Transcript of public session: Sergeant G Virdi

Thursday, 3 June 2004
10.30 am

Sir William Morris: Good morning everyone, and good morning to you, Mr Virdi and Mrs Virdi. Can I first of all say thank you very much indeed for accepting our invitation to attend the Inquiry this morning and indeed to give evidence, and thank you also for letting us have your written submission, which we found extremely helpful.

I do appreciate that for some of our witnesses the process might be somewhat daunting so I thought it might be helpful if I set out very briefly how we propose to conduct the hearing this morning. 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 I have been asked to chair the Inquiry. As you can see, there are two other members of the panel. 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 who sits as a recorder and a part-time chairperson for employment tribunals. She was also counsel to the Lawrence Inquiry.

Mr Virdi, as you know we have been asked by the Metropolitan Police Authority to conduct an independent public inquiry into professional standards and employment matters in the Metropolitan Police Service. In addition, we are required by our terms of reference to identify lessons to be learned from recent high profile cases and, as you know, we have decided to treat your recent experience as one of those high profile cases.

The Inquiry that we are conducting is by nature inquisitorial and not adversarial. Our focus will be on the MPS as an organisation and not the individuals who make up the organisation. Nevertheless, we need to hear from individuals such as those who have been involved in high profile cases in order that we can understand better how the policies, practices, procedures and conventions of the Metropolitan Police Service has impacted on them.

We want to understand that because we want to learn lessons from their experience that will help us as a panel to inform the future.

We are very 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 or individuals in particular. As I have said to previous witnesses, of course we want to hear what is wrong with the Met, if there is anything wrong, but we also want to hear what is right with it. But most importantly, we want to hear from all our witnesses any suggestions that they can offer in making it better.

We have no wish to go back over the details of your experience because you have sent us a full written submission and we have read your submissions most carefully. In addition to that, we have also commissioned a report from an independent investigator which has been sent to you, so we have more than a clear idea of events.

Recently we wrote to you asking you to focus on particular areas, and these were mirrored in the issues that we asked our independent investigator to address. Drawing on all this experience, we want this morning to ask some further questions of you so that we can focus on the issues where we believe you can help us most.

At the end of these introductory remarks, one of my colleagues will lead on the questions to you, followed by the remainder of the panel who may have further supplementary questions. When we have completed asking you the questions that we wish to put to you, I want to offer you the opportunity to make a brief closing statement, comment, if you so wish. But for the record, let me draw to your attention that a transcript of our proceedings is in fact being taken this morning in order that we can have an accurate record of the evidence given by all our witnesses. We hope that you will feel able to speak freely about your experience so that we can identify the lessons for the future, but, as I have said, our remit is the way that the organisation operates, not the details about other individuals who form part of the story of your experience.

Whilst we will be publishing the transcript of this hearing, together with your written submissions and our investigator's report shortly after this session, we will only do so after we have removed any reference to named individuals or details of those who you may mention, so that we can be sure that the published transcript contains no information which identifies other individuals.

I am sure you will understand that it may also 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. But before I ask my colleague to begin the question, for the benefit of the transcript, I wonder whether you would mind formally introducing yourself to the Inquiry?

A. Yes. Thank you, Sir Bill Morris. Thank you for allowing me to come to this Inquiry and give my submission. My name is Gurpal Virdi. I am a detective sergeant in the Metropolitan Police. Next to me is my wife, Sathat Virdi, [redacted]. In the audience is [redacted], he is my support worker officer, prior to which it was [redacted].

I work at the specialist Crown directorate at New Scotland Yard. I have some issues regarding your independent –

Sir William Morris: We will come to that.

A. Okay.

Sir William Morris: We will come to that in a minute. I am assuming that the introduction is now completed, so that we are very clear.

A. Okay. I am very nervous as well.

Sir William Morris: Please do not be.

My colleague, Sir Anthony, has a matter about which he would like to say a few words before I start my introductory questions, so for progress I will go straight over and ask Sir Anthony for his comments.

Sir Anthony Burden: Good morning.

A. Morning, sir.

Sir Anthony Burden: As Sir Bill mentioned a moment ago, I retired from South Wales police at Christmas last year, at the end of the year. You will be fully aware that [redacted], of South Wales Police, was the officer appointed by the PCA to conduct an independent review of your case, and that review report of course has gone to the Metropolitan Police Service.

I just wanted to mention for the record that I was unaware, I would not have expected to be aware, that [redacted], or any officer supporting him from South Wales, had been appointed to review your case until just before I retired from South Wales and for you to be assured that I had absolutely no involvement in that review process, so I was completely unaware of it, in fact until I mentioned that I was coming on this Inquiry. That was the first time it was mentioned to me. Just as a matter for the record.

A. Okay.

Sir William Morris: Thanks very much.

Sir Anthony Burden: You say "okay", as long as you are happy with what I said.

A. There are some criticisms, as you know, Sir Anthony. The report has been returned to the PCA. As you were Chief Constable at the time I think there is some responsibility bearing on your shoulders because you were in charge of the service.

Sir Anthony Burden: Well, that is not how the system works, but as you have said that, I think maybe we need to adjourn for a moment.

Sir William Morris: If you wish, Sir Anthony. We will adjourn for a few minutes.

10.45 am
(A short break)
11.15 am

Sir William Morris: Thank you for bearing with us, Mr Virdi, while we considered your reaction to Sir Anthony's brief statement. We have considered the matter as a panel and we have done so most carefully. May I now explain the process.

Where the PCA considered that a case review should be conducted by an outside Police Service, it was responsible for approaching a member of the Professional Standards Department of the selected force. [Redacted]was contacted by the PCA and asked to conduct the review of your case on their behalf. His involvement would have been agreed by the Assistant Chief Constable responsible for professional standards in South Wales.

Sir Anthony was not involved in that process, just as he would not have been involved in any similar approach from the PCA.

It was [redacted] who was appointed to conduct the review on an independent basis, not the South Wales Constabulary. As Sir Anthony has said, he did not know and would not have expected to have known of this appointment until very shortly before his own retirement. Sir Anthony had no involvement whatsoever with [redacted] review, whether as supervising officer or otherwise. Indeed, Sir Anthony has only recently seen the [redacted] Report as part of the Inquiry process.

In the circumstances, I now intend to proceed with the hearing.

Questions by Sir William Morris

Before we adjourned, you indicated that you had one or two comments which you wished to make regarding the investigator's report. Can I say right at the outset that we have made the report available to your good self. We have not asked the investigator to conduct a full case review, but merely to provide us with answers to those questions that we wanted to ask about each high profile case. It was, as I repeat, not a full case review, but a review to inform the panel in respect of areas of particular interest taking the submissions into account.

It is not my intention, therefore, that we should hear a detailed comment on the report, but it would be helpful if you could let us have your overall impression on our investigator's report, and that opportunity is now provided to you.

A. Thank you, sir. At the outset you said the whole idea of the Inquiry is to speak freely, learn how the organisation operates in order to improve the situation. I think with high profile cases you are going to get this.

Overall with this report I was surprised at the report. Here we have at last a report that does not fully rubber stamp all previous reports. It is mostly a cut and paste of other reports, but it goes further to highlight some of the injustices that we, my family and I, had to endure.

If I could take a few points. I will not be going into that much detail, I will be summarising. For example, on page 3, description of the case, and he refers to these documents. Nowhere is shown that he is referring to the Independent Advisory Group report. Nowhere is it shown that the computer experts on my behalf, [redacted], have been consulted. Nowhere in the reading does he mention SO6, although he does go on to talk about the SO6 report inside it.

When he goes through the chronological events, there are some issues which we might cover. There is no mention in the chronology of the race incident I dealt with where two Asian youths were stabbed by five white youths. I believe that was a catalyst whilst I was on the Ealing division which got things moving against me. There is no mention of the Daily Mail article on 16th April.

[Redacted], the computer expert used by the Met, is mentioned. But they do not mention that [redacted]has an interest; he sells software to the MPS.

Again, page 10, 25th August, throughout all of the inquiries I am being blamed for the cause of delay of the disciplinary hearing. We have a clear entry on 24th August:

"DS Virdi's solicitors seek an adjournment of the discipline hearing as the computer expert is not ready."

The computer expert was never ready. He was never called at the disciplinary hearing. Again, it highlights how the Met has been operating against me.

On page 11, he talks about the SO6 report. There is no mention of the IAG report, which is very, very important. It was a report done by nine independent members of the public who had been witnessing the discipline hearing independently. This report suddenly disappears. Why does it disappear? I asked this question. Was it because [redacted] was told not to come to the disciplinary hearing and she has a visit from three senior officers of the Metropolitan Police who then order [redacted] to do an internal SO6 report? Something is not right, and there is a clear line of what is going on; how the Metropolitan Police are manipulating the system to have a go at me, to destroy me, destroy my family, destroy my community, and nobody is touching it.

There is no mention of an apology from [redacted] in the chronological events. There is no mention of how the West Midlands Police were initially appointed to overview this case prior to [redacted]. They were stopped because they threatened more disciplinary action against me.

There is no mention of an apology from [redacted], and there is no mention that I returned the report to the PCA. And above all, there is no mention whatsoever about the MPA report. You know, we have all these allegedly very highly qualified senior officers, and where the truth is coming through nobody wants to know. It has been rubber stamped all the way through my case, rubber stamped, rubber stamped, rubber stamped.

Page 13, basis for the investigation. They say section 19 Public Order Act. Prior to the disciplinary hearing I was told that was not the case, it was some minor harassment offence I was being investigated for, and the report carries on – I am going to jump now to – sorry, it is right in front of me. It is seven years of things I have got in my mind. Just a couple of lines down, it clearly says:

"It did not amount to ... there was no criminal offence."

So the offence we are looking at, section 19 of the Public Order Act, in fact there was no criminal offence. So in fact what they did, they knew it was illegal, they searched my house with a POLSA team, on arrest for an arrestable offence, which in fact it was not.

Madam, you are a criminal lawyer, you should probably know that.

The offence we are looking at was a summary offence and that is why the CPS were not interested.

Throughout the whole reports, you also see the name of [redacted] coming up again and again. They always seem to say he is the one who authorised the search of my family home. The helicopter photographs taken of my home, the surveillance on my home. But then again, he is a very senior officer; you would think, as a senior officer, it is a planned operation, and even a junior officer, a PC, knows that if it is a planned operation you go and get a search warrant.

Nobody has actually attempted to deal with this. The reason why they did not get a search warrant is because it would have been rejected. The officers clearly abused their position.

Page 17, where I have been tape recorded by my senior officer, trying to entrap me because they read a profile of the offender. Well, obviously the profile did not fit me and they try all these methods. I had surveillance cameras on me while I was at Hanwell police station and Ealing police station. You think, what the hell is going on?

Again, they search the home and again they agree, it is a fishing expedition. There is no documented victim care strategy, page 20. And not serving me the form 163 which says I am suspected of a discipline offence. There does not appear to be any logic to the reasons for not serving this notice, it says, clearly says.

And the appointment of a Federation rep. A Federation rep who I do not even know. I get a phone call while my house is being searched and it has been appointed by [redacted] who is heading the inquiry. You think, hang on, why are these things being noted?

Again, page 22, again it talks about arrestable offence and the search of the house, "The power to search his home, this seems to be the only motivation for his arrest", to search my home, to conduct a fishing expedition.

Page 22, [redacted] is mentioned. [Redacted] on page 25 says, "There are virtually no volunteers for the role", to sit on a discipline panel because most senior officers had realised the whole case was a mess, and senior officers were trying to frame an innocent man, send him to prison and abuse the law. Nobody wants to tackle these issues. You think, why not?

Again, page 27, he goes through the evidence. The employment tribunal breaks the evidence. It goes into details. It says that Sergeant Virdi could not have done the offences because they said at one incident I was at another place, Acton police station, while one was allegedly going on three miles away.

The second occasion, the despatch, which had been sealed on a Friday, two days prior to the racist hate mail on the Sunday, it could not have been done; it was impossible. How can a racist letter printed on Sunday be in a sealed bag on the Friday? Clear evidence. Any investigating officer, any normal PC would know this is abuse, this is not looking at the evidence, this is targeting an individual, Sergeant Virdi; we are going to convict him and we are going to be looking good at the Stephen Lawrence Inquiry.

Again, page 28, there is no offence, section 19. Page 30, it goes on to paragraph 13.2, there have been arguments and counter arguments between the MPS and DS Virdi about disclosure to the press. The Daily Mail article on the 16th. I have a statement from [redacted] and he denies all knowledge of it, and he concludes:

"The conclusion is that the MPS release the statement to the detriment of DS Virdi."

You know, I have been arrested on the 15th, for eight hours my house is searched, then I go to police stations. I am not interviewed, I am suspended without given reasons until I challenge them. An article appears on 16th April, the day after. I have not been interviewed. In the article it says that an officer has been arrested, searched his home, his motive is because he did not get a promotion. He has been interviewed and the file is going to the Attorney General for a decision.

I had not even been interviewed. The only people who can release this information is the Met Police, the DPA, in cahoots with the Daily Mail.

I was interviewed on the 17th.

Page 33:

"This was a difficult and complex investigation carried out by officers with little or no detective experience".

I fully agree, a bunch of idiots. Sorry, but that is how I feel. And what has happened to them? Most of them have been promoted, retired on full health some of them. And where am I? I am still suffering. Still suffering.

Sorry, sir, I sometimes get carried away, but it is important that in a public inquiry like this people should be aware how the Met operates. That is why, when Mr Burden said he was South Wales, I as an officer would say, "Hang on, he is in charge, he is now denying it, and [redacted] is our Chief Constable, she is an ex-Met officer." We think there is corruption going on.

[Redacted] says in front of [redacted] my MP – [redacted] my MP is meeting [redacted] this afternoon. He says in front of my MP, "I am not happy to release this but we are going to release it. It is the first time it has ever been done. It is a complete report." When I go home and look at it, half the stuff is missing. It is all rubber stamping the internal SO6 report. I returned it to the PCA. If crap practices are going on, I do not want to be a part of it, and I think any person looking from the outside should look at the overall picture of what goes on, how senior officers operate, how the discipline procedure is abused in the Metropolitan Police.

Sir William Morris: Can I just say that I have allowed you to offer us a page by page chronology in respect of your response to our investigator's report, and I emphasise our investigator's report. I have also advised you of our consideration as a panel in respect of the comments you made earlier regarding officers associated with the South Wales Police Service. It is not my intention to open either the investigator's report or indeed to revisit the statement that I made earlier on the basis of how we proceed.

I wanted to be satisfied that you, in the interests of natural justice, had an opportunity to comment on our report, the investigator's report, and you have done so. But as I mentioned in my opening words, we ask for a report not as a case review but on a series of specific questions, a series of specific questions, in relation to the questions that we have put to you. We have put a series of questions to you, issues that we ask you to address today, and we asked our investigator to respond on those issues by way of a report, and we make no pretence that it was a full case review; it was not.

The investigator has produced a report which we will take and consider in light or in line with your written submission. I think the submissions that you have offered us in various documents are as full as one could have expected and these have been considered in a careful and diligent way of proceeding. So we are satisfied, very satisfied, that the report we have received is for the purpose of informing our work – it is to inform our thinking, not a case review, as you might have liked or would have wished; that was not the purpose of the exercise. It is in that setting that the report was commissioned, received, and will be used as information in informing our thinking as a panel.

Moving on to the series of questions, it is my intention now to ask Miss Weekes to lead on the questions which we want you to help us on as we take the Inquiry and your case in particular, as a high profile case, forward. Miss Weekes.

Questions by Miss Weekes

Miss Weekes: Thank you.

Mr Virdi, I think it would be helpful if I set out my approach and the purpose of my approach. I am very grateful, in a way, that you have touched upon some of the history because it is important in this public inquiry that we of course take on board your views, your feelings, about what has happened to you.

I would like to begin with a very brief – and I stress it is a very brief – review of what happened to you and your return to the Met, so that we have got a reminder. I know you know the facts extremely well. They are just snippets of the events which I have chosen; it is not everything, because otherwise I will be here all morning because so much has happened.

I then want to move, if I may, to giving you an opportunity to help us on the lessons to be learned, because our terms of reference says "to identify lessons to be learned from the outcome of recent high profile cases", and I think you are in a very good position to help us with the lessons to be learned. So do not be surprised that I do not ask you about the detail of what happened to you.

Can I first of all start with just a very brief appraisal of the chronology. We will all recall, because a great deal of publicity has resulted from your case, that the first racist e-mail became evident in December 1997, a long time ago now. A senior manager was asked to investigate about five days later. Then throughout 1998 these things happened: they discovered that the logo was identified as being someone within Ealing station; by February 1998, a press strategy was agreed that the ethnicity of the suspect would be released on an if asked basis; you were spoken to by your line manager, and that was covertly taped without your knowledge; April 1998, your house was searched using a POLSA team, which took about seven hours. Before your interview there was a press release, giving the ethnicity of yourself and disclosing to the press a motive for sending the alleged racist e-mail. I stress it was before you were interviewed.

A. That is right.

Miss Weekes: The CPS were asked for their advice in May 1998. They advised insufficient evidence to prosecute.

Moving on quickly – I said I would select – throughout 1999 you again were given the decision that no criminal charges would be preferred. Then, in August, Russell Jones and Walker asked for an adjournment to get their own computer expert, which is obviously important. You were given a date for your disciplinary hearing, which was due to take place in December 1999, but in fact it did not happen until March of 2000.

3rd March was a memorable day for you, you were dismissed from the force. You had already lodged an employment tribunal case for race discrimination way back in June 1998, but because of your disciplinary that was not dealt with. But it was dealt with on 7th July 2000. Forgive me, there was a directions hearing before that, but in July 2000 that was the start of the employment tribunal case.

You lodged your grounds of appeal against your dismissal in June/August, so there was quite a lot going on; there is an overlap, you have got the tribunal case and you have also got the disciplinary. 23rd August 2000, the tribunal found that the Metropolitan Police did in fact act in a racist manner towards you, so your case of race discrimination was upheld.

I think it would be helpful if I very briefly refer to the precise finding of that employment tribunal. You need not turn to it, Mr Virdi, I am going to read it for you:

"[Redacted] was treated as a suspect in relation to the production of the racist hate mail in a way that was different from PC Virdi, who was also a suspect. She is a true comparator within the meaning of section 3.4 of the Race Relations Act 1976. PC Virdi was treated differently and to his detriment for the following reasons:

"(a) In the failure to interview him in an informal way in the same way as [redacted] was;

"(b) In the attempt to entrap him in a taped personal interview on 24th February 1998;

"(c) In the use of the POLSA team to search his house;

"(d) To arrest and subsequently suspend him from duty without sufficient evidence to support the allegations.

"The explanations put forward by the respondent [who is the Metropolitan Police] as representing good investigation practice are not substantiable or justifiable. We therefore infer and conclude that the reason for their failures is not incompetence but is because of PC Virdi's race. We therefore find that Gurpal Virdi, the applicant, has been the subject of discrimination on the grounds of his race."

Again, let us remind ourselves of the reasons for the award you were given. You had a remedies hearing, and after a good deal of discussion between the tribunal, having heard from both parties, the tribunal and not you or your solicitor made a decision to award you £100,000 injury to feelings, and they also awarded £25,000 aggravated damages, plus £24,688 interest from the date that you lodged your IT claim to the date of the trial, plus £2,000 financial loss for missed opportunity for overtime.

We know that the Metropolitan Police Authority were asked to look into the whole history, and they produced a report which we, the panel, are very familiar with now. That was in 2001.

In March of 2002 – I am really skipping through the chronology – you finally returned to work.

I have done that, Mr Virdi, so that I could now move to the real purpose of my questions and the duty that I have to conduct on this panel of identifying lessons to be learned, and I know that you have come really to help with us that because we are very keen for your help.

I am going to approach the lessons to be learned in this way: I am going to refer to the recommendations from the Virdi Report, because you may be able to help me as to whether you are aware as to whether or not they have been carried through –

A. Can I just stop you there, madam?

Miss Weekes: Hmm.

A. The first Virdi Report you see there, myself and my wife were not even consulted. So the recommendations were made without any input from myself or my wife. Only two weeks ago there has been a Virdi part 2, which is done by the Metropolitan Police Authority and headed by David Muir. So those recommendations you are going to read out are nothing to do with us.

Miss Weekes: You are going to have an opportunity to add to it as we go along, but as it is a public document and those recommendations are still current, or should be, I would like your help on them. But thank you very much for reminding me of that fact.

It is on the screen, and I am going to go to it in a moment, but, again, to be fair to you, this entire full history of your treatment has clearly had an effect upon you and your family. I know from your written submission that you have given us that your wife, who sits with you today, worked at a local library at the time and she had to move. I know that your parents attend a local mosque –

A. Temple.

Miss Weekes: Temple, forgive me, where they were isolated and the entire family were made to feel dreadful. You were the governor of a school and you had to step down because of a number of questions you were being asked. And most importantly, both your parents have since sadly died. I just wanted to ensure that you understood that we have taken that on board.

You made a decision to come back to the Met despite all of that, and one of the things that you have said – and it was your Radio 4 interview in December of 2003 – is this. Again, do not trouble to turn to it; I have got it. You said this:

"The decision was: do I go back to the same environment, the same culture that has just tried to put me behind bars? So my wife and I sat down and I said, 'Look, I need to go back, it is the career that I wanted, there is something that drives me towards it. We cannot let the racist officers get away with it.' On those bases I decided to go back."

That is right, is it not?

A. Yes, that is right.

Miss Weekes: Mr Virdi, was there a special reason why you decided – in addition to not wanting those who wronged you to get away with it, what was the assistance, what was the input you felt you could bring to the Met by coming back?

A. Like you said, madam, I have no intention of running away from racists, I have no intention of letting young officers suffer in the hands of a racist. There was a myth of compensation culture at the time; that had to be destroyed.

I had another job and another career started; I gave that up. Again, my wife objected to it. There was a sense of duty to do. I joined the Police Service because I wanted to join the Police Service. Two individuals who helped me – three (inaudible) – helped me throughout the case are [redacted] and [redacted]. I could just not let them down, I could not let the community down. We had to do something which would show youngsters there is a job in the Metropolitan Police, for them to join to change the Police Service. We cannot be operating in the 19th century.

Recruitment needs to go up because while my case was going on recruitment fell dramatically. As you will realise, as soon as I came back in recruitment (inaudible). So it is a combination of a lot of things.

Miss Weekes: I am grateful, thank you.

Can we go back now to the recommendations, and please feel free to add your personal view of these recommendations.

I am looking at number 1, right at the top of the page:

"Regulations, particularly in regard to discipline, should be interpreted with common sense and reasonableness in an attempt to eliminate unnecessary bureaucracy and unjustified cost both financially and in personal terms."

At the time of your discipline, you were being dealt with under the 1985 regulations. We have moved on quite a bit since.

A. Have we?

Miss Weekes: I will have your view in a moment, but in terms of different regulations, there has been movement. We have got the 1999 regulations, which do still exist, and the 2004 regulations are in draft form.

First of all, do you agree with that recommendation that, as regards discipline, they should be interpreted with common sense and reasonableness? Do you agree with that?

A. I fully agree.

Miss Weekes: And do you think now that is the way the Met does approach these issues?

A. I am sorry to say, no, it does not. I do a lot of support work as a BPA member and I have still got a number of cases on my books which young officers, even mature officers – I have dealt with PC to ACPO level, where they are just facing bureaucracy and length of delay, unnecessary discipline, where in comparison to a white officer, if a white officer has done wrong he is quickly reprimanded and given words of advice. That is the only sanction I could get, because it is a quick way of dealing with the problem. If the officer was to face a discipline hearing that could mean the sack. So the tendency is for white officers to get a quick word of advice and carry on with their job.

An ethnic minority officer – [redacted] – sorry, he is sitting here – is a classic example. He may have used inappropriate words, but they want a full discipline hearing. It is like using, you know, the full might of the force to challenge him. Why do they do that? [Redacted] I can give you other cases where white officers were dealt with very quickly whereas a minority officer has to go through the system without any Federation help.

Miss Weekes: I ought to tell you that the issue of diversity, race, gender, disability discrimination is a major topic for us and Sir Anthony is going to take that. I would like to, if I may, get your help because of your experience.

How can the Met best approach discipline under the statute where it is much more simple, a little bit more straightforward and less bureaucratic for both white and ethnic minority officers? What are your suggestions for a better world, as it were?

A. We have a promotion system in the Met which is a core problem, I believe, where from PC to sergeant you tick the box and get promoted nowadays. For an inspector you tick the box and you are recommended for line manager. The process is such that you have to say the right thing. If you are a person and you think differently, you think: hang on, am I going to approach this problem in a different way and use a common sense approach, you will not be promoted.

We have officers, white and black and any other – female – at junior level who are still sergeants and PCs with university degrees. They cannot move up the ladder because the promotion system is failing them. We have youngsters who join the Police Service as cadets at 18 and they are moulds: they will say the right things, obey orders, and if they have got a problem you push it up. Common sense is not applied. I work in (inaudible) industry and I work voluntarily elsewhere, and I speak to people in the community because that is one part of my job. When they hear the system they think: why did you apply common sense? Why would you apply common sense? It is a simple issue. The whole promotion system needs to be addressed and needs to be changed. We cannot have moulds – like I said in my statement, we cannot have 'mini mes' going up the service because at the end of the day they will say the same thing and when they do wrong they will be protected.

Miss Weekes: Do you think some additional training would help to instill more common sense?

A. You cannot train somebody to use common sense. Common sense comes out of life skills, comes out of speaking to the public, living in a community. We have senior officers who do not even live in London and yet they are making decisions on behalf of London. Most white officers do not even live in London, they live in Surrey, that is why they are called the blue belt.

We have officers coming into London for eight hours, doing the job and going out. I live in the community. I do my eight hours, I work extra in my community and I feel I live and breathe it, and there are many officers like me. But at the end of the day, the Met will choose the people who fit the mould. The community loses out, the officers lose out, and the mistakes will carry on being made.

Miss Weekes: Can I ask you this so that we get a breadth of how widespread you think the problem is: would you agree with me – of course you do not have to – that there are pockets of good practice within the Met which means there are good white managers, and there are bad white managers, as there are good black managers – they may be few – as there are bad black managers; is that right?

A. I agree.

Miss Weekes: Right. So how can we improve the pool of the good? If you say it is not about training, what is it that the Met should do?

A. You find that the good white managers and good black managers become good after they reach a certain rank. It is probably after commander level, because at that level they actually engage in the community, they actually engage with Londoners, they actually engage with politics. They are actually engaging. Whereas from commander right down to chief inspector, all they are concerned about is getting the next rank and how they can back stab the competition and get on with their careers. There is no sense of community. There is no sense of: hang on, I can do this job properly.

I mean, [redacted] and [redacted] and [redacted] brought me back to the Police Service and yet no one has ever spoken to them and said, "How can we do this to improve the facilities and support we can give to other officers."

Here we have a good example of how they brought me back to the Metropolitan Police Service and yet nothing has been done about it.

[Redacted] recently intervened on an Asian [redacted] who was being picked upon, the first Asian [redacted] being picked upon. He intervened, good practice. He intervened because he trusted me. He wrote an e-mail to the line manager and said, "Hang on, Mr Virdi is right".

Sir John, he is in the public, specially after The Secret Policeman. He said publicly, "We will do something about it".

How many other Chief Constables said that? So there are good practices but there is a very wide gap. You get PCs and sergeants who deal with neighbourhood watches, neighbourhood policing on a very local level and then we have the very senior police officers. In between we have got a cancer, a very large cancer, and very few good officers.

Miss Weekes: Can I, because it would be remiss of me if I did not, touch upon a very important report. I refer to it as the Taylor Report, which looked into the Lancet Review. Are you aware of it?

A. I have read about it, because I knew you would ask that question.

Miss Weekes: It has made – and it is up on the screen – the recommendations which touch upon the very process that you went through. Let us just look, for example, at recommendation 2:

"It is recommended that a model be delivered to guide the scope and scale of a complaints investigation – similar to the framework applied in murder investigations."

That is clearly common sense, is it not, Mr Virdi? That is a good recommendation, is it not?

A. It is a good recommendation. I have my views on people working in DPS, the Directorate of Professional Standards, because they are not selected on their talents or abilities; they are selected because of who they know. [Redacted] was a very good example. Recently the invites to selection procedure came out – I got it a day before the closing date. I challenged it and through [Redacted] I went to see [redacted] and he said, "You will not be selected because you are contaminated". When I told my line manager in the office they laughed, said I would have to walk around in an orange suit because I am contaminated.

What I am saying there is if you get decent people, good investigating officers, you do not have to apply that approach because they do the job properly. But if you have got people working on a squad or working in a department who have been selected because of who they know, they have not got any talents to offer. That is why we see time after time investigations failing and time after time it is again the same officer as you will see in the media whose investigation has failed. Time and time again you will see very good officers (inaudible) with good conviction.

Miss Weekes: You have raised a very good point: selection of those in charge of investigations. How do you say the Met should select, if your complaints are that it is not good, the way they do it at the moment? On a who you know basis, it is clearly not fair, if you are right.

A. You do not have to ask me, you can ask any decent officer; they will tell you that the selection procedure, especially for complaints, is wrong. It is selected on a who you know basis.

Miss Weekes: How can we improve that, because clearly that should not be the case, should it?

A. I think senior officers, and especially [redacted] who is in charge of it and who should realise that he is going to be responsible for a department, he should select people on their merit, on their skills, not on who they know.

Miss Weekes: Is there any form of transparency about the criteria for selection and who is selected?

A. Well, I suggested, when [redacted] was allegedly entrapping me in my career progression, I suggested at that time that all interviews should be video recorded, because if somebody is going to appeal – too many have: female officers, ethnic minority officers, however suffered, should be video interviewed, and then an appeal panel can look at that. That is one way of moving forward.

Miss Weekes: Can we just go back to one other of the Taylor recommendations, if I may. If we can look at recommendation 4 and I will look over at 9 as well. 4:

"To assist in meeting the vital requirement of clear terms of reference, it is recommended that a model template be developed and issued as guidance."

Recommendation 9:

"It is recommended that a review procedure be established for complaint investigation cases which in appropriate cases is linked to the role of the case conference."

Both those recommendations are designed to ensure that you decide why you are going to investigate someone, have clear terms of reference, and you review it as you go along. First of all, both of those are pretty clear and good recommendations, are they not?

A. Yes, they are. Again, if you look through my submission, one of the things I have said is that the Metropolitan Police does not look at past cases of race discrimination on employment tribunals. A lot of cases go up to employment tribunal cases and settle out of court without accepting any liability, the cases of which are probably stored away in the Equal Opportunities Unit and gathering dust.

If we are an intelligence led policing we can reduce crime, surely. Why do we not look at these cases and identify officers who are the causes of race discrimination, sex discrimination and homophobia, and I will guarantee you that you will find a link, the same names appear. So if we are intelligence led policing, we are going to think ahead, let us look at the past cases. Somebody should review them instead of them gathering dust. Just by saying that the Metropolitan Police agreed to give a sum of money and we accept no liability, it is not the end of the story. I think we should be reviewing cases and reviewing them properly, independently, not the way, for example, my case has been dealt with, where people have been rubber stamping individual reports.

Miss Weekes: That leads me on to again another very important word you have used: "independence". Do you say that it is necessary to introduce some form of independence into the whole process of decision-making on complaints and discipline and employment tribunal cases?

A. Yes, it is. As you probably know, when my disciplinary hearing was going on [Redacted] I fought for the Independent Advisory Group to come in. Two days of legal arguments and obviously a senior officer threatening [redacted], but I got them in. We had two days of legal arguments because I wanted independent people to see what really goes on, what really goes on in a disciplinary hearing, and they were shocked. The report is very damning, and you cannot get a copy of that report now because what the Met did, they destroyed all the copies.

If you ask for an IAG report you will never get it. Someone may be hiding one in a desk. The same with the MPA report. I had to ask David Muir for those copies, and I sent it to the libraries, the Met library, Hendon library, ACPO library. Nobody wanted to do that. They just wanted to brush this over the side. People are not willing to change. There needs to be some sort of threat or motivation to get them moving.

Miss Weekes: Can I explore a little bit, because it is important what you say about the access to the public in disciplinary hearings. Do you say that the reason for that is to show the public that (a) everything is in order, there is a degree of transparency, and that there is due process? You say it is necessary for the public to be able to see that.

A. I think it is necessary in order to improve the situation, because where you find a lot of senior officers – like I said, they are moulds, they will just say things they have to say, you know, and public interviews and so on, "Everything is fine, we are doing this, we are doing that, blah, blah, blah" and (inaudible).

Miss Weekes: What do you think the argument is, Mr Virdi, against allowing members of the public in to police disciplinary hearings? What is the argument against it?

A. The arguments they can put up – I firmly believe that the public, or somebody representing the public – we have the MPA, the GLA – somebody should be allowed in to have a look at the process, improve the process. We cannot operate a system which exists in the 19th century; this is the 21st century. The communities of London have changed and the way we police have changed.

Miss Weekes: Would an objection be – I am trying to put the other side so that you can help us – would the objection be: well, often we have to discuss confidential police procedure in disciplinary hearings? Is that a good reason to have a member of the public in?

A. You say a member of the public. I do not mean particularly pick somebody off the street and say, "You are coming in".

Miss Weekes: A non-police person.

A. We have the Independent Advisory Group, we have the local Independent Advisory Group. For example, Ealing division, my case is going on, I would not mind somebody from Ealing Independent Advisory Group coming in and having a look. That is a way forward, because it is going to affect the local issue, it is going to affect the local community, why not have them in?

If we are going to talk about terrorism or very nasty rapes or something like that in a disciplinary, yes, that should be excluded, but the majority of discipline cases are very minor, they are very – you are just dealing with the local – for example, Ford or Marks & Spencers, they are dealing with disciplinary hearings every day. You deal with it. It could be an efficiency hearing where somebody is not performing. You deal with those issues and what is the harm – I am for having independent people in.

Miss Weekes: One other point on disciplinary hearings and who is allowed in: was there any difficulty with your wife being allowed in to your disciplinary hearing at the time?

A. Yes, there was. Whilst my case was going on, my Met Federation rep, he objected to my wife coming through. Commander [redacted] wrote a letter saying she will not be allowed in. It was only when we saw another white officer going in with his wife and daughter it was pointed out to them, "Hang on, this is not right", and the Independent Advisory Group took this case up, and after certain exchanges through senior officers my wife was allowed in, although they said she was not allowed in the disciplinary hearing but she was allowed in the building in a room close to the disciplinary hearing.

Miss Weekes: I think most members of the public would be rather surprised that, if an officer is going through a stressful disciplinary and he may want his partner there, that he is not allowed. Have you specifically raised that with, for example, [redacted]

A. [Redacted].

Miss Weekes: [Redacted], because it seems very simple and humane that you should have your partner next to you if you are going through a disciplinary, because you might be dismissed.

A. You say that, but once you go through training – for example, the family liaison officers, where they say a family friend should be allowed in, a family friend should be encouraged. So people are aware of the situation. I think it is just they are not aware of pressurising you to make you conform or to make you submissive.

Miss Weekes: That is certainly a recommendation that you would like to see changed about disciplinary hearings.

A. I have Sathat with me here today, I had Sathat with me at the MPA Inquiry. I feel assured because at the moment I am going through a lot of illnesses, I am on medication. At least if something happens to me I know she is there, she knows what is happening. So yes, why not?

Miss Weekes: Can I move on to employment tribunals. I would like to go back, if I may, to the Virdi recommendations, please. It will come up on the screen in a moment.

Number 3 says this:

"That consideration be given to a review of administration of employment tribunals within the MPS to encourage [the following]:

"Setting up a monitoring and good practice unit capable of early intervention and for alerting chief officers to highly sensitive cases;

"Removal of some of the responsibility for case management to suitably trained personnel managers who will work in close liaison with borough commanders;

"Direct contact between borough commanders, personnel managers, MPS solicitors to encourage local management responsibility and the possibility of early resolution of cases."

All of that is a sensible recommendation, is it not?

A. I fully agree.

Miss Weekes: Help us: is that going on?

A. No.

Miss Weekes: Because there is quite a lot there, which bit of it is not happening within the Met since these sensible recommendations?

A. Setting up a monitoring and good practice unit: where are they? I have got cases where I am trying to get those resolved, mediation, nothing is happening. Removal of the responsibility of case management to suitably trained personnel managers: it is not happening. People are still suffering, because what you find is that a borough commander is again controlling the personnel managers and people are not getting justice and they are coming to the staff associations or they go to the Federation.

Direct contact between borough commanders, personnel managers, MPS solicitors – MPS solicitors, they do not care, at the end of the day; they want to deal with personnel. They will take the case right to the eleventh hour, and all they are concerned about is winning the case, despite their wrongness.

I am a sergeant and I recently, with [redacted], arranged some case conferences. I mean, if I can do things like that, on top of my own job, why cannot other people? I want people to resolve issues in hand. I do not want the Metropolitan Police to be going through turmoil in the media. I want people to join the Police Service. And yet we do not have those recommendations being acted out.

Miss Weekes: Why do you think that, having spent a good deal of time and money on this report, the Virdi Inquiry Report, this important set of recommendations are not being carried out? What has gone wrong? Have they just ignored the recommendations or are there other solid reasons for why you say it has not been carried out?

A. Like I said, that report is not available. You go and ask any commander, "Is that report available on your division?" "No". It is only when people get into trouble they suddenly remember: hang on, Virdi case, there was an inquiry. They put in the intranet "Virdi" and the Virdi Report comes up. It is only then that they read it.

The Federation reps have not been given a copy. You know, you think: here is a report which is done by the MPA, which is overlooking the Metropolitan Police, and people have been denied this report.

Miss Weekes: So part of the reason is that you think (a) it is simply not currently available, so people actually do not know of the detail of the recommendations?

A. I think people do not want to know, because it will then force them to follow a line which would resolve cases on division level and get things sorted. At the moment, they are quite happy getting the DPS to do the dirty work and then, if there is something they cannot deal with, push it up the ladder.

If I may, I will give you a very good example of a grievance which I am going through presently. When I joined the service it was agreed by [redacted] and [redacted] and myself that I will be coming back and I will be going on a detective trainers' course, and [redacted] joined me, with [redacted] to arrange this course. And when it was time to get me on the course, my line manager decides he wants to obstruct me. He says, "No, you have to follow the procedure, put in an application", which was done and, to cut a long story short, I was not happy with the outcome.

I was then told by my line manager to put a grievance procedure in. I have no faith in the grievance procedure, but it went through. Okay, he investigates the grievance procedure, he speaks to all the white senior officers, he does not speak to [redacted], he does not speak on to [redacted] and he does not speak to [redacted], who was with me when the thing was being discussed. He comes to the conclusion, "Oh, you are wrong, it is down to you", and it took the intervention of [redacted] to put me on a CID course. It was again pushed up the ladder.

[Redacted]– amazing how people who get involved then get promoted – he was, again, reviewing the grievance procedure and he rubber stamps the original report. I said, "Have you spoken to [redacted]? Have you spoken to [redacted]? Have you spoken to [redacted]?" "No. This is the report and I am going to give it to you. Here it is. And I am going to make any changes". He has been commissioned by [redacted] and he has a final say. [Redacted] says integrity is not negotiable. He goes on TV to say that, and yet, in this case, integrity is being negotiable and is being done to (inaudible).

That is a very recent case. Things have not improved. If they are reading the Virdi recommendations, they would do something different.

Miss Weekes: We are aware of that. We have received those details from you –

A. What has been done about it?

Miss Weekes: It happened earlier this year, of course, did it not?

A. It did.

Miss Weekes: So you would say that the new Fairness at Work, which is what one still refers to as the grievance, is not necessarily satisfactory from your own experience?

A. Madam, the Metropolitan Police have a way of making things new. The grievance procedure is now Fairness at Work. And then when they do the figures they will say, "We had a hundred grievance procedures but now we have only got ten Fairness at Work so things are improving".

Is this a ploy? But when you look at the crunch of it, Fairness at Work, okay, you have to be selected to be a Fairness at Work adviser. Now, a lot of people on borough have not been trained. A lot of people are not even aware of Fairness at Work unless you actually physically read it. Only the dedicated officers would actually read it and go through it, but the figures will go down.

It is a bit like complaints. Members of the public make complaints, but it is up to the chief officer of police – Mr Burden will confirm this – as to whether to record it or not to record it. If complaints are not being recorded, obviously the complaints are going to go down.

Employment tribunals: there are a number of employment tribunals, but because of (inaudible), as you are probably aware, a lot of cases are being thrown out. The figures presented to the MPA would be, "Oh, well, we have less grievance procedures, we have less employment tribunals, we have less complaints". Yes, but they do not tell you the reasons. The problem is still there.

Until we reassure the public, reassure our officers, nothing is going to change. We will still have inquiry after inquiry after inquiry. The PCA will become another IPCC and in a few years' time it will become something else. We are not changing. Drastic action needs to be taken. People need to be held accountable, senior officers need to be held accountable, the government needs to be held accountable. That is the only way forward.

Miss Weekes: Can I pick you up on that drastic action, and this question has been put to a number of witnesses so I would like your help on it. It is clear that sometimes things do go badly wrong within the Met, and your case is an example of it. What do you say is the appropriate drastic action for when officers behave badly, when they have committed wrongs against each other? What do you say is the appropriate drastic action?

A. Sacking. Why is every force in the country very reluctant to sack senior officers? When it is blatantly obvious they have done something wrong, why not sack them? They are incompetent. They have done wrong. If I was working as a chief executive or as a worker in, say, for example – I will say Ford again; sorry I am using that example again – I would be sacked. If I had done wrong, I would be sacked. Why is it –

Miss Weekes: Is there a distinction, Mr Virdi, between an incompetent officer and an officer who, with his own knowledge, does wrong? Is there a distinction that you would wish to draw between those two?

A. I think incompetency will lead to wrongness. I mean, for example, [redacted] in my case gave amenity to officers to tell untruths about where I was at a certain time. One officer blatantly in front of a discipline panel, three discipline commanders, said, "Yes, I failed the duty states(?)", and it was pointed out to him, "Do you know that is false accounting?" He then had to be reminded of the law of false accounting.

That officer was so blase about it because he had been given this amenity, nothing happened. And yet it was said in front of three commanders. What happens to him? He is promoted.

Surely, if anybody is sensible enough to say, "Hang on, if he does not know what false accounting is, why should he be promoted?" – it is not only incompetence, he is doing an illegal act and no criminal charges have been brought against him. "Yes, we will promote him".

Miss Weekes: Why do you think, then, in your experience, that high management and those with the power to sack officers who do a wrong, why are they not sacked?

A. Madam, you will be surprised. If you put them on the box and put them on the square, they will probably say, "I do not know the procedure". It is like when the Stephen Lawrence Inquiry was going on, the senior officer did not even know his powers of arrest. How sad.

And the same thing with senior officers, they do not know about inefficiency procedures; they do not know how to get rid of senior officers; and most of them are friends anyway, so there you go.

Miss Weekes: We have heard evidence from other witnesses that the inefficiency procedure is underused; is that your experience?

A. Yes, the reason being that not many people are aware of it. I mean, after inspector they do not have to study any more; they are promoted on other reasons: how they can perform in front of a selected audience, how they can say the right things, say the diversity things, say the leadership skills, and nobody will ask them, "How do you deal with an incompetent officer? Tell me the procedure".

Miss Weekes: Well, help us again, because this is all about recommendations and lessons to be learned, how can the Met improve upon ensuring that those in positions of authority who have management duties are up to date, understand their duties and carry them out?

A. Like I said, madam, the selection procedure is all wrong. Last year we had a superintendent selection procedure; quite a few failed, and then on appeal they have already passed.

Now, we have officers from chief superintendent and above being promoted only on the recommendation of [redacted]. If somebody is talented and not being promoted, there is something wrong. [Redacted] case, [redacted], went through his promotion, the Met discriminated against him and then they promoted him after he took them to an employment tribunal.

The selection – true talent is not being recognised, and the procedures they have are wrong. For example, getting good detectives. I went on a CID course, eventually – I laugh – we went through the whole six weeks of CID training, an exam was given at the end. 40 per cent of the people passed, 60 per cent failed. Now normally the pass rate is mid-90s. There was uproar from the students, saying why has this happened? It came back to me eventually that the reason why this happened was because I was on the course and they followed by the book. No questions were given prior to the exam. It showed the true quality of detectives. 40 per cent are good enough, 60 per cent are not.

Miss Weekes: Well, let us just use that as an example –

A. Can I carry on?

Miss Weekes: Yes, but I want to interrupt for a very good reason. Let us use that as an example. Here is, you say, a classic example of a procedure which is not being conducted correctly: papers being handed out before. You say you are on the course so they do it by the book. Well, what should be done about that?

A. Again, like I said, people should be selected on their talents, not because of who they know. That is the fundamental thing which goes wrong in the Metropolitan Police. People have been selected, promoted to high levels when they have not even got the basic talent, and then they are protected. It is absurd in the Metropolitan Police.

Miss Weekes: I interrupted you. Was there anything else you wanted to say on that area?

A. Yes, I was going to go on to then we come from chief inspector to above. Again, they go through a process, recommendation by line managers, and again, those people who want to pass will be given the questions beforehand, or they will have somebody on the board who knows them and they will get through. And then, by all means, [redacted] will do his final tick in the box as well.

Miss Weekes: I want to move on now to another related topic. I am going back to the Virdi recommendations, if we may. It is going to be brought up on the screen for you. We will look at recommendation 11:

"The MPS should monitor the composition of representatives of the Police Federation's joint branch board, ensuring that concrete measures are taken to address underrepresentation, especially from ethnic minority groups."

We know, as a panel, that the Police Federation is a creature of statute, and I stress that because it is important that we discuss this point on that basis. Just how practicable is this recommendation, Mr Virdi, because this is a recommendation about those who sit on the Police Federation who would be able to present views for change. How practicable, first of all, is it to recommend what is recommended there?

A. Madam, if things want to be done, they can be done. If the Police Federation want people on their panel, they will get people on their panel. There are objections that the Police Federation in general does not like ethnic minority officers; they do not like female officers. Only very recently [Redacted] has been appointed female chair; very good too.

The problem with the Federation is they are still in the 1960s. The mentality is still in the 1960s. Ethnic minority officers, female officers, do not get any backing from the Police Federation. That is why we have a lot of staff associations being created. If the Federation was fair and did their job, because we all pay our dues, then there would not be staff associations; everybody would be represented, and people would be naturally selected and go on to the Police Federation to make decisions. It does not happen. It is a closed shop.

Miss Weekes: The Police Federation may say, in response to that, "Well, whoever you are, you can put yourself up for election and it is a matter for the rest of the police staff and officers as to whether or not they do vote for you." They might say that. What is your response?

A. It is a bit like comparing with the elections, is it not? You are given a safe seat, you will get elected; if they do not want you, they will give you a seat which you are not going to get.

Miss Weekes: Why is it important to have diversity representation on the Police Federation?

A. It is very important because London's population has changed. We are not – we have a white majority, but 40 per cent of the public is from the ethnic minorities. Unless we change, unless the Federation changes, unless the people get their views, the Police Service is going to be dragged back. We are not free to move forward. It is very important to get ethnic minority officers and female officers on the Police Federation. It has to be done. We cannot have people sitting – I am sorry, but the mentality of some of them is like, you know, in the 1960s.

Miss Weekes: How are we going to change that?

A. Like I said, if the Police Federation want to make changes, they can make changes. For example, on the board they can nominate people to be on the board. It is a very simple idea.

Miss Weekes: Is it easy to do that under their statutory provisions?

A. Well, change the statute.

Miss Weekes: Thank you. Can I move on to –

Sir William Morris: Could we just pause for me to say that it is my intention that we should adjourn at 12.45 and reconvene at 2 o'clock.

Miss Weekes: Can I move to the IPCC, the new Independent Police Complaints Commission, because of course we cannot discuss complaints and discipline, which is a central part of our terms of reference, without including their role, and as everyone knows they have only been in operation since about April.

Are you confident that the new Independent Police Complaints Commission will make some difference to the way complaints and discipline are dealt with? Because they will, of course, have new supervisory powers.

A. My feelings is no.

Miss Weekes: Why is that?

A. Because it was called the Police Complaints Commission before; after Scarman, it was called the Independent Police Complaints Authority; now it is called the IPCC.

I think the only way we change is for them to be independent, because what we find is, after an organisation has been running for a few years, they become part of the establishment. I hope this does not happen in this case. The fear is it will, because government ministers and senior officers will manipulate that, and then in a few years' time we will have another complaints investigative board.

Some of the changes they have made is encouraging. Some of the people on the panel is encouraging. How long will they stay there? Will they be forced out? It is a bit like the Independent Advisory Group; there were a few who objected to the nodding dog syndrome, they are all gone. And people now on the Independent Advisory Group, the main one, are some who are now towing the line, which they should not be.

Miss Weekes: Of course, one would say, and some people would say, "Well, surely it is not fair to be pessimistic at this stage about the IPCC, let us wait and see".

A. Madam, I fully agree. That is why I am saying "I hope". But history tells me that this will happen and the establishment will take over.

Miss Weekes: The Independent Advisory Group, do you say that there is still a role to be played by the Independent Advisory Group in relation to, again, complaints, discipline and investigation of officers?

A. There is. I always believe in independent – because at the end of the day people from outside look at things differently. It is a bit like my employment tribunal when I was going through it. It was looked at by three people who looked at evidence in a completely different way. Some of the things they said even I would not have thought of.

It is like having you on a panel: you would be looking at complaints and discipline in a different way; you would be looking at procedures in a different way. Sir Bill Morris has got a history of looking at things in a different way; he has even criticised the Federation.

But it is only when we have independent people that you start making changes. The changes are for the better, because it represents an independent and it also represents the community view on how things should be tackled.

Miss Weekes: Give us one or two concrete examples of why the Independent Advisory Group works.

A. Right, I will use the Trident example. Operation Trident, as you know, is within the black community. Here we have independent people advising how the police should proceed, how the police should – the police may (inaudible) some of the adverts which are totally against the community and they have been withdrawn. Had they not been there, that would have not happened. Had they not made contacts for us to contact individuals, we would not have developed our policies and procedures.

[Redacted] is a leader in this. He actually goes out to the communities, he actually encourages IAGs to develop because it is the advice we get from the community which will affect the policies in the Metropolitan Police. He is the only Assistant Commissioner I know of who goes out to all the police consultant group meetings, he goes out and speaks to members of the public. He has even spoken to – I arranged for people who are very active and very against the Metropolitan Police to come in and have a chat. Independent advice can work, it does work, and I think there is a lot more scope for it.

The other example I would use of the Independent Advisory Group was my case where they came and sat at the disciplinary hearing, where this all was going on and they made very valid recommendations to improve the Metropolitan Police.

Miss Weekes: Extending this important topic, I just want to ask you this in relation to employment tribunals. Part of our terms of reference is that we should look at the decision-making process around employment tribunals, and we are asked to consider whether or not a degree of independent advice in relation to employment tribunals would be a good thing. Do you think it would?

A. I think it would because the present situation we have is – it always starts with a minor situation, where it is a minor thing which a good manager would deal with. It does not happen because the manager is incompetent or whatever, he does not want to deal with it, for many reasons. And then because the victim then starts questioning why are you not following procedure, it then develops, it goes worse and worse. The victim is then targeted, looked at reports, scrutinised, it just goes into a very long winded procedure, and the initial problem has just been ignored. So they go in opposite poles. And then the legal services, [Redacted] and they will protect the organisation to the right. Even if it is wrong, they will protect it and they will fight it, and even though it is wrong they will carry on fighting it.

The victim, especially if it is an ethnic minority or a female, will go to the Federation to seek help. The system is abused. He will be put under, or she will be put under a lot of pressure to conform. They will say we are withdrawing funding, you know, you will have to agree.

Miss Weekes: Who is putting the pressure?

A. The Federation. How many cases of ethnic minority cases are funded to the full? Very few. They did not fund my case. I had to pay from my own pocket to fund the case because the Federation would not touch it.

Miss Weekes: What reason did the Federation give you for not touching your case?

A. They said, "We are not funding it", full stop. And when I did speak to the Federation solicitor, they said, "You have got no chance, why are you doing this?"

Ethnic minority officers go to the same thing again and again: initially they were given advice, they would say, "Yes, we will back you", then when it comes to the initial crunch to do with the case, "We are pulling out. Settle the case now or we are pulling out. You will not be funded. You will not be backed."

The problems that have gone so far in different ends, which probably started as a minute problem –

Miss Weekes: Has anybody taken this up with anybody in a position of power, that this is what the Federation do?

A. I have taken it up with [redacted]. Now, recently I was discussing two cases with him. Both are being supported by the Federation. As soon as I had a chat with him, he obviously rang legal services. One day later, the Federation pulled out one case. Two days later, the Federation pulled out of the other case.

Miss Weekes: What was the reason for that?

A. Because, when they know they have got a fight, they put the pressure on the Federation to withdraw. The Federation will not back ethnic minority and female officers. And yet, at the same time, there is a court case going on in an employment tribunal in [redacted], two white officers complaining about racist discrimination, 100 per cent behind them. Any white officer who complains, 100 per cent behind them. They go to the extent of fighting minute cases, which ends up in millions of pounds being wasted, to protect white officers. That is not on.

That is why I have taken a positive action to intervene on behalf of my ethnic minority and female colleagues, and even white officers, to get people round the table and discuss the way forward. I, as a sergeant, can do that. I am sure people above me can do it far better.

Miss Weekes: So what you are saying is, plainly, that some people are being denied access to justice over their employment cases.

A. They are. That is why you need to look at the resignation figures. Training school is a good example. A lot of people leave; a lot of youngsters leave. And then within five years, if they go through any difficulty, they resign because they cannot fight the system. The system is too big to fight.

Miss Weekes: I have just reminded myself of the wording of our terms of reference, just to stress the importance of what we have just been talking about:

"Whether there should be arrangements for employment tribunal claims, particularly those involved in allegations of discrimination or harassment, to be subject to independent review as part of the MPS handling of such cases in order to encourage and facilitate efforts to achieve resolution."

This is my last question, as it were. How do you see this independent review would practicably work? We have heard of, for example, mediation. We have heard of alternative dispute resolution. How would you say we could introduce the recommendation for the independent review? Who is going to do it? When are they going to do it?

A. I took up a very similar case with – well, my suggestions to [redacted] – I actually made recommendations many months ago, saying somebody independent should review the case before it goes to the tribunal. A panel – it does not have to be police officers; it can be people from the NHS, government departments, Department for Transport, for example; you know, where somebody from another department – departments – convened as an independent view to review a case. Vice versa, police officers used to independently examine their cases.

We can do this. It is achievable. That way employment tribunals would not have to go to the full hearing. It can be stopped. It can be intervened. And lessons have to be learned. Not say, "Yes, we are not accepting liability, here is £1,000". That is not the answer. The answer is, let us see where the Metropolitan Police has gone wrong and where we can improve, because after all, the Police Service is a very public service; any changes that we make are reflected in other industries.

Miss Weekes: Some might say, Mr Virdi: well, was an indictment against the Metropolitan Police that you have to bring in independent persons to tell them how to deal with discrimination cases which are being dealt with up and down the country every day, because that is what it would amount to, would it not?

A. Well, it is, because people in the Metropolitan Police Service, senior officers, cannot deal with these cases.

Miss Weekes: Is there some way that one could encourage them to deal with these cases successfully, without the need for an independent person?

A. Like I said, I have made my first steps; I have tried to get people round the table and get some sort of resolution. I am sure if a thousand other officers did the same thing we would have changes. Senior officers would listen, instead of giving everything to the legal services and them fighting the case to the end. I mean, it costs thousands and thousands of pounds. Now the victim, or the claimant who is actually taking the case forward, has got a limited budget. Some of them even put their houses on remortgage to fight the case. Whereas the Met has a pocket which carries on going.

My case –

Miss Weekes: Of course, unfortunately, it is public funds, coming out of all our pockets in this room.

A. It is taxpayers' money.

When we settled the second tribunal of my case, I said to them, "The three commanders who made the decision to dismiss me, get it out of their pocket, let them pay for it." That is the only way people will learn and next time they will think twice. At the moment they have got legal services, unlimited funds to fight a case which probably does not even need fighting. That is the issue. Nobody is being held accountable for that – nobody.

The Commissioner is not asking, "Why are you spending so much money in an Inquiry on a discipline hearing, on employment tribunals?" Why is the MPA not asking? And yet when it comes to budget, "Oh yes, we need more money, we need more officers". Hang on, let us tackle the issues as well.

Why should the public look at their TV or listen to the radio and say, "Oh, not another case, more taxpayers' money gone"?

Miss Weekes: Yes, I think you are referring to the rather recent one which has settled.

A. I am referring to quite a few recent ones which have been settled.

Miss Weekes: It is 12.45 and, as the Chairman indicated, we are going to stop. I would like to return just to one topic, which is the MPA, after the break, if I may.

Sir William Morris: We will stand adjourned until 2 o'clock.

12.45 pm
(The short adjournment)
2.00 pm

Sir William Morris: Welcome back, everyone, to the afternoon session of the Inquiry. Miss Weekes was still asking some questions. Please go on with your questions.

Miss Weekes: Thank you very much.

Mr Virdi, I think we finished before the adjournment with my suggestion that I would want to come back for your views on the role of the MPA. Part of our terms of reference is that we consider and make recommendations on the role of the police authority and its members in relation to the consideration of high profile or sensitive cases.

You have got immediate experience of the role that the MPA played in your case. It may not have played a role, I do not know. First of all, can I have your views on what happened in relation to anything that the MPA did or did not do in relation to your case?

A. If I remember correctly, initially the MPA was just formed, and although I wrote to [redacted] at the time, we got very little in our response.

After the case was decided at the employment tribunal, I then wrote to the Home Secretary, asking them to conduct an independent inquiry or an investigation. I think as a response of that the MPA decided that David Muir should be leading on that investigation and conducting the inquiry. David Muir was very good when we started working together in order to settle the settled claim, all that we had to go through, the legal loops, and especially the legal services department were being very obstructive. He facilitated a meeting with myself and Sir John to discuss the way forward. He also then intervened at certain stages in order to get things moving.

With regard to the role of the MPA as a whole, I find it very disappointing, really, considering it is the public authority looking after the Police Service. I have been to a few meetings where members of the public want to raise issues. They are not fully entitled to. Although they have got a forum for doing so, it is very much controlled by the corps and Lord Harris.

I remember a case when a lady raised her case that the fund had gone through and it was basically pushed to one side, you know, and I thought that is really disappointing considering it is a public authority and they are people elected by people, the general public.

The other thing I found very disappointing was the lack of their willingness to intervene in cases. Some of the cases I have been involved in as a support worker, I have raised it and there has been no intervention. And I believe if positive intervention was made by them, I think we would move far further. Even regarding – I am sorry to come back to my own case, a recent case in which I got race hate mail again, only one person asked questions and that was [redacted] and she is the only one who responded.

I find it very disappointing when items relating to the police are in the public domain and that the MPA are very reluctant to get involved. In election year they want to say the right thing, have photographs taken, yes, fine, but look after the public. Look after the public we serve and the officers we serve.

Miss Weekes: Can I just follow up two important aspects of your helpful response.

When the MPA intervene, how do you think that could be done practicably? I want to just get an understanding of how it would work.

A. I think, if – for example, if I was to raise a case with the MPA and say, "This has not been resolved inside, can you intervene?", one of the members, or the committee of a professional standard should say, "Hang on, let me review this for you". It is an independent review. You can go through the papers and say, "Yes, it is a case of settlement, no, it is a case we have to fight". Let them make the decision.

Quite rightly, they intervened in the [redacted] case, where the family, regardless who is to blame, the family have suffered a loss. Same with the real case, same with other deaths in custody. A family has suffered loss. We, as public servants, need to support the family. The tendency is we – I say "we" – the Metropolitan Police goes against them. The full weight of the legal services should be behind them.

The intervention I made recently, when the officers were given full backing to appeal, the MPA decided to back the family as well. I think that was very good and more of that should happen.

Miss Weekes: So that is a good recent example.

A. That is a good recent example where the MPA can do something positive.

Miss Weekes: How long ago was that example, Mr Virdi?

A. This was quite recently. It was in the public domain about a month and a half ago. This is [redacted].

Miss Weekes: So you think that would be quite a useful one for us to look at by way of a good example of –

A. Yes, I am only going by public reports and what I have read, and to me I think that is a very good example: it is again building confidence in the community.

Miss Weekes: How will that sit with the role of the IPCC? They have a role to be statutory, do they not?

A. Madam, I am not privy to their terms of reference or workings. I think I am not in a position to comment on that.

Miss Weekes: That is fair. That is a fair point. I will not pursue that.

Just one additional point: high profile cases, sensitive cases. Sensitive cases might be a race case, but there are other sensitive issues that may not have anything to do with race. Are there any special pointers that you would like to flag up as to the role that the MPA can play when you have sensitive issues or high profile cases?

A. I think the control to run those cases should go to the MPA, not the Metropolitan Police Service because, like I say, the Metropolitan Police Service, I find senior officers very unwilling to make decisions, and everything rests on the legal services. After all, legal services are supposed to give advice to senior police officers, not run the Police Service on behalf of senior officers, which I think is happening at the moment.

Miss Weekes: I want to make sure I have understood you. You think that high profile cases – and there would have to be some decision about what a high profile case is – should come completely outside of the Met into the MPA.

A. Definitely for reviewing.

Miss Weekes: Ah, for reviewing, not –

A. And if the police are not doing anything properly, then they should take over, full stop.

Miss Weekes: Two things, I think. If the Met begin a high profile investigation and it is deemed not to be going well, then it should go to the MPA.

A. It should go to the MPA, or an MP or Member of Parliament, even in the House of Lords, somebody, a high public figure should write in and express their concern, it should go to the MPA. [Redacted]when the MP writes in to Sir John it does not go to Sir John, it goes back to the investigating officer who is investigating the victim. So I think at that point the MPA should take control and lead.

Miss Weekes: Right. Some may say, "Well, again, one is not allowing the Met to get on with its job". What about a halfway house of the Metropolitan Police Authority stepping in to give firm advice, guidelines, guidance as to how that investigation could be improved? What is your view on that?

A. If Metropolitan Police officers, senior command officers, would do the job properly, there would be no reason for intervention. Presently, I think there is a strong case for the MPA to intervene, to hold people accountable.

I agree with you. If an officer is doing his job properly he should be left to do his job. There are a lot of officers who do their job properly, but there are others who do not and they get the approval of more senior officers, then the MPA should say, "There is something not right here, we should intervene", and they intervene. They have the power to do so. They have been elected, they get paid. They do not get paid to sit on their backsides, they get paid to make decisions and I think that is what they should do.

Miss Weekes: The Chairman in his opening remarks stressed that we are keen to find out what is good about the Met. You and I perfectly correctly have gone through a detailed account of many valid criticisms and your helpful comments. I just want to ask this: since you have come back to the Met, have you got a good example of something that has cheered you, that has made you feel, yes, it was worth coming back?

A. Can you stop white officers – unfortunately because I think minority officers... I am very pleased that, for example, [Redacted], how he intervened, and for example how he dealt with the Linden report, how he deals with the community, how he goes out and speaks to members of the community. He is a very good role model.

Mr Fuller, very proud of him to be the Chief Constable of Kent. Good officers, recognised at last.

Like I said earlier on, [redacted] and [redacted], the way they facilitated me to come in.

There are some good points. My line managers, they do a good job –

Miss Weekes: This is your line manager at Scotland Yard?

A. Presently, my present department. I get the full backing, and if there are difficulties I make a point of discussing it and they know I will discuss it. So there are many good examples, and there are good officers as well. I mean, yes – the SO6 report. I do not know whether you have seen a copy of this, but this was handed to me by a white officer who was concerned that my career was being obstructed. It took a lot of courage for him to say this to me and again give me a copy as well.

Most of the time people would just turn a blind eye. You know, there is a lot of good work done by departments, recruitment for example. I have helped out in recruitment. There is good work being done. Training school I think needs to be looked at, but there are good officers at training school who are doing a fine job to get all these people in, get them trained and get them back on the streets.

I cannot say they are all bad. That would be wrong for me to say. There are good officers, but they do not get recognised as much.

Miss Weekes: And I note that after a little persuasion by you, your good work has been recognised because you were given an award.

A. I hope.

Miss Weekes: You tell me, Mr Virdi, who gave you the award.

A. Well, most of my good work in the community is given by the communities.

Miss Weekes: But the Metropolitan Police recognised an aspect of your work when you came back, I think; is that right?

A. Well, the award given to me by the Metropolitan Police was with regard to disarming a youth with a gun and for my dealing with the stabbing incident in Hanwell prior to all this happening. Again, it was me who questioned it, and then an independent ACPO officer assessed the situation and gave me an Assistant Commissioner's commendation, whereas in Ealing where I was they were willing to stab me in the back and give me nothing. It just shows you the level of people who are good and bad, and again you have got to ask for it.

Even when I get awards from the community, there was no reporting in the internal job magazine; there was no reporting when I came back into the service; I had to ask for it. And only then you get a small paragraph. But the report was about six pages long.

Miss Weekes: That is a complaint from both white and black officers, that there is not enough recognition.

A. Well no, I think if you look at the things I have done for the community, I mean, I have arranged exhibitions, I have been out with them, I have helped at local charities. If I was a white officer, I would be recognised. Because it is me, I do not get recognised. For example, we had a day centre, Southall day centre. We had a visit, [Redacted], myself, [Redacted], and my photo was cut out, whereas the other two officers were there while my photograph is cut out. That is the things they play on.

Miss Weekes: Did you complain about that?

A. I did, yes.

Miss Weekes: What was the result of your complaint?

A. Nothing. Everything goes in a big circle and it takes time, it takes years, nothing ever gets done about it. Now I have complained about the SO6 report. I have spoken to [redacted] personally and told him this is hindering my career. He said he would do something, he wrote a letter, and I disagreed with it and did my own version and he sent it up to [redacted] to make a decision. Here we have [redacted] being paid large amounts of money using his position to make a decision, and yet he sends it to the next level up. And yet they will come here no doubt, and I will guarantee you they will say junior officer pushing things up, but they are doing just the same thing. The buck has to stop and somebody has to take responsibility.

This report is very damning for me, and it has been spread around senior managers. I cannot go for promotion, I cannot go for development, because senior officers have made their mind up when reading this report.

My career is basically finished in the Metropolitan Police. What motivation do I have coming to work? Not only do I have to face my career prospects are nil, I have to deal with race cases and I get harassment from senior officers who do not like me, I get harassment from individuals who do not like me. I sometimes think: hang on, I have a law degree, I have other qualifications, I have life skills, maybe I should go elsewhere. Sathat says the same thing. But I am determined to do my 30 years. I am determined to carry it out. I have a duty to do and I want to do it.

Miss Weekes: Thank you very much, Mr Virdi. That is all my questions.

A. Sorry, madam, before you finish, you know we raised the issue about the Independent Advisory Group report, I did send a copy to you.

Miss Weekes: Yes, I think that is right.

A. You have seen it?

Miss Weekes: I have, thank you very much.

A. It might be worth asking questions of senior management if they have ever seen it.

Miss Weekes: We will.

Sir William Morris: Thank you, Mr Virdi. I will invite Sir Anthony to put his questions.

Questions by Sir Anthony Burden

Sir Anthony Burden: The panel are obviously very concerned at the treatment you have received in relation to the media and press coverage of your case. As a consequence within the MPA report, recommendation 8, it says this:

"The press strategy should be adopted that (a) explains how to deal effectively with race-specific and high profile cases using the learning from critical incident training. It includes the principles contained in the National Union of Journalist Guidelines on Race Reporting and does not compromise the principles of natural justice."

Having come back into the Metropolitan Police and all the experience you have had with the BPA in supporting colleagues, has anything changed in relation to adopting that particular recommendation?

A. I would say no. The reason why, the first case that comes to my mind after reading that is the Ali Dizaei case. Ali Dizaei is a superintendent in the Metropolitan Police. [Redacted] Both have been accused of fiddling the expenses. Ali has been accused of making threats. The white officer has been accused of beating up his wife. They both are similar personalities, yet Ali's case was put out in the media so he does not get natural justice while the other officer has been put in an office and everything is kept quiet. Everybody knows that in Scotland Yard, and yet people will not say anything.

We have two officers, similar rank, similar circumstances, one is high profile, one is not. Who is going to get justice? Things have not changed.

Sir Anthony Burden: You will have read in the review report that you have recently received that the Chairman referred to this morning – that is the review report that we actually sought from [redacted] – on page 30, the press strategy is actually referred to under paragraph 13.2, it says:

"The operational order relating to the arrest of Sergeant Virdi states, 'There is a prepared strategy for this operation which is to be overseen by [redacted] in area headquarters. Enquiries from the press should be referred to the area press office [giving a number] which will inform [redacted] accordingly. Press strategy is attached to the decision log and sets out two options for dealing with the press. These are essentially preparing a statement to be provided to the press on an if asked basis or offering the prepared statement to the press. The recommendation which appears to have been adopted is to offer the statement. The recommendation also contains a proposal to confirm the ethnicity of the suspect, who was of course Sergeant Virdi, on an if asked basis. There is also a stated intention not to go into details about the motive."

Could I seek your views on the decision that was made in your case, please?

A. I do not think you seek my views, sir, all you have to do is read the Daily Mail of 16th April. It says it all. Ethnicity is mentioned, motive is mentioned, the interview is mentioned, the files going to the Attorney General is mentioned, and none of these things happened, and nobody will have known that apart from [redacted], [redacted], who may I add, after my first interview, knowing that I could not be at a certain place at a certain time, then went out to issue immunity orders to officers so they can lie, which is very perverse.

Sir Anthony Burden: Having gone through this terrible trauma, you and your family, as a consequence of the media coverage, do you feel there is a case, ever a case, for issuing a press statement, an official statement from the organisation about the arrest, as it was in your case, of a police officer at that early stage prior to trial.

A. Well, there is always a case. It is a matter of public interest. But amazingly, it only happens when it is ethnic minority officers. It does not happen when it is white officers. I have done a list for you in my submission. All you get is a little headline in teletext or you read the newspapers; nothing as full blown as what ethnic minority officers go through. And then we are threatened that we cannot talk to the media otherwise you get more discipline offences against you. That is the

Skip Navigation \| Accessible

Accessibility About the Inquiry Contacts Search
Home News Schedule Transcripts Evidence Report Links
Transcripts > Sergeant G Virdi (03 Jun 04)
QuickSearch See also On this website: Evidence: Sergeant G Virdi	Previous Next	Views Print Accessible Actions Send
	Archive note Important note: This is an archive of the website that was formerly at www.morrisinquiry.gov.uk. It is being hosted on the MPA website for archival purposes only and may contain out-of-date information. Page summary This resource is from the Transcripts section. This section contains a transcript of the public session with Sergeant G Virdi on 3 June 2004. Sections available here: Transcript of public session: Sergeant G Virdi Questions by Sir William Morris Questions by Miss Weekes Questions by Sir Anthony Burden Alternative versions These transcripts are available as plain text documents with original line and page numbering. Morning session Afternoon session Content Transcript of public session: Sergeant G Virdi Thursday, 3 June 2004 10.30 am Sir William Morris: Good morning everyone, and good morning to you, Mr Virdi and Mrs Virdi. Can I first of all say thank you very much indeed for accepting our invitation to attend the Inquiry this morning and indeed to give evidence, and thank you also for letting us have your written submission, which we found extremely helpful. I do appreciate that for some of our witnesses the process might be somewhat daunting so I thought it might be helpful if I set out very briefly how we propose to conduct the hearing this morning. 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 I have been asked to chair the Inquiry. As you can see, there are two other members of the panel. 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 who sits as a recorder and a part-time chairperson for employment tribunals. She was also counsel to the Lawrence Inquiry. Mr Virdi, as you know we have been asked by the Metropolitan Police Authority to conduct an independent public inquiry into professional standards and employment matters in the Metropolitan Police Service. In addition, we are required by our terms of reference to identify lessons to be learned from recent high profile cases and, as you know, we have decided to treat your recent experience as one of those high profile cases. The Inquiry that we are conducting is by nature inquisitorial and not adversarial. Our focus will be on the MPS as an organisation and not the individuals who make up the organisation. Nevertheless, we need to hear from individuals such as those who have been involved in high profile cases in order that we can understand better how the policies, practices, procedures and conventions of the Metropolitan Police Service has impacted on them. We want to understand that because we want to learn lessons from their experience that will help us as a panel to inform the future. We are very 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 or individuals in particular. As I have said to previous witnesses, of course we want to hear what is wrong with the Met, if there is anything wrong, but we also want to hear what is right with it. But most importantly, we want to hear from all our witnesses any suggestions that they can offer in making it better. We have no wish to go back over the details of your experience because you have sent us a full written submission and we have read your submissions most carefully. In addition to that, we have also commissioned a report from an independent investigator which has been sent to you, so we have more than a clear idea of events. Recently we wrote to you asking you to focus on particular areas, and these were mirrored in the issues that we asked our independent investigator to address. Drawing on all this experience, we want this morning to ask some further questions of you so that we can focus on the issues where we believe you can help us most. At the end of these introductory remarks, one of my colleagues will lead on the questions to you, followed by the remainder of the panel who may have further supplementary questions. When we have completed asking you the questions that we wish to put to you, I want to offer you the opportunity to make a brief closing statement, comment, if you so wish. But for the record, let me draw to your attention that a transcript of our proceedings is in fact being taken this morning in order that we can have an accurate record of the evidence given by all our witnesses. We hope that you will feel able to speak freely about your experience so that we can identify the lessons for the future, but, as I have said, our remit is the way that the organisation operates, not the details about other individuals who form part of the story of your experience. Whilst we will be publishing the transcript of this hearing, together with your written submissions and our investigator's report shortly after this session, we will only do so after we have removed any reference to named individuals or details of those who you may mention, so that we can be sure that the published transcript contains no information which identifies other individuals. I am sure you will understand that it may also 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. But before I ask my colleague to begin the question, for the benefit of the transcript, I wonder whether you would mind formally introducing yourself to the Inquiry? A. Yes. Thank you, Sir Bill Morris. Thank you for allowing me to come to this Inquiry and give my submission. My name is Gurpal Virdi. I am a detective sergeant in the Metropolitan Police. Next to me is my wife, Sathat Virdi, [redacted]. In the audience is [redacted], he is my support worker officer, prior to which it was [redacted]. I work at the specialist Crown directorate at New Scotland Yard. I have some issues regarding your independent – Sir William Morris: We will come to that. A. Okay. Sir William Morris: We will come to that in a minute. I am assuming that the introduction is now completed, so that we are very clear. A. Okay. I am very nervous as well. Sir William Morris: Please do not be. My colleague, Sir Anthony, has a matter about which he would like to say a few words before I start my introductory questions, so for progress I will go straight over and ask Sir Anthony for his comments. Sir Anthony Burden: Good morning. A. Morning, sir. Sir Anthony Burden: As Sir Bill mentioned a moment ago, I retired from South Wales police at Christmas last year, at the end of the year. You will be fully aware that [redacted], of South Wales Police, was the officer appointed by the PCA to conduct an independent review of your case, and that review report of course has gone to the Metropolitan Police Service. I just wanted to mention for the record that I was unaware, I would not have expected to be aware, that [redacted], or any officer supporting him from South Wales, had been appointed to review your case until just before I retired from South Wales and for you to be assured that I had absolutely no involvement in that review process, so I was completely unaware of it, in fact until I mentioned that I was coming on this Inquiry. That was the first time it was mentioned to me. Just as a matter for the record. A. Okay. Sir William Morris: Thanks very much. Sir Anthony Burden: You say "okay", as long as you are happy with what I said. A. There are some criticisms, as you know, Sir Anthony. The report has been returned to the PCA. As you were Chief Constable at the time I think there is some responsibility bearing on your shoulders because you were in charge of the service. Sir Anthony Burden: Well, that is not how the system works, but as you have said that, I think maybe we need to adjourn for a moment. Sir William Morris: If you wish, Sir Anthony. We will adjourn for a few minutes. 10.45 am (A short break) 11.15 am Sir William Morris: Thank you for bearing with us, Mr Virdi, while we considered your reaction to Sir Anthony's brief statement. We have considered the matter as a panel and we have done so most carefully. May I now explain the process. Where the PCA considered that a case review should be conducted by an outside Police Service, it was responsible for approaching a member of the Professional Standards Department of the selected force. [Redacted]was contacted by the PCA and asked to conduct the review of your case on their behalf. His involvement would have been agreed by the Assistant Chief Constable responsible for professional standards in South Wales. Sir Anthony was not involved in that process, just as he would not have been involved in any similar approach from the PCA. It was [redacted] who was appointed to conduct the review on an independent basis, not the South Wales Constabulary. As Sir Anthony has said, he did not know and would not have expected to have known of this appointment until very shortly before his own retirement. Sir Anthony had no involvement whatsoever with [redacted] review, whether as supervising officer or otherwise. Indeed, Sir Anthony has only recently seen the [redacted] Report as part of the Inquiry process. In the circumstances, I now intend to proceed with the hearing. Questions by Sir William Morris Before we adjourned, you indicated that you had one or two comments which you wished to make regarding the investigator's report. Can I say right at the outset that we have made the report available to your good self. We have not asked the investigator to conduct a full case review, but merely to provide us with answers to those questions that we wanted to ask about each high profile case. It was, as I repeat, not a full case review, but a review to inform the panel in respect of areas of particular interest taking the submissions into account. It is not my intention, therefore, that we should hear a detailed comment on the report, but it would be helpful if you could let us have your overall impression on our investigator's report, and that opportunity is now provided to you. A. Thank you, sir. At the outset you said the whole idea of the Inquiry is to speak freely, learn how the organisation operates in order to improve the situation. I think with high profile cases you are going to get this. Overall with this report I was surprised at the report. Here we have at last a report that does not fully rubber stamp all previous reports. It is mostly a cut and paste of other reports, but it goes further to highlight some of the injustices that we, my family and I, had to endure. If I could take a few points. I will not be going into that much detail, I will be summarising. For example, on page 3, description of the case, and he refers to these documents. Nowhere is shown that he is referring to the Independent Advisory Group report. Nowhere is it shown that the computer experts on my behalf, [redacted], have been consulted. Nowhere in the reading does he mention SO6, although he does go on to talk about the SO6 report inside it. When he goes through the chronological events, there are some issues which we might cover. There is no mention in the chronology of the race incident I dealt with where two Asian youths were stabbed by five white youths. I believe that was a catalyst whilst I was on the Ealing division which got things moving against me. There is no mention of the Daily Mail article on 16th April. [Redacted], the computer expert used by the Met, is mentioned. But they do not mention that [redacted]has an interest; he sells software to the MPS. Again, page 10, 25th August, throughout all of the inquiries I am being blamed for the cause of delay of the disciplinary hearing. We have a clear entry on 24th August: "DS Virdi's solicitors seek an adjournment of the discipline hearing as the computer expert is not ready." The computer expert was never ready. He was never called at the disciplinary hearing. Again, it highlights how the Met has been operating against me. On page 11, he talks about the SO6 report. There is no mention of the IAG report, which is very, very important. It was a report done by nine independent members of the public who had been witnessing the discipline hearing independently. This report suddenly disappears. Why does it disappear? I asked this question. Was it because [redacted] was told not to come to the disciplinary hearing and she has a visit from three senior officers of the Metropolitan Police who then order [redacted] to do an internal SO6 report? Something is not right, and there is a clear line of what is going on; how the Metropolitan Police are manipulating the system to have a go at me, to destroy me, destroy my family, destroy my community, and nobody is touching it. There is no mention of an apology from [redacted] in the chronological events. There is no mention of how the West Midlands Police were initially appointed to overview this case prior to [redacted]. They were stopped because they threatened more disciplinary action against me. There is no mention of an apology from [redacted], and there is no mention that I returned the report to the PCA. And above all, there is no mention whatsoever about the MPA report. You know, we have all these allegedly very highly qualified senior officers, and where the truth is coming through nobody wants to know. It has been rubber stamped all the way through my case, rubber stamped, rubber stamped, rubber stamped. Page 13, basis for the investigation. They say section 19 Public Order Act. Prior to the disciplinary hearing I was told that was not the case, it was some minor harassment offence I was being investigated for, and the report carries on – I am going to jump now to – sorry, it is right in front of me. It is seven years of things I have got in my mind. Just a couple of lines down, it clearly says: "It did not amount to ... there was no criminal offence." So the offence we are looking at, section 19 of the Public Order Act, in fact there was no criminal offence. So in fact what they did, they knew it was illegal, they searched my house with a POLSA team, on arrest for an arrestable offence, which in fact it was not. Madam, you are a criminal lawyer, you should probably know that. The offence we are looking at was a summary offence and that is why the CPS were not interested. Throughout the whole reports, you also see the name of [redacted] coming up again and again. They always seem to say he is the one who authorised the search of my family home. The helicopter photographs taken of my home, the surveillance on my home. But then again, he is a very senior officer; you would think, as a senior officer, it is a planned operation, and even a junior officer, a PC, knows that if it is a planned operation you go and get a search warrant. Nobody has actually attempted to deal with this. The reason why they did not get a search warrant is because it would have been rejected. The officers clearly abused their position. Page 17, where I have been tape recorded by my senior officer, trying to entrap me because they read a profile of the offender. Well, obviously the profile did not fit me and they try all these methods. I had surveillance cameras on me while I was at Hanwell police station and Ealing police station. You think, what the hell is going on? Again, they search the home and again they agree, it is a fishing expedition. There is no documented victim care strategy, page 20. And not serving me the form 163 which says I am suspected of a discipline offence. There does not appear to be any logic to the reasons for not serving this notice, it says, clearly says. And the appointment of a Federation rep. A Federation rep who I do not even know. I get a phone call while my house is being searched and it has been appointed by [redacted] who is heading the inquiry. You think, hang on, why are these things being noted? Again, page 22, again it talks about arrestable offence and the search of the house, "The power to search his home, this seems to be the only motivation for his arrest", to search my home, to conduct a fishing expedition. Page 22, [redacted] is mentioned. [Redacted] on page 25 says, "There are virtually no volunteers for the role", to sit on a discipline panel because most senior officers had realised the whole case was a mess, and senior officers were trying to frame an innocent man, send him to prison and abuse the law. Nobody wants to tackle these issues. You think, why not? Again, page 27, he goes through the evidence. The employment tribunal breaks the evidence. It goes into details. It says that Sergeant Virdi could not have done the offences because they said at one incident I was at another place, Acton police station, while one was allegedly going on three miles away. The second occasion, the despatch, which had been sealed on a Friday, two days prior to the racist hate mail on the Sunday, it could not have been done; it was impossible. How can a racist letter printed on Sunday be in a sealed bag on the Friday? Clear evidence. Any investigating officer, any normal PC would know this is abuse, this is not looking at the evidence, this is targeting an individual, Sergeant Virdi; we are going to convict him and we are going to be looking good at the Stephen Lawrence Inquiry. Again, page 28, there is no offence, section 19. Page 30, it goes on to paragraph 13.2, there have been arguments and counter arguments between the MPS and DS Virdi about disclosure to the press. The Daily Mail article on the 16th. I have a statement from [redacted] and he denies all knowledge of it, and he concludes: "The conclusion is that the MPS release the statement to the detriment of DS Virdi." You know, I have been arrested on the 15th, for eight hours my house is searched, then I go to police stations. I am not interviewed, I am suspended without given reasons until I challenge them. An article appears on 16th April, the day after. I have not been interviewed. In the article it says that an officer has been arrested, searched his home, his motive is because he did not get a promotion. He has been interviewed and the file is going to the Attorney General for a decision. I had not even been interviewed. The only people who can release this information is the Met Police, the DPA, in cahoots with the Daily Mail. I was interviewed on the 17th. Page 33: "This was a difficult and complex investigation carried out by officers with little or no detective experience". I fully agree, a bunch of idiots. Sorry, but that is how I feel. And what has happened to them? Most of them have been promoted, retired on full health some of them. And where am I? I am still suffering. Still suffering. Sorry, sir, I sometimes get carried away, but it is important that in a public inquiry like this people should be aware how the Met operates. That is why, when Mr Burden said he was South Wales, I as an officer would say, "Hang on, he is in charge, he is now denying it, and [redacted] is our Chief Constable, she is an ex-Met officer." We think there is corruption going on. [Redacted] says in front of [redacted] my MP – [redacted] my MP is meeting [redacted] this afternoon. He says in front of my MP, "I am not happy to release this but we are going to release it. It is the first time it has ever been done. It is a complete report." When I go home and look at it, half the stuff is missing. It is all rubber stamping the internal SO6 report. I returned it to the PCA. If crap practices are going on, I do not want to be a part of it, and I think any person looking from the outside should look at the overall picture of what goes on, how senior officers operate, how the discipline procedure is abused in the Metropolitan Police. Sir William Morris: Can I just say that I have allowed you to offer us a page by page chronology in respect of your response to our investigator's report, and I emphasise our investigator's report. I have also advised you of our consideration as a panel in respect of the comments you made earlier regarding officers associated with the South Wales Police Service. It is not my intention to open either the investigator's report or indeed to revisit the statement that I made earlier on the basis of how we proceed. I wanted to be satisfied that you, in the interests of natural justice, had an opportunity to comment on our report, the investigator's report, and you have done so. But as I mentioned in my opening words, we ask for a report not as a case review but on a series of specific questions, a series of specific questions, in relation to the questions that we have put to you. We have put a series of questions to you, issues that we ask you to address today, and we asked our investigator to respond on those issues by way of a report, and we make no pretence that it was a full case review; it was not. The investigator has produced a report which we will take and consider in light or in line with your written submission. I think the submissions that you have offered us in various documents are as full as one could have expected and these have been considered in a careful and diligent way of proceeding. So we are satisfied, very satisfied, that the report we have received is for the purpose of informing our work – it is to inform our thinking, not a case review, as you might have liked or would have wished; that was not the purpose of the exercise. It is in that setting that the report was commissioned, received, and will be used as information in informing our thinking as a panel. Moving on to the series of questions, it is my intention now to ask Miss Weekes to lead on the questions which we want you to help us on as we take the Inquiry and your case in particular, as a high profile case, forward. Miss Weekes. Questions by Miss Weekes Miss Weekes: Thank you. Mr Virdi, I think it would be helpful if I set out my approach and the purpose of my approach. I am very grateful, in a way, that you have touched upon some of the history because it is important in this public inquiry that we of course take on board your views, your feelings, about what has happened to you. I would like to begin with a very brief – and I stress it is a very brief – review of what happened to you and your return to the Met, so that we have got a reminder. I know you know the facts extremely well. They are just snippets of the events which I have chosen; it is not everything, because otherwise I will be here all morning because so much has happened. I then want to move, if I may, to giving you an opportunity to help us on the lessons to be learned, because our terms of reference says "to identify lessons to be learned from the outcome of recent high profile cases", and I think you are in a very good position to help us with the lessons to be learned. So do not be surprised that I do not ask you about the detail of what happened to you. Can I first of all start with just a very brief appraisal of the chronology. We will all recall, because a great deal of publicity has resulted from your case, that the first racist e-mail became evident in December 1997, a long time ago now. A senior manager was asked to investigate about five days later. Then throughout 1998 these things happened: they discovered that the logo was identified as being someone within Ealing station; by February 1998, a press strategy was agreed that the ethnicity of the suspect would be released on an if asked basis; you were spoken to by your line manager, and that was covertly taped without your knowledge; April 1998, your house was searched using a POLSA team, which took about seven hours. Before your interview there was a press release, giving the ethnicity of yourself and disclosing to the press a motive for sending the alleged racist e-mail. I stress it was before you were interviewed. A. That is right. Miss Weekes: The CPS were asked for their advice in May 1998. They advised insufficient evidence to prosecute. Moving on quickly – I said I would select – throughout 1999 you again were given the decision that no criminal charges would be preferred. Then, in August, Russell Jones and Walker asked for an adjournment to get their own computer expert, which is obviously important. You were given a date for your disciplinary hearing, which was due to take place in December 1999, but in fact it did not happen until March of 2000. 3rd March was a memorable day for you, you were dismissed from the force. You had already lodged an employment tribunal case for race discrimination way back in June 1998, but because of your disciplinary that was not dealt with. But it was dealt with on 7th July 2000. Forgive me, there was a directions hearing before that, but in July 2000 that was the start of the employment tribunal case. You lodged your grounds of appeal against your dismissal in June/August, so there was quite a lot going on; there is an overlap, you have got the tribunal case and you have also got the disciplinary. 23rd August 2000, the tribunal found that the Metropolitan Police did in fact act in a racist manner towards you, so your case of race discrimination was upheld. I think it would be helpful if I very briefly refer to the precise finding of that employment tribunal. You need not turn to it, Mr Virdi, I am going to read it for you: "[Redacted] was treated as a suspect in relation to the production of the racist hate mail in a way that was different from PC Virdi, who was also a suspect. She is a true comparator within the meaning of section 3.4 of the Race Relations Act 1976. PC Virdi was treated differently and to his detriment for the following reasons: "(a) In the failure to interview him in an informal way in the same way as [redacted] was; "(b) In the attempt to entrap him in a taped personal interview on 24th February 1998; "(c) In the use of the POLSA team to search his house; "(d) To arrest and subsequently suspend him from duty without sufficient evidence to support the allegations. "The explanations put forward by the respondent [who is the Metropolitan Police] as representing good investigation practice are not substantiable or justifiable. We therefore infer and conclude that the reason for their failures is not incompetence but is because of PC Virdi's race. We therefore find that Gurpal Virdi, the applicant, has been the subject of discrimination on the grounds of his race." Again, let us remind ourselves of the reasons for the award you were given. You had a remedies hearing, and after a good deal of discussion between the tribunal, having heard from both parties, the tribunal and not you or your solicitor made a decision to award you £100,000 injury to feelings, and they also awarded £25,000 aggravated damages, plus £24,688 interest from the date that you lodged your IT claim to the date of the trial, plus £2,000 financial loss for missed opportunity for overtime. We know that the Metropolitan Police Authority were asked to look into the whole history, and they produced a report which we, the panel, are very familiar with now. That was in 2001. In March of 2002 – I am really skipping through the chronology – you finally returned to work. I have done that, Mr Virdi, so that I could now move to the real purpose of my questions and the duty that I have to conduct on this panel of identifying lessons to be learned, and I know that you have come really to help with us that because we are very keen for your help. I am going to approach the lessons to be learned in this way: I am going to refer to the recommendations from the Virdi Report, because you may be able to help me as to whether you are aware as to whether or not they have been carried through – A. Can I just stop you there, madam? Miss Weekes: Hmm. A. The first Virdi Report you see there, myself and my wife were not even consulted. So the recommendations were made without any input from myself or my wife. Only two weeks ago there has been a Virdi part 2, which is done by the Metropolitan Police Authority and headed by David Muir. So those recommendations you are going to read out are nothing to do with us. Miss Weekes: You are going to have an opportunity to add to it as we go along, but as it is a public document and those recommendations are still current, or should be, I would like your help on them. But thank you very much for reminding me of that fact. It is on the screen, and I am going to go to it in a moment, but, again, to be fair to you, this entire full history of your treatment has clearly had an effect upon you and your family. I know from your written submission that you have given us that your wife, who sits with you today, worked at a local library at the time and she had to move. I know that your parents attend a local mosque – A. Temple. Miss Weekes: Temple, forgive me, where they were isolated and the entire family were made to feel dreadful. You were the governor of a school and you had to step down because of a number of questions you were being asked. And most importantly, both your parents have since sadly died. I just wanted to ensure that you understood that we have taken that on board. You made a decision to come back to the Met despite all of that, and one of the things that you have said – and it was your Radio 4 interview in December of 2003 – is this. Again, do not trouble to turn to it; I have got it. You said this: "The decision was: do I go back to the same environment, the same culture that has just tried to put me behind bars? So my wife and I sat down and I said, 'Look, I need to go back, it is the career that I wanted, there is something that drives me towards it. We cannot let the racist officers get away with it.' On those bases I decided to go back." That is right, is it not? A. Yes, that is right. Miss Weekes: Mr Virdi, was there a special reason why you decided – in addition to not wanting those who wronged you to get away with it, what was the assistance, what was the input you felt you could bring to the Met by coming back? A. Like you said, madam, I have no intention of running away from racists, I have no intention of letting young officers suffer in the hands of a racist. There was a myth of compensation culture at the time; that had to be destroyed. I had another job and another career started; I gave that up. Again, my wife objected to it. There was a sense of duty to do. I joined the Police Service because I wanted to join the Police Service. Two individuals who helped me – three (inaudible) – helped me throughout the case are [redacted] and [redacted]. I could just not let them down, I could not let the community down. We had to do something which would show youngsters there is a job in the Metropolitan Police, for them to join to change the Police Service. We cannot be operating in the 19th century. Recruitment needs to go up because while my case was going on recruitment fell dramatically. As you will realise, as soon as I came back in recruitment (inaudible). So it is a combination of a lot of things. Miss Weekes: I am grateful, thank you. Can we go back now to the recommendations, and please feel free to add your personal view of these recommendations. I am looking at number 1, right at the top of the page: "Regulations, particularly in regard to discipline, should be interpreted with common sense and reasonableness in an attempt to eliminate unnecessary bureaucracy and unjustified cost both financially and in personal terms." At the time of your discipline, you were being dealt with under the 1985 regulations. We have moved on quite a bit since. A. Have we? Miss Weekes: I will have your view in a moment, but in terms of different regulations, there has been movement. We have got the 1999 regulations, which do still exist, and the 2004 regulations are in draft form. First of all, do you agree with that recommendation that, as regards discipline, they should be interpreted with common sense and reasonableness? Do you agree with that? A. I fully agree. Miss Weekes: And do you think now that is the way the Met does approach these issues? A. I am sorry to say, no, it does not. I do a lot of support work as a BPA member and I have still got a number of cases on my books which young officers, even mature officers – I have dealt with PC to ACPO level, where they are just facing bureaucracy and length of delay, unnecessary discipline, where in comparison to a white officer, if a white officer has done wrong he is quickly reprimanded and given words of advice. That is the only sanction I could get, because it is a quick way of dealing with the problem. If the officer was to face a discipline hearing that could mean the sack. So the tendency is for white officers to get a quick word of advice and carry on with their job. An ethnic minority officer – [redacted] – sorry, he is sitting here – is a classic example. He may have used inappropriate words, but they want a full discipline hearing. It is like using, you know, the full might of the force to challenge him. Why do they do that? [Redacted] I can give you other cases where white officers were dealt with very quickly whereas a minority officer has to go through the system without any Federation help. Miss Weekes: I ought to tell you that the issue of diversity, race, gender, disability discrimination is a major topic for us and Sir Anthony is going to take that. I would like to, if I may, get your help because of your experience. How can the Met best approach discipline under the statute where it is much more simple, a little bit more straightforward and less bureaucratic for both white and ethnic minority officers? What are your suggestions for a better world, as it were? A. We have a promotion system in the Met which is a core problem, I believe, where from PC to sergeant you tick the box and get promoted nowadays. For an inspector you tick the box and you are recommended for line manager. The process is such that you have to say the right thing. If you are a person and you think differently, you think: hang on, am I going to approach this problem in a different way and use a common sense approach, you will not be promoted. We have officers, white and black and any other – female – at junior level who are still sergeants and PCs with university degrees. They cannot move up the ladder because the promotion system is failing them. We have youngsters who join the Police Service as cadets at 18 and they are moulds: they will say the right things, obey orders, and if they have got a problem you push it up. Common sense is not applied. I work in (inaudible) industry and I work voluntarily elsewhere, and I speak to people in the community because that is one part of my job. When they hear the system they think: why did you apply common sense? Why would you apply common sense? It is a simple issue. The whole promotion system needs to be addressed and needs to be changed. We cannot have moulds – like I said in my statement, we cannot have 'mini mes' going up the service because at the end of the day they will say the same thing and when they do wrong they will be protected. Miss Weekes: Do you think some additional training would help to instill more common sense? A. You cannot train somebody to use common sense. Common sense comes out of life skills, comes out of speaking to the public, living in a community. We have senior officers who do not even live in London and yet they are making decisions on behalf of London. Most white officers do not even live in London, they live in Surrey, that is why they are called the blue belt. We have officers coming into London for eight hours, doing the job and going out. I live in the community. I do my eight hours, I work extra in my community and I feel I live and breathe it, and there are many officers like me. But at the end of the day, the Met will choose the people who fit the mould. The community loses out, the officers lose out, and the mistakes will carry on being made. Miss Weekes: Can I ask you this so that we get a breadth of how widespread you think the problem is: would you agree with me – of course you do not have to – that there are pockets of good practice within the Met which means there are good white managers, and there are bad white managers, as there are good black managers – they may be few – as there are bad black managers; is that right? A. I agree. Miss Weekes: Right. So how can we improve the pool of the good? If you say it is not about training, what is it that the Met should do? A. You find that the good white managers and good black managers become good after they reach a certain rank. It is probably after commander level, because at that level they actually engage in the community, they actually engage with Londoners, they actually engage with politics. They are actually engaging. Whereas from commander right down to chief inspector, all they are concerned about is getting the next rank and how they can back stab the competition and get on with their careers. There is no sense of community. There is no sense of: hang on, I can do this job properly. I mean, [redacted] and [redacted] and [redacted] brought me back to the Police Service and yet no one has ever spoken to them and said, "How can we do this to improve the facilities and support we can give to other officers." Here we have a good example of how they brought me back to the Metropolitan Police Service and yet nothing has been done about it. [Redacted] recently intervened on an Asian [redacted] who was being picked upon, the first Asian [redacted] being picked upon. He intervened, good practice. He intervened because he trusted me. He wrote an e-mail to the line manager and said, "Hang on, Mr Virdi is right". Sir John, he is in the public, specially after The Secret Policeman. He said publicly, "We will do something about it". How many other Chief Constables said that? So there are good practices but there is a very wide gap. You get PCs and sergeants who deal with neighbourhood watches, neighbourhood policing on a very local level and then we have the very senior police officers. In between we have got a cancer, a very large cancer, and very few good officers. Miss Weekes: Can I, because it would be remiss of me if I did not, touch upon a very important report. I refer to it as the Taylor Report, which looked into the Lancet Review. Are you aware of it? A. I have read about it, because I knew you would ask that question. Miss Weekes: It has made – and it is up on the screen – the recommendations which touch upon the very process that you went through. Let us just look, for example, at recommendation 2: "It is recommended that a model be delivered to guide the scope and scale of a complaints investigation – similar to the framework applied in murder investigations." That is clearly common sense, is it not, Mr Virdi? That is a good recommendation, is it not? A. It is a good recommendation. I have my views on people working in DPS, the Directorate of Professional Standards, because they are not selected on their talents or abilities; they are selected because of who they know. [Redacted] was a very good example. Recently the invites to selection procedure came out – I got it a day before the closing date. I challenged it and through [Redacted] I went to see [redacted] and he said, "You will not be selected because you are contaminated". When I told my line manager in the office they laughed, said I would have to walk around in an orange suit because I am contaminated. What I am saying there is if you get decent people, good investigating officers, you do not have to apply that approach because they do the job properly. But if you have got people working on a squad or working in a department who have been selected because of who they know, they have not got any talents to offer. That is why we see time after time investigations failing and time after time it is again the same officer as you will see in the media whose investigation has failed. Time and time again you will see very good officers (inaudible) with good conviction. Miss Weekes: You have raised a very good point: selection of those in charge of investigations. How do you say the Met should select, if your complaints are that it is not good, the way they do it at the moment? On a who you know basis, it is clearly not fair, if you are right. A. You do not have to ask me, you can ask any decent officer; they will tell you that the selection procedure, especially for complaints, is wrong. It is selected on a who you know basis. Miss Weekes: How can we improve that, because clearly that should not be the case, should it? A. I think senior officers, and especially [redacted] who is in charge of it and who should realise that he is going to be responsible for a department, he should select people on their merit, on their skills, not on who they know. Miss Weekes: Is there any form of transparency about the criteria for selection and who is selected? A. Well, I suggested, when [redacted] was allegedly entrapping me in my career progression, I suggested at that time that all interviews should be video recorded, because if somebody is going to appeal – too many have: female officers, ethnic minority officers, however suffered, should be video interviewed, and then an appeal panel can look at that. That is one way of moving forward. Miss Weekes: Can we just go back to one other of the Taylor recommendations, if I may. If we can look at recommendation 4 and I will look over at 9 as well. 4: "To assist in meeting the vital requirement of clear terms of reference, it is recommended that a model template be developed and issued as guidance." Recommendation 9: "It is recommended that a review procedure be established for complaint investigation cases which in appropriate cases is linked to the role of the case conference." Both those recommendations are designed to ensure that you decide why you are going to investigate someone, have clear terms of reference, and you review it as you go along. First of all, both of those are pretty clear and good recommendations, are they not? A. Yes, they are. Again, if you look through my submission, one of the things I have said is that the Metropolitan Police does not look at past cases of race discrimination on employment tribunals. A lot of cases go up to employment tribunal cases and settle out of court without accepting any liability, the cases of which are probably stored away in the Equal Opportunities Unit and gathering dust. If we are an intelligence led policing we can reduce crime, surely. Why do we not look at these cases and identify officers who are the causes of race discrimination, sex discrimination and homophobia, and I will guarantee you that you will find a link, the same names appear. So if we are intelligence led policing, we are going to think ahead, let us look at the past cases. Somebody should review them instead of them gathering dust. Just by saying that the Metropolitan Police agreed to give a sum of money and we accept no liability, it is not the end of the story. I think we should be reviewing cases and reviewing them properly, independently, not the way, for example, my case has been dealt with, where people have been rubber stamping individual reports. Miss Weekes: That leads me on to again another very important word you have used: "independence". Do you say that it is necessary to introduce some form of independence into the whole process of decision-making on complaints and discipline and employment tribunal cases? A. Yes, it is. As you probably know, when my disciplinary hearing was going on [Redacted] I fought for the Independent Advisory Group to come in. Two days of legal arguments and obviously a senior officer threatening [redacted], but I got them in. We had two days of legal arguments because I wanted independent people to see what really goes on, what really goes on in a disciplinary hearing, and they were shocked. The report is very damning, and you cannot get a copy of that report now because what the Met did, they destroyed all the copies. If you ask for an IAG report you will never get it. Someone may be hiding one in a desk. The same with the MPA report. I had to ask David Muir for those copies, and I sent it to the libraries, the Met library, Hendon library, ACPO library. Nobody wanted to do that. They just wanted to brush this over the side. People are not willing to change. There needs to be some sort of threat or motivation to get them moving. Miss Weekes: Can I explore a little bit, because it is important what you say about the access to the public in disciplinary hearings. Do you say that the reason for that is to show the public that (a) everything is in order, there is a degree of transparency, and that there is due process? You say it is necessary for the public to be able to see that. A. I think it is necessary in order to improve the situation, because where you find a lot of senior officers – like I said, they are moulds, they will just say things they have to say, you know, and public interviews and so on, "Everything is fine, we are doing this, we are doing that, blah, blah, blah" and (inaudible). Miss Weekes: What do you think the argument is, Mr Virdi, against allowing members of the public in to police disciplinary hearings? What is the argument against it? A. The arguments they can put up – I firmly believe that the public, or somebody representing the public – we have the MPA, the GLA – somebody should be allowed in to have a look at the process, improve the process. We cannot operate a system which exists in the 19th century; this is the 21st century. The communities of London have changed and the way we police have changed. Miss Weekes: Would an objection be – I am trying to put the other side so that you can help us – would the objection be: well, often we have to discuss confidential police procedure in disciplinary hearings? Is that a good reason to have a member of the public in? A. You say a member of the public. I do not mean particularly pick somebody off the street and say, "You are coming in". Miss Weekes: A non-police person. A. We have the Independent Advisory Group, we have the local Independent Advisory Group. For example, Ealing division, my case is going on, I would not mind somebody from Ealing Independent Advisory Group coming in and having a look. That is a way forward, because it is going to affect the local issue, it is going to affect the local community, why not have them in? If we are going to talk about terrorism or very nasty rapes or something like that in a disciplinary, yes, that should be excluded, but the majority of discipline cases are very minor, they are very – you are just dealing with the local – for example, Ford or Marks & Spencers, they are dealing with disciplinary hearings every day. You deal with it. It could be an efficiency hearing where somebody is not performing. You deal with those issues and what is the harm – I am for having independent people in. Miss Weekes: One other point on disciplinary hearings and who is allowed in: was there any difficulty with your wife being allowed in to your disciplinary hearing at the time? A. Yes, there was. Whilst my case was going on, my Met Federation rep, he objected to my wife coming through. Commander [redacted] wrote a letter saying she will not be allowed in. It was only when we saw another white officer going in with his wife and daughter it was pointed out to them, "Hang on, this is not right", and the Independent Advisory Group took this case up, and after certain exchanges through senior officers my wife was allowed in, although they said she was not allowed in the disciplinary hearing but she was allowed in the building in a room close to the disciplinary hearing. Miss Weekes: I think most members of the public would be rather surprised that, if an officer is going through a stressful disciplinary and he may want his partner there, that he is not allowed. Have you specifically raised that with, for example, [redacted] A. [Redacted]. Miss Weekes: [Redacted], because it seems very simple and humane that you should have your partner next to you if you are going through a disciplinary, because you might be dismissed. A. You say that, but once you go through training – for example, the family liaison officers, where they say a family friend should be allowed in, a family friend should be encouraged. So people are aware of the situation. I think it is just they are not aware of pressurising you to make you conform or to make you submissive. Miss Weekes: That is certainly a recommendation that you would like to see changed about disciplinary hearings. A. I have Sathat with me here today, I had Sathat with me at the MPA Inquiry. I feel assured because at the moment I am going through a lot of illnesses, I am on medication. At least if something happens to me I know she is there, she knows what is happening. So yes, why not? Miss Weekes: Can I move on to employment tribunals. I would like to go back, if I may, to the Virdi recommendations, please. It will come up on the screen in a moment. Number 3 says this: "That consideration be given to a review of administration of employment tribunals within the MPS to encourage [the following]: "Setting up a monitoring and good practice unit capable of early intervention and for alerting chief officers to highly sensitive cases; "Removal of some of the responsibility for case management to suitably trained personnel managers who will work in close liaison with borough commanders; "Direct contact between borough commanders, personnel managers, MPS solicitors to encourage local management responsibility and the possibility of early resolution of cases." All of that is a sensible recommendation, is it not? A. I fully agree. Miss Weekes: Help us: is that going on? A. No. Miss Weekes: Because there is quite a lot there, which bit of it is not happening within the Met since these sensible recommendations? A. Setting up a monitoring and good practice unit: where are they? I have got cases where I am trying to get those resolved, mediation, nothing is happening. Removal of the responsibility of case management to suitably trained personnel managers: it is not happening. People are still suffering, because what you find is that a borough commander is again controlling the personnel managers and people are not getting justice and they are coming to the staff associations or they go to the Federation. Direct contact between borough commanders, personnel managers, MPS solicitors – MPS solicitors, they do not care, at the end of the day; they want to deal with personnel. They will take the case right to the eleventh hour, and all they are concerned about is winning the case, despite their wrongness. I am a sergeant and I recently, with [redacted], arranged some case conferences. I mean, if I can do things like that, on top of my own job, why cannot other people? I want people to resolve issues in hand. I do not want the Metropolitan Police to be going through turmoil in the media. I want people to join the Police Service. And yet we do not have those recommendations being acted out. Miss Weekes: Why do you think that, having spent a good deal of time and money on this report, the Virdi Inquiry Report, this important set of recommendations are not being carried out? What has gone wrong? Have they just ignored the recommendations or are there other solid reasons for why you say it has not been carried out? A. Like I said, that report is not available. You go and ask any commander, "Is that report available on your division?" "No". It is only when people get into trouble they suddenly remember: hang on, Virdi case, there was an inquiry. They put in the intranet "Virdi" and the Virdi Report comes up. It is only then that they read it. The Federation reps have not been given a copy. You know, you think: here is a report which is done by the MPA, which is overlooking the Metropolitan Police, and people have been denied this report. Miss Weekes: So part of the reason is that you think (a) it is simply not currently available, so people actually do not know of the detail of the recommendations? A. I think people do not want to know, because it will then force them to follow a line which would resolve cases on division level and get things sorted. At the moment, they are quite happy getting the DPS to do the dirty work and then, if there is something they cannot deal with, push it up the ladder. If I may, I will give you a very good example of a grievance which I am going through presently. When I joined the service it was agreed by [redacted] and [redacted] and myself that I will be coming back and I will be going on a detective trainers' course, and [redacted] joined me, with [redacted] to arrange this course. And when it was time to get me on the course, my line manager decides he wants to obstruct me. He says, "No, you have to follow the procedure, put in an application", which was done and, to cut a long story short, I was not happy with the outcome. I was then told by my line manager to put a grievance procedure in. I have no faith in the grievance procedure, but it went through. Okay, he investigates the grievance procedure, he speaks to all the white senior officers, he does not speak to [redacted], he does not speak on to [redacted] and he does not speak to [redacted], who was with me when the thing was being discussed. He comes to the conclusion, "Oh, you are wrong, it is down to you", and it took the intervention of [redacted] to put me on a CID course. It was again pushed up the ladder. [Redacted]– amazing how people who get involved then get promoted – he was, again, reviewing the grievance procedure and he rubber stamps the original report. I said, "Have you spoken to [redacted]? Have you spoken to [redacted]? Have you spoken to [redacted]?" "No. This is the report and I am going to give it to you. Here it is. And I am going to make any changes". He has been commissioned by [redacted] and he has a final say. [Redacted] says integrity is not negotiable. He goes on TV to say that, and yet, in this case, integrity is being negotiable and is being done to (inaudible). That is a very recent case. Things have not improved. If they are reading the Virdi recommendations, they would do something different. Miss Weekes: We are aware of that. We have received those details from you – A. What has been done about it? Miss Weekes: It happened earlier this year, of course, did it not? A. It did. Miss Weekes: So you would say that the new Fairness at Work, which is what one still refers to as the grievance, is not necessarily satisfactory from your own experience? A. Madam, the Metropolitan Police have a way of making things new. The grievance procedure is now Fairness at Work. And then when they do the figures they will say, "We had a hundred grievance procedures but now we have only got ten Fairness at Work so things are improving". Is this a ploy? But when you look at the crunch of it, Fairness at Work, okay, you have to be selected to be a Fairness at Work adviser. Now, a lot of people on borough have not been trained. A lot of people are not even aware of Fairness at Work unless you actually physically read it. Only the dedicated officers would actually read it and go through it, but the figures will go down. It is a bit like complaints. Members of the public make complaints, but it is up to the chief officer of police – Mr Burden will confirm this – as to whether to record it or not to record it. If complaints are not being recorded, obviously the complaints are going to go down. Employment tribunals: there are a number of employment tribunals, but because of (inaudible), as you are probably aware, a lot of cases are being thrown out. The figures presented to the MPA would be, "Oh, well, we have less grievance procedures, we have less employment tribunals, we have less complaints". Yes, but they do not tell you the reasons. The problem is still there. Until we reassure the public, reassure our officers, nothing is going to change. We will still have inquiry after inquiry after inquiry. The PCA will become another IPCC and in a few years' time it will become something else. We are not changing. Drastic action needs to be taken. People need to be held accountable, senior officers need to be held accountable, the government needs to be held accountable. That is the only way forward. Miss Weekes: Can I pick you up on that drastic action, and this question has been put to a number of witnesses so I would like your help on it. It is clear that sometimes things do go badly wrong within the Met, and your case is an example of it. What do you say is the appropriate drastic action for when officers behave badly, when they have committed wrongs against each other? What do you say is the appropriate drastic action? A. Sacking. Why is every force in the country very reluctant to sack senior officers? When it is blatantly obvious they have done something wrong, why not sack them? They are incompetent. They have done wrong. If I was working as a chief executive or as a worker in, say, for example – I will say Ford again; sorry I am using that example again – I would be sacked. If I had done wrong, I would be sacked. Why is it – Miss Weekes: Is there a distinction, Mr Virdi, between an incompetent officer and an officer who, with his own knowledge, does wrong? Is there a distinction that you would wish to draw between those two? A. I think incompetency will lead to wrongness. I mean, for example, [redacted] in my case gave amenity to officers to tell untruths about where I was at a certain time. One officer blatantly in front of a discipline panel, three discipline commanders, said, "Yes, I failed the duty states(?)", and it was pointed out to him, "Do you know that is false accounting?" He then had to be reminded of the law of false accounting. That officer was so blase about it because he had been given this amenity, nothing happened. And yet it was said in front of three commanders. What happens to him? He is promoted. Surely, if anybody is sensible enough to say, "Hang on, if he does not know what false accounting is, why should he be promoted?" – it is not only incompetence, he is doing an illegal act and no criminal charges have been brought against him. "Yes, we will promote him". Miss Weekes: Why do you think, then, in your experience, that high management and those with the power to sack officers who do a wrong, why are they not sacked? A. Madam, you will be surprised. If you put them on the box and put them on the square, they will probably say, "I do not know the procedure". It is like when the Stephen Lawrence Inquiry was going on, the senior officer did not even know his powers of arrest. How sad. And the same thing with senior officers, they do not know about inefficiency procedures; they do not know how to get rid of senior officers; and most of them are friends anyway, so there you go. Miss Weekes: We have heard evidence from other witnesses that the inefficiency procedure is underused; is that your experience? A. Yes, the reason being that not many people are aware of it. I mean, after inspector they do not have to study any more; they are promoted on other reasons: how they can perform in front of a selected audience, how they can say the right things, say the diversity things, say the leadership skills, and nobody will ask them, "How do you deal with an incompetent officer? Tell me the procedure". Miss Weekes: Well, help us again, because this is all about recommendations and lessons to be learned, how can the Met improve upon ensuring that those in positions of authority who have management duties are up to date, understand their duties and carry them out? A. Like I said, madam, the selection procedure is all wrong. Last year we had a superintendent selection procedure; quite a few failed, and then on appeal they have already passed. Now, we have officers from chief superintendent and above being promoted only on the recommendation of [redacted]. If somebody is talented and not being promoted, there is something wrong. [Redacted] case, [redacted], went through his promotion, the Met discriminated against him and then they promoted him after he took them to an employment tribunal. The selection – true talent is not being recognised, and the procedures they have are wrong. For example, getting good detectives. I went on a CID course, eventually – I laugh – we went through the whole six weeks of CID training, an exam was given at the end. 40 per cent of the people passed, 60 per cent failed. Now normally the pass rate is mid-90s. There was uproar from the students, saying why has this happened? It came back to me eventually that the reason why this happened was because I was on the course and they followed by the book. No questions were given prior to the exam. It showed the true quality of detectives. 40 per cent are good enough, 60 per cent are not. Miss Weekes: Well, let us just use that as an example – A. Can I carry on? Miss Weekes: Yes, but I want to interrupt for a very good reason. Let us use that as an example. Here is, you say, a classic example of a procedure which is not being conducted correctly: papers being handed out before. You say you are on the course so they do it by the book. Well, what should be done about that? A. Again, like I said, people should be selected on their talents, not because of who they know. That is the fundamental thing which goes wrong in the Metropolitan Police. People have been selected, promoted to high levels when they have not even got the basic talent, and then they are protected. It is absurd in the Metropolitan Police. Miss Weekes: I interrupted you. Was there anything else you wanted to say on that area? A. Yes, I was going to go on to then we come from chief inspector to above. Again, they go through a process, recommendation by line managers, and again, those people who want to pass will be given the questions beforehand, or they will have somebody on the board who knows them and they will get through. And then, by all means, [redacted] will do his final tick in the box as well. Miss Weekes: I want to move on now to another related topic. I am going back to the Virdi recommendations, if we may. It is going to be brought up on the screen for you. We will look at recommendation 11: "The MPS should monitor the composition of representatives of the Police Federation's joint branch board, ensuring that concrete measures are taken to address underrepresentation, especially from ethnic minority groups." We know, as a panel, that the Police Federation is a creature of statute, and I stress that because it is important that we discuss this point on that basis. Just how practicable is this recommendation, Mr Virdi, because this is a recommendation about those who sit on the Police Federation who would be able to present views for change. How practicable, first of all, is it to recommend what is recommended there? A. Madam, if things want to be done, they can be done. If the Police Federation want people on their panel, they will get people on their panel. There are objections that the Police Federation in general does not like ethnic minority officers; they do not like female officers. Only very recently [Redacted] has been appointed female chair; very good too. The problem with the Federation is they are still in the 1960s. The mentality is still in the 1960s. Ethnic minority officers, female officers, do not get any backing from the Police Federation. That is why we have a lot of staff associations being created. If the Federation was fair and did their job, because we all pay our dues, then there would not be staff associations; everybody would be represented, and people would be naturally selected and go on to the Police Federation to make decisions. It does not happen. It is a closed shop. Miss Weekes: The Police Federation may say, in response to that, "Well, whoever you are, you can put yourself up for election and it is a matter for the rest of the police staff and officers as to whether or not they do vote for you." They might say that. What is your response? A. It is a bit like comparing with the elections, is it not? You are given a safe seat, you will get elected; if they do not want you, they will give you a seat which you are not going to get. Miss Weekes: Why is it important to have diversity representation on the Police Federation? A. It is very important because London's population has changed. We are not – we have a white majority, but 40 per cent of the public is from the ethnic minorities. Unless we change, unless the Federation changes, unless the people get their views, the Police Service is going to be dragged back. We are not free to move forward. It is very important to get ethnic minority officers and female officers on the Police Federation. It has to be done. We cannot have people sitting – I am sorry, but the mentality of some of them is like, you know, in the 1960s. Miss Weekes: How are we going to change that? A. Like I said, if the Police Federation want to make changes, they can make changes. For example, on the board they can nominate people to be on the board. It is a very simple idea. Miss Weekes: Is it easy to do that under their statutory provisions? A. Well, change the statute. Miss Weekes: Thank you. Can I move on to – Sir William Morris: Could we just pause for me to say that it is my intention that we should adjourn at 12.45 and reconvene at 2 o'clock. Miss Weekes: Can I move to the IPCC, the new Independent Police Complaints Commission, because of course we cannot discuss complaints and discipline, which is a central part of our terms of reference, without including their role, and as everyone knows they have only been in operation since about April. Are you confident that the new Independent Police Complaints Commission will make some difference to the way complaints and discipline are dealt with? Because they will, of course, have new supervisory powers. A. My feelings is no. Miss Weekes: Why is that? A. Because it was called the Police Complaints Commission before; after Scarman, it was called the Independent Police Complaints Authority; now it is called the IPCC. I think the only way we change is for them to be independent, because what we find is, after an organisation has been running for a few years, they become part of the establishment. I hope this does not happen in this case. The fear is it will, because government ministers and senior officers will manipulate that, and then in a few years' time we will have another complaints investigative board. Some of the changes they have made is encouraging. Some of the people on the panel is encouraging. How long will they stay there? Will they be forced out? It is a bit like the Independent Advisory Group; there were a few who objected to the nodding dog syndrome, they are all gone. And people now on the Independent Advisory Group, the main one, are some who are now towing the line, which they should not be. Miss Weekes: Of course, one would say, and some people would say, "Well, surely it is not fair to be pessimistic at this stage about the IPCC, let us wait and see". A. Madam, I fully agree. That is why I am saying "I hope". But history tells me that this will happen and the establishment will take over. Miss Weekes: The Independent Advisory Group, do you say that there is still a role to be played by the Independent Advisory Group in relation to, again, complaints, discipline and investigation of officers? A. There is. I always believe in independent – because at the end of the day people from outside look at things differently. It is a bit like my employment tribunal when I was going through it. It was looked at by three people who looked at evidence in a completely different way. Some of the things they said even I would not have thought of. It is like having you on a panel: you would be looking at complaints and discipline in a different way; you would be looking at procedures in a different way. Sir Bill Morris has got a history of looking at things in a different way; he has even criticised the Federation. But it is only when we have independent people that you start making changes. The changes are for the better, because it represents an independent and it also represents the community view on how things should be tackled. Miss Weekes: Give us one or two concrete examples of why the Independent Advisory Group works. A. Right, I will use the Trident example. Operation Trident, as you know, is within the black community. Here we have independent people advising how the police should proceed, how the police should – the police may (inaudible) some of the adverts which are totally against the community and they have been withdrawn. Had they not been there, that would have not happened. Had they not made contacts for us to contact individuals, we would not have developed our policies and procedures. [Redacted] is a leader in this. He actually goes out to the communities, he actually encourages IAGs to develop because it is the advice we get from the community which will affect the policies in the Metropolitan Police. He is the only Assistant Commissioner I know of who goes out to all the police consultant group meetings, he goes out and speaks to members of the public. He has even spoken to – I arranged for people who are very active and very against the Metropolitan Police to come in and have a chat. Independent advice can work, it does work, and I think there is a lot more scope for it. The other example I would use of the Independent Advisory Group was my case where they came and sat at the disciplinary hearing, where this all was going on and they made very valid recommendations to improve the Metropolitan Police. Miss Weekes: Extending this important topic, I just want to ask you this in relation to employment tribunals. Part of our terms of reference is that we should look at the decision-making process around employment tribunals, and we are asked to consider whether or not a degree of independent advice in relation to employment tribunals would be a good thing. Do you think it would? A. I think it would because the present situation we have is – it always starts with a minor situation, where it is a minor thing which a good manager would deal with. It does not happen because the manager is incompetent or whatever, he does not want to deal with it, for many reasons. And then because the victim then starts questioning why are you not following procedure, it then develops, it goes worse and worse. The victim is then targeted, looked at reports, scrutinised, it just goes into a very long winded procedure, and the initial problem has just been ignored. So they go in opposite poles. And then the legal services, [Redacted] and they will protect the organisation to the right. Even if it is wrong, they will protect it and they will fight it, and even though it is wrong they will carry on fighting it. The victim, especially if it is an ethnic minority or a female, will go to the Federation to seek help. The system is abused. He will be put under, or she will be put under a lot of pressure to conform. They will say we are withdrawing funding, you know, you will have to agree. Miss Weekes: Who is putting the pressure? A. The Federation. How many cases of ethnic minority cases are funded to the full? Very few. They did not fund my case. I had to pay from my own pocket to fund the case because the Federation would not touch it. Miss Weekes: What reason did the Federation give you for not touching your case? A. They said, "We are not funding it", full stop. And when I did speak to the Federation solicitor, they said, "You have got no chance, why are you doing this?" Ethnic minority officers go to the same thing again and again: initially they were given advice, they would say, "Yes, we will back you", then when it comes to the initial crunch to do with the case, "We are pulling out. Settle the case now or we are pulling out. You will not be funded. You will not be backed." The problems that have gone so far in different ends, which probably started as a minute problem – Miss Weekes: Has anybody taken this up with anybody in a position of power, that this is what the Federation do? A. I have taken it up with [redacted]. Now, recently I was discussing two cases with him. Both are being supported by the Federation. As soon as I had a chat with him, he obviously rang legal services. One day later, the Federation pulled out one case. Two days later, the Federation pulled out of the other case. Miss Weekes: What was the reason for that? A. Because, when they know they have got a fight, they put the pressure on the Federation to withdraw. The Federation will not back ethnic minority and female officers. And yet, at the same time, there is a court case going on in an employment tribunal in [redacted], two white officers complaining about racist discrimination, 100 per cent behind them. Any white officer who complains, 100 per cent behind them. They go to the extent of fighting minute cases, which ends up in millions of pounds being wasted, to protect white officers. That is not on. That is why I have taken a positive action to intervene on behalf of my ethnic minority and female colleagues, and even white officers, to get people round the table and discuss the way forward. I, as a sergeant, can do that. I am sure people above me can do it far better. Miss Weekes: So what you are saying is, plainly, that some people are being denied access to justice over their employment cases. A. They are. That is why you need to look at the resignation figures. Training school is a good example. A lot of people leave; a lot of youngsters leave. And then within five years, if they go through any difficulty, they resign because they cannot fight the system. The system is too big to fight. Miss Weekes: I have just reminded myself of the wording of our terms of reference, just to stress the importance of what we have just been talking about: "Whether there should be arrangements for employment tribunal claims, particularly those involved in allegations of discrimination or harassment, to be subject to independent review as part of the MPS handling of such cases in order to encourage and facilitate efforts to achieve resolution." This is my last question, as it were. How do you see this independent review would practicably work? We have heard of, for example, mediation. We have heard of alternative dispute resolution. How would you say we could introduce the recommendation for the independent review? Who is going to do it? When are they going to do it? A. I took up a very similar case with – well, my suggestions to [redacted] – I actually made recommendations many months ago, saying somebody independent should review the case before it goes to the tribunal. A panel – it does not have to be police officers; it can be people from the NHS, government departments, Department for Transport, for example; you know, where somebody from another department – departments – convened as an independent view to review a case. Vice versa, police officers used to independently examine their cases. We can do this. It is achievable. That way employment tribunals would not have to go to the full hearing. It can be stopped. It can be intervened. And lessons have to be learned. Not say, "Yes, we are not accepting liability, here is £1,000". That is not the answer. The answer is, let us see where the Metropolitan Police has gone wrong and where we can improve, because after all, the Police Service is a very public service; any changes that we make are reflected in other industries. Miss Weekes: Some might say, Mr Virdi: well, was an indictment against the Metropolitan Police that you have to bring in independent persons to tell them how to deal with discrimination cases which are being dealt with up and down the country every day, because that is what it would amount to, would it not? A. Well, it is, because people in the Metropolitan Police Service, senior officers, cannot deal with these cases. Miss Weekes: Is there some way that one could encourage them to deal with these cases successfully, without the need for an independent person? A. Like I said, I have made my first steps; I have tried to get people round the table and get some sort of resolution. I am sure if a thousand other officers did the same thing we would have changes. Senior officers would listen, instead of giving everything to the legal services and them fighting the case to the end. I mean, it costs thousands and thousands of pounds. Now the victim, or the claimant who is actually taking the case forward, has got a limited budget. Some of them even put their houses on remortgage to fight the case. Whereas the Met has a pocket which carries on going. My case – Miss Weekes: Of course, unfortunately, it is public funds, coming out of all our pockets in this room. A. It is taxpayers' money. When we settled the second tribunal of my case, I said to them, "The three commanders who made the decision to dismiss me, get it out of their pocket, let them pay for it." That is the only way people will learn and next time they will think twice. At the moment they have got legal services, unlimited funds to fight a case which probably does not even need fighting. That is the issue. Nobody is being held accountable for that – nobody. The Commissioner is not asking, "Why are you spending so much money in an Inquiry on a discipline hearing, on employment tribunals?" Why is the MPA not asking? And yet when it comes to budget, "Oh yes, we need more money, we need more officers". Hang on, let us tackle the issues as well. Why should the public look at their TV or listen to the radio and say, "Oh, not another case, more taxpayers' money gone"? Miss Weekes: Yes, I think you are referring to the rather recent one which has settled. A. I am referring to quite a few recent ones which have been settled. Miss Weekes: It is 12.45 and, as the Chairman indicated, we are going to stop. I would like to return just to one topic, which is the MPA, after the break, if I may. Sir William Morris: We will stand adjourned until 2 o'clock. 12.45 pm (The short adjournment) 2.00 pm Sir William Morris: Welcome back, everyone, to the afternoon session of the Inquiry. Miss Weekes was still asking some questions. Please go on with your questions. Miss Weekes: Thank you very much. Mr Virdi, I think we finished before the adjournment with my suggestion that I would want to come back for your views on the role of the MPA. Part of our terms of reference is that we consider and make recommendations on the role of the police authority and its members in relation to the consideration of high profile or sensitive cases. You have got immediate experience of the role that the MPA played in your case. It may not have played a role, I do not know. First of all, can I have your views on what happened in relation to anything that the MPA did or did not do in relation to your case? A. If I remember correctly, initially the MPA was just formed, and although I wrote to [redacted] at the time, we got very little in our response. After the case was decided at the employment tribunal, I then wrote to the Home Secretary, asking them to conduct an independent inquiry or an investigation. I think as a response of that the MPA decided that David Muir should be leading on that investigation and conducting the inquiry. David Muir was very good when we started working together in order to settle the settled claim, all that we had to go through, the legal loops, and especially the legal services department were being very obstructive. He facilitated a meeting with myself and Sir John to discuss the way forward. He also then intervened at certain stages in order to get things moving. With regard to the role of the MPA as a whole, I find it very disappointing, really, considering it is the public authority looking after the Police Service. I have been to a few meetings where members of the public want to raise issues. They are not fully entitled to. Although they have got a forum for doing so, it is very much controlled by the corps and Lord Harris. I remember a case when a lady raised her case that the fund had gone through and it was basically pushed to one side, you know, and I thought that is really disappointing considering it is a public authority and they are people elected by people, the general public. The other thing I found very disappointing was the lack of their willingness to intervene in cases. Some of the cases I have been involved in as a support worker, I have raised it and there has been no intervention. And I believe if positive intervention was made by them, I think we would move far further. Even regarding – I am sorry to come back to my own case, a recent case in which I got race hate mail again, only one person asked questions and that was [redacted] and she is the only one who responded. I find it very disappointing when items relating to the police are in the public domain and that the MPA are very reluctant to get involved. In election year they want to say the right thing, have photographs taken, yes, fine, but look after the public. Look after the public we serve and the officers we serve. Miss Weekes: Can I just follow up two important aspects of your helpful response. When the MPA intervene, how do you think that could be done practicably? I want to just get an understanding of how it would work. A. I think, if – for example, if I was to raise a case with the MPA and say, "This has not been resolved inside, can you intervene?", one of the members, or the committee of a professional standard should say, "Hang on, let me review this for you". It is an independent review. You can go through the papers and say, "Yes, it is a case of settlement, no, it is a case we have to fight". Let them make the decision. Quite rightly, they intervened in the [redacted] case, where the family, regardless who is to blame, the family have suffered a loss. Same with the real case, same with other deaths in custody. A family has suffered loss. We, as public servants, need to support the family. The tendency is we – I say "we" – the Metropolitan Police goes against them. The full weight of the legal services should be behind them. The intervention I made recently, when the officers were given full backing to appeal, the MPA decided to back the family as well. I think that was very good and more of that should happen. Miss Weekes: So that is a good recent example. A. That is a good recent example where the MPA can do something positive. Miss Weekes: How long ago was that example, Mr Virdi? A. This was quite recently. It was in the public domain about a month and a half ago. This is [redacted]. Miss Weekes: So you think that would be quite a useful one for us to look at by way of a good example of – A. Yes, I am only going by public reports and what I have read, and to me I think that is a very good example: it is again building confidence in the community. Miss Weekes: How will that sit with the role of the IPCC? They have a role to be statutory, do they not? A. Madam, I am not privy to their terms of reference or workings. I think I am not in a position to comment on that. Miss Weekes: That is fair. That is a fair point. I will not pursue that. Just one additional point: high profile cases, sensitive cases. Sensitive cases might be a race case, but there are other sensitive issues that may not have anything to do with race. Are there any special pointers that you would like to flag up as to the role that the MPA can play when you have sensitive issues or high profile cases? A. I think the control to run those cases should go to the MPA, not the Metropolitan Police Service because, like I say, the Metropolitan Police Service, I find senior officers very unwilling to make decisions, and everything rests on the legal services. After all, legal services are supposed to give advice to senior police officers, not run the Police Service on behalf of senior officers, which I think is happening at the moment. Miss Weekes: I want to make sure I have understood you. You think that high profile cases – and there would have to be some decision about what a high profile case is – should come completely outside of the Met into the MPA. A. Definitely for reviewing. Miss Weekes: Ah, for reviewing, not – A. And if the police are not doing anything properly, then they should take over, full stop. Miss Weekes: Two things, I think. If the Met begin a high profile investigation and it is deemed not to be going well, then it should go to the MPA. A. It should go to the MPA, or an MP or Member of Parliament, even in the House of Lords, somebody, a high public figure should write in and express their concern, it should go to the MPA. [Redacted]when the MP writes in to Sir John it does not go to Sir John, it goes back to the investigating officer who is investigating the victim. So I think at that point the MPA should take control and lead. Miss Weekes: Right. Some may say, "Well, again, one is not allowing the Met to get on with its job". What about a halfway house of the Metropolitan Police Authority stepping in to give firm advice, guidelines, guidance as to how that investigation could be improved? What is your view on that? A. If Metropolitan Police officers, senior command officers, would do the job properly, there would be no reason for intervention. Presently, I think there is a strong case for the MPA to intervene, to hold people accountable. I agree with you. If an officer is doing his job properly he should be left to do his job. There are a lot of officers who do their job properly, but there are others who do not and they get the approval of more senior officers, then the MPA should say, "There is something not right here, we should intervene", and they intervene. They have the power to do so. They have been elected, they get paid. They do not get paid to sit on their backsides, they get paid to make decisions and I think that is what they should do. Miss Weekes: The Chairman in his opening remarks stressed that we are keen to find out what is good about the Met. You and I perfectly correctly have gone through a detailed account of many valid criticisms and your helpful comments. I just want to ask this: since you have come back to the Met, have you got a good example of something that has cheered you, that has made you feel, yes, it was worth coming back? A. Can you stop white officers – unfortunately because I think minority officers... I am very pleased that, for example, [Redacted], how he intervened, and for example how he dealt with the Linden report, how he deals with the community, how he goes out and speaks to members of the community. He is a very good role model. Mr Fuller, very proud of him to be the Chief Constable of Kent. Good officers, recognised at last. Like I said earlier on, [redacted] and [redacted], the way they facilitated me to come in. There are some good points. My line managers, they do a good job – Miss Weekes: This is your line manager at Scotland Yard? A. Presently, my present department. I get the full backing, and if there are difficulties I make a point of discussing it and they know I will discuss it. So there are many good examples, and there are good officers as well. I mean, yes – the SO6 report. I do not know whether you have seen a copy of this, but this was handed to me by a white officer who was concerned that my career was being obstructed. It took a lot of courage for him to say this to me and again give me a copy as well. Most of the time people would just turn a blind eye. You know, there is a lot of good work done by departments, recruitment for example. I have helped out in recruitment. There is good work being done. Training school I think needs to be looked at, but there are good officers at training school who are doing a fine job to get all these people in, get them trained and get them back on the streets. I cannot say they are all bad. That would be wrong for me to say. There are good officers, but they do not get recognised as much. Miss Weekes: And I note that after a little persuasion by you, your good work has been recognised because you were given an award. A. I hope. Miss Weekes: You tell me, Mr Virdi, who gave you the award. A. Well, most of my good work in the community is given by the communities. Miss Weekes: But the Metropolitan Police recognised an aspect of your work when you came back, I think; is that right? A. Well, the award given to me by the Metropolitan Police was with regard to disarming a youth with a gun and for my dealing with the stabbing incident in Hanwell prior to all this happening. Again, it was me who questioned it, and then an independent ACPO officer assessed the situation and gave me an Assistant Commissioner's commendation, whereas in Ealing where I was they were willing to stab me in the back and give me nothing. It just shows you the level of people who are good and bad, and again you have got to ask for it. Even when I get awards from the community, there was no reporting in the internal job magazine; there was no reporting when I came back into the service; I had to ask for it. And only then you get a small paragraph. But the report was about six pages long. Miss Weekes: That is a complaint from both white and black officers, that there is not enough recognition. A. Well no, I think if you look at the things I have done for the community, I mean, I have arranged exhibitions, I have been out with them, I have helped at local charities. If I was a white officer, I would be recognised. Because it is me, I do not get recognised. For example, we had a day centre, Southall day centre. We had a visit, [Redacted], myself, [Redacted], and my photo was cut out, whereas the other two officers were there while my photograph is cut out. That is the things they play on. Miss Weekes: Did you complain about that? A. I did, yes. Miss Weekes: What was the result of your complaint? A. Nothing. Everything goes in a big circle and it takes time, it takes years, nothing ever gets done about it. Now I have complained about the SO6 report. I have spoken to [redacted] personally and told him this is hindering my career. He said he would do something, he wrote a letter, and I disagreed with it and did my own version and he sent it up to [redacted] to make a decision. Here we have [redacted] being paid large amounts of money using his position to make a decision, and yet he sends it to the next level up. And yet they will come here no doubt, and I will guarantee you they will say junior officer pushing things up, but they are doing just the same thing. The buck has to stop and somebody has to take responsibility. This report is very damning for me, and it has been spread around senior managers. I cannot go for promotion, I cannot go for development, because senior officers have made their mind up when reading this report. My career is basically finished in the Metropolitan Police. What motivation do I have coming to work? Not only do I have to face my career prospects are nil, I have to deal with race cases and I get harassment from senior officers who do not like me, I get harassment from individuals who do not like me. I sometimes think: hang on, I have a law degree, I have other qualifications, I have life skills, maybe I should go elsewhere. Sathat says the same thing. But I am determined to do my 30 years. I am determined to carry it out. I have a duty to do and I want to do it. Miss Weekes: Thank you very much, Mr Virdi. That is all my questions. A. Sorry, madam, before you finish, you know we raised the issue about the Independent Advisory Group report, I did send a copy to you. Miss Weekes: Yes, I think that is right. A. You have seen it? Miss Weekes: I have, thank you very much. A. It might be worth asking questions of senior management if they have ever seen it. Miss Weekes: We will. Sir William Morris: Thank you, Mr Virdi. I will invite Sir Anthony to put his questions. Questions by Sir Anthony Burden Sir Anthony Burden: The panel are obviously very concerned at the treatment you have received in relation to the media and press coverage of your case. As a consequence within the MPA report, recommendation 8, it says this: "The press strategy should be adopted that (a) explains how to deal effectively with race-specific and high profile cases using the learning from critical incident training. It includes the principles contained in the National Union of Journalist Guidelines on Race Reporting and does not compromise the principles of natural justice." Having come back into the Metropolitan Police and all the experience you have had with the BPA in supporting colleagues, has anything changed in relation to adopting that particular recommendation? A. I would say no. The reason why, the first case that comes to my mind after reading that is the Ali Dizaei case. Ali Dizaei is a superintendent in the Metropolitan Police. [Redacted] Both have been accused of fiddling the expenses. Ali has been accused of making threats. The white officer has been accused of beating up his wife. They both are similar personalities, yet Ali's case was put out in the media so he does not get natural justice while the other officer has been put in an office and everything is kept quiet. Everybody knows that in Scotland Yard, and yet people will not say anything. We have two officers, similar rank, similar circumstances, one is high profile, one is not. Who is going to get justice? Things have not changed. Sir Anthony Burden: You will have read in the review report that you have recently received that the Chairman referred to this morning – that is the review report that we actually sought from [redacted] – on page 30, the press strategy is actually referred to under paragraph 13.2, it says: "The operational order relating to the arrest of Sergeant Virdi states, 'There is a prepared strategy for this operation which is to be overseen by [redacted] in area headquarters. Enquiries from the press should be referred to the area press office [giving a number] which will inform [redacted] accordingly. Press strategy is attached to the decision log and sets out two options for dealing with the press. These are essentially preparing a statement to be provided to the press on an if asked basis or offering the prepared statement to the press. The recommendation which appears to have been adopted is to offer the statement. The recommendation also contains a proposal to confirm the ethnicity of the suspect, who was of course Sergeant Virdi, on an if asked basis. There is also a stated intention not to go into details about the motive." Could I seek your views on the decision that was made in your case, please? A. I do not think you seek my views, sir, all you have to do is read the Daily Mail of 16th April. It says it all. Ethnicity is mentioned, motive is mentioned, the interview is mentioned, the files going to the Attorney General is mentioned, and none of these things happened, and nobody will have known that apart from [redacted], [redacted], who may I add, after my first interview, knowing that I could not be at a certain place at a certain time, then went out to issue immunity orders to officers so they can lie, which is very perverse. Sir Anthony Burden: Having gone through this terrible trauma, you and your family, as a consequence of the media coverage, do you feel there is a case, ever a case, for issuing a press statement, an official statement from the organisation about the arrest, as it was in your case, of a police officer at that early stage prior to trial. A. Well, there is always a case. It is a matter of public interest. But amazingly, it only happens when it is ethnic minority officers. It does not happen when it is white officers. I have done a list for you in my submission. All you get is a little headline in teletext or you read the newspapers; nothing as full blown as what ethnic minority officers go through. And then we are threatened that we cannot talk to the media otherwise you get more discipline offences against you. That is the