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 It is being hosted on the MPA website for archival purposes only and may contain out-of-date information.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

Sections available here:

• Transcript of private session: Ms LL
  • Questions by Sir Anthony Burden
  • Questions by Miss Weekes
  • Questions by Sir William Morris

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

Transcript of private session: Ms LL

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
3.45 pm

Sir William Morris: Ms L, good afternoon and welcome to the Inquiry. Please make yourself comfortable, there is water and tissues there, every comfort that we can think of.

Can I, first of all, in terms of just setting you at ease, ask how you would like to be addressed, Mrs L, or L?

Ms L: L is fine.

Sir William Morris: Thank you very much. Can I first of all then, L, say thank you very much for accepting our invitation to attend the Inquiry this afternoon, and to give us some evidence, and thanks also for letting us have your written submission, which we found extremely helpful.

I do appreciate that, for some of our witnesses, the process that we go through can be somewhat daunting, so I thought it would be helpful if I just set out very briefly how we propose to conduct the hearing this afternoon, but first, let me introduce myself and the other members of the panel. I am Sir Bill Morris, recently retired General Secretary of the Transport and General Workers Union, and 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; on my left is Miss Anesta Weekes. Anesta is an eminent barrister, she sits as a recorder and part-time chairperson of employment tribunals. She was also counsel to the Lawrence Inquiry.

As you know, we have been asked by the Metropolitan Police Authority to conduct an independent inquiry into professional standards and employment matters in the Metropolitan Police Service. Our focus is the MPS as an organisation and not the individuals who make up the organisation. Nevertheless, we need to hear from individuals in order to understand how they are affected by the policies, practices, processes and conventions that govern the way the Metropolitan Police Service operates.

Although we are a public inquiry, we have decided to conduct this hearing and others, where we hear individuals, in private; the reason for this is that we are keen to hear from individuals, like your good self, who have had problems with the way the MPS operates, but we also understand that some of our witnesses may feel a little reluctant to answer questions, if they believe that the MPS is somehow listening-in on the process.

I therefore hope that you will find the arrangements that we have made helpful, and we trust that you will feel confident to speak to us frankly, and, indeed, inform our work.

Although we are meeting in private today, as I have just said, we are a public inquiry, and that means that it may be necessary for us to seek further clarification from others about what you have said to us in your written submission, and what you tell us today. If we do decide to seek further clarification, we will do so without identifying you in any shape or form.

Also, let me reassure you that we will do so, if we want to seek additional information, in a way which offers you the least possible inconvenience, if any, and it is also our policy that we would not seek additional information from anyone without getting your permission first.

The inquiry we are conducting is inquisitorial and not adversarial, we are seekers of truth, information and facts. We are very keen to enquire into the issues raised by our terms of reference, so that we can make appropriate recommendations for the further good practice within the Met, rather than concentrating on just making criticisms.

We have no wish to go back over the details of what happened in your particular instance; we have read your written submission, for which we are grateful, and we are very clear about events.

What we now want to do is just ask you a few 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 will lead on the range of questions that we want to put to you, and then, if my other colleague and myself have any additional questions as supplementary, then, of course, we will put them to you.

When we have finished our questions, I will offer you the opportunity to make a brief closing comment.

Let me just draw to your attention that a transcript is being taken, so that we have a proper record of all the evidence given by all our witnesses. We are 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 and other personal details, in order to be sure that it contains no information which identifies you or other individuals.

Before I ask Sir Anthony to lead our questions, perhaps for the benefit of the transcript, I wonder if I might invite you just to formally introduce yourself to the Inquiry.

Ms L: Yes, good afternoon, my name is LL, I am currently an inspector in the Metropolitan Police.

Sir William Morris: Thank you very much indeed, L. I will ask Sir Anthony to lead on our questions.

Questions by Sir Anthony Burden

Sir Anthony Burden: Thank you. L, good afternoon.

Ms L: Good afternoon.

Sir Anthony Burden: And if I could just repeat what the chairman said: thank you for your submission, because it fills a valuable gap in our proceedings. You have sent your submission because of your involvement in an employment tribunal case which was settled two days before it was due to be heard.

Ms L: That is right, yes.

Sir Anthony Burden: Just in synopsis, as we understand it, you had applied for promotion to inspector, and having been rejected at the board, when seeking reasons for that and feedback, you became concerned that you had been discriminated against on grounds of gender.

Ms L: Yes.

Sir Anthony Burden: Steps were taken to attempt to resolve your grievance, including an approach, I think, by the senior officer who had chaired your promotion board and later was responsible for awarding you a commendation.

Two days before the tribunal hearing, you settled on the basis that an independent board would actually assess or re-assess your application; however, the MPS decided, rather than have that review, they would promote you, backdated to the mid-point when officers who were selected in [Redacted] were actually promoted, so I think that speaks volumes for that very speedily review, or the review that formally did not take place.

Can I ask you, then, about the culture in which female officers exist within the Metropolitan Police Service? Is the way that you were treated here indicative of the way that female officers seeking promotion – the position they find themselves in?

Ms L: Until that time, my experience of promotion issues and selection issues had always been a very positive one. I have [Redacted] years' service, and when I first joined the service, yes, there were all sorts of difficulties, discrimination, and as I went on, I felt I had always been treated very fairly, and I personally had no experience of what I considered direct discrimination.

There were individual instances where I had difficulties, and it was only recently that a colleague of mine reminded me of an incident we were both involved in at a previous station; when I reflected back, I realised that, yes, probably I had been discriminated against, so this was really a bit of a bolt out of the blue, and I was quite taken aback, from looking at the evidence, that I had been treated that way.

Sir Anthony Burden: Where would you go as a female officer for support in cases like this? I mean, you are an experienced officer, and you knew your way around the organisation, but if you were a young female officer joining, very inexperienced, where can those officers go to get help, guidance and support?

Ms L: I think it is very difficult. What is advertised to them at the Federation – I make myself available now to officers if I feel they are having difficulties.

Sir Anthony Burden: You do?

Ms L: Yes, I do, partly because of my experiences, but partly because I think there is a big gap.

Sir Anthony Burden: So there are no formal networks, as far as you are aware, that would give this sort of support.

Ms L: Not for younger serving officers, no.

Sir Anthony Burden: Coming back to your case specifically, could I ask you your views on the role and the behaviour of the legal department in the way that your case was handled?

Ms L: My views on that are that I think it could have been looked at a lot earlier. I was willing to go to some sort of mediation discussion right from the very beginning. My impression was, as soon as I lodged the employment tribunal, that was it, everything stopped then; we could not discuss it, everything had to go through the solicitor, and it was just a question of waiting, and a question that I still would like to ask, but I do not know who to address it to, is why the decision was left so late and why that decision was ultimately made.

Sir Anthony Burden: Is that a common occurrence for people who lodge ETs, do you know?

Ms L: In my experience, yes.

Sir Anthony Burden: The doorstep settlements, all right. So what do you sort of gather from your experience, L, that once somebody lodges an employment tribunal claim, any form of negotiation ceases, it becomes very formal, very legalistic?

Ms L: It seems that the blinds are brought down, everybody gets behind their own barriers, and leaves it – you know, the solicitors go out and do the fighting, you stay behind the barrier where it is safe, because you do not want to step out of line, you do not want to be seen to be making some headway to try and solve the issue.

Sir Anthony Burden: But all you wanted was answers, was it not?

Ms L: That is right, I just wanted to talk about it and get some answers.

Sir Anthony Burden: And you would have been quite happy to do that right up until the last day?

Ms L: Yes.

Sir Anthony Burden: Can I ask a similar question about the employment tribunal unit? Did you have any personal involvement with the unit itself?

Ms L: I did, purely out of frustration, because of an incident that happened, I think you touched on it, the person who chaired the inquiry approached me at a commendation ceremony and asked to talk, and I was not quite sure how that should work out. I contacted my own solicitor and he said that was not usual, but could not give me any answers as to what should happen.

My Federation rep was not available, so I actually rung our own employment tribunal section, and spoke to them. They were actually quite helpful.

Sir Anthony Burden: They were?

Ms L: Yes, they made contact again, back through the solicitor, and did eventually set up a meeting, but that was only six weeks or four weeks before the tribunal was due.

Sir Anthony Burden: What is your perception about that unit being within the directorate of professional standards?

Ms L: I think it should be a totally separate unit that has some sort of – in a way, very much like divorce settlements are looked at now, where you look at mediation first, you do not immediately go to court to fight it out. You look at it and do not automatically think, "Right, the tribunal has been lodged, we are going to tribunal". We should say, "Okay, what can we do to deal with the issues?"

Sir Anthony Burden: So by having to go to that department within the DPS, what personal impression did you gain about the way that unit –

Ms L: They were taking a defensive position immediately. They were taking a defensive position; I think it should be taken out of that, and be independent.

Sir Anthony Burden: And be part of the mediation process, and you would support that?

Ms L: Yes.

Sir Anthony Burden: That is interesting, because I think you are the first person who has been on the receiving end of the process that we have been able to speak to.

You state, in your submission, that you were left with no option but to take the case to employment tribunal; you mention the Fairness at Work procedures, and say that you doubt whether those new procedures would be capable of dealing with the more serious cases of discrimination. Could you explain why?

Ms L: The Fairness at Work policy was not in place then, it is now. I see the Fairness at Work policy is great for dealing with issues – to, say, on a lower level might denigrate how some people feel, but maybe allocation of courses, or if somebody has upset somebody by what they have said to them.

I feel that in this case, where I was making what I felt were very serious allegations that I had been discriminated against by a very senior officer, I do not quite know who would have been in a position to deal with that. I would have had to have gone way up to sort of commander level, and that, to me, if I am understanding Fairness at Work right, is not what it is designed for.

I do not feel it has got the mechanism to actually deal with it, and the mechanism to do the investigation, because I was with another colleague, who I believe was with you this morning, and it was a joint action, going back over four years, and this was the culmination of four years for her.

Sir Anthony Burden: What would your attitude be to some form of external influence in the mediation process, outside of the Met, bringing that independence to bear?

Ms L: I think that would be excellent, somebody from the outside – business, somebody from perhaps outside the police culture, the police way of thinking, and looking at things more objectively. I think always having some – you know, fresh thoughts on the matter, that would be good, yes.

Sir Anthony Burden: You went through a process of review as a result of your grievance over the way that the promotion process went. Having gone through that process, what impression were you left with about the way that that actually worked its way through?

Ms L: My impression is that, if this is typical of the way that people are treated, then I just about – I got through, survived it. I am very strong. I think a lot of people who are not as strong will get lost on the wayside, and that is an absolute shame, because there are a lot of people who do get discriminated against, unfairly treated, and who need that extra help and support, and when you are just left in that void for six, eight, nine months, you have to be very focused on achieving some positive outcome, and I could see a lot of people just think, "It is not worth it, it is not worth my personal cost, it is not worth my marriage, it is not worth upsetting my kids for this".

Sir Anthony Burden: If you are not aware of this, please say so, because there is no reason why you necessarily should be, but the process of selection that you went through, there was a panel, properly constituted.

Ms L: Yes.

Sir Anthony Burden: I take it you were being measured against the core competencies for an inspector.

Ms L: Yes.

Sir Anthony Burden: And the questions were designed to test those competencies, and each candidate was asked, I would imagine, the same question.

Ms L: Yes.

Sir Anthony Burden: And there were score sheets?

Ms L: I do not know the mechanics of it, but I would imagine there was probably something like that, yes.

Sir Anthony Burden: You were shown nothing in feedback terms about what was written about you?

Ms L: I was given written feedback.

Sir Anthony Burden: You were given written feedback, but you obviously did not associate your profile with what was being said.

Ms L: The issue was over the interpretation of one word.

Sir Anthony Burden: Yes, which is, I agree, very difficult to come to terms with. But you are suggesting that there needs to be a formal system of constructive feedback which involves a development plan for the future, because, quite obviously, if there is something they feel is an area you need to develop, you need to be told about that, and a plan needs to be devised to make sure that happens. Is that not in place?

Ms L: In theory, it is in place, but in practice, it is not, and this was another issue that came out, that the chair of the panel who met in October was under the impression that – not my line manager, but the one up above that had set out a development plan; that certainly was not the case, my development plan I set up with my own line manager, so anything I did came from me.

Sir Anthony Burden: Came from you, right. You posed the question at the end of your submission to say: why the change of decision about promotion, and why did it take so long. Have you ever sat down with anyone and been afforded the opportunity to ask that question?

Ms L: I have been afforded the opportunity, but I have not had an answer.

Sir Anthony Burden: Right, so you have asked the question, and it is still left unanswered?

Ms L: Still left unanswered.

Sir Anthony Burden: Okay. But the assumption that I would make, and possibly you would, is that they felt, quite properly, you should have been selected for promotion?

Ms L: That is the assumption I have come to as well.

Sir Anthony Burden: You say you feel there is a lack of professional approach by personnel to promotion issues. Would you like to enlarge on that?

Ms L: I feel that – it is a very major thing, and obviously, an awful lot of hard work goes into it. A few instances, a few examples of what happened when I was going through the process: when I was turned down, I put in an appeal, under the procedures, and I remember it: it was the day before Christmas Eve, I had an e-mail saying, "Your appeal has been successful, you have been promoted"; wonderful.

Ten minutes later, I get another one pop up, "Very sorry, we sent it to the wrong person, you have not been promoted", so I rang the person up, a person who I know well, and got on with; she was extremely apologetic, but it was like, "Well, I have got so much on, I am very busy, I cannot really manage all this." Oh well, fair enough.

And asking for feedback, you had to virtually beg for written feedback, I think I asked on three occasions to get written feedback regarding the reasons why I had not been selected. And then there was not – nobody actually said, "You cannot come and talk to me about feedback", but there was no implied invitation to come and talk, and because of all the sort of feelings that were going on at the time, and by now I was very angry, I just went straight to my Federation rep. I thought, "I have had enough of this". I was not willing to talk to anybody at that stage.

Sir Anthony Burden: This management – if I can use that loose term – of the process and the results you got, this is all borough-based?

Ms L: Totally borough-based.

Sir Anthony Burden: So have you got any views about that level of personnel matter being handled at borough level? Is there the expertise there?

Ms L: I think that would vary from borough to borough. I am now on a different borough. I have not really thought about that aspect of it much, but I do feel that it needs to be treated with more professionalism, and perhaps, you know, one person dedicated to dealing with those issues, because if I had felt that there was somebody that I could approach in personnel to discuss it, maybe I might have got some answers or I might have been able to have approached the senior officer to discuss it more openly, if there had been that gateway through.

Sir Anthony Burden: But it all became very legalistic, and –

Ms L: Yes.

Sir Anthony Burden: To your knowledge, does that happen very often, people being told they have been promoted, and then, "Whoops, we have got it wrong"?

Ms L: I have not heard of that. That is a little example, but –

Sir Anthony Burden: Well, it is a big issue for you.

Ms L: It is a major thing, when you think, "Oh, I have not been promoted", and then, "Oh, that is nice, somebody has" – you know, I have spent hours typing up my appeal and somebody has actually taken notice and looked at it, and then, no, they have not.

Sir Anthony Burden: L, can I just deal with a few general points? We have been told about the DOIT project and positive action programmes to support female members of staff. Have you got any personal knowledge of any of those programmes, or any involvement in them?

Ms L: On my previous borough, I was on the women's focus group. My personal feelings about that is it has got a lot of potential, but it really has no teeth. Policies and processes, you cannot do anything about those on a borough level.

Some things they were thinking of starting were – sounded very good, like a mentoring scheme for new female probationers. There are mentoring schemes available as you start to go further up, but I think it is when you are starting, when you first arrive for your ten week street duty course, and everything is new and different, if you do not get people then and get their confidence then, you can lose them.

Sir Anthony Burden: The focus group you mentioned, is that an initiative on the borough?

Ms L: The DOIT team were encouraging every borough to have their own women's focus group, so it was not a totally borough-based initiative, but they took up the encouragement from the centre.

Sir Anthony Burden: So you focus, and then what is the reporting process, then, of recommending –

Ms L: The idea is that a rep from that team will then sit on/report to the senior management team.

Sir Anthony Burden: Right, so it goes right to the top?

Ms L: Yes.

Sir Anthony Burden: Is that through DAC Howlett?

Ms L: This is borough-based.

Sir Anthony Burden: I do apologise, so the borough management team. So it is intended really to promote gender issues on the borough.

Ms L: Yes.

Sir Anthony Burden: Have you any examples of where the focus group has made recommendations where there has been some action?

Ms L: You see, I am not on that borough any more, I have been away. But no, I actually cannot think of any.

Sir Anthony Burden: So what is the perception in the eyes of most female officers about those focus groups, that they are action groups or talking shops?

Ms L: Talking shops. And I know one officer who actively avoids it, because she says she feels it is divisive rather than an aid to inclusion and progression.

Sir Anthony Burden: You have seen some service in the Metropolitan Police; can you give your view as to whether you feel that the culture in relation to female officers and police staff has changed, is changing?

Ms L: Across the board generally, yes, I believe it is changing, is improving. The issue I still have, the issue that I feel still exists is that providing you are maybe a uniformed PC or a uniformed DC, getting on and doing your work, that is fine; when you start to try and go up the ladder, specialise – and this is purely personal experience – you come up against the minority of male officers who still do not think that women should be doing this type of work. They can make things difficult.

I have got personal experience of that with an individual, who, when I was an acting sergeant, really did not believe that I should be telling him what to do, and that eventually led to us – me making a formal complaint and us not working together any more.

Sir Anthony Burden: If this sort of behaviour comes to notice: your treatment at the promotion board, are there ever any sanctions against those male officers who are seen not to be managing female members of staff effectively?

Ms L: Not to my knowledge, and that is a thorn in my side over this issue; I would not say you necessarily need a sanction, but the person who has made this decision and been responsible for it, I do not think anybody has sat down and said, "Look, have you considered your actions, have you considered your thoughts, have you considered how you could have handled this better, have you considered whether you made the right decision?" No, as far as I am aware, absolutely no sanctions whatsoever.

Sir Anthony Burden: You say you are a strong individual, and you are willing to fight your corner, but those who are less strong do not see the point; is that deterring a lot of good, young, potential female members of staff for applying for promotion to specialist posts?

Ms L: Yes.

Sir Anthony Burden: So it is actually damaging the organisation by allowing this to continue?

Ms L: I know people, and I have encouraged them to apply for things; they know what has happened to myself and other officers and they say, "Oh, I have not got the energy, I just want to get on with my job, get on quietly earning my money, but I do not want the hassle".

Sir Anthony Burden: From your submission and from what you have said this afternoon, if there was one issue, L, you would want to leave us with that you felt was more important than the rest, that you would like included in the report, what would it be?

Ms L: Early mediation. Talk to us. If I could have talked to somebody who had the authority, the power, the sanction to do something, I probably would not be sitting here today.

Sir Anthony Burden: Some have told us that that is difficult in the blame culture that they see in existence; is that your experience?

Ms L: I think it would be difficult, but you have got to start somewhere. I think we need to take away having employment tribunals as possibly the only option, once all the other avenues are exhausted; it seemed the only avenue was the appeal process, and that came and went. There was the possibility of a grievance procedure at that stage, but I felt that already would set up barriers, that I was not prepared to let it go, but if somebody had said to me, "Let us all sit around the table and talk, but I have the authority to actually do something", I would have taken that option.

Sir Anthony Burden: And finally, you were promoted, but did you ever get an apology?

Ms L: I have never had an apology or an explanation even.

Sir Anthony Burden: And certainly not your question answered?

Ms L: No.

Sir Anthony Burden: Thank you very much indeed.

Sir William Morris: L, thank you for responding to Sir Anthony's questions. I would invite Miss Weekes to see whether she has any questions she wants to put to you.

Questions by Miss Weekes

Miss Weekes: I just have two areas. Can I go back to sanctions? We have heard in our time sitting on this panel that very rarely are officers sanctioned for wrongdoing. They are often promoted, or they are moved on elsewhere, but generally, no sanctions.

We would like your help as to how we consider the issue of sanctions. Not every officer should be sanctioned, of course it depends how serious the action, and I know you would agree with that, but preventing a woman from promotion, from developing her ability, from feeling good about herself in the workplace, is very serious.

Ms L: Yes.

Miss Weekes: What do you say should happen to a line manager who quite persistently stops women getting to the higher ranks, developing themselves, feeling good about themselves?

Ms L: I think there should be some process whereby they are challenged as to their behaviour; their behaviour, their beliefs about why they are behaving that way are examined, and if they are found that they do hold discriminatory beliefs, and exhibit them, then they should not remain in the force.

Miss Weekes: You feel quite strongly about that?

Ms L: I do feel strongly about that, yes, whether it is on grounds of race, gender, sexuality; if they believe that one person is less able or has less worth to do that role, then as far as I am concerned, if they treat their colleagues like that, they are going to treat members of the public like that, and that is not acceptable.

Miss Weekes: Because your evidence clearly demonstrates that some women just will not be as brave as you are, they just will not be bothered to challenge, which means they will quietly suffer for many, many years.

Ms L: Yes.

Miss Weekes: So there is a great potential if that kind of sanction is not thought about, that sectors of the police force will be unhappy, and I think you now know that there are people who are presently unhappy, who just will not take action.

Ms L: Yes.

Miss Weekes: Who should deal with sanctions? I know these are very difficult questions, and I raise them because we also find them difficult.

Ms L: My personal belief about this, and it goes across any wrongdoing that is highlighted – I personally believe it should be a body outside of the service. I think that is the only way that it can be dealt with, or if when you get – the other possibility is when you have serious complaints – I mean, I have not thought through the logistics to this, but is to have, for example, a team from Cumbria police come and investigate, so you do not have the phrase "the friend of the friend of the friend" investigating you, the old boys' network, because it is still there, it still exists.

For want of a better phrase, it is very incestuous. When you have been in the service for more than 10 or 15 years, you do know a lot of people, and you do need people to come right out of that, somebody totally independent to look at it, and be fair about it.

Miss Weekes: The Commissioner, of course, goes public on integrity not being negotiable, and, "Where there are rotten police officers in the middle of corruption, we will get rid of them." One never really hears the high profiling of discriminatory practices or gender discrimination; have you heard the Commissioner or Assistant Commissioners coming out publicly and saying that where men mistreat women, they will be dealt with?

Ms L: No, and I have my doubts about how the Commissioner really feels about that as well, but again, that is a personal issue.

Miss Weekes: Okay. One last question: debriefs. In police terms, I know you know what that means, but after your experience, did anybody say, "Now we note what you have been through, it has all now been finished, it is settled, you are back, can we talk about what happened, so we learn the lessons, and in a sense, we can avoid things happening this way again?"

Ms L: Part of our settlement, myself and my colleague, one of the issues was we wanted to speak to a senior officer regarding everything that had happened, so we could raise all the issues that are raised in my letter.

We did have that hearing, we were there for two or three hours, and he did sit and listen. He actually mentioned making submissions to the Inquiry, which we both did, but we have had no real debrief and no explanation has come out of that – that was what we went to him for, to try and get some explanation of what happens now, you know, why this decision, what happens to the person who made that decision?

Because, in my mind, the fact that I was promoted, the fact they said, "Yes, okay, we are going to backdate your pay", I was proved right, for want of using right and wrong, so therefore, nobody, to my knowledge, has challenged him and said, "Okay, you made that decision, why did you make that decision? Why did you not promote the only two women applying?" And it has not happened, and he is still working in the diversity directorate, which makes me, you know, throw my hands up in despair.

Miss Weekes: So you would say that, as a matter of course, there should be feedback where there has been an employment tribunal which has settled to the person who suffered the discrimination, the action plan, what has been done, and how it might be avoided in the future.

Ms L: Yes.

Miss Weekes: That should be as a matter of course?

Ms L: I think it should be a matter of course, because otherwise, there is a danger that because it is all over, the emotions are gone, people have settled, you just want to forget about it. Well, we did, but we also wanted to – it sounds very altruistic, but we did not want other people to go through this. We do not want somebody who is applying for promotion this year being turned down and having exactly the same difficulties, but my fear is that is going to happen again.

Miss Weekes: Thank you very much.

Questions by Sir William Morris

Sir William Morris: L, I just want to explore one point with your good self, and there may be follow-up supplementaries, just for clarification, but the stakeholders within the MPS have established a lot of common ground on a whole range of issues. One of the issues on which we are very clear, in terms of the stakeholding community, is the insufficient numbers of women generally in the MPS, and black women in particular.

We have explored evidence to us from a very senior officer of the MPS, who suggests that part of the remedy to deal with this underrepresentation is to perhaps move away from single point entry, and have a more multi approach, and looking at streams, because the areas of particular concern are among the senior ranks of the – it is male and white. There is something else, but I will not offer that.

If that was explored further, what would your view be in terms of having women coming in at different points and streaming?

Ms L: If that were introduced, and it was for – say it was introduced only for women, I think that would just make the whole matter a lot, lot worse, personally. Yes, it should be considered and examined maybe, but my feelings are that if I, for example, joined straight in as an inspector, I would have absolutely no credibility whatsoever. Really, just thinking about it now, I really do not support it. I think the energies must be put in at day one at Hendon, you know, day one, and if energy and money is going to be put into this, it must be done to – I think recruiting is at a reasonable level, I think recruiting of female officers is quite high, it is maintaining them, looking at maternity issues, promotion issues, retention issues.

That is where I feel we need to concentrate our efforts, and using senior women and experienced women, senior PCs who have been around a while, to mentor and be available to newer-serving female officers. As a really off-the-cuff answer: I do not like the idea.

Sir William Morris: You said if that was just for women; let me just broaden it a little bit. Because a debate is starting in which the Met has made a contribution, reportedly made a contribution, that the Home Secretary will be invited to examine the legislation which would enable the underrepresentation of black police officers in the Met also to be improved, so it would not be just solely for women, extending your point.

A basket of measures is emerging here for debate, public debate, and internal Met debate; given that added dimension, do you still feel that Hendon is the only route?

Ms L: I think we do need to do something urgently about the underrepresented groups.

Sir William Morris: I am tempted to ask what.

Ms L: Yes, and I am thinking – I cannot, off the top of my head, think of any other way, and if that is what is needed, then yes, I think it would have to be very well managed. It might give – I am going to use a phrase that a friend of mine – it might give some of the old dinosaurs the kick they need to realise that there are a lot of very good people out there, who are not white males, but can do the job.

Sir William Morris: Because we have a police service, and every single criterion does not look or feel or act indeed, I would suggest, like the community that it serves, and despite all the efforts and the public statements and the policies, and we have a richness of policy but a poverty in implementation, so that has been offered to us as evidence about it, basically.

We have not managed to break through to a police service that looks remotely representative of its community and its constituency. That is the challenge, I think, for every single stakeholding person in the Metropolitan Police Service. Is there one single message that we can take forward in our report to begin to highlight and sensitise the institution to be more responsive?

Ms L: My message would be to treat people as individuals, to talk to people and to be willing to listen and be willing to change.

Sir William Morris: Okay. Well, can I first of all thank you and move to some closing words. During my introduction, I promised that at the end of our questions, I would offer you the opportunity to make a closing comment if you so wished. I am making that invitation now, for you to make your closing comment, if you do wish to.

Ms L: I think my closing comment would be that it has been excellent to have this opportunity to make the submission and to come up and actually verbalise my thoughts. It is not something that when all this started I thought would actually happen. It is sad that we actually have to have this, but I am hopeful that something good will come out of this.

Sir William Morris: Okay, well, we do share the hope, as you have put it, and we can reciprocate by saying it has been a good opportunity for us to hear from you. All that I want to do further is to thank you for your submission, thank you for coming along and responding so frankly to our questions this afternoon, and thank you for the work and the overall contribution that you are making to our Inquiry. So thank you very much.

Ms L: Thank you. 

4.40 pm

On this website:

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