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 It is being hosted on the MPA website for archival purposes only and may contain out-of-date information.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 PP, on 26 April 2004.

Sections available here:

• Transcript of private session: Mr PP and Mr RR
  • Questions by Sir Anthony Burden
  • Questions by Miss Weekes

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

Transcript of private session: Mr PP and Mr RR

The name of these witnesses have been changed, and their submission redacted, to avoid the identification of the individuals and any third parties.

Monday, 26 April 2004
2.15 pm

Sir William Morris: Mr P, good afternoon and welcome. Please make yourself comfortable, and you too, Mr R. There is water there; I hope you are settled in okay.

Can I, first of all, Mr R and Mr P, thank you for attending the Inquiry this afternoon, thanks for accepting our invitation to give some evidence.

We have had your written submission, which we have found extremely helpful, but we appreciate that for some of our witnesses, this process can in fact be a very daunting experience, so I thought it would be helpful if I just set out very briefly how we intend to conduct the hearing this afternoon, but, first, let me introduce myself and the other members of the panel.

On my right is Sir Anthony Burden, recently retired Chief Constable of the South Wales Constabulary, after a very long and indeed distinguished service. On my left is Miss Anesta Weekes QC; Anesta is an eminent barrister, she sits as a recorder and chairperson of the employment tribunals, and she was in fact counsel to the Lawrence Inquiry. I am Sir Bill Morris, recently retired General Secretary of the Transport and General Workers Union.

As you know, we have been asked by the Metropolitan Police Authority to conduct an independent inquiry into the professional standards and workplace matters of the Metropolitan Police Service. We have taken as our focus the Metropolitan Police Service as an organisation, and not the people who make up the organisation; we think that is right. But in order to understand how the practices, the policies, the procedures and conventions impact on the people who work for the MPS, it is important that we speak to individuals, and we are grateful for our opportunity to hear your views this afternoon.

But let me say that although we are a public inquiry, we have decided to conduct this hearing, and some others, in private session, so that we can talk to individuals, and the reason for this is because we are very keen to hear from the individuals about their experiences in respect of the way the Metropolitan Police Service operates.

But we also understand that some people might feel somewhat reluctant to talk to us freely and frankly in the belief that, somehow, the MPS might find some way of listening in on our conversation. I hope, therefore, that the arrangements that we have made this afternoon will be helpful to you, and that you will feel freely and confidently able to speak to us without any concerns about what you say.

Can I just also go on to say that although we are meeting in private, 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 said to us in your written submission, or what you say to us this afternoon.

If we do decide to seek further clarification, however, we will do so in a way which minimises any inconvenience to you, and we will give our assurance that we will seek your permission before we seek any further clarification, on the basis that I have just outlined.

It is worth saying, I think, that our inquiry is inquisitorial, we are enquiring, we are seeking facts, and we are pursuing information; we are not adversarial at all, we are inquisitorial.

We are very keen to enquire into those issues raised by our terms of reference, in order that we can make the appropriate recommendation for better and improved practices within the Metropolitan Police Service, rather than engage in just criticising the institution and criticising the individuals.

We have no wish to go into the details, Mr P, of what has happened to you, because we have had your written submission, and we are very clear about the events that you have shared with us. What we want to do is to ask you some questions, in order to share your experience, which can then inform our task as we go forward with the inquiry.

At the end of these introductory remarks, one of my colleagues will lead some questions to you, and myself and the other member of the panel may wish to ask you one or two supplementary questions. When we have finished asking you all the questions that we wish to do, then I will offer you the opportunity to make a brief closing comment, only if you wish to do so.

Can I, just again for the record, point out to you that a transcript is being taken so that we can have a proper record of all the information and the evidence given by all our witnesses, and we are hoping to publish this transcript, together with written submissions, on our website within the next few days.

But we will only do that after we have taken out all references to your name and other personal details, in order that we can be sure that it contains no information that identifies you as an individual, or indeed anyone else.

But before I ask my colleague, Sir Anthony, to begin the questions, on our behalf, for the benefit of our Inquiry, I wonder whether you would mind just formally introducing yourself to the Inquiry.

Mr P: Thank you, Sir William. My name is P [Redacted] P, I am a [Redacted] with the Metropolitan Police, having served previously in a [Redacted].

I currently have [Redacted] years' experience in the police service. My reason for attending today is -- thank you for your opening speech -- to try and be positive and to bring focus to disability issues, and I sincerely hope to be able, with you, to move things forward, so that other people do not suffer or have the same problems that I have come up against when my disability came to light. Thank you, sir.

Sir William Morris: Thank you very much indeed. I will move straight on to inviting Sir Anthony to start leading with the questions that we would like to ask.

Questions by Sir Anthony Burden

Sir Anthony Burden: Good afternoon to you. Can I just set the scene, for the transcript? You were, until [Redacted], a member of the [Redacted].

Mr P: Yes, I was.

Sir Anthony Burden: You were the [Redacted] officer, [Redacted] officer, you were fully qualified to advanced level in the use of firearms, you were a first aider, you also undertook training, you were an [Redacted], you could use specialist weapons, and therefore really a great asset to the [Redacted] department and the [Redacted], I would suggest.

Can I just set in context as well, and please correct me if I am wrong, for health and safety purposes, it is now the norm to examine firearms officers, in terms of their hearing, because until proper ear defenders were issued, there was a real threat that there would be hearing damage caused by the continual use of police firearms; does that sort of set the scene properly?

Mr P: Yes, that is right. Up until the tests were introduced, protective hearing was just basically not issued individually or anything, and there was no consideration given.

Sir Anthony Burden: So in [Redacted], in November, you went for a routine but compulsory hearing test?

Mr P: Yes, these were the first of the tests, and I was ordered to go to it, I was told, "You will go to it".

Sir Anthony Burden: So as not to prolong the issue, hearing damage was found, which precluded you from remaining on active police duty using firearms.

Mr P: Yes, I was told that because my hearing had been damaged, I would not be allowed to use a firearm or be around firearms any further.

Sir Anthony Burden: The main thrust of your submission, quite properly, is around the way that you were subsequently treated.

Mr P: Yes.

Sir Anthony Burden: Could I just ask, however, in light of the Disability Act which is about to come into operation later this year, in light of that, have you got any issue around the fact that officers found to have hearing damage are actually removed from firearms use?

Mr P: In my case, hearing had been damaged. If protective hearing is provided, then surely there would not be any further damage, so I do not see why you should be removed from a firearms environment, unless they are saying that we probably will not be able to protect you enough in training, and therefore your hearing would be damaged more, is what they are saying to me.

It might be that -- the two strains they are looking at, it might be that under health and safety, they feel you should work out of a firearms environment.

Sir Anthony Burden: Okay. So we come on to what happened to you, and you catalogue very thoroughly -- and as the chairman said at the outset, I do not intend to go through your experience, other than to say that in terms of compassion and sensitivity, both appeared to be completely lacking in the way that you were treated, having been taken away from the job that you loved, almost through to the current day, really.

Mr P: Yes.

Sir Anthony Burden: Because of your association with the Disabled Staff Association.

Mr P: I do not feel, even now, I am used to my full potential. I basically just tear off pieces of paper and work in a sort of postal office really.

Sir Anthony Burden: So can I jump us right forward then until October/November this year, when the Disability Act has kicked in?

Mr P: Yes.

Sir Anthony Burden: [Redacted]

If what happened to you in [Redacted] happens to another member of staff in the MPS in November 2004, have you any thoughts as to how that individual should be treated as a person who would be disabled, but, by virtue of the Act, has every right to remain serving within the police service?

Mr P: I feel there should be consultation. My experience was there was not any consultation with the individual as to what their expectations -- as to what their capabilities were. Decisions were made without any consultation to them.

So I feel that they need to consult the person, they need to make reasonable adjustments, there are environments where that person can be used. My example, on my own personal side, was, I was an [Redacted], but because I worked in a department where [Redacted] I was immediately told, "You have to leave, go away", and there was no help in finding anywhere that I could go. I had made my career working in [Redacted], and obviously, there would be other openings within the organisation for an [Redacted]where I could be used, but I was told, "Well, we are not going to bother looking for you, off you go. If you find somewhere, then that is fine, but if you do not, whatever". There was no assistance given.

So I would like to see some structure, some processes, consultation, involving perhaps external consultation with the medical profession to say, "Well, okay, this woman or this man's hearing has been damaged, or they have a problem, but providing A and B are put into place, this will not be a problem".

Sir Anthony Burden: Your description of the insensitivity with which you were treated by managers, your supervisors; would that, do you think, suggest that really all they were interested in was seeing the problem disappear from their horizons somewhere else?

Mr P: Absolutely. I was informed by [Redacted] that I was a problem, and they were now having to carry me, and they were hoping to unload me to some other department that could carry me. That was the whole thing.

I have to say that when you are told that you are worthless again and again, you do start to believe it after a while.

Sir Anthony Burden: Well, you have very well documented the impact it had on you personally, which is very regrettable.

Looking again to the future, to this person -- hopefully it does not happen, but in November this year, you would want to see a system which was sympathetic to the individual, and then, as the Metropolitan Police will have to do, to risk assess positions to see whether they can be occupied by people with disabilities who will then be at liberty, of course, to apply for and be equally considered for those posts; that is something you would want to see?

Mr P: Yes, very much so. I feel also that, at the moment, the way the Met is currently managed with borough policing, each individual borough is set up more like a principality, that it decides its own issues, and with disability, if they had a central disability unit, somewhere centralised, where they could see where there were vacancies and where they could utilise people, rather than leaving it for one small station that says, "Well, we have a person with disabilities, where can we use them here?", and that invariably means that that person ends up working in a property store or away from any contact with the public, whereby, if it was centralised, it could be looked at better.

Sir Anthony Burden: So what you are saying is that those sorts of decisions that find people being placed in absolutely the wrong environment, not using their skills and their experience, those decisions are being made without proper consideration at local borough level, OCU level?

Mr P: Yes, they are.

Sir Anthony Burden: From what you have said, can we assume therefore that there is not a great deal of knowledge out there about how persons with disabilities should be treated?

Mr P: I have seen little evidence of it. My perception is there is not.

Sir Anthony Burden: And your view would be -- [Redacted] there needs to be a centre of excellence, a centre of knowledge that is actually able to manage these issues, because, you know, that knowledge is there.

Mr P: Yes, I had this conversation recently with a manager, and the way I put it was that when the DDA does click in to the service, it is not going to be the local borough commander at Bexley, or Bromley, or Paddington, it will be the Commissioner of the Metropolis that will find themselves at loggerheads or in some form of industrial tribunal.

So I really feel that perhaps, something centralised should be taken -- somebody should grasp the issues, which they are not at the moment.

Sir Anthony Burden: You say that you do not feel as though your worth is being properly regarded, and yet you tell us that when there are officers suffering from similar hearing difficulties identified, they are only too ready to call upon you then to seek your advice to sort of counsel these people through.

Mr P: Yes, that is very much done by word of mouth, through people I have worked with, [Redacted]

Sir Anthony Burden: And so we paint this picture of the way we hope things will be in November 2004, but can I ask you, [Redacted] but I would like your own personal views, please: do you feel the Metropolitan Police is prepared for the Disability Act?

Mr P: No, Sir Anthony. In all honesty, I do not think they are prepared for it.

Sir Anthony Burden: [Redacted] all the soft-end issues have been done, ramps are in place and everything for access, but in relation to its staff, the thing that really matters, people, have posts been risk assessed, in your knowledge, to see whether disabled people could actually occupy those posts?

Mr P: To my knowledge, no. I had a diversity trainer come to see me, and at the moment, there is no disability awareness being taught to any of the new candidates or indeed to any current officers. So I do not know how they are supposed to raise the profile of people with disabilities when there is no awareness training for them.

Sir Anthony Burden: Did this trainer come and see you to try and raise his or her own awareness, with a view to doing something?

Mr P: Yes, that is right, but again, there was no process or structure by the organisation, it was purely that this trainer is a very good teacher who wanted to expand her knowledge of disability issues, and asked me to brief them.

Sir Anthony Burden: So because she is very good, her students will benefit from that, but it does not appear to be a force-wide strategy to do that.

Mr P: Yes, if a student gets that particular lady teacher, then hopefully they will do well, but it is ad hoc training again.

Sir Anthony Burden: Do you stand by the comment you made that the MPS appears not to learn by its mistakes? It seems to make the same mistakes time and time again, you say.

Mr P: What I have written, I have written; yes, I do.

Sir Anthony Burden: So I mean, in a massive department like the DPS, and if you add to that all the other firearms departments that you have, how many officers do you feel would be actively carrying, firearms trained officers, in the MPS?

Mr P: I could not give you an accurate account. My experience is probably 3,000 officers.

Sir Anthony Burden: So from that number, there must be quite a few suffering from hearing problems, if not created by the use of firearms, just naturally suffering from hearing difficulties, that would be found through this very intricate test, that would not be found in a person not carrying firearms; so there are going to be quite a few, I would imagine, officers identified every year that would be taken off firearms duties.

Mr P: Yes, but to my knowledge, there is no structure as to what to do with them when they do come off of firearms.

Sir Anthony Burden: Still none?

Mr P: No. An example of this was last year's Notting Hill Carnival, where they decided that all police officers that would be involved in the Carnival should have hearing tests. They then introduced some hearing tests where they had a van, I think, or some equipment going out doing tests, and a number of officers failed the tests, and they have now contacted me, because they are in exactly the position I was in [Redacted] years ago. They are saying, "No one knows what to do with us, they do not know if we are allowed to work the streets or if we should be in an environment where we are away from noise, it is all up in the air".

So again, it is the exact same scenario that I was in [Redacted] years ago.

Sir Anthony Burden: Of course, you should be getting support from the Federation in such matters; is that support, to your knowledge, forthcoming?

Mr P: I feel the Federation are a wet blanket, to put it mildly. The Federation seem to be focused very much on litigation. If there is somebody to be sued, then they will go for it, but as far as support, any form, if you like, of paternity, any form of support, no, they are wanting, lacking, in that area.

Sir Anthony Burden: In fact, you say a Federation representative wrote a very misleading article in Metline, which is an internal publication, suggesting that in fact they were providing hearing tests, and that is something that you knew to be wrong.

Mr P: That is correct, they said that hearing tests had been introduced and had been in for a number of years, which they had not, we were some of the first people to be tested. I tried to contact the Federation, but they were not interested in talking to me.

On the welfare side, no, the Federation do not supply any welfare. They have no one trained that is able to help. If the Federation were doing the job that they were supposed to, then there would not be the need for all these associations.

Sir Anthony Burden: Do you feel that if you had indicated that you would be keen for medical retirement, that that would have been supported and you would be out of the service now?

Mr P: No, I was told at the time that with the baby boom period coming to an end, they were hoping to retain officers, as opposed to getting rid of them, which is all good and proper, but if you are going to retain staff, then give them something to do, for goodness sakes, do not just let them wither on the vine.

Sir Anthony Burden: And that would come, you feel, from ensuring there was a proper evaluation of individuals?

Mr P: Absolutely.

Sir Anthony Burden: And making sure that they are slotted in to a position where they can be properly used.

Mr P: Yes. At the moment, there are officers that are given menial tasks. You have these people in the organisation, and if you give them menial tasks, they become bitter with the organisation; would it not be better to just get rid of them on pension, rather than just waste everyone's time?

Sir Anthony Burden: If you had an opportunity to wish this panel to include in our report one thing that you considered above everything else to be important, in terms of properly regarding disability within the MPS, what would that be?

Mr P: Common sense. We talk about common sense; unfortunately, it is not very common. Consultation with the individual, focus with the needs of the service; that would be what I would say.

Sir Anthony Burden: [Redacted] in terms of assisting the MPS in promoting the Disability Act, in doing all that it should be doing, as far as you are aware, is your staff association being used as well as it could be in advising and advancing the position of disabled people in the Metropolitan Police Service?

Mr P: I would say that Mr R is actually supporting me, and, on a personal level, he has been very supportive of me, as I have suffered on a number of occasions from depression.

Had it not been for him, six months ago, I do not think I would be in a position to be here talking to you now, and to still be a serving police officer. My doctor for some time has asked me to take time off with stress, but I do feel if I gave in to that, that I would no longer be sitting here.

Sir Anthony Burden: And outside of what assistance Mr R gave you, have you been availed formally through the Metropolitan Police Service of any welfare support or counselling support?

Mr P: No, I looked at a website and found occupational health services. I went along to see somebody, and she told me that I needed some counselling and some assistance, and that would be referred back to my personnel manager for them to decide if I should be sent for some. I heard nothing more since then.

Sir Anthony Burden: How long ago was that?

Mr P: That was two years ago now. On the other subject you raised of, do we think we are being used effectively, an example is there is a disability fair being held at Scotland Yard, across the road, today, where a number of disabled charities have been invited to come along, and staff can come in and meet them.

The Disabled Staff Association have not been invited to it, or offered to set up any stands or anything, and that would have been an excellent opportunity for us to work in partnership with disabled charities, and also for our staff to see that they have an association, but we have just been ignored. Myself and R R attended it today, purely as individuals, trying to canvass people and to show that we are here, and we are able to help if necessary, but again, the organisation has not bothered.

I feel very much that we are like a tick box, that they have felt that we need to have a disabled association set up, and now it has been set up, we will not support it, we will not help it or empower it in any way, it is just there, and we have our token disabled people that we can now wheel out to the press any time we like. That is how I perceive it.

Sir Anthony Burden: Not to allow you to attend a fair which is promoting disability? Okay, thank you very much indeed.

Sir William Morris: Thank you. Thank you very much indeed, Mr P. Miss Weekes has a question or two for you, so I will pass straight over to her.

Questions by Miss Weekes

Miss Weekes: Yes, thank you. I was particularly interested in the reference you made to the public humiliation of you in the newsletter. I will just briefly -- you do not have to turn to it, but you say:

"The strange thing was, it was treated like a joke. The training department issued newsletters ..."

So I take it it was more than one?

Mr P: Yes, it was.

Miss Weekes: "... in which I was referred to as [Redacted], and having joined the raspberry ripple club", which, it seems, meant cripple.

There is one thing about people talking about you behind your back; it is quite another thing being humiliated in a newsletter. Now this newsletter, who does it go to?

Mr P: It was circulated to the whole of the [Redacted], so it --

Miss Weekes: Would you happen to have a copy of it?

Mr P: I have a copy of it at home.

Miss Weekes: Would it be possible for you to send it in to the secretary?

Mr P: Yes.

Miss Weekes: What would you say should have happened to the person who allowed that newsletter to be sent out? Because it is clearly offensive, and quite against everything that should happen to someone who, through no fault of their own, has suffered disability. I mean, that is obvious, is it not, without canvassing a view?

So what do you say should be in place, and what should happen, if that sort of thing occurred again?

Mr P: That was [Redacted] years ago, and I would like to think that attitudes have changed. I do not think, if it happened now, that that would be tolerated.

I get very concerned that there is what I refer to, and what other people refer to, as corporate racists, or corporate bullies; that we have people in the Met now who know what they can say and what they cannot say; what they can get away with and what they cannot get away with. If that happened now, I think there would be -- management would take a very positive action against it, although that was actually written by an inspector, so one would hope that that terminology would not be used.

But I think it goes further, that you need to change people's thinking, not have people in an organisation that know what they can say and cannot say, but who actually change their actual thinking, the way they are looking at things, and the only way to do that is to raise awareness of disability issues, and other issues as well, that that is simply unacceptable.

Miss Weekes: My final point is: we are moving towards the kick-off date for the Disability Discrimination Act. What would you like to see in place as a structure, a procedure to ensure that the issue of disability is being dealt with at the right level?

I mean, is there, for example, some form of accepted consultation that is due to take place before November? Has it been arranged that you are going to meet with management, that you have got something on the table, like, for example, "These are the places that we say we can work, these are the jobs that we can do, these are the functions we can carry out for you". You undoubtedly have a plan for those whom you represent.

Mr P: Yes.

Miss Weekes: And between now and November, is there some sort of structure, are there meetings set up? Have you got a proper plan in place of them meeting you equal to equal?

Mr P: We have a plan, which we have referred to as "Releasing Excellence". There is no structure or process set up for organised meetings. We have been promised a meeting with the commander of diversity, to try and move this forward, but certainly, those meetings are not actually structured.

There was a meeting -- I am trying to remember. Yes, there was a meeting with myself and R R before Christmas with [Redacted], and we raised a number of issues, in particular about a centralised department for consultation, but to my knowledge, he has not come back to us on that.

Miss Weekes: I think you know why I have asked this, because it takes some time to set up alternative procedures, to put in place structures which may be reasonable structures, and it takes a little bit of time to think about where people can be placed, not necessarily on your own boroughs, but, as you have said, in a much wider sphere.

So it is not going to just take one meeting, is it?

Mr P: No, indeed. There is --

Miss Weekes: So how can we take that forward for you?

Mr P: We would like to have consultation and be invited to meetings where we can actually assist in policy making, as opposed to policy being made, and let us see how we can now adjust to this; consultation.

Miss Weekes: Thank you very much.

Sir William Morris: Mr P, Miss Weekes' questions concludes the grouping of questions that we wanted to put to you. But when I made my opening comments earlier, I promised that, before we conclude our proceedings, I would offer you the opportunity to make a closing statement, if you so wish. If you do wish, now is the time to do that.

Mr P: Thank you, Sir William. I feel that I turned my situation around. If you like, I have been positive in trying to turn round what happened to me in the service. I have suffered depression, I still do. I have resisted, as I said earlier, from going sick with stress, which my doctor keeps trying to get me to do.

For each person, if you like, that is a survivor, I feel that there are others, and I am not saying that they are weaker, but there are, I would say, at least double the amount of officers that have now left the service or become embittered, and have in some way taken legal action against the service, or whatever.

I feel I have just managed to survive, and I just want to see other officers in the future, and police staff as well, not having to suffer, and if we are consulted, then it will only be to the gain of the service anyway. I think that makes it clear.

I would like to say about the DSA, the Disabled Staff Association, that I really do feel it is at the moment a guiding light on disability issues. I have had considerable support from the Association members, and we get together as a support association and support each other.

This morning, R contacted me to make sure I was okay to attend here today, and I have asked him to come along with me; rather embarrassingly, because I was going to also talk about him, and say that I have rarely met somebody with the integrity that this man has, and unfortunately, integrity is something that is bantered about in the Met, integrity is not negotiable, but I really wonder how many people understand what real integrity means. That is all.

Sir William Morris: Thank you very much indeed, thank you for that. All that I now need to do is to, first of all, thank you very much for your written submission, thank you also for coming along and responding to the questions from the panel, and to say thanks for the overall contribution that you are making to our Inquiry, [Redacted], so thank you.

Mr P: Thank you.

3.00 pm
(Hearing adjourned until 10.30 am the following day)

On this website:

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