1: Executive summary and recommendations

Executive Summary: Overview

1.1 This report is the culmination of the work of many months and the contributions of many people. Our starting point was, of course, our terms of reference which were in themselves very wide. We were asked to examine professional standards and employment matters in the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS). Both are large and important topics.

1.2 However, in discharging the task we were given, we considered it necessary to examine national issues and frameworks, as well as wider issues of leadership and management within the MPS. It was impossible to examine how the MPS deals with professional standards without looking at the legislative framework which governs all police conduct matters. It was also impossible to consider the handling of employment matters without seeing them in the context of how officers and staff are led, managed and motivated throughout the MPS.

1.3 Our report recommends a significant agenda for change, both nationally and within the MPS. We began from the premise that we wanted our Inquiry to help the MPS to improve and learn. We are confident that the recommendations we make in our report will provide the MPS with a route map for improving the way in which it manages its officers and staff. We believe that the changes we are recommending will make a lasting contribution to the future success of the Service.

Enhancing the Office of Constable

1.4 The prime focus of the Inquiry was the policies, procedures and practices of the MPS in dealing with professional standards and employment matters. However, because of the statutory framework governing the terms and conditions of police officers, in particular the Regulations governing complaints and discipline, we realised that any recommendations would have implications for the rest of the police service in England and Wales.

1.5 As a result, our first conclusions and recommendations will require changes in legislation if they are accepted by the Home Office.

1.6 We examined the status of police constables as office holders under the Crown. We received overwhelming evidence in favour of maintaining the office of constable and that is our recommendation.

1.7 However, we also received extensive evidence in favour of enhancing the office of constable by extending employment law rights to police officers so that they enjoy the same rights as police staff and as ordinary employees. We do not believe that it is necessary for police officers to become employees to gain additional employment law rights. Indeed, there is ample precedent for police officers acquiring employment rights by being treated as if they were employees, rather than losing their status as office holders.

1.8 We are, therefore, recommending that employment law should be extended to police officers within the framework of the office of constable. This will, of course, include the right of recourse to the Employment Tribunal for claims of unfair dismissal.

1.9 We considered the current regulatory framework for dealing with complaints and allegations of misconduct against police officers in great detail. We received overwhelming evidence criticising nearly all aspects of the current regime and its application.

1.10 There is no compelling reason for retaining this framework and for police officers to be treated differently from their police staff colleagues and from the rest of the working population of this country. We are recommending its replacement with a disciplinary procedure based on the recent ACAS Code of Practice on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures.

1.11 We also believe that there is an argument for revisiting the current Code of Conduct for police officers and devising a new Code, perhaps based on the Code of Ethics for the Police Service in Northern Ireland. This Code would form part of the terms and conditions for police officers, and in so far as is practicable, should also apply to police staff.

People Issues

1.12 As part of our consideration of how the MPS approaches employment matters, we examined the current role and profile of the Human Resources directorate in the MPS. We are firmly of the view that people management issues should be higher on the organisation’s agenda.

1.13 We consider that human resource issues require greater prominence and that this can be achieved in a number of ways.

1.14 Human Resources should have a voice at the highest level of the organisation and play a strategic role as the guardian of the welfare of police officers and staff, including in disciplinary cases. The directorate should also be responsible for issues relating to diversity and for Employment Tribunal claims.

1.15 A major part of our task was to examine the current policies, procedures and practices of the MPS for dealing with grievances and workplace conflicts. This led to our consideration of the MPS’ Fairness at Work procedure, which replaced the previous grievance procedure.

1.16 We consider that the Fairness at Work procedure is fundamentally flawed in a number of ways. Firstly, there is concern about the impartiality of the Fairness at Work Advisors and, secondly, the Advisors can only give advice; they do not have the power to resolve the issue, except where the parties agree. In addition, we are concerned at evidence which indicates that, in some cases, people wishing to raise a Fairness at Work issue have not been allowed to invoke the procedure.

1.17 Managers must take responsibility for managing and resolving workplace disputes. We favour a grievance procedure based on the recent ACAS Code of Practice on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures to cover all workplace conflicts.

1.18 We are also in favour of the increased use of mediation and note the work the MPS is already undertaking in this area. We recommend that the MPS examines best practice elsewhere and ensures that this informs the organisation’s own approach to mediation.

1.19 The final recommendation we make in this area is directed at the Department of Trade and Industry, which is the Government department responsible for Employment Tribunals. The Employment Tribunals Act 1996 ensures that discussions with a conciliation officer during the course of a mediation process cannot be used in evidence before an Employment Tribunal. We consider that it would be very helpful if this protection were to be extended to discussions between the parties to a mediation process. We consider that this would act as an incentive to the greater use of mediation and thus, we hope, to earlier resolution of workplace disputes.

Managing Difference

1.20 We have heard much about the approach of the MPS to ‘diversity’. Indeed, it dominated the evidence we received. We appreciate that extensive work has been undertaken in developing the policies of the MPS in this area and in trying to implement them across the organisation.

1.21 However, we were left with the concern that there is no common understanding of diversity within the organisation and that it is not embedded in the culture of the MPS. We fear that it remains, at worse, a source of fear and anxiety and, at best, a process of ticking boxes.

1.22 We fear that some of the efforts the MPS has made to promote the message of diversity across the organisation have been counterproductive and that the organisation may now be seeing the beginnings of a backlash. This would be catastrophic. The policy is right; it is the approach and application which we believe needs to be reviewed and this is essentially what we are recommending.

1.23 Having considered the evidence on complaints and discipline, we are concerned that some managers lack the confidence to manage black and minority ethnic officers without being affected by their race. The statistics indicate clear disproportionality in the way black and minority ethnic officers are treated in relation to the management of their conduct. This represents a serious issue of discrimination which must be tackled as a matter of priority. The same high standards of conduct should apply to all officers and staff.

1.24 Such is the level of our concern that we will be directing the issue to the attention of the Independent Police Complaints Commission and the Commission for Racial Equality for their consideration.

1.25 We have received evidence that managers lack confidence in managing other issues of difference, whether of gender, disability, sexual orientation or faith. The evidence also showed that insufficient priority had been given to differences other than race. Urgent work must be undertaken to build the confidence of managers in managing all aspects of difference, so ensuring that this becomes the golden thread which runs through all areas of the MPS’ activity.

Governance, Accountability and Scrutiny

1.26 We were specifically asked to examine how the Metropolitan Police Authority (MPA) discharges its oversight role in relation to all matters within the Inquiry’s remit, particularly in relation to sensitive or high profile cases. It was suggested to us that a change was needed in the legislation governing the respective responsibilities of police authorities on the one hand, and Chief Constables (the Commissioner) on the other. We were not persuaded that the evidence merits any recommendation to disturb the current balance of the relationship, but we do consider that there is scope for the MPA to exercise its powers under the current legislative framework more robustly.

1.27 However, we appreciate that effective scrutiny depends equally on the co-operation of the body which is subject to that scrutiny and we believe that there is work for the MPS to do in ensuring that all relevant officers and staff understand the benefits that effective scrutiny can bring.

1.28 Our terms of reference also ask us to consider the progress made in implementing the recommendations of the Inquiry by the MPA into the case involving Detective Sergeant Virdi. We found it difficult to establish the factual position, so far as implementation is concerned, and are recommending that the MPA convenes and chairs a case conference of all stakeholders to establish the true position and to determine what action, if any, should be taken.

1.29 The Independent Advisory Group (IAG) plays a vital role in scrutinising the work of the MPS and holding it to account on behalf of Londoners. We examined this role, particularly in relation to its recent involvement in investigations of officers.

1.30 We were extremely impressed by the IAG members who gave evidence to us and found them to be people of great integrity. However, we are clear that IAG members are holders of public office which requires the highest degree of transparency. We consider that the ‘Nolan Principles’ should apply to their appointment, which should be made by the MPA. This, together with the proper resourcing of the group, will enhance their credibility even further.

1.31 In this area of our work, we were concerned about the use of lay advisors by the MPS in relation to the case involving Superintendent Dizaei (Operation Helios) and have made a specific recommendation about the rules we believe should govern access by independent and lay advisors to documentation and the rationale for decisions.

Professional Standards

1.32 By far the largest topic we were asked to consider was how the MPS handles matters of professional standards. This is the area where we have made the most recommendations.

1.33 If our earlier recommendations on the extension of employment law rights to officers and the replacement of the current regulatory regime for complaints and discipline are accepted, most of what we say in this part of our report will be superseded. However, we believe that there is much the MPS can do to improve the way it handles cases in the interim while the current regime continues to apply. Essentially our recommendations can be divided into two.

1.34 Firstly, we are concerned about how the Directorate of Professional Standards actually manages investigations and whether senior managers are really held to account for the manner in which investigations are conducted. We received a significant amount of evidence which pointed to problems with the system in respect of delays, the use of suspension, the treatment of individuals and the actual conduct of investigations.

1.35 We are, therefore, recommending that the Commissioner personally oversees a fundamental review of the way the directorate operates. This should include consideration of how officers are appointed to the directorate, since we believe that regular injections of new ideas and fresh thinking will challenge the prevailing culture within the directorate and ensure it does not become stagnant and insular.

1.36 Secondly, we have made a number of recommendations which we consider will address some of the concerns offered to us about the manner in which investigations are undertaken. We are recommending a new model of case management, with input from outside the directorate to ensure that it is held to account for the progress of investigations, particularly where officers are suspended. We also consider that the MPS should take steps to implement the recommendations of the Review of Operation Lancet to bring consistency to the process of investigation.

1.37 Welfare support must be enhanced and we have already outlined our recommendation that the Human Resources directorate should have responsibility for this role in disciplinary cases.

1.38 We have also made a number of other recommendations designed to improve the way cases are currently handled.

The Capacity to Deliver

1.39 In examining how the MPS handles employment matters, we found it impossible to consider the organisation’s policies and practices in this area without considering the wider issues of leadership and management, both of which are critical for operational success.

1.40 We believe that the MPS needs to take a number of urgent steps to become a successful modernised police service. We do not, of course, comment on operational policing but focus on some of the issues of structure and systems that the MPS needs to address in order to improve the way it manages people and other resources.

1.41 We are particularly concerned at some of the evidence we received about administrative issues. We believe that support services are not co-ordinated to the extent that is needed to support operational policing. We make a number of recommendations about how they might be managed better.

1.42 The MPS needs to have strong central functions, whilst maximising the principles of devolved management designed to harness the talents of operational managers and encourage innovation. We have seen and heard from managers who are frustrated by their inability to influence budgetary and staffing matters and we believe this issue should be tackled as a priority.

1.43 Our principal recommendation is designed to improve the strategic executive management of the MPS in the co-ordination of various support services. We are recommending that a strategic executive post be created at Deputy Commissioner level to co-ordinate and deliver the support needs of the MPS. We are confident this will deliver Best Value.

1.44 The issue of communication was also a recurring theme of our Inquiry and we consider that there is much that the MPS should do to improve internal communication, both by enhancing the systems and by giving more thought to the message.

1.45 From what we have heard we are satisfied that the MPS needs to rethink the way it consults its workforce. This is a subject on which we received much evidence of poor practice. We are therefore recommending that the organisation commits itself to a Code of Practice, which sets out how it will consult and embodies best practice in this vital area of managerial responsibility.

Building Capacity

1.46 An effective organisation depends on the leadership and management of its workforce. However, we found a conspicuous lack of ‘people focus’ in many areas we examined. This ranged from the treatment of individuals under investigation to the approach to managing difference; from promotion processes to training opportunities; from appraisal to flexible working.

1.47 The MPS acknowledges that the manner in which it treats officers and staff will be the determining factor in its future success and in its ability to meet key policing objectives. A well-managed and well-motivated workforce will deliver better policing.

1.48 However, the evidence we have received indicates that there is some way to go before the workforce is as well-managed and motivated as it deserves to be. We have made a series of recommendations which we hope will help bridge that gap and introduce a stronger people focus across the organisation.

1.49 Some of our recommendations relate to cultural issues and others to the proper implementation of current policies. Some are designed to raise the skills available to the organisation and ensure that they are used to the full.

Lessons for the Future

1.50 Finally, we considered a number of ‘high profile’ cases. We were asked to identify lessons to be learnt from the process and outcomes of these cases. Following a process of systematic appraisal, we decided to focus on four cases in particular.

1.51 We found much in these cases which struck a chord with the evidence we received from other individuals and we consider that a number of the recommendations we have made in relation to professional standards will go some way towards meeting the criticisms of the way these four cases were handled.

1.52 However, there are some specific recommendations we are making which arise purely from the facts of these cases.

1.53 The case involving Superintendent Dizaei (Operation Helios) requires that a full independent case review is conducted. Our remit did not include such a review and we consider that nothing less will do justice to those involved. In addition, we consider that the issue of race was relevant and remains live. Therefore, this issue must be part of the full case review.

1.54 We also believe that the MPS needs to learn from the fact that it entered into a settlement agreement with Superintendent Dizaei which was ultra vires. This was unfortunate to say the least, and the MPS must ensure that it avoids such an agreement for the future.

1.55 Finally, we were also concerned about the use of Gold Groups in both Superintendent Dizaei’s case and that involving Chief Inspector Pendry. Gold Groups should only be used in disciplinary cases where appropriate. If it is necessary to establish a Gold Group in a similar situation in the future, we believe that its remit needs to be clear to ensure lines of accountability are unambiguous and that there are guidelines about the composition of the Group.

Recommendations

Enhancing the Office of Constable

1. That the office of constable should be retained for all police officers. (Para. 3.18)

2. That employment law should be extended to police officers within the framework of the office of constable. (Para. 3.31)

That appropriate structures and systems are devised for negotiating national terms and conditions and for deciding which terms and conditions should be national and which left to local determination. (Para. 3.41)
That the terms and conditions should include disciplinary, capability and grievance procedures in line with the ACAS Code of Practice on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures. The current regulatory framework for complaints and discipline for police officers would no longer apply. (Para. 3.41)
That the office of constable is enhanced by the addition of a Code of Conduct, similar to the Civil Service Code and the Code of Ethics for the Police Service in Northern Ireland, which would form part of the terms and conditions of all police officers and police staff. This would replace the current Code of Conduct for police officers. (Para. 3.48)
That a provision dealing with unlawful discrimination should be included in the new Code of Conduct. Additional provisions may also be appropriate. (Para. 3.48)
That disciplinary cases involving serious criminal allegations should continue to be dealt with under the special procedure, which requires cases to be referred to the Crown Prosecution Service out of region, but that more routine matters should be dealt with in the same way as similar allegations against members of the public, that is, by referral to the local Crown Prosecution Service lawyer. (Para. 3.87)
That a procedure, involving conciliation and / or arbitration, is devised to resolve industrial disputes in the police service. (Para. 3.105)
That attestation is delayed until the officer has satisfactorily completed his or her initial training. (Para. 3.113)

People Issues

3. That the post with overall responsibility for Human Resources should be held by a suitably qualified and experienced individual, and that the post-holder should be by designation a member of the strategic management board. (Para. 4.25)

That, in addition to relocating the Employment Tribunals Unit from the Directorate of Professional Standards to the Human Resources directorate, the people management aspects of the work of the Diversity directorate are also moved to the Human Resources directorate. (Para. 4.46)
That the policy review process be given new momentum with a view to simplifying and reducing the number of human resources’ policies even further. (Para. 4.18)
That the Human Resources directorate reviews the management information it currently collects with a view to ensuring that it has the data needed for the MPS to fulfil its objectives. (Para. 4.22)
That the MPS should ensure that the Human Resources directorate plays a full part in the management of discipline cases, with responsibility for maintaining contact with officers under investigation and overseeing welfare support and re-entry into the workplace for suspended officers. (Paras. 4.32 and 7.139)

4. That the MPS replaces its Fairness at Work policy with a new grievance procedure, based on the ACAS Code of Practice on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures. The procedure should cover all workplace conflicts involving officers and staff. (Para. 4.85)

That any pilot projects on mediation follow best practice, particularly the Northamptonshire model, and take account of the wealth of learning and experience which exists within established organisations such as ACAS. (Para. 4.89)
That the MPS carefully monitors the development of the Thames Valley pilot on mediation. (Para. 4.100)
That mediators should be brought together on a regular basis to share experience and refresh their knowledge of common developments in mediation techniques. (Para. 4.104)
That the MPS reviews its use of mediation to provide appropriate training to its officers and staff and to encourage its use throughout the grievance process in appropriate cases. (Para. 4.104)

5. That the Director of Legal Services invests time and resources in explaining the directorate’s work, and how it operates, to a wider section of the organisation and to the Metropolitan Police Authority. (Para. 4.134)

6. That the Department of Trade and Industry gives consideration to a specific provision extending the protection afforded to discussions involving ACAS to discussions that take place between the parties at a mediation so that the discussions become privileged. (Para. 4.108)

Managing Difference

7. That the MPS takes urgent steps to eliminate the discriminatory management practice which has led to a disproportionate number of investigations of black and minority ethnic officers. (Para. 5.76)

That the MPS takes immediate action to engage black, minority ethnic and white officers and staff at all levels in the important practical steps required to ensure that black and minority ethnic officers and staff are not discriminated against on grounds of race. (Para. 5.69)

8. That the MPS gives adequate priority to all aspects of diversity, particularly in light of the Framework Equal Treatment Directive 2000. (Para. 5.55)

That the MPS refreshes and revitalises its work in managing difference and devises a way of truly engaging all officers and staff on this important issue. (Para. 5.55)
That consideration is given to extending the Diversity Excellence Model to other Operational Command Units and directorates. However, we would recommend that its implementation be kept under review to guard against it becoming another ‘tick box’ exercise. (Para. 5.60)

Governance, Accountability and Scrutiny

9. That the Metropolitan Police Authority enters into greater dialogue with other police authorities to establish best practice in discharging the oversight role. (Para. 6.40)

10. That the Metropolitan Police Authority keeps under review the protocol with the MPS on the provision of information to the Authority on complaints and conduct cases, in order to ensure that it meets its responsibility for scrutiny. (Para. 6.43)

11. That the Metropolitan Police Authority reviews the resources it is able to devote to supporting its role in overseeing complaints and conduct cases, with a view to increasing activity further, particularly in relation to dip-sampling of files. (Para. 6.43)

12. That the Metropolitan Police Authority puts in place comprehensive oversight systems and processes to scrutinise grievances and Employment Tribunal cases as soon as possible, taking account of the Association of Police Authorities’ guidance in this area. (Para. 6.9)

13. That the Metropolitan Police Authority should convene and chair a case conference involving the Commissioner and all relevant stakeholders (including, in particular, those individuals and organisations who have given evidence to this Inquiry on this point) to establish what progress has been made in implementing the recommendations of the Virdi Inquiry Report and to determine what, if any, further action should be taken. (Para. 6.54)

14. That the ‘Nolan Principles’ for public appointments should apply to the appointment of members of the Independent Advisory Group and that:

their appointment should be by the Metropolitan Police Authority;
they should be appointed in a transparent way following open competition by public advertisement;
the terms of their appointment, including tenure of office and any remuneration, should be made public; and
candidates should be assessed for their suitability against a formal specification which should also be made public by the Metropolitan Police Authority. (Para. 6.72)

15. That the Independent Advisory Group is properly resourced and that this should include a budget for expenditure on items such as independent professional advice (this includes legal advice), where the Independent Advisory Group believes this is necessary. (Para. 6.72)

16. That the Independent Advisory Group and the MPS agree a protocol in relation to disclosure of documentation and the rationale for decisions to Independent Advisory Group members. This must be based on the presumption that Independent Advisory Group members see everything that is available to the investigating officers. Where possible, this should be before decisions are taken. (Paras. 6.74 and 10.76)

Professional Standards

17. That the Commissioner orders a fundamental review of the Directorate of Professional Standards, to be personally assured that the policies governing the practices and procedures of the directorate hold senior managers fully to account for the conduct and management of discipline investigations. (Para. 7.45)

That the MPS creates a policy database and reference source that is cogent and succinct, by reducing the number of policies which impact on the process of discipline and conduct. (Para. 7.7)
That the Commissioner takes steps to ensure that the Directorate of Professional Standards appreciates the importance of scrutiny to public confidence. (Para. 6.40)
That the MPS puts in place recruitment processes which are transparent and provide for equality of opportunity. These processes must ensure that people of the right calibre are recruited to posts within the Directorate of Professional Standards and must be extended to all ranks including the most senior positions. (Para. 7.56)
That the MPS puts in place processes to ensure that those recruited receive the appropriate training to undertake the roles to which they are assigned. (Para. 7.56)
That the MPS takes steps to ensure that the future profile of the Directorate of Professional Standards reflects the diversity of the MPS as a whole. (Para. 7.56)
That a system of time-limited tenure of posts is considered. (Para. 7.56)

18. That the MPS and the Metropolitan Police Authority adopt our recommended model of case management. (Para. 7.81)

19. That the Home Office, the Independent Police Complaints Commission, the Association of Police Authorities and the Association of Chief Police Officers’ Professional Standards Committee consider the introduction of a national model. (Para. 7.81)

20. That the MPS works with appropriate stakeholders to implement the recommendations in the Review of Operation Lancet. (Para. 7.60)

That investigations by the Directorate of Professional Standards should be run along the lines of the normal investigative process for criminal cases and arrangements should be made to put the necessary systems in place as a matter of urgency. (Para. 7.115)
That the MPS gives clear guidance to Directorate of Professional Standards’ officers on the use of powers of arrest where the real objective is to search the premises of an officer under investigation. (Para. 10.133)
That, except in the most serious cases (such as allegations of criminal behaviour) where doing so is clearly inappropriate, the MPS should always explore options for early informal resolution. (Para. 10.119)
That the Independent Police Complaints Commission should consider issuing detailed guidance as to the proper parameters for disclosure in disciplinary proceedings, including an appropriate timescale for responses to disclosure requests. (Para. 7.120)
That, when more than one officer is involved in a case, regular and frequent assessments are made of the facts with a view to determining who, if anyone, is actually culpable and which officers are peripheral to the central facts. (Para. 7.124)
That the MPS reviews the existing criteria for suspension to provide greater clarity on when suspension should be used. (Para. 7.135)
That the MPS takes steps to ensure that, in each case when suspension is considered, it accords with the recommendation of the Review of Operation Lancet that the use of suspension always needs to be proportionate to both the allegation and the risk. (Para. 7.136)
That the MPS examines the adequacy of welfare support to officers under investigation. (Para. 10.85)
That, when an officer is under investigation, the MPS should:
1. give the officer a copy of any media release before it is issued;
2. tell the officer when information is likely to be released to the media; and
3. provide the officer with advice for dealing with media intrusion, doorstepping, etc. (Para. 7.153)
That no comment is made about an officer’s guilt or innocence by the MPS until it has been established by the appropriate decision-making body, and no embargoed interviews should be given. (Para. 10.76)
That the MPS reviews its policy in relation to correcting errors in media reporting about its officers and staff. (Para. 10.85)
That the MPS take steps to ensure that discipline matters relating to individuals are kept confidential and not discussed with third parties in a public forum. (Para. 10.119)
That measures are put in place to ensure that officers under investigation (other than covert investigations) are kept informed of developments and that officers are told of the detail of any charges at the time they are told of a decision to discipline them. (Para. 7.161)
That officers under investigation be provided with a written record of the outcome of such an investigation and a summary of the reasons for that outcome. (Para. 10.119)
That the conduct of disciplinary hearings should be reviewed to make them less akin to a criminal court. (Para. 7.164)
That, in sensitive cases, or where there are vulnerable witnesses, thought should be given to the layout of the room and other practical considerations, such as allowing those involved to be accompanied by a friend or partner, so that the process is less daunting for all those involved. (Para. 7.164)
That the MPS strengthens its guidance on Assistant Commissioner Reviews by including provisions:
1. making it clear that the reviewing officer should have access to all available documentation as of right; and
2. for the reviewing officer to be satisfied that he or she has all the necessary information required to make a proper decision. (Para. 7.170)
That the relevant Committee of the Association of Chief Police Officers should consider issuing guidance on Chief Constable (Assistant Commissioner) Reviews. (Para. 7.170)

The Capacity to Deliver

21. That the MPS and the Metropolitan Police Authority create a police staff post, which would undertake the functions of a Chief Operating Officer, to bring all the support services in the MPS (Finance, Human Resources, Communications, Legal Services, Property, Information Systems and Technology, Procurement, Logistical Services, etc.) together under one individual who would be equal in status to the Deputy Commissioner with a remit which spans the whole of the organisation. (Para. 8.27)

That the MPS reviews, with relevant stakeholders, the extent to which existing central processes inhibit devolution of real authority to managers in the Operational Command Units, with a view to streamlining the process to give local managers real responsibility for their budgets and people. (Para. 8.44)
That the MPS takes urgent steps to compile a comprehensive Scheme of Delegation setting out the levels of authority for different decisions throughout the organisation. This should be available to all officers and staff. (Para. 8.52)
That the MPS reviews its internal communication in the light of best practice in other large public and private sector organisations. (Para. 8.68)

22. That the MPS commits itself to a Code of Practice setting out the basis on which it will consult its workforce. This should be based on the following principles:

consulting with an open mind whilst proposals are at a formative stage;
giving consultees full information about proposals;
ensuring that consultation information reaches those who are being consulted;
giving consultees sufficient time to respond;
considering carefully the results of consultation exercises; and
providing consultees with full information about decisions taken at the end of the consultation period and, if relevant, the reasons for taking a different view from those who were consulted. (Para. 8.104)

23. That the issue of duty time and other resources for all representative groups, including staff support associations, is reviewed. (Para. 8.98)

24. That, in addition to consulting through representative bodies, the MPS takes steps to involve its workforce in decisions on issues that concern them. (Para. 8.104)

25. That the MPS considers the views expressed in our survey and how the issues revealed can be addressed. We would recommend a follow-up survey in one to two years’ time. (Para. 8.105)

Building Capacity

26. That the MPS takes active steps to remain vigilant and to monitor the culture at Hendon, and to ensure that all staff and recruits are aware of what constitutes inappropriate behaviour (such as that which is bullying and / or discriminatory) and that any incidents which do occur are treated with the seriousness they deserve. (Para. 9.26)

27. That the MPS ensures that there are effective, formal support mechanisms in place for all recruits. These should cover the period after acceptance and before they arrive at Hendon, as well as their time spent there. (Para. 9.18)

28. That the MPS gives consideration to early implementation of any proposed scheme of multi-point entry for officers. (Para. 9.46)

29. That the MPS evolves effective induction processes to cover entry into the organisation, and all changes of role within it, and that the Human Resources directorate institutes formal mechanisms for monitoring compliance. (Para. 9.52)

30. That the Human Resources directorate takes steps to ensure that the Performance Development Review process is fully implemented across the MPS as a meaningful management tool. This should be centrally monitored and the Human Resources directorate should carry out periodic reviews across the organisation to monitor quality and consistency. (Para. 9.64)

That the Human Resources directorate should keep data on the training undertaken by officers and staff both in terms of the time spent on training and the training undertaken. (Para. 9.71)
That Operational Command Unit commanders and departmental managers should use this data to ensure that the officers and staff for whom they are responsible receive the training they need to do their jobs and that there is fair and equal access to appropriate training opportunities. A pre-requisite of this is full devolution of training budgets. (Para. 9.71)
That the MPS implements a more effective management development programme. (Para. 9.86)
That the MPS introduces development programmes which will increase the opportunities available for cross-fertilisation with those managing other public and private sector organisations. (Para. 9.139)
That the MPS takes immediate action to implement the HMIC recommendation on a High Potential Development Scheme for police staff. (Para. 9.89)
That the MPS’ management development programme should be available to police staff as well as police officers. (Para. 9.89)
That the MPS ensures that it has systems in place to develop all its officers and staff. (Para. 9.89)

31. That the MPS develops procedures for promotion and appointments to specialist posts which are fair and transparent and that the Human Resources directorate monitors their application. (Para. 9.104)

32. That the MPS takes steps to ensure that its policy on flexible working is fully understood and implemented, and that the Human Resources directorate rigorously monitors that implementation. (Para. 9.124)

That the MPS establishes a central resource to provide guidance to managers on managing flexible working and to match requests for flexible working with job opportunities. (Para. 9.124)
That consideration is given to a childcare co-coordinator post based on the Greater Manchester Police model. (Para. 9.124)

33. That the MPS sets up a central resource to match officers and staff with disabilities to suitable vacancies and to ensure that any necessary adjustments are made speedily. (Para. 9.131)

Lessons for the Future

34. That there should be a full case review of Operation Helios which is independent of the MPS. The review should include examining the issue of race discrimination. (Para. 10.74)

35. That the MPS avoids entering into agreements in relation to professional standards and conduct matters that are ultra vires. (Para. 10.76)

36. That where Gold Groups are established in relation to disciplinary matters:

their purpose and powers are set out in writing so that all involved are clear about their role and lines of accountability; (Para. 10.76) and
clear guidelines are established about the make-up of a Gold Group as, for example, it is not appropriate for representatives of complainants or other parties involved to be members of such a Gold Group or to be present at any meetings. (Para. 10.119)

37. That the MPS provides Chief Inspector Pendry with written responses to the questions she has posed in her submission to the Inquiry. (Para. 10.119)

Skip Navigation \| Accessible

Accessibility About the Inquiry Contacts Search
Home News Schedule Transcripts Evidence Report Links
Report > 1: Summary and recommendations
QuickSearch	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 final Report of the Morris Inquiry. This section contains the executive summary, and a list of recommendations under the main headings of: enhancing the office of constable; people issues; managing difference; governance, accountability and scrutiny; professional standards; the capacity to deliver; building capacity; and lessons for the future. Sections available here: 1: Executive summary and recommendations Executive Summary: Overview Enhancing the Office of Constable People Issues Managing Difference Governance, Accountability and Scrutiny Professional Standards The Capacity to Deliver Building Capacity Lessons for the Future Recommendations Alternative versions This document is also available in the following formats: Word [0.97MB]; PDF [1.45MB] Content 1: Executive summary and recommendations Executive Summary: Overview 1.1 This report is the culmination of the work of many months and the contributions of many people. Our starting point was, of course, our terms of reference which were in themselves very wide. We were asked to examine professional standards and employment matters in the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS). Both are large and important topics. 1.2 However, in discharging the task we were given, we considered it necessary to examine national issues and frameworks, as well as wider issues of leadership and management within the MPS. It was impossible to examine how the MPS deals with professional standards without looking at the legislative framework which governs all police conduct matters. It was also impossible to consider the handling of employment matters without seeing them in the context of how officers and staff are led, managed and motivated throughout the MPS. 1.3 Our report recommends a significant agenda for change, both nationally and within the MPS. We began from the premise that we wanted our Inquiry to help the MPS to improve and learn. We are confident that the recommendations we make in our report will provide the MPS with a route map for improving the way in which it manages its officers and staff. We believe that the changes we are recommending will make a lasting contribution to the future success of the Service. Enhancing the Office of Constable 1.4 The prime focus of the Inquiry was the policies, procedures and practices of the MPS in dealing with professional standards and employment matters. However, because of the statutory framework governing the terms and conditions of police officers, in particular the Regulations governing complaints and discipline, we realised that any recommendations would have implications for the rest of the police service in England and Wales. 1.5 As a result, our first conclusions and recommendations will require changes in legislation if they are accepted by the Home Office. 1.6 We examined the status of police constables as office holders under the Crown. We received overwhelming evidence in favour of maintaining the office of constable and that is our recommendation. 1.7 However, we also received extensive evidence in favour of enhancing the office of constable by extending employment law rights to police officers so that they enjoy the same rights as police staff and as ordinary employees. We do not believe that it is necessary for police officers to become employees to gain additional employment law rights. Indeed, there is ample precedent for police officers acquiring employment rights by being treated as if they were employees, rather than losing their status as office holders. 1.8 We are, therefore, recommending that employment law should be extended to police officers within the framework of the office of constable. This will, of course, include the right of recourse to the Employment Tribunal for claims of unfair dismissal. 1.9 We considered the current regulatory framework for dealing with complaints and allegations of misconduct against police officers in great detail. We received overwhelming evidence criticising nearly all aspects of the current regime and its application. 1.10 There is no compelling reason for retaining this framework and for police officers to be treated differently from their police staff colleagues and from the rest of the working population of this country. We are recommending its replacement with a disciplinary procedure based on the recent ACAS Code of Practice on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures. 1.11 We also believe that there is an argument for revisiting the current Code of Conduct for police officers and devising a new Code, perhaps based on the Code of Ethics for the Police Service in Northern Ireland. This Code would form part of the terms and conditions for police officers, and in so far as is practicable, should also apply to police staff. People Issues 1.12 As part of our consideration of how the MPS approaches employment matters, we examined the current role and profile of the Human Resources directorate in the MPS. We are firmly of the view that people management issues should be higher on the organisation’s agenda. 1.13 We consider that human resource issues require greater prominence and that this can be achieved in a number of ways. 1.14 Human Resources should have a voice at the highest level of the organisation and play a strategic role as the guardian of the welfare of police officers and staff, including in disciplinary cases. The directorate should also be responsible for issues relating to diversity and for Employment Tribunal claims. 1.15 A major part of our task was to examine the current policies, procedures and practices of the MPS for dealing with grievances and workplace conflicts. This led to our consideration of the MPS’ Fairness at Work procedure, which replaced the previous grievance procedure. 1.16 We consider that the Fairness at Work procedure is fundamentally flawed in a number of ways. Firstly, there is concern about the impartiality of the Fairness at Work Advisors and, secondly, the Advisors can only give advice; they do not have the power to resolve the issue, except where the parties agree. In addition, we are concerned at evidence which indicates that, in some cases, people wishing to raise a Fairness at Work issue have not been allowed to invoke the procedure. 1.17 Managers must take responsibility for managing and resolving workplace disputes. We favour a grievance procedure based on the recent ACAS Code of Practice on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures to cover all workplace conflicts. 1.18 We are also in favour of the increased use of mediation and note the work the MPS is already undertaking in this area. We recommend that the MPS examines best practice elsewhere and ensures that this informs the organisation’s own approach to mediation. 1.19 The final recommendation we make in this area is directed at the Department of Trade and Industry, which is the Government department responsible for Employment Tribunals. The Employment Tribunals Act 1996 ensures that discussions with a conciliation officer during the course of a mediation process cannot be used in evidence before an Employment Tribunal. We consider that it would be very helpful if this protection were to be extended to discussions between the parties to a mediation process. We consider that this would act as an incentive to the greater use of mediation and thus, we hope, to earlier resolution of workplace disputes. Managing Difference 1.20 We have heard much about the approach of the MPS to ‘diversity’. Indeed, it dominated the evidence we received. We appreciate that extensive work has been undertaken in developing the policies of the MPS in this area and in trying to implement them across the organisation. 1.21 However, we were left with the concern that there is no common understanding of diversity within the organisation and that it is not embedded in the culture of the MPS. We fear that it remains, at worse, a source of fear and anxiety and, at best, a process of ticking boxes. 1.22 We fear that some of the efforts the MPS has made to promote the message of diversity across the organisation have been counterproductive and that the organisation may now be seeing the beginnings of a backlash. This would be catastrophic. The policy is right; it is the approach and application which we believe needs to be reviewed and this is essentially what we are recommending. 1.23 Having considered the evidence on complaints and discipline, we are concerned that some managers lack the confidence to manage black and minority ethnic officers without being affected by their race. The statistics indicate clear disproportionality in the way black and minority ethnic officers are treated in relation to the management of their conduct. This represents a serious issue of discrimination which must be tackled as a matter of priority. The same high standards of conduct should apply to all officers and staff. 1.24 Such is the level of our concern that we will be directing the issue to the attention of the Independent Police Complaints Commission and the Commission for Racial Equality for their consideration. 1.25 We have received evidence that managers lack confidence in managing other issues of difference, whether of gender, disability, sexual orientation or faith. The evidence also showed that insufficient priority had been given to differences other than race. Urgent work must be undertaken to build the confidence of managers in managing all aspects of difference, so ensuring that this becomes the golden thread which runs through all areas of the MPS’ activity. Governance, Accountability and Scrutiny 1.26 We were specifically asked to examine how the Metropolitan Police Authority (MPA) discharges its oversight role in relation to all matters within the Inquiry’s remit, particularly in relation to sensitive or high profile cases. It was suggested to us that a change was needed in the legislation governing the respective responsibilities of police authorities on the one hand, and Chief Constables (the Commissioner) on the other. We were not persuaded that the evidence merits any recommendation to disturb the current balance of the relationship, but we do consider that there is scope for the MPA to exercise its powers under the current legislative framework more robustly. 1.27 However, we appreciate that effective scrutiny depends equally on the co-operation of the body which is subject to that scrutiny and we believe that there is work for the MPS to do in ensuring that all relevant officers and staff understand the benefits that effective scrutiny can bring. 1.28 Our terms of reference also ask us to consider the progress made in implementing the recommendations of the Inquiry by the MPA into the case involving Detective Sergeant Virdi. We found it difficult to establish the factual position, so far as implementation is concerned, and are recommending that the MPA convenes and chairs a case conference of all stakeholders to establish the true position and to determine what action, if any, should be taken. 1.29 The Independent Advisory Group (IAG) plays a vital role in scrutinising the work of the MPS and holding it to account on behalf of Londoners. We examined this role, particularly in relation to its recent involvement in investigations of officers. 1.30 We were extremely impressed by the IAG members who gave evidence to us and found them to be people of great integrity. However, we are clear that IAG members are holders of public office which requires the highest degree of transparency. We consider that the ‘Nolan Principles’ should apply to their appointment, which should be made by the MPA. This, together with the proper resourcing of the group, will enhance their credibility even further. 1.31 In this area of our work, we were concerned about the use of lay advisors by the MPS in relation to the case involving Superintendent Dizaei (Operation Helios) and have made a specific recommendation about the rules we believe should govern access by independent and lay advisors to documentation and the rationale for decisions. Professional Standards 1.32 By far the largest topic we were asked to consider was how the MPS handles matters of professional standards. This is the area where we have made the most recommendations. 1.33 If our earlier recommendations on the extension of employment law rights to officers and the replacement of the current regulatory regime for complaints and discipline are accepted, most of what we say in this part of our report will be superseded. However, we believe that there is much the MPS can do to improve the way it handles cases in the interim while the current regime continues to apply. Essentially our recommendations can be divided into two. 1.34 Firstly, we are concerned about how the Directorate of Professional Standards actually manages investigations and whether senior managers are really held to account for the manner in which investigations are conducted. We received a significant amount of evidence which pointed to problems with the system in respect of delays, the use of suspension, the treatment of individuals and the actual conduct of investigations. 1.35 We are, therefore, recommending that the Commissioner personally oversees a fundamental review of the way the directorate operates. This should include consideration of how officers are appointed to the directorate, since we believe that regular injections of new ideas and fresh thinking will challenge the prevailing culture within the directorate and ensure it does not become stagnant and insular. 1.36 Secondly, we have made a number of recommendations which we consider will address some of the concerns offered to us about the manner in which investigations are undertaken. We are recommending a new model of case management, with input from outside the directorate to ensure that it is held to account for the progress of investigations, particularly where officers are suspended. We also consider that the MPS should take steps to implement the recommendations of the Review of Operation Lancet to bring consistency to the process of investigation. 1.37 Welfare support must be enhanced and we have already outlined our recommendation that the Human Resources directorate should have responsibility for this role in disciplinary cases. 1.38 We have also made a number of other recommendations designed to improve the way cases are currently handled. The Capacity to Deliver 1.39 In examining how the MPS handles employment matters, we found it impossible to consider the organisation’s policies and practices in this area without considering the wider issues of leadership and management, both of which are critical for operational success. 1.40 We believe that the MPS needs to take a number of urgent steps to become a successful modernised police service. We do not, of course, comment on operational policing but focus on some of the issues of structure and systems that the MPS needs to address in order to improve the way it manages people and other resources. 1.41 We are particularly concerned at some of the evidence we received about administrative issues. We believe that support services are not co-ordinated to the extent that is needed to support operational policing. We make a number of recommendations about how they might be managed better. 1.42 The MPS needs to have strong central functions, whilst maximising the principles of devolved management designed to harness the talents of operational managers and encourage innovation. We have seen and heard from managers who are frustrated by their inability to influence budgetary and staffing matters and we believe this issue should be tackled as a priority. 1.43 Our principal recommendation is designed to improve the strategic executive management of the MPS in the co-ordination of various support services. We are recommending that a strategic executive post be created at Deputy Commissioner level to co-ordinate and deliver the support needs of the MPS. We are confident this will deliver Best Value. 1.44 The issue of communication was also a recurring theme of our Inquiry and we consider that there is much that the MPS should do to improve internal communication, both by enhancing the systems and by giving more thought to the message. 1.45 From what we have heard we are satisfied that the MPS needs to rethink the way it consults its workforce. This is a subject on which we received much evidence of poor practice. We are therefore recommending that the organisation commits itself to a Code of Practice, which sets out how it will consult and embodies best practice in this vital area of managerial responsibility. Building Capacity 1.46 An effective organisation depends on the leadership and management of its workforce. However, we found a conspicuous lack of ‘people focus’ in many areas we examined. This ranged from the treatment of individuals under investigation to the approach to managing difference; from promotion processes to training opportunities; from appraisal to flexible working. 1.47 The MPS acknowledges that the manner in which it treats officers and staff will be the determining factor in its future success and in its ability to meet key policing objectives. A well-managed and well-motivated workforce will deliver better policing. 1.48 However, the evidence we have received indicates that there is some way to go before the workforce is as well-managed and motivated as it deserves to be. We have made a series of recommendations which we hope will help bridge that gap and introduce a stronger people focus across the organisation. 1.49 Some of our recommendations relate to cultural issues and others to the proper implementation of current policies. Some are designed to raise the skills available to the organisation and ensure that they are used to the full. Lessons for the Future 1.50 Finally, we considered a number of ‘high profile’ cases. We were asked to identify lessons to be learnt from the process and outcomes of these cases. Following a process of systematic appraisal, we decided to focus on four cases in particular. 1.51 We found much in these cases which struck a chord with the evidence we received from other individuals and we consider that a number of the recommendations we have made in relation to professional standards will go some way towards meeting the criticisms of the way these four cases were handled. 1.52 However, there are some specific recommendations we are making which arise purely from the facts of these cases. 1.53 The case involving Superintendent Dizaei (Operation Helios) requires that a full independent case review is conducted. Our remit did not include such a review and we consider that nothing less will do justice to those involved. In addition, we consider that the issue of race was relevant and remains live. Therefore, this issue must be part of the full case review. 1.54 We also believe that the MPS needs to learn from the fact that it entered into a settlement agreement with Superintendent Dizaei which was ultra vires. This was unfortunate to say the least, and the MPS must ensure that it avoids such an agreement for the future. 1.55 Finally, we were also concerned about the use of Gold Groups in both Superintendent Dizaei’s case and that involving Chief Inspector Pendry. Gold Groups should only be used in disciplinary cases where appropriate. If it is necessary to establish a Gold Group in a similar situation in the future, we believe that its remit needs to be clear to ensure lines of accountability are unambiguous and that there are guidelines about the composition of the Group. Recommendations Enhancing the Office of Constable 1. That the office of constable should be retained for all police officers. (Para. 3.18) 2. That employment law should be extended to police officers within the framework of the office of constable. (Para. 3.31) That appropriate structures and systems are devised for negotiating national terms and conditions and for deciding which terms and conditions should be national and which left to local determination. (Para. 3.41) That the terms and conditions should include disciplinary, capability and grievance procedures in line with the ACAS Code of Practice on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures. The current regulatory framework for complaints and discipline for police officers would no longer apply. (Para. 3.41) That the office of constable is enhanced by the addition of a Code of Conduct, similar to the Civil Service Code and the Code of Ethics for the Police Service in Northern Ireland, which would form part of the terms and conditions of all police officers and police staff. This would replace the current Code of Conduct for police officers. (Para. 3.48) That a provision dealing with unlawful discrimination should be included in the new Code of Conduct. Additional provisions may also be appropriate. (Para. 3.48) That disciplinary cases involving serious criminal allegations should continue to be dealt with under the special procedure, which requires cases to be referred to the Crown Prosecution Service out of region, but that more routine matters should be dealt with in the same way as similar allegations against members of the public, that is, by referral to the local Crown Prosecution Service lawyer. (Para. 3.87) That a procedure, involving conciliation and / or arbitration, is devised to resolve industrial disputes in the police service. (Para. 3.105) That attestation is delayed until the officer has satisfactorily completed his or her initial training. (Para. 3.113) People Issues 3. That the post with overall responsibility for Human Resources should be held by a suitably qualified and experienced individual, and that the post-holder should be by designation a member of the strategic management board. (Para. 4.25) That, in addition to relocating the Employment Tribunals Unit from the Directorate of Professional Standards to the Human Resources directorate, the people management aspects of the work of the Diversity directorate are also moved to the Human Resources directorate. (Para. 4.46) That the policy review process be given new momentum with a view to simplifying and reducing the number of human resources’ policies even further. (Para. 4.18) That the Human Resources directorate reviews the management information it currently collects with a view to ensuring that it has the data needed for the MPS to fulfil its objectives. (Para. 4.22) That the MPS should ensure that the Human Resources directorate plays a full part in the management of discipline cases, with responsibility for maintaining contact with officers under investigation and overseeing welfare support and re-entry into the workplace for suspended officers. (Paras. 4.32 and 7.139) 4. That the MPS replaces its Fairness at Work policy with a new grievance procedure, based on the ACAS Code of Practice on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures. The procedure should cover all workplace conflicts involving officers and staff. (Para. 4.85) That any pilot projects on mediation follow best practice, particularly the Northamptonshire model, and take account of the wealth of learning and experience which exists within established organisations such as ACAS. (Para. 4.89) That the MPS carefully monitors the development of the Thames Valley pilot on mediation. (Para. 4.100) That mediators should be brought together on a regular basis to share experience and refresh their knowledge of common developments in mediation techniques. (Para. 4.104) That the MPS reviews its use of mediation to provide appropriate training to its officers and staff and to encourage its use throughout the grievance process in appropriate cases. (Para. 4.104) 5. That the Director of Legal Services invests time and resources in explaining the directorate’s work, and how it operates, to a wider section of the organisation and to the Metropolitan Police Authority. (Para. 4.134) 6. That the Department of Trade and Industry gives consideration to a specific provision extending the protection afforded to discussions involving ACAS to discussions that take place between the parties at a mediation so that the discussions become privileged. (Para. 4.108) Managing Difference 7. That the MPS takes urgent steps to eliminate the discriminatory management practice which has led to a disproportionate number of investigations of black and minority ethnic officers. (Para. 5.76) That the MPS takes immediate action to engage black, minority ethnic and white officers and staff at all levels in the important practical steps required to ensure that black and minority ethnic officers and staff are not discriminated against on grounds of race. (Para. 5.69) 8. That the MPS gives adequate priority to all aspects of diversity, particularly in light of the Framework Equal Treatment Directive 2000. (Para. 5.55) That the MPS refreshes and revitalises its work in managing difference and devises a way of truly engaging all officers and staff on this important issue. (Para. 5.55) That consideration is given to extending the Diversity Excellence Model to other Operational Command Units and directorates. However, we would recommend that its implementation be kept under review to guard against it becoming another ‘tick box’ exercise. (Para. 5.60) Governance, Accountability and Scrutiny 9. That the Metropolitan Police Authority enters into greater dialogue with other police authorities to establish best practice in discharging the oversight role. (Para. 6.40) 10. That the Metropolitan Police Authority keeps under review the protocol with the MPS on the provision of information to the Authority on complaints and conduct cases, in order to ensure that it meets its responsibility for scrutiny. (Para. 6.43) 11. That the Metropolitan Police Authority reviews the resources it is able to devote to supporting its role in overseeing complaints and conduct cases, with a view to increasing activity further, particularly in relation to dip-sampling of files. (Para. 6.43) 12. That the Metropolitan Police Authority puts in place comprehensive oversight systems and processes to scrutinise grievances and Employment Tribunal cases as soon as possible, taking account of the Association of Police Authorities’ guidance in this area. (Para. 6.9) 13. That the Metropolitan Police Authority should convene and chair a case conference involving the Commissioner and all relevant stakeholders (including, in particular, those individuals and organisations who have given evidence to this Inquiry on this point) to establish what progress has been made in implementing the recommendations of the Virdi Inquiry Report and to determine what, if any, further action should be taken. (Para. 6.54) 14. That the ‘Nolan Principles’ for public appointments should apply to the appointment of members of the Independent Advisory Group and that: their appointment should be by the Metropolitan Police Authority; they should be appointed in a transparent way following open competition by public advertisement; the terms of their appointment, including tenure of office and any remuneration, should be made public; and candidates should be assessed for their suitability against a formal specification which should also be made public by the Metropolitan Police Authority. (Para. 6.72) 15. That the Independent Advisory Group is properly resourced and that this should include a budget for expenditure on items such as independent professional advice (this includes legal advice), where the Independent Advisory Group believes this is necessary. (Para. 6.72) 16. That the Independent Advisory Group and the MPS agree a protocol in relation to disclosure of documentation and the rationale for decisions to Independent Advisory Group members. This must be based on the presumption that Independent Advisory Group members see everything that is available to the investigating officers. Where possible, this should be before decisions are taken. (Paras. 6.74 and 10.76) Professional Standards 17. That the Commissioner orders a fundamental review of the Directorate of Professional Standards, to be personally assured that the policies governing the practices and procedures of the directorate hold senior managers fully to account for the conduct and management of discipline investigations. (Para. 7.45) That the MPS creates a policy database and reference source that is cogent and succinct, by reducing the number of policies which impact on the process of discipline and conduct. (Para. 7.7) That the Commissioner takes steps to ensure that the Directorate of Professional Standards appreciates the importance of scrutiny to public confidence. (Para. 6.40) That the MPS puts in place recruitment processes which are transparent and provide for equality of opportunity. These processes must ensure that people of the right calibre are recruited to posts within the Directorate of Professional Standards and must be extended to all ranks including the most senior positions. (Para. 7.56) That the MPS puts in place processes to ensure that those recruited receive the appropriate training to undertake the roles to which they are assigned. (Para. 7.56) That the MPS takes steps to ensure that the future profile of the Directorate of Professional Standards reflects the diversity of the MPS as a whole. (Para. 7.56) That a system of time-limited tenure of posts is considered. (Para. 7.56) 18. That the MPS and the Metropolitan Police Authority adopt our recommended model of case management. (Para. 7.81) 19. That the Home Office, the Independent Police Complaints Commission, the Association of Police Authorities and the Association of Chief Police Officers’ Professional Standards Committee consider the introduction of a national model. (Para. 7.81) 20. That the MPS works with appropriate stakeholders to implement the recommendations in the Review of Operation Lancet. (Para. 7.60) That investigations by the Directorate of Professional Standards should be run along the lines of the normal investigative process for criminal cases and arrangements should be made to put the necessary systems in place as a matter of urgency. (Para. 7.115) That the MPS gives clear guidance to Directorate of Professional Standards’ officers on the use of powers of arrest where the real objective is to search the premises of an officer under investigation. (Para. 10.133) That, except in the most serious cases (such as allegations of criminal behaviour) where doing so is clearly inappropriate, the MPS should always explore options for early informal resolution. (Para. 10.119) That the Independent Police Complaints Commission should consider issuing detailed guidance as to the proper parameters for disclosure in disciplinary proceedings, including an appropriate timescale for responses to disclosure requests. (Para. 7.120) That, when more than one officer is involved in a case, regular and frequent assessments are made of the facts with a view to determining who, if anyone, is actually culpable and which officers are peripheral to the central facts. (Para. 7.124) That the MPS reviews the existing criteria for suspension to provide greater clarity on when suspension should be used. (Para. 7.135) That the MPS takes steps to ensure that, in each case when suspension is considered, it accords with the recommendation of the Review of Operation Lancet that the use of suspension always needs to be proportionate to both the allegation and the risk. (Para. 7.136) That the MPS examines the adequacy of welfare support to officers under investigation. (Para. 10.85) That, when an officer is under investigation, the MPS should: give the officer a copy of any media release before it is issued; tell the officer when information is likely to be released to the media; and provide the officer with advice for dealing with media intrusion, doorstepping, etc. (Para. 7.153) That no comment is made about an officer’s guilt or innocence by the MPS until it has been established by the appropriate decision-making body, and no embargoed interviews should be given. (Para. 10.76) That the MPS reviews its policy in relation to correcting errors in media reporting about its officers and staff. (Para. 10.85) That the MPS take steps to ensure that discipline matters relating to individuals are kept confidential and not discussed with third parties in a public forum. (Para. 10.119) That measures are put in place to ensure that officers under investigation (other than covert investigations) are kept informed of developments and that officers are told of the detail of any charges at the time they are told of a decision to discipline them. (Para. 7.161) That officers under investigation be provided with a written record of the outcome of such an investigation and a summary of the reasons for that outcome. (Para. 10.119) That the conduct of disciplinary hearings should be reviewed to make them less akin to a criminal court. (Para. 7.164) That, in sensitive cases, or where there are vulnerable witnesses, thought should be given to the layout of the room and other practical considerations, such as allowing those involved to be accompanied by a friend or partner, so that the process is less daunting for all those involved. (Para. 7.164) That the MPS strengthens its guidance on Assistant Commissioner Reviews by including provisions: making it clear that the reviewing officer should have access to all available documentation as of right; and for the reviewing officer to be satisfied that he or she has all the necessary information required to make a proper decision. (Para. 7.170) That the relevant Committee of the Association of Chief Police Officers should consider issuing guidance on Chief Constable (Assistant Commissioner) Reviews. (Para. 7.170) The Capacity to Deliver 21. That the MPS and the Metropolitan Police Authority create a police staff post, which would undertake the functions of a Chief Operating Officer, to bring all the support services in the MPS (Finance, Human Resources, Communications, Legal Services, Property, Information Systems and Technology, Procurement, Logistical Services, etc.) together under one individual who would be equal in status to the Deputy Commissioner with a remit which spans the whole of the organisation. (Para. 8.27) That the MPS reviews, with relevant stakeholders, the extent to which existing central processes inhibit devolution of real authority to managers in the Operational Command Units, with a view to streamlining the process to give local managers real responsibility for their budgets and people. (Para. 8.44) That the MPS takes urgent steps to compile a comprehensive Scheme of Delegation setting out the levels of authority for different decisions throughout the organisation. This should be available to all officers and staff. (Para. 8.52) That the MPS reviews its internal communication in the light of best practice in other large public and private sector organisations. (Para. 8.68) 22. That the MPS commits itself to a Code of Practice setting out the basis on which it will consult its workforce. This should be based on the following principles: consulting with an open mind whilst proposals are at a formative stage; giving consultees full information about proposals; ensuring that consultation information reaches those who are being consulted; giving consultees sufficient time to respond; considering carefully the results of consultation exercises; and providing consultees with full information about decisions taken at the end of the consultation period and, if relevant, the reasons for taking a different view from those who were consulted. (Para. 8.104) 23. That the issue of duty time and other resources for all representative groups, including staff support associations, is reviewed. (Para. 8.98) 24. That, in addition to consulting through representative bodies, the MPS takes steps to involve its workforce in decisions on issues that concern them. (Para. 8.104) 25. That the MPS considers the views expressed in our survey and how the issues revealed can be addressed. We would recommend a follow-up survey in one to two years’ time. (Para. 8.105) Building Capacity 26. That the MPS takes active steps to remain vigilant and to monitor the culture at Hendon, and to ensure that all staff and recruits are aware of what constitutes inappropriate behaviour (such as that which is bullying and / or discriminatory) and that any incidents which do occur are treated with the seriousness they deserve. (Para. 9.26) 27. That the MPS ensures that there are effective, formal support mechanisms in place for all recruits. These should cover the period after acceptance and before they arrive at Hendon, as well as their time spent there. (Para. 9.18) 28. That the MPS gives consideration to early implementation of any proposed scheme of multi-point entry for officers. (Para. 9.46) 29. That the MPS evolves effective induction processes to cover entry into the organisation, and all changes of role within it, and that the Human Resources directorate institutes formal mechanisms for monitoring compliance. (Para. 9.52) 30. That the Human Resources directorate takes steps to ensure that the Performance Development Review process is fully implemented across the MPS as a meaningful management tool. This should be centrally monitored and the Human Resources directorate should carry out periodic reviews across the organisation to monitor quality and consistency. (Para. 9.64) That the Human Resources directorate should keep data on the training undertaken by officers and staff both in terms of the time spent on training and the training undertaken. (Para. 9.71) That Operational Command Unit commanders and departmental managers should use this data to ensure that the officers and staff for whom they are responsible receive the training they need to do their jobs and that there is fair and equal access to appropriate training opportunities. A pre-requisite of this is full devolution of training budgets. (Para. 9.71) That the MPS implements a more effective management development programme. (Para. 9.86) That the MPS introduces development programmes which will increase the opportunities available for cross-fertilisation with those managing other public and private sector organisations. (Para. 9.139) That the MPS takes immediate action to implement the HMIC recommendation on a High Potential Development Scheme for police staff. (Para. 9.89) That the MPS’ management development programme should be available to police staff as well as police officers. (Para. 9.89) That the MPS ensures that it has systems in place to develop all its officers and staff. (Para. 9.89) 31. That the MPS develops procedures for promotion and appointments to specialist posts which are fair and transparent and that the Human Resources directorate monitors their application. (Para. 9.104) 32. That the MPS takes steps to ensure that its policy on flexible working is fully understood and implemented, and that the Human Resources directorate rigorously monitors that implementation. (Para. 9.124) That the MPS establishes a central resource to provide guidance to managers on managing flexible working and to match requests for flexible working with job opportunities. (Para. 9.124) That consideration is given to a childcare co-coordinator post based on the Greater Manchester Police model. (Para. 9.124) 33. That the MPS sets up a central resource to match officers and staff with disabilities to suitable vacancies and to ensure that any necessary adjustments are made speedily. (Para. 9.131) Lessons for the Future 34. That there should be a full case review of Operation Helios which is independent of the MPS. The review should include examining the issue of race discrimination. (Para. 10.74) 35. That the MPS avoids entering into agreements in relation to professional standards and conduct matters that are ultra vires. (Para. 10.76) 36. That where Gold Groups are established in relation to disciplinary matters: their purpose and powers are set out in writing so that all involved are clear about their role and lines of accountability; (Para. 10.76) and clear guidelines are established about the make-up of a Gold Group as, for example, it is not appropriate for representatives of complainants or other parties involved to be members of such a Gold Group or to be present at any meetings. (Para. 10.119) 37. That the MPS provides Chief Inspector Pendry with written responses to the questions she has posed in her submission to the Inquiry. (Para. 10.119)
	Previous Next
Report > 1: Summary and recommendations
© Copyright 2004, The Morris Inquiry. Standards compliant HTML. Designed and maintained by Netfundi