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 It is being hosted on the MPA website for archival purposes only and may contain out-of-date information.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 private session with GG, on 20 April 2004.

Sections available here:

• Transcript of private session: Ms GG
  • Questions by Miss Weekes
  • Questions by Sir Anthony Burden

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

Transcript of private session: Ms GG

The name of this witness has been changed, and her submission redacted, to avoid the identification of the individuals and any third parties.

Tuesday, 20 April 2004
10.30am

Sir William Morris: Good morning to you, and indeed welcome. We are very informal in the context of the private sessions of our hearing. How do you wish to be addressed, Mrs, Miss, G?

Ms G: G is fine.

Sir William Morris: Well, G, good morning to you, and let me say again welcome. May I start by saying thank you very much indeed for accepting our invitation to attend the Inquiry this morning, and to give evidence, and thank you, also, for letting us have your written submission which we found extremely helpful.

We do appreciate that a process such as this can sometimes be very daunting to some of our witnesses, so I thought it would be helpful if I just very briefly set out how we propose to conduct the hearing this morning.

But first, let me introduce myself and the other members of the panel. I am Sir Bill Morris, recently retired General Secretary of the Transport and General Workers Union. As you can see, there are two other panel members: on my right is Sir Anthony Burden, who recently retired as Chief Constable of the South Wales Constabulary; and on my left is Miss Anesta Weekes. Anesta is a QC, an eminent barrister, and sits as a recorder and part-time chairperson of employment tribunals. She was also counsel to the Lawrence Inquiry.

As you know, G, we have been asked by the Metropolitan Police Authority to conduct an independent inquiry into professional standards and workplace matters of the Metropolitan Police Service. The focus that we have taken is the MPS itself as an organisation, and not the individuals who work for the organisation or who make up the organisation.

Nevertheless, we need to hear from individuals in order to understand how they are affected by the policies, the practices and the procedures which govern the way that the MPS operates and indeed works.

Although we are a public inquiry, we have decided to conduct this hearing and some others, where we hear from individuals, in private; the reason for this is that we are very keen to hear from individuals, such as yourself, who have problems, and we want to know exactly how the Met operates in respect – not just in corporate terms, but in individual terms.

But we also understand that some of our witnesses may feel reluctant to answer questions if they believe that the Met is in some way listening in on what they have to say. But I do hope that you will find these arrangements satisfactory and, indeed, helpful, and I hope that you will feel confident to speak to us freely as we start the questioning.

Can I also say that, although we are meeting in private today, as I have just said, we are nevertheless a public inquiry, and that means it might be necessary for us to seek further clarification from others about what you have written and indeed what you say to us this morning.

If we do decide to seek further clarification, then we will do so without identifying your good self in any way at all, and let me assure you that we would try and seek further clarification without causing you any inconvenience, or as little as possible, and we would not seek further clarification without your permission.

The inquiry that we are conducting is inquisitorial and not adversarial. We are very keen to enquire into the issues which impact on our terms of reference, and to make appropriate recommendations in order that we can introduce further good practice into the Met itself.

Having received your written submission, we have no wish to go back over the details in terms of what has actually happened, because you have set out very clearly the events, and we have a clear idea of those events.

What we now want to do is to ask some questions which will enable us to draw on your experience to inform our work. At the end of these introductory remarks, one of my colleagues, in this case, Miss Weekes, will start by leading on the questions for us, and the remainder of the panel, Sir Anthony and myself, may well want to ask you one or two supplementary questions when Miss Weekes has completed her series of questions.

I think it is just right that I should point out that a transcript of our proceedings this morning is being taken, and that is to ensure that we have a correct record of the evidence that a witness provides for us.

We are also hoping to publish this transcript, together with your written submission, on our website in the next few days, but we will only do that after we have taken out references to your name or other personal details, in order that we can be sure that it contains no information that identifies you or other individuals.

And finally, let me just say that, at the end of the questioning, I will give you an opportunity to make any closing comments which you may wish to make.

Just for the record, therefore, before I begin the questioning with Miss Weekes, I wonder whether you would be kind enough just to formally introduce yourself to the Inquiry.

Ms G: My name is GG, I am a police sergeant [Redacted] with the Metropolitan Police.

Sir William Morris: Thank you very much indeed. We will go straight into the questions with Miss Weekes, G.

Questions by Miss Weekes

Miss Weekes: Thank you, G. Thank you very much for your very helpful submission and, in particular, the chronology which you set out was extremely helpful, and enabled me to understand that, in summary, between [Redacted] and [Redacted], a period of some four years, you have suffered a number of acts of sex discrimination.

Could I just summarise that chronology? Because I would like to stop at some stages to ask you a little bit more detail, because it is going to help when I come to the more general questions that I would like you to help me with, in terms of making things better for the future.

In [Redacted], you went on maternity leave, and just before that, you had already been acting up as an inspector, which is quite important, because you were obtaining yourself relevant expertise and experience which mattered later for your promotional prospects.

In [Redacted], that is [Redacted], that is before you were back at work, you were told that the training for acting inspectors – because you wanted to do a specific training course, did you not – was disbanded.

Ms G: It was the [Redacted] unit that I worked on, so the post that I held was taken away.

Miss Weekes: Okay. And you were told that was disbanded, so there was no other alternative but for you to remain as sergeant on the response team. I just want to ask this: why was there no other alternative? Was that because you were told that, or was there in reality no other alternative?

Ms G: I was told there were only two positions open, one was on that team, and the other was an operational detective role.

Miss Weekes: But what you were told may not necessarily have been correct?

Ms G: I took it that that was the case, that there was no option, and I sought other options, like saying, "Okay, if that is the case" – I was fairly accepting of that. I asked for further developmental opportunities within that, which were denied.

Miss Weekes: Okay. What you discovered was that a male sergeant had in fact been given training and project work, so it turned out that it was not necessarily correct, what you were told, because if he was given that kind of opportunity, then it clearly must have been available for you.

Ms G: Yes.

Miss Weekes: Who was it who gave you that information?

Ms G: The personnel unit.

Miss Weekes: That is the personnel unit. And they would be responsible for identifying areas of development, and dealing with requests like that; it is usually the personnel unit, is it?

Ms G: That would control postings and how many – where the vacancies are, yes, they would.

Miss Weekes: Right. I will come back to the personnel unit later. [Redacted], you in fact returned to work, and discovered that two temporary posts had been advertised, but you had not been told anything about it. You were clearly entitled to be told, because you were still employed; the fact that you were away on maternity leave does not alter your employment law status.

Who should have told you about those temporary posts?

Ms G: The personnel unit.

Miss Weekes: Personnel again, right. You were told by the superintendent that you were in fact recommended for acting inspector role, but that this had been vetoed by the borough commander.

Ms G: That is correct.

Miss Weekes: Again, for my information, I want to understand the system. What is the process for being put forward for promotion or acting up; your line manager can do it, or somebody you work with can do it, but somebody else has a final say?

Ms G: Yes, it is normally a senior management team decision, but I think – I do not think there is any – I do not think it is set in gold, I think it varies from borough to borough, and on my borough, I was allowed to act as an inspector whilst I was not qualified; then the senior management team changed, I was qualified, and they said: no, I could not act up. It was not consistent.

Miss Weekes: Right. So I want to understand; if I were to request further information about how this process occurs, are you aware as to whether or not there is any written policy, or is it just left to the individuals concerned to deal with your request?

Ms G: That is my understanding, yes.

Miss Weekes: So you would say it would appear no straightforward or set guidelines or policy about promotion for women and men, as far as you are aware?

Ms G: No, it varies. I think one of the driving factors is how badly off they are for staff. Certainly this policy has been amended and re-amended, so even though they make a decision, that can be changed, and rightly so, because if they have not got people – managers, sufficient managers, they need to identify the best candidates to do that.

Miss Weekes: Okay. You then understandably lodged your grievance, and then there is a promotion part 3 sergeant to inspector course available; your line manager recommends you, but senior management say no.

Now, did you understand the basis for that decision?

Ms G: I was entitled to feedback and sought feedback, and I queried the feedback.

Miss Weekes: Who gave you that feedback?

Ms G: Initially, it was a DCI.

Miss Weekes: What was the feedback? What were you told?

Ms G: I was told I did not have sufficient recent operational experience.

Miss Weekes: And you sought to put them right, because it is quite clear you did.

Ms G: Yes.

Miss Weekes: Having put them right, what was the reaction?

Ms G: That it was a fait accompli. I did not feel that I was acknowledged, that my points were acknowledged. I felt marginalised.

Miss Weekes: So you left it at that point. If you are unhappy about what you are told, again, I am looking to see what the procedure is here, what could you have done about that stage? Here you were saying, "Well actually, you have got it wrong, I have got proper operational background and expertise, and in fact it is quite recent". The DCI comes back and says, "Well actually, no"; what could you have done about it?

Ms G: I could and did appeal the decision.

Miss Weekes: Right, to whom?

Ms G: There is an appeals process.

Miss Weekes: And what happened to that appeal?

Ms G: They went along with the senior management recommendation.

Miss Weekes: Who did you appeal to? What was the status of the person you appealed to?

Ms G: I believe it was a commander, but it is not a personal thing; it is a written thing, and you are limited to how you can submit that appeal; you are limited as to words and grounds.

Miss Weekes: Right. Do you find that limitation satisfactory, or would you say that that is something we should be looking at?

Ms G: It is very unsatisfactory to me, because it seems that the personnel and senior management can be consulted without end, whereas I cannot, I have no right of personal appeal – of expression, and am very limited as to how I can appeal.

Miss Weekes: Right, well, we will come back to that. [Redacted], there is a team inspector that goes sick, and you asked to act up, because you clearly have experience; in fact, you have been acting up since [Redacted], before you went on maternity leave. And you were told no.

Ms G: Yes, that is correct.

Miss Weekes: And again, that is by the senior management team?

Ms G: Yes, it is.

Miss Weekes: Did you question that?

Ms G: I did, and I was told that it must be a substantive inspector.

Miss Weekes: Right. Where does this rule come from, that it must be a substantive inspector?

Ms G: Senior management team, that is their decision, the borough commander's decision.

Miss Weekes: Right. Well, does it have to be based upon any particular ground, or can they just tell you that?

Ms G: They just told me that.

Miss Weekes: Well, do you know whether it was based upon a proper ground?

Ms G: It was his decision, apparently. I do not know how much further I could have taken it, had I wished to, but there is also the feeling that you do not want to stick your head above the parapet.

Miss Weekes: Well, we will come back to that, but somebody can tell you something and it may be completely wrong, but they are just giving you a reason to get rid of you; did you think that was what it was?

Ms G: I was starting to feel that way, very much.

Miss Weekes: Let us move on a little: [Redacted], there was another promotional board, as it were. You asked about it, you were recommended by your line manager, and senior management said no again.

Ms G: That is correct.

Miss Weekes: In fact, [Redacted] males were recommended, and you and another female were not recommended.

Ms G: That is right.

Miss Weekes: You were able to find that out through asking questions?

Ms G: I actually asked the question at the time, I wanted to know who the other candidate was who had not been recommended, and I was told by the personnel unit they could not tell me.

Miss Weekes: Right. Moving up to [Redacted], you requested feedback, you had none, and you appealed again; that was unsuccessful.

Ms G: Yes.

Miss Weekes: And you spoke to the Federation; I note that on a previous occasion, the Federation suggested, "Well, if I were you, I would not put your head above the parapet"; I think that is what the Police Federation said to you?

Ms G: Yes, that is what a Federation representative said to me.

Miss Weekes: So [Redacted] – you had actually lodged before then, but [Redacted], there was a settlement of your employment tribunal claim.

Ms G: There was, yes.

Miss Weekes: I will come back to the settlement. Now that helps me, thank you very much, to just fill in some of the things I wanted to ask you about the chronology.

Clearly, as far as you are concerned, there have been no less than seven instances when you have been treated unfairly and dishonestly, actually, on the grounds of the fact that you were a woman, and undoubtedly added to that was your period of pregnancy.

I want to now just ask you some questions that would help us, in terms of how we look at this rather, I think, classic case. How extensive do you think this treatment to you is within your borough, because that is, I suppose, your area of experience, is it not?

Ms G: I have worked on other boroughs.

Miss Weekes: In that case, can we throw it wider?

Ms G: Yes, certainly. I have had both good and bad experience and it seems to be based on individual managers. For a period of nearly three years, I felt that all women in the borough suffered. We quite quickly lost a female superintendent and a couple of female inspectors when the senior management changed.

There were no women above the rank of sergeant coming into the borough for the whole of that period, and if you consider that my borough at that time was employing getting on for around [Redacted] police officers –

Miss Weekes: I am going to ask you which borough it was.

Ms G: Oh certainly: [Redacted].

Miss Weekes: [Redacted], right.

Ms G: To not recommend any woman, any of the women that applied for promotion, and to not take any in seems, statistically, astonishing.

And then, when the senior management changed to a team that I find quite excellent, we instantly get, or almost instantly, a female superintendent, a female DCI, several DIs and other inspectors.

Miss Weekes: Because we can check these statistics obviously, now we know what the borough is. So you are speaking about from [Redacted] to [Redacted]; is that your three-year period?

Ms G: Yes, the senior management changed in [Redacted]. In fact, I got recommended under the – well, all [Redacted] women candidates got recommended, and the male.

Miss Weekes: Right. So it would be absolutely clear to anybody that this was going on, because it was so obvious.

Ms G: It was, it was commented on.

Miss Weekes: And who commented on it?

Ms G: Any number of people on the borough.

Miss Weekes: And since the change, your prospects got better, other women's prospects got better.

Ms G: Yes.

Miss Weekes: And it was quite significant, that change?

Ms G: It seemed immediate. That is not actually true that no women got promoted; I am sorry, I know several members of police staff –

Miss Weekes: Who were married to other police officers, because I think you mention that.

Ms G: Or had relationships with senior managers, yes.

Miss Weekes: Do you think that might have helped them?

Ms G: It seems – yes, it did, because there were jobs created for them as well, in one instance.

Miss Weekes: Right, thank you very much for that. Using your knowledge of your own position, can you help me generally about the forms of discrimination that occur? Yours is a classic example of wanting promotion, wanting to be treated equally, wanting to better yourself, and it would appear that you have not been allowed to do that on the basis of your gender, your sex.

Are there any other forms of discrimination that have happened to you and other women on the borough that you can help me with? It can be either direct or indirect, I know you will understand the terminology.

Ms G: Yes. Certainly in relation to maternity and pregnancy issues, I feel that there is – well, nearly every pregnant woman on the borough has suffered discrimination of some kind, or if not discrimination, then maybe incompetence.

Miss Weekes: Right, let us break that down, because we are interested in direct evidence in this form. We all know that the fact that a woman is pregnant should make no difference, and that is the protection that the law gives her, but it clearly is making a difference on the borough; how?

Ms G: I think, first of all, women are not aware of their rights. There are some excellent policies in place, for example, the flexible working, but they are not made accessible, for whatever reason. It seems to be on the strength of the line manager as to what service a pregnant officer gets.

It varies from woman to woman, but I feel we do let the women down, and in fact, because of my experience and the experience of one of the other women who was not given promotion for her pregnancy, and in the end gave up – she said, "I am not going to promotion", her line manager said, "There is no point, you are pregnant again, you cannot provide the evidence", even though she had had some very good evidence and I felt could have complained, she just gave up with her promotion prospects.

Miss Weekes: So there are two things here. There are policies in existence; often women do not know about it, or they do not push what they know, and in any event line management – that is pot luck, as to whether your line manager supports you or not. Is that a summary of the nature of the problem?

Ms G: Certainly, yes.

Miss Weekes: That is pregnancy; any other direct evidence you have of how women are treated?

Ms G: Sometimes, very well. I have worked on a previous borough where, when I was promoted to sergeant, I suffered almost exactly the same thing. There were [Redacted] candidates, two of us were women. Myself and the other female were both acting up as sergeants, none of the male candidates were, but when it came to recommending us for promotion, all [Redacted] male candidates were highly recommended and myself and the other female, even though we had been acting up, were not.

I queried this and initially did not get very far, I got a very similar response as I did when I initially queried it on the first occasion of the inspector's process.

However, a very good manager recognised what was happening; he listened, and he put it right very quickly, very effectively. I was impressed, and I went on to compete very well; I came close to the top on the selection process.

Miss Weekes: Again, that is – you were lucky he was good.

Ms G: Yes.

Miss Weekes: But it is possible he may not have been.

Ms G: Yes, as I feel happened to me on these occasions.

Miss Weekes: Yes. That is a previous borough; again, can I ask which borough it was?

Ms G: Certainly, I can identify the good manager as well, if you wish. It is a man called [Redacted], and that was at [Redacted] borough. I believe he is now [Redacted].

Miss Weekes: Would you say that generally, within that borough – how long were you there for?

Ms G: [Redacted] years.

Miss Weekes: Within that borough, would you say things were generally better?

Ms G: We had a series of very good superintendents who then headed that particular station, so yes.

Miss Weekes: Right. Better when one compared it to the time when you were – that you have kindly told us about in [Redacted]?

Ms G: When I initially went – before it went to borough, because at the time each station was almost self-governing, with a chief superintendent in charge, and previously, I had had another excellent manager, [Redacted], who was very good, and it was him that allowed me to act up. But then, when it went to borough, I felt the man in charge did not have that insight, that ability that I had had with previous managers.

Miss Weekes: Okay. Part-time work for women, we have heard some other evidence about this, but again, because you have got rather good experience of two boroughs, how does that work?

Ms G: Badly, in my – well, I speak to many women, many women who have spoken to me; there is one lady at the moment who is just on the select list awaiting promotion to [Redacted], finding it near impossible to get herself a job as a part-time worker.

I have also had – felt very strongly that because I am a mother, that people have assumed that I am a part-time worker, and not wanted to employ me, and I know that that is a feeling of a lot of officers once they have had children, when they want to look at flexible working, that they are marginalised, that their careers are not important to the organisation or not recognised. And it is not just women, it is men as well; I have a male colleague who wanted to change his hours of working, and felt that he was marginalised, he was not – that was the reason he was not selected as a [Redacted].

Miss Weekes: What about the culture of how women are spoken to, how senior men react to women generally in the workplace?

Ms G: I would say if the senior management – tomorrow, I will have [Redacted] years' experience, so I feel that the senior management within the MPS now are my peers, so I do understand the culture and the culture changes that have happened with the MPS.

I joined at a time where we had only just had – that females had been allowed into the Metropolitan Police, we were a novelty. For about the first ten years I was told regularly that people would not work with me because I was a woman; oh yes, many times, and did not.

Miss Weekes: So what happens when you just turn up for work?

Ms G: You depute yourself; if there is a manager there, they presumably will not let it happen, but you find that you are – for the first three months, I was put answering the phone, whereas my male colleague went out in the car. It was just something – but that was what girls were supposed to be good at, was answering phones.

I was told by male PCs that they would not take me out in the car, and they did not, so I walked instead.

Miss Weekes: You walked?

Ms G: Yes. I was told on the crime squad, because they felt that I had only got on because I was a woman, the DCI wanted a woman, they told me they would not work with me, and only two of them would, and the sergeant would encourage that as well; I would get warrants, and they would not be executed, because it is not something you can do on your own.

But I felt that that was in your face, at least they were telling you, and you felt, "Okay, I will prove myself, I might have to go that extra mile", and generally, if you worked hard and did not complain, that was part of the deal almost, you did get on, you did eventually get accepted, and I hear – it is a very common story, you speak to any number of women within the organisation, they say, "Yes, I had to go that much harder, I had to work harder, I had to do more".

I find now – and I can understand that that culture is residual with some people, but it is not everybody. I feel that you can tell very quickly when you talk to somebody if they are – if they hold sexist attitudes or racist attitudes or homophobic attitudes. It is just that, unless they are direct, it is very difficult to address.

Miss Weekes: In a way, it is better to have it direct, because you know where it is coming from and you can address it.

Ms G: I found it much easier to deal with.

Miss Weekes: So what is the present climate? Do you feel it is now less direct because there are some very open policies, there is the gender agenda, there is the diversity agenda; do you think people hide their attitudes now?

Ms G: Definitely. It would be political suicide for them to do otherwise.

Miss Weekes: Right. Now can I, out of that very helpful summary, deal with these issues? One of the interesting features that your chronology shows up is that you never mention who your mentors were, whether you had one; you do not mention that there were any good solid women's groups that you could go to to help you; you certainly do not mention that the Federation helped you.

So I want to just get an understanding, please; a woman in your position who went through this three-year, repeated, unlawful sexual discrimination, who are the best people to help you? Did you have avenues to go to confidentially, to talk about, get support – do you see what I am trying to get at?

Ms G: Yes. Eventually, I did. Your starting point is always your Federation rep, and I felt – I spoke to two initially, two male ones. One was, "Do not cause a fuss", that was his advice, and he does have a point.

Miss Weekes: You help me, what is the point?

Ms G: Because I then felt, as a result of making a fuss, or complaining, or wishing to seek that the situation be addressed, I then suffered victimisation.

The second male Federation – he was more helpful and kind, but again, did not feel that it was worthy of maybe pursuing. It was not until I consulted a female rep – and I did not feel that I should necessarily have to speak to a woman, but it was not until I did that I actually got recognition that it was wrong.

Miss Weekes: Right. And this is the Federation that you pay almost compulsory automatic membership fees to?

Ms G: Yes.

Miss Weekes: Did you think you could do anything about the fact that here was a male rep saying to you, "Do not put your head above the parapet"?

Ms G: It is a very prevalent feeling within the organisation, that you would only make a fuss to be self-serving, not to actually try and address matters and put things right for yourself and for other people.

Miss Weekes: Well, we have heard from the senior women's association, the British Women in Policing Association; were you aware of them at the time? Would you have gone to them?

Ms G: I was aware of them. I did not necessarily see how they could help. I think there is also a lack of confidence as well, that you feel, "Well, maybe I am bad, maybe I have not kept up because I have had 13 weeks away from work". You initially doubt yourself, and if you feel that you are one voice, that is more difficult; in hindsight, I feel that there was great strength got from talking to other women. I would advise another woman now in that situation to do the same, but when you are being victimised, it is far more difficult to see, I think.

Miss Weekes: Just help me, because it is not something that you necessarily dealt with in the submission, although it is very clear it was there, the victimisation; what form did that take?

Ms G: I felt that because I was not in, if you like, that that was why my promotion was continually denied me, or I was not recommended, that my line manager's assessment was never recognised as well; as well as the application to act up, I felt that was part of it as well. And in fact, one of the things that I did get was an independent review that bore that out.

Miss Weekes: This leads me conveniently on to ask you whether you consider the question of an independent mediator or mentor – whether that might be something that you would consider could have helped you along these three years.

Now you were being blocked at every time, were you not?

Ms G: Mm.

Miss Weekes: And even when you appealed, you were still being blocked. Would a woman in this situation now have found it helpful to have been able to go to an independent mediator or mentor to try to solve it?

Ms G: I think a mediator certainly. I think a mentor almost implies that you need help – and obviously you do, but I do not think necessarily that help is best provided from another woman.

Although that is helpful, to talk to somebody that has had similar experiences, I think what I actually wanted was a good manager, like [Redacted], to come in and acknowledge what was happening, and do something, and address it.

Miss Weekes: But you would prefer a mediator, as opposed to a mentor?

Ms G: I eventually got support from the other officers in similar situations, so that was helpful. I am not decrying the value of mentors, but for myself, I think mediate would have been more helpful.

Miss Weekes: Okay. I want to ask you, then, about the resolution of problems like this. We know about Fairness at Work, and I know you are familiar with it as well. I mean, none of that necessarily helped in this situation, did it, or would have helped, because I know Fairness at Work came in only last year, because it was all to do with the individual line manager, and how they could or could not deal with the issue. Because you eventually still had to lodge, did you not?

Ms G: Yes.

Miss Weekes: So now we have got Fairness at Work in, suppose even under Fairness at Work, the line manager is the one who says no, and higher up on an appeal, somebody else says no, and they attempt to justify it on a basis that you do not agree with; how would you say that one can better approach this problem, if it happened today?

Ms G: It would again be about having the right individuals, I feel quite strongly.

Miss Weekes: Would this be another reason for taking it outside the Fairness at Work process to, again, somebody like a mediator, where the decisions have broken down, and they have broken down on the basis that somebody quietly is discriminating against you?

Ms G: I feel that would have been helpful, because I felt I was continually hitting the ceiling.

Miss Weekes: The settlement; was it a confidential settlement?

Ms G: So I understand.

Miss Weekes: Meaning are you aware that the settlement at the employment tribunal was based upon you not being allowed to talk about it?

Ms G: Yes.

Miss Weekes: All right. I am interested in this aspect though: at the door of the employment tribunal, the very day you were due to start, that is when you got the settlement?

Ms G: Yes.

Miss Weekes: Why do you think that happened?

Ms G: I was led to believe that it is traditional.

Miss Weekes: Really?

Ms G: Yes, by my solicitor.

Miss Weekes: That is an interesting word. Tell me what you understood that to mean?

Ms G: That is my word, "traditional", but I was told to expect it; not to expect anything great to happen until the last moment.

Miss Weekes: So the Met could easily have negotiated this settlement long before?

Ms G: That is what I was seeking. I felt it was quite clear what we were asking.

Miss Weekes: Before you got your lawyers involved, or even at the time that you did get your lawyers involved, did anybody come to you personally and say, "Look, let us try and talk about it"?

Ms G: I sought several meetings. In the initial process, I think it is on the chronology that I did seek resolution, and had an early apology, but the bad practices continued, nothing really changed, for me or for any of the other women that were still on maternity leave, we were not advised of developmental opportunities.

Miss Weekes: Now, how would you suggest to us changes can be brought about? Because you would not want that to happen to another woman.

Ms G: No.

Miss Weekes: And you would want what is still happening to be changed, so for you, what is the burning issue? What is the way forward? Because sometimes you get the good managers; sometimes you do not, and it seems to me, from your evidence, a complete lottery.

Ms G: That is how I feel, and I do think that things are improving, but very, very slowly, particularly for women. I think black officers have had a better degree of success and recognition, but again, that has been hard-won.

Miss Weekes: So what is the way forward for you? What is the burning recommendation you would have for us?

Ms G: I think that there has to be training or understanding, certainly around maternity. I think it is very, very difficult to change people's values; if they are racist or sexist or homophobic or whatever the "ist" is, it is very difficult to change attitudes, but I feel that certainly with the policies on maternity, they could be highlighted – unfortunately, we have very good policies generally, they are just poorly administered.

Miss Weekes: When a line manager discriminates in the obvious ways you have told us about, they still remain in the job, do they not?

Ms G: They do, and I have voiced my concerns to many other senior officers and felt that that still has not been addressed, that the individuals I have identified –

Miss Weekes: So no sanctions for people who discriminate? What is the sanction, what should be the sanction?

Ms G: It also seems unfair, as well, that maybe senior officers – in my experience – are moved, whereas lower down the ranks, they tend to be suspended and disciplined. There does seem to be a protection network; that is how it feels.

Miss Weekes: What would you like to see done to the officers who blatantly discriminated against you and may continue to do so?

Ms G: I would like them to have an understanding.

Miss Weekes: That goes to your point about training?

Ms G: Mm, but I understand that they are very highly trained, so it has not worked. That was one of the things that we sought early on, what training they have had, and it appears they have been highly trained, so maybe some judicial weeding, I do not know.

Miss Weekes: G, thank you very much.

Sir William Morris: G, I will just hand you over to Sir Anthony Burden to see whether he has any questions he wants to put to you.

Questions by Sir Anthony Burden

Sir Anthony Burden: G, just a couple of points, if I may. We have heard that the DOIT team created several positive initiative programmes for female members of staff, are these ever likely to work in the culture that you exist in?

Ms G: Some of those policies, I feel, do not necessarily – I mean, I have heard that there is an idea of introducing maybe women officers, black officers in at higher rank or higher level. I do not think that will work. It would not work for me, for myself and my colleagues, my black colleagues, my female colleagues, who have felt that they have hard won – and it also causes division amongst male white officers as well.

All we want really is a level playing field; you do not want special treatment. I do not think that is the way forward.

Sir Anthony Burden: But it is quite often the case that you need champions in an organisation, just to keep the agenda on the agenda. You have got several very senior female colleagues in the Metropolitan Police; have you got champions championing the women's cause?

Ms G: Yes, we have some excellent ones, and I think locally – as I say, now that there are accessible women on the borough, that has changed things a lot, but it does feel more difficult, I think, to go back to somebody that you do not see.

Sir Anthony Burden: I mean, it is a case, is it not, of a critical mass of potential senior and middle managers getting through the ranks, so that when you reach that stage, unless there is no going back, it will be self-fulfilling, we hope.

Ms G: We hope, and I do it myself, I have taken a lot of people with me, not just women, by any – but those that have needed support and encouragement, I say, you know, "If you need it in the future, even if I cannot help you directly, I may be able to put you in touch with somebody", and people do come about.

Sir Anthony Burden: Good. Thank you.

Sir William Morris: I just have one point, G, that I need your help on.

Questions by SIR WILLIAM MORRIS

Sir William Morris: During Miss Weekes' questions to you, it seemed very clear that, at critical points, help and support was needed. Can I ask what help and support you got from the Federation?

Ms G: Eventually, excellent help and support from the female Fed rep, but again, it came down to the individuals, I felt. I did understand their position – well, both of the male ones I initially spoke to were coming up for retirement, and I felt they had lost interest and maybe did not understand my position either.

Sir William Morris: Right. So how did you manage to change from, if you like, the complacent culture to a supportive culture? Help us here as to the journey.

Ms G: I used to work with the female Federation rep, so I knew her, and because we had – the male Federation reps had retired, I got in touch with her because I knew her, so it was familial. They are very busy people, they are not dedicated, they have got day jobs as well. I have had tremendous support from my Federation rep; I think at some cost to her as well.

Sir William Morris: Is the female Federation rep dedicated to female officers, or is it just as it happened at the time, that the male reps were retiring?

Ms G: She is a borough rep. We did not have a female rep locally on the whole borough. Divided by rank, there was no other – but on a wider basis you have specific male and female reps.

Sir William Morris: Okay, that is helpful, thank you very much indeed. Well, that takes us to the end of the questions that we wanted to explore with you, but you will recall during my introduction I said that at the end of the questions, we would provide you with the opportunity to make any closing statements or comments that you wished to make, should you wish to do so. If you do wish to do so, then I invite you to take the opportunity now.

Ms G: I think I have mostly said it, and thank you for inviting me.

Sir William Morris: Before you leave, I just want to place on record the appreciation of my colleagues and myself for (a) your written submission and (b) your responses to our questions this morning, and for the general overall contribution that you are making to the Inquiry and indeed our work, and for that we want to thank you, so thank you very much indeed.

Ms G: Thank you.

On this website:

• Evidence: GG
  Evidence provided by and documents referred to by GG, in her appearance at the Inquiry.