metropolitan Police is not a bad place to work", so therefore, I would say, that would be – and I would say that again, even for those people who have made complaints, they still love the Metropolitan Police, and so it must be getting something right. We acknowledge that, and we want to be part of getting it right even more.

Sir William Morris: Well, we have said on record publicly that we do not want to hear just about what is wrong, we want to hear about what is right, and by definition, we recognise equally that there are some things that are right, and I repeat, the most important facet of the exercise is to tell us what needs to be done to make it even better, if I can put it in those terms.

Mr Cameron: If I could just add in support of that, on some of the diversity courses that I have run in various boroughs across London, members for minority groups have consistently said, "This is the first time the Metropolitan Police is actively listening to its members of this organisation", and that actually for some people can be quite a significant emotional event, because in the past, they have not felt they have actually been listened.

What the service then does with that particular information is another matter; we have heard that we have policies, practices and procedures in place, but actually when we come down to grass roots implementation, that may not necessarily be the case. And there is a feeling that perhaps there is a lot of information out there, but access is perhaps controlled, and the gatekeepers to that information might not actually be as representative as perhaps they could be.

Sir William Morris: Policy rich and implementation poor, I think that is the phrase around here. But let me just ask you one last question: the whole concept of diversity and Fairness at Work are perhaps two sides of the same coin, I would suggest.

Could you let us have your views on how the new Fairness at Work policy has bedded down, and what are the attendant benefits? And as importantly, what is the feedback from, if you like, the frontline?

Mr Pull: I have had recent experience of a Fairness at Work procedure which involved a member of staff who had a registered disability, and it took about four months for this particular issue, which was only a change of hours from a Friday evening to another day, which was very, very simple – we had to ask for the process to be enacted.

It was felt, and this can be no blame against the individual, but I think it can be felt that it is perceived that the person who was nominated to be the Fairness at Work advisor was too close to management, and there was an issue there in terms of whether you could trust that particular individual.

I think there is an opportunity, and I read yesterday in the submission by Assistant Commissioner Hogan-Howe that he would welcome an arbitrator such as ACAS to be involved at an early stage. Whilst listening to the evidence from Esme Crowther just before, when she said about the cost implication, I think in general, if you can actually deal with some of these issues at the very beginning, have an independent person there involved in it, that actually in the long run it will save a lot of money.

But it is not just about money, because as people progress down Fairness at Work procedures which could ultimately be an employment tribunal, the amount of stress that has caused on all sides, and the amount of damage it causes, between relationships, between people within the organisation as such, it is worth putting an investment of independence in there at a very early stage, and negating a lot of the pain that comes after that.

Sir William Morris: Thank you very much, to both of you, Mr Pull and indeed Mr Cameron. I just pass you on for further questions to my colleague, Anesta Weekes.

Questions by Miss Weekes

Miss Weekes: Thank you. Can I ask for your comments on three areas? The first is management and HR issues. I have read your very helpful submission, thank you. I wonder whether you can assist us on any specific recommendations that you will have from your experience of how management can be improved further. I am particularly interested in the relationship between staff and officers in management, and the resolution of disputes.

Mr Pull: I think the main thing is communication, and we have come across – we have spoken about policy. I do not think you can fault the policies, it is actually the enactment of those policies.

I truly believe that the message of diversity has not actually reached grass roots level. I have been in the diversity directorate now for four and a half years, and have been involved with many campaigns, a lot of literature; I was surprised, actually, when I went on a diversity course to discover that actually the message had not been received.

When I have gone round police stations and sat in the canteen, some of the things that I have in my ivory tower at Scotland Yard and some of the things that are said there are certainly nothing that you would expect from our ivory tower.

So I think it is important, from management board level in particular, that they not only lead but they actually be shown to lead, the managers. Those managers, the key people would be the borough commanders, because if a borough commander actually believes in something then the rest of the station, the rest of the borough will actually follow.

The important issue for all of these is for borough commanders to buy into diversity; it not being a problem, but diversity as a solution, both internally and for external issues as well, in building communities.

So my view would be that whilst the management board should take the lead, borough commanders really need to buy into that, and whatever performance indicators should be in there – and it could even include the removal of borough commanders who are not actually able to communicate that message to their staff as well.

Miss Weekes: Can I just have one follow-on question on that topic? What, in your view, is the Metropolitan Police's best communication vehicle? We have heard about the intranet, for example.

Mr Cameron: From my perspective, I would say a role model, somebody who has that personal drive. You know, the intranet is very efficient, but not everybody enjoys technology and access to technology. We have, you know, some places that do not have intranet access. A good role model, at whatever level, I think, is a driving force for change that is almost unstoppable.

Certainly from a diversity perspective, I think if you have got somebody like Commander Allen, who appears to be personally committed to the issues, then that drive is followed through.

Bob has mentioned the borough commander level in relation to the important agent for change; I also think that it should actually be lower down. The sergeant and first line supervision, because that is where, certainly from my perspective in dealing with diversity courses, fairness gets sorted out, because that is actually at the sharp end and you need role models at that level.

When you get borough commanders, and the people in senior positions, who do not understand institutional racism, they then box themselves into a position whereby they cannot admit it, because that leads potentially into a disciplinarian standpoint; then we have to take – where do we make our stand in relation to fairness, at what level? It should be at the lowest level, and it should be through good role models and through good leadership.

Mr Pull: Could I make a point in terms of the fear factor? The way the discipline regulations are at the moment, because of the adversarial position, people are just so frightened in case they have said the wrong word, because the sanction is the sack. I think there is a real need for the organisation to look at how best to deal with issues; in particular, verbal altercations between others.

Now I am not saying that somebody who is racist should not be sacked, I say "Yes, they should". But the system should be in place that if a person needs education, they should have access to that education, and if they are unable then, then they should get the sack. But I think the main issue is there is too much fear, and if someone says the wrong thing, then they could be out. You know, they have lost their livelihood, it would cause damage to their families, et cetera.

I think managers at a local level actually are also frightened: they have come to the point that they will actually freeze and then pass the problem up the line. So that is another issue which I believe that you could look at.

Miss Weekes: We most certainly will look at it, but I would rather like your help as to what you think the solution is. Solutions in relation to people's fears are not easy, but can you help?

Mr Pull: Again, it is about communication. We have spoken about role models, but it is about treating people like you would want to be treated yourself.

Now having been in the police service for 28 years, I actually – you know, I assimilated for 20 years into the culture, because it was a disciplined organisation. It used to be said, "If you do not want to be in the job, just leave it, get out", and that was how the culture continued.

Well, you see, as time has moved on, and we actually realise that management techniques about getting the best out of people. It is about being a role model; it is about being fair with people; it is about having particular systems there where people can actually genuinely feel as though if they do have a grievance of any kind, that will be dealt with properly.

Part of the system is there, it is just a tweaking of the system that will make a massive difference.

Mr Cameron: I was going to add to that: a system of efficient mentoring for staff that at the moment does not appear to be in place.

Having been involved in the three day diversity input at the recruit school at Hendon, to see these young people coming in to join the Metropolitan Police, all enthusiastic and keen, to deliver a course like that, and then to go and deliver a course, say, in a borough, and to be met with a degree of hostility and resistance – what is the change? Why is that enthusiasm not there? You know, the degree of cynicism that gets put in.

But a lot of it is around mentoring, role models, continuity of support and career development. Because you do not actually – from my standpoint, and from people's submissions, career development and annual appraisals are not considered to be a major priority. It is just a formality that needs to be gone through, normally when it is overdue and needs to be completed at haste.

Miss Weekes: Can I move to a final area? How can you help us with the preparation that the Metropolitan Police must now put in place for religious recognition? I think you are all aware of the change of the law that requires that sexual orientation and faith recognition is adhered to.

I know from your submissions, your very helpful submissions, that there is multi-faith within the Metropolitan Police that mirrors communities. So how are they preparing for it, and do you think the preparation is adequate?

Mr Pull: Bearing in mind the legislation was – we expected it since, I think it was 1998, with the Treaty of Amsterdam. The first time that the Met actually did any work on it was the week after it was enacted, which was quite interesting; but I truly believe – now I work in a group called the Samurai group, and in that, the main groups that started were actually the faith based groups. We work with the Sikh Association, the Association of Muslims, the Jewish Association and also – I have missed one out. Did I say the Sikh Association? The Hindu Association.

We are a model of – not tolerance, but we just work together so well, as different faith groups. We have different needs. The Muslim Association, obviously there is issues in terms of halal food; there is issues of being able to pray, et cetera; and I think even though there may be disagreements in terms of what provisions should be provided, it is actually good to just acknowledge each other.

I think it is a big shame again that the Metropolitan Police have not actually been able to harness that goodwill that we have, which is actually a model for across – not only the UK, but across this world, in terms of faith groups working effectively together; in terms of recruitment, retention, et cetera. Sometimes we agree to disagree.

I think – how can we move forward on it? I personally believe is that the faith based associations should be at least well resourced. If there is issues in terms of prayer facilities, I do not believe that it should be disproportionate, but it would be useful for a quiet room, et cetera, to be available at most buildings where people – all members of staff can actually use that as a time to get away.

Because what we have to remember, it is not just five main faiths. People have faiths right across a multitude of faiths. I think we need to acknowledge that.

But also I think that we do not need to be frightened of faith. Whilst we have a great deal of tension in our country, across the world – in fact, I have just come back from Jerusalem myself, and seen first hand how there can be conflicts because of faith.

There is also a lot of people of faith who actually want to work together. People who really want to make things better, like ourselves today: we want to make things better for the Metropolitan Police, we want to help, for our Christian communities, and particularly the African-Caribbean Christian community in London to actually work together to have a safer London. Within the CPA, the African-Caribbean and Asian members, we want to work together in order that we can actually help the Metropolitan Police. We want to do that. It is our earnest belief.

So I think the main thing is not to be frightened of faith. Whatever the newspapers say, the fact is the vast majority of people with faith are good people. We are not all extremists. What we would just like is some time when we can actually reflect, time where we can pray, time where we can just be able to talk about our faith freely without, again, proselyting – because that is a real fear within a secular society, of trying to convert people.

Now in terms of that, "Okay, well let's just talk about my faith, talk about who you are", and I think it is just about acknowledging each other. I think the faith groups have actually shown as a model for the rest of the UK, of how we can work together. Sorry to get on my soapbox!

Miss Weekes: Thank you very much indeed.

Sir William Morris: Thank you. I will take you straight on to Sir Anthony Burden for his questions.

Questions by Sir Anthony Burden

Sir Anthony Burden: Thank you. Can I look with you if I may at your suggestions and recommendations in relation to discipline? I will just wait for that to come up. You will be able to identify it before me, I think. You refer there to the fact that you feel the present hybrid discipline and employment regulations should be dispensed with, and a more inquisitorial and less adversarial approach to discipline should be adopted.

Would you like to enlarge on that, and give your views, as to why you think that would be reasonable?

Mr Pull: I did mention before this fear factor. But there is also the element of systems and processes being fair.

When there is, in one hand, employment regulations permitting you to do this, and then on the other side there are discipline regulations that permit you to do the other, then therefore there becomes confusion.

My view is it is exactly the same as the Commissioner's submission, that to actually bring it together in a fair process with proportional discipline – to enable a person who has done the most serious offences to be dismissed, and those who can actually be trained or who have done less to be actually more compassionate with them and actually let them continue to work in the organisation.

Mr Cameron: I think there is a degree of misunderstanding, I was going to say mistrust, but that might be too strong a word, about what actually the complaints procedure is, because it is an extremely complex issue. It is not widely understood. Police regulations, there are so many of them, it is almost impossible to keep up with them; so officers and staff are potentially fearful of the unknown. It feels like the service has the resources of a department to potentially deal with a situation, and it is yourself and your federation or your staff association who try and support you.

So by being more open, I think that would help. Of course, under very serious circumstances, discipline needs to be done and it needs to be seen to be done, and swiftly done. But for a lot of cases, I think the open discussion route might be more favourable for everyone's benefit, because you then actually get to the truth, rather than getting at what either the organisation wants to hear or what the individual wants to say.

Sir Anthony Burden: Other submissions have referred to this and said, "Well, there is nothing really wrong with the regulations; it is managers not getting a grip, and just not managing the issue", and the trouble is that the Metropolitan Police in some respects is still a blame culture.

Mr Cameron: Yes, I think – personally, I think the Metropolitan Police still does have a blame culture, whatever the Commissioner might say.

I would also say that I think it has a bit of an avoidance culture, with all levels of management who perhaps could make the decision which would actually stop the grievance or the complaint at that low level, but often are reluctant to do so for whatever reason (I would suggest perhaps that that is through ignorance of actual procedures), which could stop it there. Because they have not, it then goes up and up, and then ends up potentially at an employment tribunal or wherever.

Sir Anthony Burden: So in that respect, there is some credence in what we are being told about the fact that managers will not manage discipline and will not manage grievances effectively, and we need to try and do something about that.

Mr Cameron: Certainly from the courses and from contacts with colleagues – especially if there is a diversity element as well. If there is a diversity input, then people get frightened; therefore, they would rather somebody else made the decision for them. Because I think possibly they do not feel that if they make their decision and that decision is wrong, that the service will then support them.

Sir Anthony Burden: Thank you for that. You referred to the directorate of professional standards, and you make mention there of the fairness of that department, or lack of it on occasions, when dealing with minority groups. You refer specifically, I know, in relation to your own association.

Is that a perception or is that reality backed with evidence?

Mr Pull: Well, the evidence in terms of this particular video that was shown, it was shown just two years ago, and the video actually showed two born again Christians who were involved in corruption, and so straight away what you are talking in terms of is that there was a clear message from that video which was shown to a significant proportion of staff across the MPS, because it was an obligatory course, that they would have a perception that if you were a born again Christian, you could not be trusted. That to me was something which I challenged the DPS at the time; they agreed to actually withdraw at that time the video, but that does not take away the perceptions.

For some Christians who went, they never saw it; for others, particularly myself, because I was quite sensitive to it, I did see it, and I was thankful they did withdraw it. But since then, there has been no communication to say whether it be used again.

But for me, if the DPS at that time – if they actually had this mindset that born again Christians cannot be trusted, then who else is not trusted within the organisation? And it just – again, it just shows that there is a lack of openness in terms of the individuals at the time who produced that particular video, that that was, you know, how it was.

What I would like to say – in fact, I saw Commander Hagon in here earlier, who is part of DPS I understand, his openness in terms of external diversity issues is second to none, having been on a gold group with him.

What I would like to do is actually for the DPS – our recommendation would be that any member of DPS should actually be involved in advance diversity courses, enhanced ones. So they can clearly understand how particular ethnic minority officers actually feel during an investigation. The Gurpal Virdi case in particular is one that has been raised in the past, and I think it is just a matter of the mindset of the individuals.

In terms of other evidence, I was actually on a diversity course with DPS members of staff, and I was appalled by what I was sitting listening to. Within that room, there was three of us, two trainers and myself, who had about 75 years' experience between us, and these four men who were there said, "We have had enough of this diversity, we just do not need any more of it, we have been trained, let us get on with it". That was not the attitude I was expecting, and again that just shows you perhaps what is happening at grass roots.

About 50 per cent of people, it seems to be, who are on courses, maybe 30 per cent, just do not want to accept the message at all. And that includes DPS.

Sir Anthony Burden: You refer to that in your submission, of course. Can I just come on as my final point – and that is an area you are both very familiar with, and that is diversity training. You comment there – and, of course, the big danger with any panel such as this is the recommendations could be, well, training, but you say, in relation to diversity that not only are the courses beginning to wane away, in your perception, the fact is the millions of pounds spent on it and the millions of people hours spent delivering the training, you do not feel the impact has been proportionate.

Mr Pull: I do not think that at all. My observations, in terms of finance, in terms of the diversity message, is – I have been involved in many sort of multi-thousand pound diversity conferences. I have personally been involved in directing – one of my part-time jobs has been – two videos for the Metropolitan Police which cost around £60,000 for the two, by the time we got the team in to do that, which have really been seen by nobody.

The diversity conferences: you see the same people at the same conferences every time. The message is not actually getting out to grass roots. And training is not the answer. I am actually a qualified trainer; I did training for many years, training manager in north-west London. And training is not the answer – it is part of the solution. But the other thing is about management, again, in terms of managers being able to manage; having the freedom to manage; to have the courage to manage. But also, to be supported in their management. But for them to have the correct information, where they can actually manage appropriately, and also to believe that again, diversity is not a problem.

In fact, if they are dealing with an issue with an ethnic minority officer, it is not an issue necessarily about the officer's race all the time. It could just be something that is a personnel issue that could be dealt with by saying, "Please do not do that again."

Sir Anthony Burden: But it is immediately racked up because –

Mr Pull: It is immediately put straight up the line, and all of a sudden it becomes a major incident, a critical incident, and you have a gold group on it and things like that. So really, it is sad. But we can go forward, and the Metropolitan Police is doing a good job still. Again, it is tweaking that – what we would hope from this Inquiry is we would be able to tweak it that bit more to make sure we operate better next year than we do this year.

Sir Anthony Burden: Can I just then – because my final question was going to be: well, if training is not the answer, then what is? I think you have given me your sort of menu of issues that you feel would complement training, and together, they perhaps would be a solution. Is that a comprehensive answer from you? Because that is a very important answer, as far as we are concerned.

Mr Pull: Yes, it is a comprehensive answer.

Sir Anthony Burden: Thank you very much.

Mr Cameron: Can I just add, I think there also has to be a community involvement in this.

I think for too long, in all types of policing, it has been viewed that the Metropolitan Police is the expert at policing, rather than the community that is being policed itself. And actually by getting the community in at all levels of training, discipline or whatever, that could actually be perceived, and it would be a more open and honest process. It would also be seen by a lot of people as far more fair and supportive.

Diversity training and delivering diversity training to police officers is the hardest type of work I have ever done – and having policed some of the estates in south London, I think I can say that. It is the only job where I have gone home and been emotionally affected because of the personal costs, and I sometimes wonder, why is it worth doing? Is it worth it? Is the Metropolitan Police worth it?

At other times, I get members of staff who still come up to me and shake me by the hand and say, "Thank you for doing that course, at least somebody is listening", so I think we have made progress.

Sir Anthony Burden: Could I just finally, chairman, if I could take you outside of your association's interests this afternoon, you represent the two ranks that are vital in terms of frontline management if any change is going to be enacted. Are there any other issues that you would want to make us aware of that actually inhibit frontline managers from managing these sorts of issues effectively?

Mr Cameron: If we could try and remove the fear of getting it wrong; the fear of the blame culture is a driving factor, especially when it is perceived that some managers need to make an example of people on a diversity issue, they are going to get promoted. That is sometimes what it is seen as.

Sir Anthony Burden: That is a perception?

Mr Cameron: It is perhaps a perception of some. That we need to make an example of an individual so they get promoted, for example.

Sir Anthony Burden: Thank you very much.

Sir William Morris: Well, thanks to both of you. We have finished the questions that we wanted to ask, but in my opening statement, I did offer the opportunity for closing remarks from one of you. If you do want to take advantage of the opportunity, the time is really now.

Mr Pull: Thank you for that. I think the main issue for us is that we would like to see the Metropolitan Police to be a fairer organisation; in particular, not just for our members, but for everybody, and the examples that we have submitted show that the Met Police is not always getting it right, we submit.

But equally, but believe – and AC Hogan-Howe was quoted yesterday as saying that the Met needs to actively deal with people according to their needs, and not simply to create and communicate policy. I am thankful of that, but I truly believe that in terms of the Christian Police Association, we have been severely discriminated against for the last two years.

Despite two business cases which have indeed shown that we have provided up to £400,000 worth of free publicity for the Met, and it was good publicity, in terms of sort of engagement with the community, we still have not been acknowledged.

The submission I have done here was done, again, at personal cost, because of the amount of work I had to do on it, and the same with Andrew as well; we do things in our own time.

Now I accept that because I believe in this, I will do things in my own time, but I also believe that if we are actually – if we have actually set out a business case as we have, saying we can save the Metropolitan Police so much money in terms of employment tribunals, in cases of public reassurances, in cases of recruitment and retention of staff, for which I have also given evidence; surely with such a business case, the fact that what we need is one member of staff from 40,000 members is not something that is insurmountable.

If it was a critical incident, the staff would be there tomorrow, but because it is the Christian Police Association, we have not got that staff. So what we would ask you, sir, is that you, as part of your recommendations, would actually consider, for our association and other associations, to be properly supported financially or in terms of staffing, in order that we can actually continue in the short term to be in some ways the conscience of the Metropolitan Police. And I acknowledge that there is dangers in terms of giving finance to staff support associations. I acknowledge in the last report which was by AC Ghaffur, his report which came out yesterday, he mentioned the fact that staff support associations – whilst he admitted that we were of some use, he also feared us.

In terms of – in fact, it would be in item 124, I think it was, of his report yesterday. He did not use those words, fear, but I think I have got this across to you; I really desperately want to help the Metropolitan Police, and it feels as though every time, I just bang my head against the wall, my members bang their heads against the wall, saying, "We want to help you", but it just seems they are fearful.

Sir William Morris: Thank you both very much indeed. Just one final comment from me. Can I just formally say that as with all our witnesses, it may be that once we have heard from other witnesses, we will want to ask you for perhaps an additional contribution, more questions, either in writing or by asking you to come back to one of these hearings.

If we feel the need to do that, then obviously we will try and do it in a way which causes the least possible inconvenience to your good selves. But for the moment, all that I need to do is to, on behalf of my colleagues and myself, thank you both for coming and thank you for the contribution you are making to this Inquiry. Thank you again.

Mr Pull: Thank you. For the record, I want to make sure that I do not offend anybody, it was actually item 124 under "Separatism", in a report – the final report, "Thematic review of race and diversity in the Metropolitan Police Service". I just want to make that clear.

Sir William Morris: We have the reference, thank you. Can I suggest that we have a very short adjournment, so that our stenographers can have a rest, and we can stretch our legs. So return in about five minutes or so.

3.30 pm
(A short break)
3.35 pm

On this website:

• Evidence: Mr R Pull and Mr A Cameron, CPA
  Evidence provided by and documents referred to by Mr R Pull and Mr A Cameron, Christian Police Association, in their appearance at the Inquiry.