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 It is being hosted on the MPA website for archival purposes only and may contain out-of-date information.

This resource is from the Transcripts section. This section contains a transcript of the public session with the Association of Police Authorities, on 27 April 2004.

Sections available here:

• Transcript of public session: Dr R Henig, Mr B Woolnough and Ms S Pantry of the Association of Police Authorities
  • Questions by Sir Anthony Burden
  • Questions by Miss Weekes

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

Transcript of public session: Dr R Henig, Mr B Woolnough and Ms S Pantry of the Association of Police Authorities

Tuesday, 27 April 2004
3.22 pm

Sir William Morris: Dr Henig, good afternoon to you, and welcome to you and your colleagues. I hope you are quite comfortable there now. Could I first of all thank you for accepting our invitation to attend the Inquiry, and to give evidence to us this afternoon? Thank you also for your written submission, which we found extremely helpful.

Let me say also that I do appreciate that, for some of our witnesses, the process that we have adopted may seem somewhat daunting, so I thought it would be helpful if I set out very briefly how we propose to conduct the hearing this afternoon.

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

Dr Henig, as you know, we have been asked by the Metropolitan Police Authority to conduct an independent inquiry into professional standards and workplace matters in the Metropolitan Police Service.

Our focus is the MPS as an organisation and not the individuals that make up the organisation. The inquiry we are conducting is inquisitorial and not adversarial in character or indeed in nature.

We are keen to enquire into the issues raised by our terms of reference, so that we can make appropriate recommendations for further good practice, rather than concentrating on making criticisms of the MPS as an organisation and individuals in particular.

It is in that context that we have invited you today to give us some evidence and share your information with us.

Can I just point out that a transcript is being taken, so that we have a proper record of the evidence given by all our witnesses. This will be posted on our website later today.

At the end of these introductory remarks, Sir Anthony Burden will lead on the questions to you, and Miss Weekes and myself may seek answers to one or two supplementary questions if we deem it necessary. At the conclusion of our questions, I will offer you the opportunity for a brief closing comment, if you wish.

You have previously provided us with your written submission, and for that, we are extremely grateful. This will in fact be posted on the website also.

In your submission, you have set out the following areas of information which will guide our questioning to some extent: you have shared with us your Association's view of the role of police authorities, in particular relating to the human resource areas, areas of complaints, grievances and employment tribunal cases. You have talked about the role of the Association of Police Authorities, the application of employment law to police officers, and finally, change to the role of professional standards departments.

We would like to ask you some questions about the material in the submission, and seek your views on those matters and indeed other issues. Before we reach these questions, could I please invite you, for the benefit of the transcript, to formally introduce yourself and your colleagues to the Inquiry?

Dr Henig: Thank you very much indeed. My name is Dr Ruth Henig, I chair the Association of Police Authorities, and I also chair Lancashire Police Authority. Perhaps my colleague Sharon would like to introduce herself.

Ms Pantry: Good afternoon, my name is Sharon Pantry, and I am an independent member of Northampton Police Authority. I also chair for the APA the sub-inquiry group, which is looking at the lessons learnt from the Virdi Inquiry. I am also vice chair of the BME network support group that the police authority has also.

Mr Woolnough: Bertie Woolnough, I am the chairman of Wiltshire Police Authority, also a member of the Executive Committee of the Association of Police Authorities, and generally, I lead for training and development matters within the personnel division.

Sir William Morris: Thank you all. I now invite Sir Anthony Burden to start leading with the questions on behalf of the panel.

Questions by Sir Anthony Burden

Sir Anthony Burden: Thank you. Good afternoon. Can I start with the issue of diversity, difference? We have had many witnesses who have come before us stating that whenever diversity is an issue in the Metropolitan Police, managers freeze, and conflict resolution, talking issues through, becomes less likely, and issues become very formal, which in itself we feel discriminates against black and minority ethnic members of staff.

And I really do mean diversity, I really mean difference, but it would be silly not to suggest that race is specifically an issue which seems to cause management problems.

It has even been suggested that managers are not managing black and minority ethnic members of staff, because of the apparent fear factor of themselves being called racist.

I would just like your general comments, and I say that because I am conscious of the very firm partnership between police authorities and the police service in taking diversity forward, and in seeking your views on it, whether that is a common theme that is being experienced through police authorities elsewhere in the UK.

Dr Henig: I mean, clearly this is a very broad question, it raises issues about leadership and training, particularly at levels, as you say, of middle management in the force. Perhaps I will ask Bertie to say something about the training aspects of this, and then Sharon to sort of take up the themes of diversity, and whether the Met shares similarities with other forces in their experience, or what the differences might be.

Mr Woolnough: I think perhaps the statement you have made, I can empathise with that, although it is difficult to either prove or disprove – I think, coming from my own portfolio, there is a training, a competence skill issue here, and I think that when individuals perhaps are not sure of their ground, not perhaps at the right levels of competence – and that is not blaming the individuals themselves – then your default position is perhaps to be possibly overreactive, and perhaps rather than dealing with it in a local resolution, is to actually push this, and inevitably it gets pushed a bit further up and becomes a higher profile.

So I think that is a very important issue, and that is one of the key elements within national occupational standards, whether we can get ourselves better able to have very clear levels of training, development, of competence across the service, so the issues you are talking about get embedded into those principles, and then people have the confidence that what they are doing is the right thing to do, they have got the right training behind them, and the right framework hopefully in which to operate.

Ms Pantry: I would like to endorse everything that Bertie has said, but in my experience as a legal advisor and diversity trainer around the country and most of all through forces, I have found exactly the same problem; so it is not just a Met problem, it is country-wide.

What I would say is exactly what Bertie said: managers are afraid to manage, and I do not know why this is. We have got sufficient training in place when they are going through OSPRE and other management promotion, but for some reason, when they actually get into post, this is not actually happening.

I think as well the understanding of perception is not there also from managers, and, I think I would say, the junior level managers, so what happens is it does not get dealt with at the lower level, so therefore it gets pushed up and then out of the organisation, which causes the high-profile cases that we have seen.

Sir Anthony Burden: I mean, we heard from an organisation this morning that suggested that in all the surveying they had done of staff, the confidence level coming from the workforce, in terms of managers' support for the diversity agenda, was extremely high.

Is there an issue, do you think, in the police service that the buy-in, or the suggested buy-in, by managers of the diversity agenda is a problem?

Ms Pantry: I think I would say in some respects that yes, they have endorsed it, you are right, and have bought into it, but how much have they bought into it, and how much have they bought into it in terms of implementation of the policies and the systems that are written down, but not so sure that they are actually implemented to their full effect, so that we are not here where we are today.

Sir Anthony Burden: Perhaps I can come back to that when we deal with grievances and conflict resolution later on. Can I move to one of your main sections, where you deal with human resources?

If I can just put up APA 1/3, in paragraph 10, you very usefully outline the role of police authorities in HR issues. You say there that the annual costed HR plan must be agreed by the authority, the plan must demonstrate clearly how the activities, objectives and targets set out in the annual plan and best value performance plan will be delivered through people, and the police authority review, consider, test, evaluate and agree HR plans and policies for their force. The authority aims to add value and enhance performance.

Could you perhaps enlighten us; how do – I will not use the term "better authorities", but authorities that display best practice, shall we say; those authorities that display best practice, how do they do this to good effect?

Mr Woolnough: Can I just give a bit of background to this? I think this is a relatively new area where police authorities have had a locus. I have been involved now with police authorities for some nine to ten years. In the first four or five of that time, I guess that people matters, training, development, those issues were not issues that came to the police authority. Those were considered as being the province of the Chief Constable, and perhaps you would associate that going back.

But I think we have now realised – I use the collective "we", authorities and the service – that people are our most valuable asset. Our money goes into it, something like 80 or 85 per cent; we deliver policing through people, technology supports those people.

And so for various reasons, people have come to the forefront. We have been very instrumental in producing guidance for police authorities; there is a document called "People Matters", and if a copy has not been made available for the Inquiry, we would like to do that, which sets out a framework, it sets out a checklist, it holds out areas where police authorities can hold the chief officer and the chief officer's team to account.

So there is a framework, there is guidance there, and the extent to which that guidance is either followed or not, I would say there will be variations, but within, I think, the better performing authorities, we hope there is a programme of continuous improvement; this is not just a once a year approving the annual cost of plan for HR, this is a continual process of looking at the whole range of issues within that area, be it recruiting, be it retention, the training, the development, the application of national occupational standards, the PDR, the promotion opportunities, the development of leaders, all of those.

So it is a continual process of using, from our point of view, effectively, a framework and a checklist, relating that to what are the operational imperatives and objectives of the force, to make sure that the people to deliver have got the right skills, and are in the right place at the right time. That is actually what we are looking for.

I see it very much as a matter of team work actually between the authority and the constabulary, but with the authority very clearly having a holding to account – and there is a transparency and a visibility role.

Sir Anthony Burden: That is very helpful. In practical terms, how would an authority or a subgroup of an authority put that into practice?

Mr Woolnough: It is through the normal process – well, let us start again. It can take a variety of ways of doing it. In one aspect, it may be the authority actually monitoring training or development, for example the new perhaps recruit assessment process of sitting in. In terms of some of the diversity training that is taking place, I know, certainly in our own authority, not only do we have our own training, but we actually sat in and we were pupils, if you like, or students within the same process.

In other areas, it may be in terms of reports, they may be annual or quarterly. I think in a way it is a mixture of a whole gamut, and clearly, within all this process, we would be taking account of reports, inspections by HMIC, which now cover a wide range of activities in the HR field, particularly since the arrival of the HMIC training, and there will be other national guidance: the Police Training Development Board has a role to play, the Police Leadership and Development Board.

So in a way, we would take all of these, either national inspections or guidance, our own guidance, and in a way, it is: what is the best way in that particular area to actually satisfy ourselves that we are actually delivering best value, equipping our workforce in the right way to deliver?

And the key really is – we are at an early stage yet – how do we then link all that actually to the delivery of operational policing, because, at the end of the day, that is the business that we are in.

Dr Henig: Can I add to that? I mean, I actually sit as a member of my authority's human resources committee. It is really an issue about discussing the strategy that lies behind the figures, and we particularly had an issue, we were not sure what the force strategy was on female officers, you know, what percentage was the aim for being recruited, how were female officers actually being retained, promoted, and there were a lot of issues about that.

Particularly, one of the issues that came up was an issue that I know you have covered, which is whether the issue of gender was being crowded out by the issue of race, and it was something in the police authority that we were pushing.

As a result of that, the force had a diversity champion, but it did not have a gender champion, and a lot of our recruitment material was very good in terms of race, but it was less good in terms of gender, and as a result of the very vigorous discussions that we had in our committee, that triggered off a whole reappraisal by the force of its policies in that area, and it was delighted that yesterday, in the force, they had a gender agenda day, in which all these issues were actually looked at in the context of a workshop.

I think that working together, authorities can actually raise issues of this sort through a human resources committee, and through looking at these costed plans.

Mr Woolnough: If I can just come back, another area where I think we can work from the police authority point of view is not only taking into account – be it national inspections, HMIC – obviously will be looking at performance and best practice again across the service, but also from our own association, we have our own personnel policy group, which again is a focus for police authorities nationally, where we can draw together and extract good practice and guidance to try and help authorities, because authorities will need that; there is so much going on, and it is such, I think, a broad area, that where we can actually focus attention, focus perhaps where more attention is required, focus either changes or developments, or where there is practice that is not so good, to bring that to the attention of police authorities.

So it is a vast amalgam, I think, of how we actually operate in this field.

Sir Anthony Burden: You will see the importance, from our viewpoint, of these particular areas, because we are very concerned about governance and increased governance.

Can I ask you: how do police authorities bring the skills required to actually monitor this to bear? In the make-up of a police authority, do you try and get people, perhaps independent members, with HR backgrounds, for example, that can bring the skills into the overall group?

Dr Henig: I mean, if I start off on this, I think police authorities have a range of membership now with a range of skills, and all police authorities, I am sure, do a skills audit, and it is quite amazing what comes out of that skills audit, in terms of a broad range – not just from independent members, magistrates, councillor members; a lot of them have involvements in a range of human resource issues, ex-trade unionists possibly, people who have been used to sitting on tribunals, but I think, as a result of a skills audit, if an authority feels that there are areas that it would like some expertise, that perhaps it feels it is lacking, then certainly, when it is appointing independent members, that is one route through which it could enhance its skills base.

Ms Pantry: Yes, I agree. Even nationally, we have recently done a massive skills audit database, so that we are actually in touch with the skills that the local and national authority members have, so that we can increase that membership and utilise those skills that people have within the authority, because I think we need to recognise what skills people have, so that when we are producing particular documents or looking at certain development policy groups, we put the right people in the right places with the right expertise.

Sir Anthony Burden: And, of course, the APA will support that as an umbrella organisation.

Mr Woolnough: Yes.

Sir Anthony Burden: I guess if there is an underlying theme from senior managers, or a lot of them anyway, it is that whatever recommendations you make, please do not recommend more training, because of the competing demands and priorities.

Do you see this as a real issue for the police service?

Mr Woolnough: I think we are getting over that, and again, I am speaking a bit from personal experience, that perhaps three, four or five years ago, training was seen as that ghastly word, an abstraction, and this was taking people away from delivering policing.

But I think the world has changed. People, first of all, do deserve the right development, the right training, the right skills to do the job. We are now getting – or we are now in an area where there should be recognition of those skills, and, again, I think it is – you know, 85 per cent of what we spend basically is going into our people, and we do not deliver efficiently and effectively unless we have got motivated people with the right skills, ready to do the job.

So I think there is a change, and, as we move forward, again, we are getting to development of career pathways, of qualifications for individuals, we are getting to areas where pay will be linked to skills, national occupational standards, so I think the whole scene is different from, say, five years ago, and training and development is now absolutely the bedrock, I think, of developing, retaining our workforce.

Sir Anthony Burden: Do you feel there are sufficient sanctions in place to be imposed if an HR strategy is not complied with, or if this partnership between an authority and the police service does not work?

I mean, what bite is there in actually making sure that issues such as the one, Dr Henig, you raised in Lancashire – I mean, understandably you have got a very strong relationship with the Chief Constable, and your views are well received, but if you have not got that sort of relationship, and things are just not going the way that an authority feels they should, what can be done about it?

Dr Henig: I do not think the word "sanctions" is appropriate in this context. I think that police authorities and forces have a shared agenda, because both of them are operating on behalf of the public.

I mean, their standpoint is the same, the service is policing on behalf of the public, and police authorities are there, on behalf of the public, to actually monitor that policing and to voice community concerns.

Clearly, there are going to be occasions on which there perhaps are differences of view. There are going to be other occasions on which there is a shared commitment. There is going to be a healthy tension, I think we have to accept that.

I see good governance as bringing about the sort of arrangements which enable authorities and the service not just to meet officially through the committee structure, but to develop such structures that they can meet on a regular basis and develop mutual respect and actually develop their shared agenda, because I think talking about sanctions, to me, is completely the wrong way of approaching this.

Mr Woolnough: I think when we get to sanctions, we have failed; we have failed in our partnership, we have failed in our responsibilities, and I would hope that the mutual respect and understanding that Ruth has talked about has actually enabled us to have a positive way of tackling this particular issue, rather than having something which is going to put force against an authority.

Sir Anthony Burden: Can I move on, please, to the part of your submission dealing with grievances and employment tribunal cases, conflicts in the workplace? You state that you feel there is a disproportionate impact on minority ethnic police officers and staff created through the grievance and employment tribunal process. We spoke about it briefly at the outset.

Can I ask you why you feel this is the case?

Ms Pantry: I think again, coming back to that point we discussed earlier about the managers being afraid to manage, and not using the systems that are in place, causes problems in terms of, yes, this overreaction and not dealing with it appropriately, but I think what happens also is that if staff do not have the confidence for the systems that are in place, one, the grievance – and this is across all races, black and white staff, that staff do not have the confidence to use the system, it is easier then for them to go outside in the public domain and air these grievances that they have.

I mean, I think as well sometimes staff do not understand what the grievance is there to do. It is not there to sanction and to discipline, it is there to resolve. I think sometimes there is a misunderstanding there as well from staff about what the grievance is actually there to do, so when they do not get what they perceive they should get, they say the system has failed them.

Sir Anthony Burden: The new policy on fairness in the workplace, which is a national policy, as I understand it, as we understand it: is that likely to create greater confidence in the process, do you think, than the old grievance procedures?

Ms Pantry: My view – and I think the APA take the same view – is that all processes that are put in place are good if they are managed appropriately and understood. If they are not understood and managed appropriately, they look as though they fail, so the grievance that we have had for many years, if it was managed appropriately, could have been a good system. Fairness at Work, now that we have got something new – you know, we have made some mistakes, and we are moving on to something new. We need to ensure that the people who are actually administering the Fairness at Work policies understand it and use it appropriately for the complaints that come about. That is the important role and crucial role that we need to get across to the organisation. It is understanding and using it appropriately.

Sir Anthony Burden: You say you have got a key role of oversight in this particular area: what, practically, could the panel expect a police authority to do in actually ensuring what you have quite properly said must happen does actually happen?

Ms Pantry: I think what would need to happen with the police authority is firstly, we need to take that document apart ourselves and understand it, and because we are a monitoring and scrutiny organisation, we have to then ask ourselves: well, what is it we are looking for, in terms of best practice, and what do we recognise as failures within that, so that we can then make some submissions towards that. So we have to understand it ourselves as police authorities, so we can then monitor the situation in terms of that policy and that procedure.

If we do not understand it ourselves, how then can we monitor it on behalf of the staff and the public? So I think we have a crucial role ourselves in ensuring that we understand the process fully, so that we can ask the right questions.

Sir Anthony Burden: When it does go wrong, and local mediation is not successful or too little effort goes into it, it becomes very legalistic very quickly; that is what we have been told, in terms of the Metropolitan Police.

Is that again a shared experience across the whole of the UK, do you think?

Ms Pantry: I suppose, yes, in some respects. I think sometimes that happens because we are torn between police regulations and normal employment law in some respects, and sometimes, because the discretion is there, and not managed appropriately, at the best of times – not through any fault of any individual, but the lack of understanding of the organisation as a whole, and maybe the policy itself, that sometimes – again, that causes problems.

So yes, it can become legalistic or overbureaucratic, but hopefully, this Fairness at Work now is going to move towards more local resolution, but again, that must be done with caution, I believe, because we have got regulations there, we do not want to sideline the regulations, but we do not want the regulations to become burdensome to the process of moving forward, and swiftly.

Sir Anthony Burden: Would it be right to say that police authorities would expect to receive, before one of their sub-committees, regular information about the way that workplace conflict and employment tribunal cases are actually being handled?

Ms Pantry: Yes.

Sir Anthony Burden: It would be part of your routine monitoring role?

Ms Pantry: Yes, I would say most police authorities have a scrutiny committee or an HR committee or a personnel committee which could be brought through there, but also, if they have a sub-diversity group, it could also be brought through there also, because a lot of those issues are actually part and parcel of those complaints.

Sir Anthony Burden: If you saw either a specific case that, in your view, was going horribly, horribly wrong, it was heading fast track towards an employment tribunal, or if you saw a culture within a police service developing that really was sort of locking in, either to make a point, or financial reasons, or whatever – that they were taking issues to the wire of employment tribunals, would a police authority properly intervene in those sorts of situations, and hopefully bring some balance back?

Dr Henig: I think this is a difficult question, because I think the police authority's remit properly is the overall strategy, and the overall culture of the force, not the individual complaint. I think there is a fine line to be trodden here.

I mean, I accept there should be detailed overview and scrutiny; I also would expect the Chief Constable and the senior officer team to report in very general terms under a part 2 heading, which means confidential, about any ongoing cases that the force might have, and if there were problems, I would expect those to be flagged up in general terms, and that, to me, would be part of what I would expect of the right relationship between an authority and the force.

If that was not happening, then I think there are questions to be asked about overall strategy and how can one get the relationship right, because it would not be the right relationship, I do not think.

Sir Anthony Burden: Would it be right, in police organisations, to have some form of monitoring in debrief process, where, if something does go badly wrong, the lessons to be learned are learned; is that a thrust you would support?

Mr Woolnough: Absolutely. Just adding to – I agree with my colleagues on this. This area also is an indication of what I would call the health of the organisation in a wider sense, so the indicators that may come out of having these issues could go way beyond the specific case, in terms of the organisation, leadership and management at various levels. So I think that is a very important part again of the authority's role in monitoring the force and holding it to account.

Sir Anthony Burden: Thank you. We have heard a lot of supporting evidence for introducing a mediation model along the ACAS line; is that something that the APA would want to see in place?

Dr Henig: I mean, that is something, as I understand it, that is beginning to happen now, up and down the country. I know my own force is beginning to experiment with that, and are already hoping that that will be a promising new development. I fully support that, and I think it is right to try it in a pilot phase, and see how it works, and see how it works alongside, you know, the other rules and regulations that are there.

Ms Pantry: Yes, I agree with that. My own force has been working on that for some time as well, and I have been involved in that. I think it takes away the bureaucracy, and it makes a more speedy resolution if we can handle the mediation that way, but, again, with caution, that people are trained in the understanding of what they are mediating in that process.

Some cases are appropriate for mediation, and some clearly are not, and we need to know the balance.

Sir Anthony Burden: It is very opportune you are here, because we obviously have got the Northamptonshire model to look at as potential best practice. Is there anything else about the pilot that you have been operating that you could usefully introduce to the panel as additional evidence?

Ms Pantry: All I would say is that the way it is run in my own force is quite independent, and quite transparent, and I think it gives the staff more confidence to know that there is some independence there, and it is not just their line managers and their superiors looking at this, but they have people like myself who can sit on their – coming from an outside agency, if you want to call the police authority that, saying, "Well, okay, yes, I can see that point, but I cannot see that point". I think that is quite good, especially when members of the public are involved as well.

What I have found, over my years on the police authority, is members of the public want a swift resolution, and really all they want is an apology. They do not want anybody to lose their jobs, they do not want anybody to go through disciplinary, they just want to sit down and say, "This is how I felt when I was not dealt with appropriately, why did you do that? Please explain to me, so that I can understand", and I think in that process, there is a two-way education process there.

The officers can begin to understand how different communities feel and react to the way they do their job, but we can start to educate the community about the role we play in society, and how we perform our roles also, so I think we are killing two birds with one stone really there, in terms of the education process.

Sir Anthony Burden: Can I ask, do you carry the full support of staff associations, in terms of the Northamptonshire model?

Ms Pantry: I certainly do. Without staff associations, how can we find out what is going on on the ground? We need those staff associations to speak up. But it also gives the staff empowerment to make representation within the organisation about the changes that they need.

I do not know what the changes are; I am a police authority member, but I do not work day to day, strategically, operationally. I mean, to hear from those staff associations what it is I need to monitor, so I do welcome working with staff associations.

Sir Anthony Burden: You mentioned an independent element; we have also heard evidence that, to give confidence to a mediation model, many would welcome an independent element perhaps coming from the community, as long as the individuals are trained in mediation, that that would be a useful input.

Is that something that you think is worthy of consideration? I am sorry to spring that on you.

Ms Pantry: I certainly think it is, and I think the way forward there is we can utilise the independent advisory groups that a lot of forces are beginning to use now. This is going to be a wealth of information and communication within the community, and that is total independence, but if we can train or give some advice to those independent advisory groups about how we would like them to come into partnership with us, I like to call it, as a critical friend, that they also will have the confidence to look through some of these procedures and systems that we are using and help us to get it right.

Sir Anthony Burden: Yes, so there is a lessons learned element of this as well?

Ms Pantry: There is definitely lessons there, yes.

Sir Anthony Burden: Yes, thank you. Can I move on to complaints? We have received a wealth of evidence about delays in investigative processes within the Metropolitan Police Service, and we have been given examples, officers suspended for seven or eight years in some cases, pending discipline.

Can I just ask – we understand fully your monitoring role in relation to complaints, and you have been very specific in that, but, in relation to the issue of delay, can I ask what the response of a police authority would likely be if they were faced with a case or cases where quite obviously the delays were excessive?

Is there a way that the monitoring processes of a police authority can bring pressure to bear to actually ensure that cases are moved along more quickly?

Dr Henig: I mean, to some degree, I am thinking it depends on the reasons for the delay. I mean, if this is the way the regulations are working, it would be very difficult for a police authority to intervene in that.

I mean, a lot of processes, even outside the police service, and I am thinking of all sorts of employment procedures, some of them are extremely lengthy, and I am not sure therefore what the grounds would be for a police authority to intervene, because it would not want to be undermining the process. I think this is a difficult one.

Ms Pantry: I think all I would add to that is that, as a police authority, we would certainly take human rights into consideration, look at the proportionality, and look at the reasons for the delay, and, using our discretion, will ask the appropriate questions to satisfy ourselves that the delays are appropriate; if they are not, then we would want to know why they have not been as swift as they should be, and I think that is as far as we could go in that circumstance.

Sir Anthony Burden: Yes. I mean, you raise my second question there around proportionality: again, if you see, in your monitoring role, resources allocated to a complaint, and you make a judgment that it is a completely disproportionate response to that issue, would the same answer apply in that case as the one you have given to delay?

Ms Pantry: Yes, it would.

Sir Anthony Burden: You could be quite robust in making your thoughts known, about the judgment taking place in that particular case?

Ms Pantry: Yes.

Sir Anthony Burden: I guess, as a police authority, if you were doing that job properly, as you have suggested you do, you would expect some management decisions to actually come from that.

Ms Pantry: That is right.

Sir Anthony Burden: You would not expect to be ignored as an authority.

Ms Pantry: We are a support mechanism, we work, as Ruth said, in partnership with the organisation, but there are times when we have to constructively criticise their actions as well in a very robust way, so that we fulfil our duties.

Sir Anthony Burden: Sure. That is very helpful, thank you. In relation to delays, Dr Henig's comments there I think are very valid, because we are looking at other models moving along delay, and particularly, once we get to the stage of a discipline, where it is decided that an officer will appear before a discipline panel, then again we are seeing massive delays occurring, between that decision and the actual hearing taking place.

One suggestion is a model where there is an individual – and we have not put the details to this yet, but that there be a mechanism where professional standards departments and other agencies can actually be brought to the table, statutorily brought to the table, to answer for delays, and if those delays are not proved to be justified, instructions given as to the course of action required, and if necessary, dates set for discipline processes; the same process that would occur in the Crown Court today. Is that something that you would say is worthy of further consideration?

Mr Woolnough: The short answer is, yes, I think delays are bad for the individual, bad for the organisation, they are bad for the public trust and bad for the use of public resources, so provided one is not, in a way, taking away the rights of the individuals, anything that can be done to actually make the process as expeditious as possible, I think, is something we would wish to support.

Sir Anthony Burden: Thank you. Can I ask how you see the relationship developing between police authorities and the IPCC, when the process beds in?

Dr Henig: Can I say this has already started, in the sense that the IPCC have taken great pains to go round and visit all police authorities, and, I think, bring police authorities into a partnership with this new body, and lay down how they are going to operate, what they expect from police authorities, and I think, already, there has actually been some very constructive work taking place between the IPCC and police authorities.

Obviously, it is early days, but I think this will be a very important area to watch, because I think that could bring about changes, and the way in which the IPCC sets about its job could actually bring about some significant changes.

Mr Woolnough: Could I echo that? Nationally, the IPCC have engaged with the Association of Police Authorities; we have also formed our own network of members involved in complaints, so we actually have one focal point nationally where we can feed in either good practice or we can have a linkage with the IPCC nationally.

So I think the framework or the groundwork has been laid now for a very constructive relationship with the IPCC, and I would echo, they have been very good at engaging with individual police authorities, and I would see, over the next nine months or so, those linkages will be strengthened.

Sir Anthony Burden: I mean, resources allowing, and that is something which will obviously have to be evaluated, but resources allowing, the areas we have been discussing, do you see the IPCC having any real impact in some of these key areas?

Ms Pantry: I think, in terms of trust and confidence, the IPCC will enable especially members of the community to have a bit more trust and confidence in the system, because – well, what brought about the change is that the majority of some communities did not have any trust in police complaints being dealt with appropriately. The rumour was that the police investigate themselves, so how can I get any resolution from my complaint?

The structure of the IPCC helps, in terms of the make-up of the actual organisation, and again, the better working relationship it will have with police authorities will help also, because we are also independent of the police authorities, so I think it will be our duty as a police authority to actually take that message out to the community, to explain the role of the IPCC, explain how we work with them and explain their independence from the police, in terms of how they are going to deal with complaints.

But I think, as well as the police authority, we can learn a lot from the IPCC in terms of the way they handle cases and any trends that may come about from certain issues that they are dealing with, that we can take it back to our own authority and say, "Okay, we need to start monitoring a little bit more on, say, sexism or racism", or whatever it might be.

So again, there is another avenue there for police authorities to say, "Okay, we have got more information coming in that can help us monitor and scrutinise more appropriately".

Mr Woolnough: I think very important will be the way in which the IPCC handles some of the early cases during this first year of its existence. The word "marketing" comes to mind: what was the issue, how was it handled, what was the outcome, and, in a way, is this a better way of handling this from a community point of view, use of public money, and the individual's point of view, than the system which preceded it?

So I suppose the jury, in a way, is not yet ready to make a decision, because we are at such an early stage. I think the framework is there, and the potential is there, but we need to build on the outcome of their early work, and actually make sure that it is properly marketed and publicised.

Sir Anthony Burden: The Home Office have started a review looking at legislation around complaints. I am, you are, a very serious consultee in terms of any new process. Would you be in favour of really sweeping everything away and starting afresh, rather than tinkering with the old? It might be a mammoth task, but can anything be salvaged from the current processes, which we have heard have got inbuilt delays, are very complicated, complainants do not understand the process and have little confidence in it. Is it time to sweep it all away and start afresh?

Dr Henig: I do not think you can ever do that in the way that you put it forward. I think you have to look at what is there; some of what is there you can build on, some of it you have to amend, some of it you have to change, but there are occasions when radical measures of the sort you are advocating are necessary. I am not sure we are at that stage.

Ms Pantry: I would agree with Ruth, we should not throw out all the work we have done already, but we need to look at where things have not worked in the way that we thought it should work, and learn the lessons from that, because, again, public money is at stake here, and we do not want to throw everything out and start all over again, because, again, that has an impact on resources.

So why not try and salvage some of the systems that we have in place already, with the lessons we are learning as we are going along that journey?

Sir Anthony Burden: But if you take the point that you raise about the status of a police officer, making them subject to ordinary employment law, which is what you say in your submission, agreeing with Sir John Stevens, would that not give you the opportunity to actually do that, because, quite simply, all the complexities of the current system would actually be unnecessary, would they not, if normal employment law were brought to bear?

Dr Henig: Can I just go on this one – because I do not think there is any suggestion from us at this point in time that we would want to do away with the office of constable. This is my point about building on what is there: there is a big issue here about public trust and public confidence. What we are therefore talking about is trying to apply employment law, but at the same time, not undermining what is there already.

I know you have discussed this in previous sessions, and what comes to mind – there was some discussion about having your cake and eating it, and I understand why that was said.

I do think there is an issue here about keeping the best of the service, and particularly – not just the best in terms of the officers themselves, but what the public expects from them; bringing that into the 21st century, in terms of applying employment law, some of which is now beginning to apply already, and there must be further avenues where you can take that, but without jeopardising an institution which still has massive public confidence.

Sir Anthony Burden: That is very helpful, thank you. Finally, the point you make about – coming from the MPA submission – professional standards departments being answerable to police authorities, but, as you say, not becoming involved in the degree of managing individual cases.

How would you see that working in practice? I mean, can I just ask, is there a danger of politicising the issue?

Ms Pantry: There is no danger of politicising, because we are not a political organisation, so we are definitely not bringing party politics into this. What I would say is, in terms of our role, strategic role or statutory role, it is not about managing individual cases per se, or taking away that discretion from the organisation; but we certainly want to know about any possible trends, we want to know about the policies, procedures and systems that are in place, and ensure ourselves that we are monitoring them effectively, so we need to know quite swiftly if a case is going to go out of our front doors, and why it is going out of the front doors, but we also need to know how they are being managed internally as well, so we need to be kept up-to-date with how the system is working in terms of monitoring the complaints that we have inside.

Again, as I said, we need to be sure about the questions and the way we are monitoring as a police authority, because yes, it is – I mean, we have systems where we dip sample and we look at cases over the last three years, looking for trends, et cetera, but I think over the years, police authorities have changed that focus and have said, "Okay, maybe that is about us asking for certain information, rather than accepting the information that is presented to us", so we have become a bit more robust in the way that we have monitored and scrutinised as well; we are still going down that learning curve in terms of that, but we are getting better at it.

Sir Anthony Burden: It sounds from what you say, and the previous answer you gave in this area, if a police authority is exercising its responsibilities robustly, then it is capable of doing a very good job in monitoring.

Ms Pantry: I definitely believe so.

Sir Anthony Burden: Thank you very much indeed.

Questions by Miss Weekes

Miss Weekes: It would be remiss of me not to take you back to the gender agenda, because of your background and expertise, and I really only have one question in two parts: what is your recommendation for us in considering how we might improve on what are often extremely depressing accounts of how women are treated by management.

And the second half of the question is: what is your recommendation to us for improving the most underrepresented group of police officers who are black women?

Dr Henig: I am sure Sharon will certainly have some views on the second issue. The first issue, women in general: for me, it is all about culture, it is a broad issue, first of all, about culture, about having an open and transparent culture, and about changing that culture. Now that is an easy answer in a way, because you can then come back and say, "So how do you actually make that bite? How do you make things happen?"

I think you do need the law in some areas, you do need management issues, but you need the local community, through the police authority, actually holding the force to account in this area, very strongly, and consistently, and continually, because that is what we are there for.

The right noises are spoken; the issue is actually getting past the words and actually making it happen, and I do not think there is an easy answer on this. I think it just takes time and persistence, and you have to keep coming back to it, and you have gender champions, and you have national agendas, which there are in this area, and you make sure that your force follows best practice, and you just keep at it, but I really do not think there is an easy answer on this one.

Ms Pantry: To take up your second point, I think you are quite right to focus on that, because if we look back, we have had the Sex Discrimination Act since 1975, and things still have not improved a great deal for women in the workplace, but I think what we need to do is empower women within the workplace who are there already to actually tell us what is going on. We know half the story, I believe, we do not know the full story, and you are right, there are some atrocious stories that come out, but that is only the half of it.

Women are still working in the police in a very male-dominated cultural organisation, that I would say – I am going to take a risk and say this – is fighting against change, and the women are fighting for change as well, so that they can be heard and so that they can progress through the organisation. Gone are the days of the police women's department.

But I think for some women within the organisation, it is as though that is still there, in terms of recruitment, progression and retention, and I think we need to look at our policies, our practices and our procedures, because I believe there are some hidden barriers in those procedures that are stopping women from achieving what they need to achieve within the organisation, staying within the organisation, and to be heard within the organisation, and this is unwitting.

Going back to what MacPherson was saying, I think not just looking at race, if we look at the MacPherson definition and apply that to gender, it is exactly the same, that the policies and the procedures are there, and unwittingly, they are deterring women from entering the organisation, but even once they are in there, from retaining them and progressing them through the organisation as well.

So we need to talk to the community about this, and particularly some communities – I mean, the Asian women's community, we still have a very high underrepresentation of Asian women within the organisation, and there are many reasons for that.

I mean, one of the key reasons is the culture, is that we are not embracing the Asian culture for women within the organisation, and once we get over some of those barriers, we may then start to see women being introduced more.

I mean, as I go around and I visit banks, et cetera, I am beginning to see more Asian women in the banks because they now can wear their hijab. Now within the police, I know the Met launched that a couple of years ago; it will not be appropriate for all patrol duties, but at least if it is things like that, that will help the families to understand they are not going to lose themselves once they get into the organisation, and they themselves can celebrate their culture, that might be a way through the door for them.

So we need to work at: what are the cultural barriers that are stopping women from entering and progressing within the organisation?

Miss Weekes: Thank you very much.

Mr Woolnough: I think for me there is a very strong training and development issue to this. I think that the career is based on competence, not on the question of which face might fit, is very important indeed. Qualifications should be based today on competence and demonstrating that.

It underlines the importance of leadership training and leadership not at just the top level, but at the low levels as well, every level throughout the police service, again, with the right levels of competence and development for those leaders, and that, I think, is something which is a very high priority for the service to get in place, and I think that will contribute to what we are trying to do.

Miss Weekes: Thank you very much.

Sir William Morris: Well, Dr Henig and your colleagues, can I say thank you very much indeed for your help and assistance; we have finished the questions that we wanted to put to you, but I did offer an opportunity for you to say a brief final word, if you so wish. If you do, this is your moment.

Dr Henig: Well, can I just say, first of all, thank you very much for having us here. I think we see ourselves as police authorities operating on behalf of our communities, and I think we have an example ourselves to set.

We have tried very hard, police authorities across the country, to increase numbers of women, to increase numbers of ethnic minorities, to actually show a leadership role ourselves on behalf of our communities, to reflect our communities, because in holding our forces to account, I think we have a leadership role as well to play.

That is what we have tried to reflect here this afternoon, and yes, we take the point that there may well be police authorities who perhaps are not always playing the role as well as they might, or are not doing things as effectively as they should; we certainly at the APA are trying very hard to have an improvement programme, and to try and get police authorities to play a constructive and critical role, and to actually fulfil that leadership role on behalf of communities.

I think my last word would be: we are rightly proud in this country of the fact that the police and chief constables are locally accountable, but to make that system work, you actually need a strong police authority, so I think we think that is very important.

Sir William Morris: Thank you very much indeed. Can I just say that, as with all our witnesses, it may be that once we have heard from other witnesses, we may want to ask a few more questions of you, either in writing, or we may feel it appropriate to invite you back to a further hearing.

If we do decide to do that, then, of course, we will try and do it in a way which causes you and your colleagues, and indeed your organisation, the least possible degree of inconvenience.

But for the moment, all that there remains for me to do, on behalf of my colleagues and myself, is to thank you for your written submission, thank you for coming along and responding to our questions, and indeed thank you for the contribution that your organisation and yourselves individually are making to our work. Thank you all very much.

We stand adjourned until 10.30 tomorrow.

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

On this website:

• Evidence: Association of Police Authorities
  Evidence provided by and documents referred to by the Association of Police Authorities in its appearance at the Inquiry.