Transcript of public session: Mr R Auladin and Mr D Riddle of the Metropolitan Police Authority

Tuesday, 8 June 2004
2pm

Sir William Morris: Good afternoon, Mr Auladin, and welcome. Can I first of all say thank you for accepting our invitation to attend the Inquiry this afternoon and for giving us your evidence. Thank you also for your written submission, which we have found extremely helpful.

I appreciate that for some of our witnesses the process may seem a little daunting, so I thought it might be helpful if I set out just briefly how we propose to conduct the hearing this afternoon. But first let me introduce myself and the other members of the panel.

I am Sir Bill Morris, recently retired General Secretary of the Transport and General Workers Union. 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 the South Wales Constabulary after a very long and distinguished career in the Police Service. On my left is Miss Anesta Weekes. Anesta is an eminent barrister. She sits as a recorder and she is also a part-time chairperson of employment tribunals. She was in fact counsel to the Lawrence Inquiry.

As you know, we have been tasked by the Metropolitan Police Authority to conduct an independent Inquiry into professional standards and employment matters of the Metropolitan Police Service. The Inquiry we are conducting is inquisitorial and not adversarial, and our focus is on the MPS as an organisation and not the individuals who make up the organisation.

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 and better practices. We take that view rather than concentrating on making criticisms of the MPS as an organisation and indeed the individuals.

Among the issues that we are required in our terms of reference to address is to seek to establish whether the practices, the procedures, the structures, the convention of the Metropolitan Police Service in respect of its professional standards and employment matters represents best effective practice when compared to other police services, or indeed the public service generally.

Some of our witnesses were very keen to tell us what is wrong with the MPS. We note their evidence, but we also want to know what is right with it. But even more important, we are keen to hear what steps can be taken to make it even better.

At the end of these introductory remarks, I will lead on our questions to you, followed by my colleagues on the panel, who may have some supplementary questions. When we have completed our questions I will offer you the opportunity to make a brief closing comment, if you so wish. But for the record, let me just bring to your attention that a transcript is being taken so that we can have an accurate record of the evidence given to us by all our witnesses, and this will be published on our website shortly after this afternoon's session.

Before I begin my series of questions, for the benefit again of our transcript notes, could I ask you please to formally introduce yourself to the Inquiry and give us some details about your background and expertise.

Mr Auladin: Thank you, Chairman. My name is Reshard Auladin. I am a magistrate member of the Metropolitan Police Authority. I chair the Professional Standards and Complaints Committee and have been a magistrate for about 15 years, and I have my own business which I run in London.

I have been a member of the Authority for the last four years and have recently been reappointed to serve another term of four years. Before I carry on, I wonder, with your permission, chair, whether I can introduce to the Inquiry Mr David Riddle, who is the Deputy Clerk of the Authority, and also solicitor to the Authority. He is the officer responsible for professional standards and has been responsible for doing most, if not all, of the work required to put in the submissions and to support members during the inquiry. Again, with your permission, I would like him to assist me this afternoon.

Sir William Morris: You are both very welcome indeed.

Mr Auladin: Thank you.

Questions by Sir William Morris

Sir William Morris: Perhaps if I can start by just reminding you that the Secretary to the Inquiry, Amanda Kelly, wrote to you on 5th May, setting out the areas on which we were interested in seeking evidence from you this afternoon. Just for structure, I would like to summarise those issues that she set out in her letter to you.

My recollection is that they were the steps currently taken by the MPA to exercise its duty in keeping itself informed about the operation of the police complaints process in the MPS. Next was whether the MPA considers there are any further steps that it could take itself, using the current statutory provisions as they exist, as to whether the MPA sees any deficiencies in its responsibility for oversight. And finally, an explanation of precisely what changes the MPA would like to see to the current statutory framework.

You have been extremely helpful representing the MPA, and you have set out in your response to these matters, in your written submission, those which you felt were of importance to us, and we are grateful for that. But let me try and just explore with you those areas which we believe can help us best.

Firstly, could you please explain how the MPA currently exercises its duty in keeping itself informed about the relevant activities within the MPS?

A. With regards to professional standards and complaints?

Sir William Morris: Well, if those are the two key areas which are of primary concern, yes, of course. We want to know how you exercise the duty that you currently have in keeping yourselves, as an authority, informed about the relevant activities within the MPS.

A. Well, as I mentioned earlier, the MPA has a committee which is called the Professional Standards and Complaints Committee, and it has a number of members on this committee. Part of the responsibility of the committee is to be informed by the MPS on all activities that it carries out in the area of complaints and professional standards, including activities against corruption and other matters.

The system that we have at the moment is that we request reports from the MPS on a fairly regular basis on trends in terms of management of complaints; we look at figures for the whole of the MPS; looking at issues such as timeliness and the number of complaints that are being received, and the timescale in which they are being dealt with. We also look at the outcome in terms of the numbers that are being informally resolved, the numbers that are going to discipline hearings, and so on.

We have a duty to look at the quality of files, and again we have attempted to do this by dip sampling closed cases. Unfortunately I do not think we have been very successful in doing that because the number of cases that the MPS deals with, as we have already mentioned, is very large indeed.

We also receive reports on issues regarding discipline, and the clerk to the Authority and the deputy receives on a weekly basis reports on significant cases on all matters, civil and ET matters, as well as others that are of significant importance to both organisations.

The Professional Standards Committee can request reports on all aspects of the MPS's work within the DPS, and in the past, for example, we have asked for reports on issues such as disproportionality within that department; we have asked for reports on certainly timeliness, and that is one area where we have been driving for improvement over the last two or three years, and we are pleased to say that there has been significant improvement in that area.

I have to say that we have had – you mentioned earlier in your opening remarks that we are here to look at what is good and not to criticise the MPS, and we have had a very good working relationship with the DPS in terms of providing us with the information that we require.

Matters which are of great significance are normally brought to the attention of the whole Authority, when all members can have an input into the discussions that arise as a result of these cases, and when a significant amount of money is being paid in compensation, for example, these decisions, again, are taken by the Authority as a whole.

Sir William Morris: The relationship between the two organisations, MPA and MPS, is a formal one, set out and regulated by statute. Functionally, the duties, responsibilities, rights and expectations are enshrined in a series of protocols, working functional documents. Could you tell us whether you are happy with these protocols, what areas do they cover, and how long have they been in existence, working existence, because I know the statute is relatively new, two years or so, and what is the current status in terms of reviewing these protocols? We are very interested to know how that aspect of the relationship has evolved and is evolving and levels of satisfaction or otherwise.

Mr Auladin: You will be aware that there is a protocol in existence, and it, I think, came into existence –

Sir William Morris: Only one or more than one?

Mr Auladin: There is more than one, but in terms of significant cases and the way that the MPS is required, or requested, to report to the Authority, there is one, and it is one which we have recently reviewed, and it is in a draft form, and I understand it was submitted to the Inquiry this morning. It is David here who actually does quite a lot of work in producing this revised protocol, and perhaps I could ask him to come in here.

Mr Riddle: If I can just explain, at the moment there are actually not that many protocols that exist formally governing the relationship between the Authority and the MPS. In this particular area, there was a protocol that was designed, I think, in the first year or so of existence of the Authority, which sought to really do no more than to explain that members of the Authority did not have any function as such in relation to individual complaints. There was a protocol which advised members to, if they received a complaint, refer it to the Directorate of Professional Standards and so on, and set out in outline form how the Authority would be kept informed of the performance of the complaints and discipline function.

There is a separate protocol relating to information and involvement by the Authority in respect of what we call significant cases; the high profile cases where there is likely to be a question of compensation to be paid by the MPS and therefore requiring funding approval by the force.

The MPA protocol in respect of compensation matters on significant cases really became the basis of the APA, the Association of Police Authorities, protocol on complaints and discipline matters, and that protocol largely reflects what happens in the MPA. But there is not a single all-embracing protocol which defines existing practice around complaints and discipline.

The information which is reported to the Authority from the MPS is, in a way, subject to continuous review, because as information is presented and challenged and probed by members, out of that arises the need for information to be presented slightly differently in future, and there is a kind of constant dynamic that the information that the MPS presents is under review all the time and is evolving and is under continuous review in that sense.

The protocol that Reshard just referred to, which is the one we submitted to you yesterday, is the protocol that we have prepared to illustrate how the Authority would seek to have a more assertive role in respect of significant cases in the future, and it really, as I hope is clear in the phrase of it, or from our earlier submissions, is taking what we have now and trying to develop it to ensure that the role of the Authority in respect of those critical individual cases, whether they are complaints, discipline, employment tribunal or grievances, it can take place within a structure which is understood by both the MPS and the MPA. But that recent protocol is an illustration of what we would like to see in place; it is not something that is currently in place. It fills a gap, if you like, on the fact of it, that is not there at the moment.

Sir William Morris: The issue, obviously, is one of accountability: the MPS to the Authority, and by extension the Authority in terms of the public, so to speak. But the real test in the end is the concept of the Authority, the MPA, being, if you like, as the Police Authority, the body which is accountable in the public's mind, on a day-to-day basis.

What I want to just find out is, are there any further steps that the MPA believes it could take in informing itself to a greater extent about, say, the complaints machinery, making it more responsive in terms of having a knowledge of the issues which Mr Riddle has just described as significant, for example? Are you satisfied that you have reached the limits of your powers, if that is the right word, in informing yourself procedurally and functionally?

Mr Auladin: I think within the present legal framework we do as well, I think, as we can do in terms of requesting information and getting the information from the MPS. Again, I have to make it clear that the MPS willingly gives us the information that we require.

There is not, however, this formal arrangement whereby we are informed at various levels in terms of the processes that are taking place with a particular case and, more importantly, the decisions that are being made at certain levels. We have suggested in a recent submission one or two ideas, which is one, for example, about possibly bringing accountability a little bit closer to the Authority. For example, the Deputy Commissioner who at the moment has responsibility for professional standards, being accountable to the Authority rather than to the Commissioner, whereby we will then be better informed about all cases – well, certainly the most significant cases, if not all. And for us not to direct these cases, because what we are not suggesting is to have involvement in the day-to-day running of these cases, but what we want to be able to do is to be informed about these cases so that we can offer advice and observations that we hope will help the MPS in dealing with these cases.

The draft protocol goes some way, within the existing legal framework, in giving us more information, because we are now asking for us to be involved at various levels – when I say "us", it may be the clerk to the Authority being involved about the case and the way that it is being managed, and a decision then to be made as to whether members need to be involved. But I think within the legal framework, we are doing as well as we possibly can in terms of getting the information and holding the MPS to account.

I do not know whether David wants to add anything.

Mr Riddle: I think just to elaborate on that, in our second submission to you we did identify a number of things that we felt the Authority could do more of absolutely within the existing framework. We could and should do more dip sampling of completed complaints cases.

I am aware of colleagues of mine in other police authorities who say that their authority, through the relevant member group, effectively scrutinises every completed complaint case, and when asked how many they have, and they have 250 or 300 a year, well, there are 5,000 in the MPS, and I do not think it will ever be possible for the MPA to scrutinise completed cases to the depth that some smaller police authorities currently do.

But we have to find a way of subjecting more completed case files to scrutiny by members with officer support. We now have a modest increase in staffing resources, which will provide a basis for us to step up the dip sampling practice to an extent, but we will only ever be sampling a small sample, a very small sample, of the total cases dealt with.

But I think it is important because it does give members that qualitative handle on the way complaints are dealt with to balance against the statistics which are supplied by the MPS.

We also believe that the Authority should be spending a bit more time focusing on trends, both in relation to complaints and complainants at borough level. At the moment the Authority takes a London-wide view, and it is invisible to us, to the Authority, whether there are patterns of behaviour reflected in complaints that are occurring in Lambeth, which are very distinct from those which are occurring in Hillingdon, for example. So I think there is more that the Authority needs to do there to understand how the complaints process speaks about the delivery of policing.

I think as part of our self appraisal process in connection with preparing evidence for the Inquiry we have recognised that the Authority does not spend very much time talking with stakeholder organisations about their perception of the effectiveness of the complaints process, the Independent Advisory Group, the groups representing lawyers who represent complainants in London. I think those are all areas where the Authority can increase its activity and make itself better informed about the variety of different perspectives.

Those are all marginal increments of improvement on a system which, I think, at the moment is working pretty well and pretty well matches the model processes that are advocated by the APA to all police authorities.

Sir William Morris: If you were to use your existing power to its ultimate in respect of pursuing the role of accountability, do you think that you would be open to the charge of political interference in the MPS's activities?

Mr Auladin: This was an issue that was raised at our first hearing, and we are aware that a number of witnesses have raised similar questions. I do remember the chair of the Authority answering in the form that the Authority does not act as a political body. That is the first point. I think the APA has made that point as well.

Clearly, in London, policing is a very political issue, and it will attract a great deal of political interest. However, there are ways of actually making sure that if we do have this direct accountability that it is free from political interference. We have not, at this stage, explored all the possibilities, but one possibility that was mentioned on the last occasion would be non-political members, for example, to be part of the panel that has responsibility for that role. But I think it is an area where we will need to do some further work for us to be able to get the right format to deliver on this proposal. But I do believe we can do so without being charged with political bias.

Sir William Morris: Is not one of the problems that, although you are not directly elected to the Authority, you are appointed by an elected political body; does that not in itself, not unreasonably, bring the connotation that the charge of political interference has got to be probably better answered by just relying on the Police Authority, saying that you are not a political organisation.

Mr Auladin: Can I just clarify a point here. Not all the members are selected by an elected body. The magistrates are appointed by another body, and so are the independent members.

We already carry out a number of functions which, to a degree, have significant impact on the way that London needs policing, and we do so without taking into account party political views, and we have been able to do so over the last four years very well, and I do not think there will be a problem for us to be able to do so in this arena.

Sir William Morris: I said earlier that part of our role, and indeed our witnesses can help us, is how do we make things better, because that is the whole point of our exercise.

What could we recommend, do you think, that would enhance for Londoners, in terms of the benefit that they can expect from their Police Service; what could we recommend insofar as the MPA is concerned that would add some value to what Londoners expect from their Police Service?

Mr Auladin: I think the first point for me would be transparency. I think there have been question marks about some of the processes that have taken place particularly regarding high profile cases over the last two years, although the MPS will tell you that they have gone to great lengths to make sure that the process is fair, they have involved the Independent Advisory Group, for example, and they have involved other stakeholders in some of the cases when they have managed those cases.

There is a perception that the process is unfair. There is a perception that there is a different agenda which people are working to. This is one area, therefore, where I think we need to be doing some work in order to make sure that people see the process for what it is, and therefore transparency is key to that.

The second point I think David has already mentioned, which is about working with other stakeholders, and one particular body I see is the IPCC, whereby we could be working together to make sure that we are sharing good practice, but also to make sure that the processes that we have now satisfy all parties, complainants as well as people in the service. So that would be two important points for me.

Sir William Morris: Do you not think that before you can justify some of the arguments for additional powers you have to demonstrate that you are using your existing powers to its ultimate provision? And are you using your existing powers to the ultimate provision?

Mr Auladin: I think we are in many of the areas we have been able to do so, and I think we have been able to show to the people of London that we are doing so.

Sir William Morris: I mean in its totality, not just in selected areas. You have a set of statutory powers laid down; are you using them to their maximum capacity to regulate the relationship with the MPS?

Mr Auladin: I will say that we are. We have done so in areas of finance, for example, in areas of resource allocation, in areas of police numbers and their allocation on boroughs, in areas of complaints and discipline, in areas of HR, and in many other areas. I think we have done a significant amount in bringing the Commissioner to account.

Certainly, for example, you will know that we recently published a report on stop and search, which has made some fundamental recommendations, and we will be asking the Commissioner to deliver on these recommendations, and we will make sure that these recommendations are implemented on behalf of the people of London.

I do think over the last four years we have had a good measure of success in the way that we have performed.

Mr Riddle: Can I supplement that? I have only worked for the MPA for 12 months, for several years before I was involved with another police authority, and I am well aware of the operations of other police authorities through the work of the APA. I think the MPA pushes the envelope of accountability in the existing legislation very vigorously through its approach to scrutinies, through its approach to commissioning the setting up of independent inquiries, and in lots of ways it exercises its responsibility to hold the Commissioner to account very assertively.

I do think it is worth reminding the panel that actually nowhere in the Police Act is there any express statement that the job of the Police Authority is to hold the Commissioner to account. It is a matter that the MPA and many other authorities have drawn to the government's attention in the context of their current review of the function of police authorities. It would be good, and it would be good if this panel chose to recommend that one thing to happen would be a statutory statement that the chief police officer is accountable to the Police Authority, because everybody understands that is the convention but it is not there at the moment. The only police force where that statement is in existence in legislation is the Northern Ireland Police Service, where there is a clear definition of the responsibility on the Police Authority to hold the chief officer of police to account.

I think establishing that would be an important step forward, and then recommendations that enabled a proper framework of accountability to operate in this area on the lines of our suggested protocol would be very helpful.

Sir William Morris: Thank you very much indeed. Miss Weekes has some questions.

Questions by Miss Weekes

Miss Weekes: Can I follow on from that important topic and perhaps emphasise it in this way. Yesterday we had evidence from Superintendent Ali Dizaei and he said repeatedly, on a number of occasions, that he felt one of the most important things that we should consider is the accountability of the Metropolitan Police in relation to those who make decisions on investigations, complaints and discipline. And he added that he felt the Metropolitan Police Authority could play a greater role in dealing with what happens when things go horribly wrong. He clearly, and understandably, used his case as an example. None of the officers so far in relation to his case, or Sergeant Virdi's case, have been brought to the table to give an account for why things went wrong. They have not gone as far as sanctions, just the accountability of explaining, "Well, we did spend millions on this case, we have settled for £500,000; why?"

I think that that is legitimate concern that an officer can have after having gone through years of waiting for his complaint and he sees that no one is accountable, no one has given an explanation. Is that a role that you can play?

Mr Riddle: Yes, I think it is a role that the Authority can play. Precisely how that role plays out is a function also of the discipline procedures that operate within the force. There is this intimate interlinking between the regimented discipline procedures and mechanisms of accountability.

But I think that implicit in the Authority's concept of a different relationship between professional standards and Authority members, and implicit in our thinking around a revised protocol, is the requirement, the need for the Authority to be able to demand a detailed explanation of what has happened and to be able to give advice to the Commissioner, the chief officer of police, to ensure that something changes in the way that matters are conducted and the handling of cases proceeds.

It seems to me that unless there is quite an extensive redrawing of the discipline framework that currently obtains in respect of policing, there will always be tensions around exactly what the Authority can do to bring individual officers to account.

As I say, I think it is implicit in the proposals that the Authority has made to you that it would wish to have a framework in which it could hold the Commissioner or the Deputy, or the Director of Professional Standards, more clearly to account for the way that individual cases are conducted.

Miss Weekes: Do you say that your statutory provisions actually stop you – and I am going to use Dr Dizaei's case as an example – do you say that the statutory provisions stop you asking this question: why have you spent millions of taxpayers' money on this case, investigating it in this way? Is that what you are really saying? At the moment you are just not allowed to ask that question?

Mr Riddle: I think within the present statutory framework the Authority could ask that question and expect an answer.

Miss Weekes: Right. Well, have you asked it, and if not, why not?

Mr Auladin: We have asked the question, and one of the reasons why we do have this Inquiry here today, it is part of that questioning process that has taken place after the case was settled.

I think what we are very keen to do is to learn from what happened in that case, and we have asked a number of questions, and we have asked for a review of the case to be undertaken, and what we hope will happen as a result of this Inquiry here, and the review that the MPS is undertaking, we will have some not only lessons but answers as to why some of the decisions that were made were made at the time and what would be the best ways of preventing similar things happening in the future.

Mr Riddle: I just recollect that the Authority in its first evidence – and I think Superintendent Dizaei yesterday said that the manner in which individual members of the Authority had become involved at a relatively early stage, and quite intimately in some form of oversight of the investigation, compromised the ability of the Authority to hold the Commissioner to account at the end of the day.

Miss Weekes: That was his view. Do you happen to agree with that?

Mr Riddle: I think the Authority in its own first submission said that the manner in which individual members came to be involved in that case was with all the benefit of hindsight undesirable because it did cloud the issue of accountability. In a sense, all of that underlies our set of proposals which are about clarifying the accountability of the Commissioner to the Authority within a clear, transparent framework, to avoid the situation where individual members get called in to oversee or to give guidance or to offer some advice, as happened in relation to Operation Helios, which does, I think, tend to compromise the ability of the Authority at the end of the day to say, "This was not well done", or whatever.

Miss Weekes: But of course, Mr Riddle, is it not really about how you conduct your supervisory role? Is that not the real issue? You would not want, I hope, to say that the Metropolitan Police Authority should not take the supervisory role because you are worried about being accused of contaminating yourself later. It is really about how you do it and how you maintain independence whilst asking perfectly proper questions, "How is this investigation running? What are your decisions so far? Where are you going with it?"; is that right or not?

Mr Riddle: I would say that is exactly right, and it is that kind of relationship that we have attempted to put into words in our revised protocol. It is precisely that kind of question that the Authority should be asking and getting answers to.

Mr Auladin: Can I just say that I would concur with that strongly. It is something that we have been attempting to do, but, as you have said, it is getting the right format to do this supervisory role which we need to find.

Miss Weekes: Yes. Two other points, again they are related to the issue of discipline. I do not think you were asked about this at the first session, but one of the major difficulties, of course, is the length of time that these cases take. I know that you will be familiar, as a magistrate, that your case load is managed by a case manager, who is accountable for how many cases come before your court, how quickly, why they settle, why they do not, and who does and does not ask for adjournments.

What do you both say of the suggestion that there should be an independent case manager who will deal with the fixing of cases, applications for adjournments, possibly applications for disclosure, applications by officers who go sick – sometimes we are told legitimately, sometimes not – delays within the investigations themselves which are often perfectly proper, sometimes not? Just the principle of the case manager, a legally qualified person who themselves may be subject to judicial review. The practicalities, of course, must be worked out, but it seems to me that at the moment whoever works within the Department of Professional Standards is not coping very well with fixing cases and having them go through in a regular, timely fashion.

Mr Auladin: It is a principle that I will very strongly support. I do remember mentioning case management in my first –

Miss Weekes: I think you did actually.

Mr Auladin: It is an issue that I have raised personally with the Director of Professional Standards on a number of occasions.

Miss Weekes: Can you just tell me what their response was?

Mr Auladin: I think they will say that they are trying their best to reduce delays. They will cite examples of police officers using delaying tactics by, as we have talked about, sickness, availability of their representatives and challenging processes and so on and so forth, but I do think the manner in which cases are being managed now has room for improvement. The way, for example, the boards are set up, time commitment for panel members, and the way that officers are represented at these panels and all sorts of other issues. I think it is an area we need to look at and do some further work.

But I agree with you, from my experience in court there are better ways of managing cases here, and it is a principle that I think we need to be exploring very seriously.

I do not know whether you want to add to that, David?

Mr Riddle: I think I would just briefly comment that I would suggest there is a distinction between the management of cases which are under investigation and then the management of a case from the point at which a disciplinary charge is articulated. I can see the role of the case manager very clearly and very readily acknowledge that in the process once a disciplinary charge has been put. I am less clear how it would work in the investigation stage, and how it would reconcile itself with the proper conduct of an investigation by an experienced senior investigating officer.

Miss Weekes: I think that needs to be discussed, for obvious reasons.

I wonder whether I could have brought up on the screen the Virdi recommendations. I am sorry I did not say this before.

I would like your assistance on the meaning of a particular recommendation within the Virdi Report, and, as you know, we are asked to look at those recommendations.

If we scroll down to the end of the page, number 11, if we can just read that:

"The MPS should monitor the composition of representatives of the Police Federation's Joint Branch Board, ensuring that concrete measures are taken to address under-representation, especially from ethnic minority groups."

I know that does not say yourselves, but I just wanted your help, if I may, just generally, as an review and an umbrella organisation, whether you think that recommendation is workable, because the Police Federation is a statutory body, run by statute, and the issue of representation on the Police Federation joint branch board is obviously relevant to taking on board the complaints, dissatisfactions of officers from all walks of life and backgrounds. And if that is done well, it can often avoid a complaint, a problem, workplace conflict. So it goes to the root of avoiding discipline, avoiding employment tribunal cases, et cetera.

I just wondered, as an umbrella organisation, having commissioned this report, which was your report, whether you think that recommendation is in fact workable in practical terms. I only ask because it was your report, commissioned by you.

Mr Auladin: I belief it is workable in terms of being able to monitor the composition of the representatives. I stand to be corrected, but I seem to remember that this recommendation came as a result of an issue that Sergeant Virdi raised about his representation and the help that he received at the time that his case was being dealt with.

Clearly, what this recommendation is about, it is good practice – we have talked about all areas and all organisations to do with policing to be able to reflect the diversity which exists within not only the police force but the population of London itself, and I have personally no doubt that the Federation will take that on board. But I do not think we have the power to instruct the Federation to construct their boards in any particular way.

Miss Weekes: That is right. And that leads me, conveniently, into the terms of reference that deals with the MPA's duties under the Amendment to the Race Relations Act. Just following on from that recommendation, how do you see your overall role so far – because I know that you have been in place for four years; how effective do you think you have been in promoting racial equality under the terms of the amendment?

Mr Auladin: I think we have endeavoured to do quite a good deal of work, and I think we have been successful in a number of areas. We have, for example, in terms of having a representative workforce, carried out a number of exercises, including members being involved in recruitment campaigns and so on.

The MPA itself is now in the process of putting its diversity and equality scheme in place, and the Equality and Diversity Board has, over the last two years, done a significant amount of work in getting information from the MPS and being able to not only deal with the information but to question some of the findings of this information, to make sure that the MPS is complying with the various Acts, really.

Miss Weekes: If there was an immediate area for improvement in your role in promoting racial equality under the Amendment Act, what would you say it is?

Mr Auladin: I think most important to the people of London at the moment is stop and search, and it is an issue which was raised last week when the report was launched, and it is an issue which is a sticking point in the communities because, although there is a recognition that the MPS has done a great deal to improve relationships with communities, stop and search is an obstacle to further improvement in that relationship.

It is an area where I think we need to be able to defer the work and where we hope to be able to hold the Commissioner to account in terms of seeing improvement in that area.

We also feel that it is extremely important for the force, or the service, to be representative of the people of London, and again we will continue to work very hard to try and achieve the sort of representation which would be equitable for London.

Miss Weekes: The last question is this: in relation to discipline and complaints, we have received sufficient evidence that demonstrates that there is often – not always, but often – disparity of treatment between visible ethnic minorities and white officers. It is quite difficult, is it not, for you to influence that change when the problems are occurring with line management? Can you really be effective about bringing about change in your position?

Mr Auladin: I think we can. With the advent of the new Professional Standards Officer, we hope to actually look at more cases that have been completed. We are hoping to be able to learn from these cases whether there are disparities, and to look at the logic behind decisions that investigating officers have actually taken to examine their log books in terms of decision-making processes, and for us to be able then to have a proper picture as to whether this disparity is perceived or real.

Certainly, looking at figures, we have seen that there is an appearance of disproportionality in terms of complaints and discipline, and we have asked the MPS on two or three occasions to have some information and a report, really, on this issue, and we have been given some explanations, but they themselves agree that there is no concrete explanation as to why disproportionality is there.

What I do know is happening is that there is some research being carried out. It was going to be carried out in conjunction with the Home Office, but I am not sure what status it has reached now, but there will be some research carried out to find out what the reasons are behind the figures that we presently have. But it is something that we are dealing with. We are on the case.

Miss Weekes: And are you satisfied that all the recommendations from the Virdi Report have been fulfilled by the Metropolitan Police Service?

Mr Riddle: I am sure the answer to that must be no because included in the Authority's terms of reference to this Inquiry is to undertake a review of the extent to which they have been carried out. So I think the Authority is not convinced that all of the recommendations of the Virdi Inquiry have been driven down in practice throughout the MPS. I think the record shows that they have been considered and adopted in areas of policy of the MPS, but is the MPA satisfied that what the Virdi Inquiry expected to happen by way of change has happened? The answer must be no.

Sir William Morris: Thank you very much indeed.

Sir Anthony has one or two questions.

Questions by Sir Anthony Burden

Sir Anthony Burden: Only one very small point, Mr Auladin, just drawing on your vast experience as a magistrate. Looking at some of the sanctions imposed within the MPS, because it is such a vast organisation and more than one chief officer disciplines, there appears to be some disparity in sanctions handed down. Would you see any value in a tariff system which gave guidance to officers who were actually issuing sanctions?

Mr Auladin: I do see value in it. It is something that we have asked the MPS for for the last two years. They have recently produced draft sanction guidelines, but it does not go as far as producing a tariff. They have suggested that there are some legal problems in producing a tariff. I personally do not agree with that, and I will continue to push for some sort of tariff.

We share the concerns of many that there is a great inconsistency in the sort of sanctions that are given out to police officers, and I think it is crucial that we have consistency not only in approach, as their draft sanction guidelines will provide, but also in sentencing itself.

Sir Anthony Burden: Just on the issue raised by my colleague in relation to statistics provided to you, have you reached a stage now, in maturity of the organisation, your organisation, where you are getting the statistics that you want, as opposed to the statistics that the MPS want to give you?

Mr Auladin: It is a mixture of both. The MPS has been very co-operative in giving us the figures that we want. In complaints and discipline, for example, we have, over the last four years, asked for a number of changes in the format in which material is presented to us; for example, when we are looking at trends in timeliness and the number of cases that are being dealt with by individual investigating officers, and they have put schemes and programmes, IT programmes, in place for them to be able to capture the information and present it to us.

But it is a vast organisation which has a large area of operation, and therefore it is not always possible, I would say, for them to judge the sort of information that we require. But I do have to say that they have been co-operative and we have actually received the information that we have wished for.

Sir William Morris: Well, that concludes the series of questions that we wanted to explore with you, but you will recall that in my introductory comments I said that when we had completed our questions we would provide you with the opportunity to make a brief closing statement, if you so wish. If you do wish, this is the time to do it.

Closing comments by Mr Auladin

Mr Auladin: I would like to say a few words. You did mention in your opening remarks about the purpose of this Inquiry. It is something that we fully support, which is to find out how best to deal with some of the problems that we have had over the last few years in this area.

Over the last four years, since the MPA has been in existence, we have to acknowledge that there has been significant progress made, not only in the relationship, but also in the manner that business is carried out by the Police Service. But there is still room for improvement, and I think both the MPA and the MPS are willing to look at ways of improving their processes.

What we would like to see, certainly, is for us to be able to find a way of holding the MPS and the Commissioner to account, certainly in this area, in an improved manner, which will bring, as I have said before, transparency, but also bring confidence in that process, not only from the people of London, but from officers within the Service itself. And we will therefore look forward to the Inquiry's report.

Sir William Morris: Thank you very much. Thank you both very much, and thank you for your submission this afternoon, and indeed the submissions that we previously received from the MPA when the chairperson came in for us sometime past.

Thank you for the evidence, and just a final thank you on behalf of my colleagues and myself for the overall contribution that the MPA is making to our work. We are very grateful to you. Thank you.

Mr Auladin: Thank you.

Sir William Morris: We stand adjourned until 10.30 tomorrow.

3.05 pm
(The Inquiry adjourned until 10.30 am on Wednesday, 9th June 2004)

Skip Navigation \| Accessible

Accessibility About the Inquiry Contacts Search
Home News Schedule Transcripts Evidence Report Links
Transcripts > Metropolitan Police Authority (08 Jun 04)
QuickSearch See also On this website: Evidence: Metropolitan Police Authority Transcript: Metropolitan Police Authority (23 February 2004)	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 Mr R Auladin and Mr D Riddle of the Metropolitan Police Authority on 8 June 2004. Sections available here: Transcript of public session: Mr R Auladin and Mr D Riddle of the Metropolitan Police Authority Questions by Sir William Morris Questions by Miss Weekes Questions by Sir Anthony Burden Closing comments by Mr Auladin Alternative versions This transcript is also available with original line and page numbering. Content Transcript of public session: Mr R Auladin and Mr D Riddle of the Metropolitan Police Authority Tuesday, 8 June 2004 2pm Sir William Morris: Good afternoon, Mr Auladin, and welcome. Can I first of all say thank you for accepting our invitation to attend the Inquiry this afternoon and for giving us your evidence. Thank you also for your written submission, which we have found extremely helpful. I appreciate that for some of our witnesses the process may seem a little daunting, so I thought it might be helpful if I set out just briefly how we propose to conduct the hearing this afternoon. But first let me introduce myself and the other members of the panel. I am Sir Bill Morris, recently retired General Secretary of the Transport and General Workers Union. 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 the South Wales Constabulary after a very long and distinguished career in the Police Service. On my left is Miss Anesta Weekes. Anesta is an eminent barrister. She sits as a recorder and she is also a part-time chairperson of employment tribunals. She was in fact counsel to the Lawrence Inquiry. As you know, we have been tasked by the Metropolitan Police Authority to conduct an independent Inquiry into professional standards and employment matters of the Metropolitan Police Service. The Inquiry we are conducting is inquisitorial and not adversarial, and our focus is on the MPS as an organisation and not the individuals who make up the organisation. 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 and better practices. We take that view rather than concentrating on making criticisms of the MPS as an organisation and indeed the individuals. Among the issues that we are required in our terms of reference to address is to seek to establish whether the practices, the procedures, the structures, the convention of the Metropolitan Police Service in respect of its professional standards and employment matters represents best effective practice when compared to other police services, or indeed the public service generally. Some of our witnesses were very keen to tell us what is wrong with the MPS. We note their evidence, but we also want to know what is right with it. But even more important, we are keen to hear what steps can be taken to make it even better. At the end of these introductory remarks, I will lead on our questions to you, followed by my colleagues on the panel, who may have some supplementary questions. When we have completed our questions I will offer you the opportunity to make a brief closing comment, if you so wish. But for the record, let me just bring to your attention that a transcript is being taken so that we can have an accurate record of the evidence given to us by all our witnesses, and this will be published on our website shortly after this afternoon's session. Before I begin my series of questions, for the benefit again of our transcript notes, could I ask you please to formally introduce yourself to the Inquiry and give us some details about your background and expertise. Mr Auladin: Thank you, Chairman. My name is Reshard Auladin. I am a magistrate member of the Metropolitan Police Authority. I chair the Professional Standards and Complaints Committee and have been a magistrate for about 15 years, and I have my own business which I run in London. I have been a member of the Authority for the last four years and have recently been reappointed to serve another term of four years. Before I carry on, I wonder, with your permission, chair, whether I can introduce to the Inquiry Mr David Riddle, who is the Deputy Clerk of the Authority, and also solicitor to the Authority. He is the officer responsible for professional standards and has been responsible for doing most, if not all, of the work required to put in the submissions and to support members during the inquiry. Again, with your permission, I would like him to assist me this afternoon. Sir William Morris: You are both very welcome indeed. Mr Auladin: Thank you. Questions by Sir William Morris Sir William Morris: Perhaps if I can start by just reminding you that the Secretary to the Inquiry, Amanda Kelly, wrote to you on 5th May, setting out the areas on which we were interested in seeking evidence from you this afternoon. Just for structure, I would like to summarise those issues that she set out in her letter to you. My recollection is that they were the steps currently taken by the MPA to exercise its duty in keeping itself informed about the operation of the police complaints process in the MPS. Next was whether the MPA considers there are any further steps that it could take itself, using the current statutory provisions as they exist, as to whether the MPA sees any deficiencies in its responsibility for oversight. And finally, an explanation of precisely what changes the MPA would like to see to the current statutory framework. You have been extremely helpful representing the MPA, and you have set out in your response to these matters, in your written submission, those which you felt were of importance to us, and we are grateful for that. But let me try and just explore with you those areas which we believe can help us best. Firstly, could you please explain how the MPA currently exercises its duty in keeping itself informed about the relevant activities within the MPS? A. With regards to professional standards and complaints? Sir William Morris: Well, if those are the two key areas which are of primary concern, yes, of course. We want to know how you exercise the duty that you currently have in keeping yourselves, as an authority, informed about the relevant activities within the MPS. A. Well, as I mentioned earlier, the MPA has a committee which is called the Professional Standards and Complaints Committee, and it has a number of members on this committee. Part of the responsibility of the committee is to be informed by the MPS on all activities that it carries out in the area of complaints and professional standards, including activities against corruption and other matters. The system that we have at the moment is that we request reports from the MPS on a fairly regular basis on trends in terms of management of complaints; we look at figures for the whole of the MPS; looking at issues such as timeliness and the number of complaints that are being received, and the timescale in which they are being dealt with. We also look at the outcome in terms of the numbers that are being informally resolved, the numbers that are going to discipline hearings, and so on. We have a duty to look at the quality of files, and again we have attempted to do this by dip sampling closed cases. Unfortunately I do not think we have been very successful in doing that because the number of cases that the MPS deals with, as we have already mentioned, is very large indeed. We also receive reports on issues regarding discipline, and the clerk to the Authority and the deputy receives on a weekly basis reports on significant cases on all matters, civil and ET matters, as well as others that are of significant importance to both organisations. The Professional Standards Committee can request reports on all aspects of the MPS's work within the DPS, and in the past, for example, we have asked for reports on issues such as disproportionality within that department; we have asked for reports on certainly timeliness, and that is one area where we have been driving for improvement over the last two or three years, and we are pleased to say that there has been significant improvement in that area. I have to say that we have had – you mentioned earlier in your opening remarks that we are here to look at what is good and not to criticise the MPS, and we have had a very good working relationship with the DPS in terms of providing us with the information that we require. Matters which are of great significance are normally brought to the attention of the whole Authority, when all members can have an input into the discussions that arise as a result of these cases, and when a significant amount of money is being paid in compensation, for example, these decisions, again, are taken by the Authority as a whole. Sir William Morris: The relationship between the two organisations, MPA and MPS, is a formal one, set out and regulated by statute. Functionally, the duties, responsibilities, rights and expectations are enshrined in a series of protocols, working functional documents. Could you tell us whether you are happy with these protocols, what areas do they cover, and how long have they been in existence, working existence, because I know the statute is relatively new, two years or so, and what is the current status in terms of reviewing these protocols? We are very interested to know how that aspect of the relationship has evolved and is evolving and levels of satisfaction or otherwise. Mr Auladin: You will be aware that there is a protocol in existence, and it, I think, came into existence – Sir William Morris: Only one or more than one? Mr Auladin: There is more than one, but in terms of significant cases and the way that the MPS is required, or requested, to report to the Authority, there is one, and it is one which we have recently reviewed, and it is in a draft form, and I understand it was submitted to the Inquiry this morning. It is David here who actually does quite a lot of work in producing this revised protocol, and perhaps I could ask him to come in here. Mr Riddle: If I can just explain, at the moment there are actually not that many protocols that exist formally governing the relationship between the Authority and the MPS. In this particular area, there was a protocol that was designed, I think, in the first year or so of existence of the Authority, which sought to really do no more than to explain that members of the Authority did not have any function as such in relation to individual complaints. There was a protocol which advised members to, if they received a complaint, refer it to the Directorate of Professional Standards and so on, and set out in outline form how the Authority would be kept informed of the performance of the complaints and discipline function. There is a separate protocol relating to information and involvement by the Authority in respect of what we call significant cases; the high profile cases where there is likely to be a question of compensation to be paid by the MPS and therefore requiring funding approval by the force. The MPA protocol in respect of compensation matters on significant cases really became the basis of the APA, the Association of Police Authorities, protocol on complaints and discipline matters, and that protocol largely reflects what happens in the MPA. But there is not a single all-embracing protocol which defines existing practice around complaints and discipline. The information which is reported to the Authority from the MPS is, in a way, subject to continuous review, because as information is presented and challenged and probed by members, out of that arises the need for information to be presented slightly differently in future, and there is a kind of constant dynamic that the information that the MPS presents is under review all the time and is evolving and is under continuous review in that sense. The protocol that Reshard just referred to, which is the one we submitted to you yesterday, is the protocol that we have prepared to illustrate how the Authority would seek to have a more assertive role in respect of significant cases in the future, and it really, as I hope is clear in the phrase of it, or from our earlier submissions, is taking what we have now and trying to develop it to ensure that the role of the Authority in respect of those critical individual cases, whether they are complaints, discipline, employment tribunal or grievances, it can take place within a structure which is understood by both the MPS and the MPA. But that recent protocol is an illustration of what we would like to see in place; it is not something that is currently in place. It fills a gap, if you like, on the fact of it, that is not there at the moment. Sir William Morris: The issue, obviously, is one of accountability: the MPS to the Authority, and by extension the Authority in terms of the public, so to speak. But the real test in the end is the concept of the Authority, the MPA, being, if you like, as the Police Authority, the body which is accountable in the public's mind, on a day-to-day basis. What I want to just find out is, are there any further steps that the MPA believes it could take in informing itself to a greater extent about, say, the complaints machinery, making it more responsive in terms of having a knowledge of the issues which Mr Riddle has just described as significant, for example? Are you satisfied that you have reached the limits of your powers, if that is the right word, in informing yourself procedurally and functionally? Mr Auladin: I think within the present legal framework we do as well, I think, as we can do in terms of requesting information and getting the information from the MPS. Again, I have to make it clear that the MPS willingly gives us the information that we require. There is not, however, this formal arrangement whereby we are informed at various levels in terms of the processes that are taking place with a particular case and, more importantly, the decisions that are being made at certain levels. We have suggested in a recent submission one or two ideas, which is one, for example, about possibly bringing accountability a little bit closer to the Authority. For example, the Deputy Commissioner who at the moment has responsibility for professional standards, being accountable to the Authority rather than to the Commissioner, whereby we will then be better informed about all cases – well, certainly the most significant cases, if not all. And for us not to direct these cases, because what we are not suggesting is to have involvement in the day-to-day running of these cases, but what we want to be able to do is to be informed about these cases so that we can offer advice and observations that we hope will help the MPS in dealing with these cases. The draft protocol goes some way, within the existing legal framework, in giving us more information, because we are now asking for us to be involved at various levels – when I say "us", it may be the clerk to the Authority being involved about the case and the way that it is being managed, and a decision then to be made as to whether members need to be involved. But I think within the legal framework, we are doing as well as we possibly can in terms of getting the information and holding the MPS to account. I do not know whether David wants to add anything. Mr Riddle: I think just to elaborate on that, in our second submission to you we did identify a number of things that we felt the Authority could do more of absolutely within the existing framework. We could and should do more dip sampling of completed complaints cases. I am aware of colleagues of mine in other police authorities who say that their authority, through the relevant member group, effectively scrutinises every completed complaint case, and when asked how many they have, and they have 250 or 300 a year, well, there are 5,000 in the MPS, and I do not think it will ever be possible for the MPA to scrutinise completed cases to the depth that some smaller police authorities currently do. But we have to find a way of subjecting more completed case files to scrutiny by members with officer support. We now have a modest increase in staffing resources, which will provide a basis for us to step up the dip sampling practice to an extent, but we will only ever be sampling a small sample, a very small sample, of the total cases dealt with. But I think it is important because it does give members that qualitative handle on the way complaints are dealt with to balance against the statistics which are supplied by the MPS. We also believe that the Authority should be spending a bit more time focusing on trends, both in relation to complaints and complainants at borough level. At the moment the Authority takes a London-wide view, and it is invisible to us, to the Authority, whether there are patterns of behaviour reflected in complaints that are occurring in Lambeth, which are very distinct from those which are occurring in Hillingdon, for example. So I think there is more that the Authority needs to do there to understand how the complaints process speaks about the delivery of policing. I think as part of our self appraisal process in connection with preparing evidence for the Inquiry we have recognised that the Authority does not spend very much time talking with stakeholder organisations about their perception of the effectiveness of the complaints process, the Independent Advisory Group, the groups representing lawyers who represent complainants in London. I think those are all areas where the Authority can increase its activity and make itself better informed about the variety of different perspectives. Those are all marginal increments of improvement on a system which, I think, at the moment is working pretty well and pretty well matches the model processes that are advocated by the APA to all police authorities. Sir William Morris: If you were to use your existing power to its ultimate in respect of pursuing the role of accountability, do you think that you would be open to the charge of political interference in the MPS's activities? Mr Auladin: This was an issue that was raised at our first hearing, and we are aware that a number of witnesses have raised similar questions. I do remember the chair of the Authority answering in the form that the Authority does not act as a political body. That is the first point. I think the APA has made that point as well. Clearly, in London, policing is a very political issue, and it will attract a great deal of political interest. However, there are ways of actually making sure that if we do have this direct accountability that it is free from political interference. We have not, at this stage, explored all the possibilities, but one possibility that was mentioned on the last occasion would be non-political members, for example, to be part of the panel that has responsibility for that role. But I think it is an area where we will need to do some further work for us to be able to get the right format to deliver on this proposal. But I do believe we can do so without being charged with political bias. Sir William Morris: Is not one of the problems that, although you are not directly elected to the Authority, you are appointed by an elected political body; does that not in itself, not unreasonably, bring the connotation that the charge of political interference has got to be probably better answered by just relying on the Police Authority, saying that you are not a political organisation. Mr Auladin: Can I just clarify a point here. Not all the members are selected by an elected body. The magistrates are appointed by another body, and so are the independent members. We already carry out a number of functions which, to a degree, have significant impact on the way that London needs policing, and we do so without taking into account party political views, and we have been able to do so over the last four years very well, and I do not think there will be a problem for us to be able to do so in this arena. Sir William Morris: I said earlier that part of our role, and indeed our witnesses can help us, is how do we make things better, because that is the whole point of our exercise. What could we recommend, do you think, that would enhance for Londoners, in terms of the benefit that they can expect from their Police Service; what could we recommend insofar as the MPA is concerned that would add some value to what Londoners expect from their Police Service? Mr Auladin: I think the first point for me would be transparency. I think there have been question marks about some of the processes that have taken place particularly regarding high profile cases over the last two years, although the MPS will tell you that they have gone to great lengths to make sure that the process is fair, they have involved the Independent Advisory Group, for example, and they have involved other stakeholders in some of the cases when they have managed those cases. There is a perception that the process is unfair. There is a perception that there is a different agenda which people are working to. This is one area, therefore, where I think we need to be doing some work in order to make sure that people see the process for what it is, and therefore transparency is key to that. The second point I think David has already mentioned, which is about working with other stakeholders, and one particular body I see is the IPCC, whereby we could be working together to make sure that we are sharing good practice, but also to make sure that the processes that we have now satisfy all parties, complainants as well as people in the service. So that would be two important points for me. Sir William Morris: Do you not think that before you can justify some of the arguments for additional powers you have to demonstrate that you are using your existing powers to its ultimate provision? And are you using your existing powers to the ultimate provision? Mr Auladin: I think we are in many of the areas we have been able to do so, and I think we have been able to show to the people of London that we are doing so. Sir William Morris: I mean in its totality, not just in selected areas. You have a set of statutory powers laid down; are you using them to their maximum capacity to regulate the relationship with the MPS? Mr Auladin: I will say that we are. We have done so in areas of finance, for example, in areas of resource allocation, in areas of police numbers and their allocation on boroughs, in areas of complaints and discipline, in areas of HR, and in many other areas. I think we have done a significant amount in bringing the Commissioner to account. Certainly, for example, you will know that we recently published a report on stop and search, which has made some fundamental recommendations, and we will be asking the Commissioner to deliver on these recommendations, and we will make sure that these recommendations are implemented on behalf of the people of London. I do think over the last four years we have had a good measure of success in the way that we have performed. Mr Riddle: Can I supplement that? I have only worked for the MPA for 12 months, for several years before I was involved with another police authority, and I am well aware of the operations of other police authorities through the work of the APA. I think the MPA pushes the envelope of accountability in the existing legislation very vigorously through its approach to scrutinies, through its approach to commissioning the setting up of independent inquiries, and in lots of ways it exercises its responsibility to hold the Commissioner to account very assertively. I do think it is worth reminding the panel that actually nowhere in the Police Act is there any express statement that the job of the Police Authority is to hold the Commissioner to account. It is a matter that the MPA and many other authorities have drawn to the government's attention in the context of their current review of the function of police authorities. It would be good, and it would be good if this panel chose to recommend that one thing to happen would be a statutory statement that the chief police officer is accountable to the Police Authority, because everybody understands that is the convention but it is not there at the moment. The only police force where that statement is in existence in legislation is the Northern Ireland Police Service, where there is a clear definition of the responsibility on the Police Authority to hold the chief officer of police to account. I think establishing that would be an important step forward, and then recommendations that enabled a proper framework of accountability to operate in this area on the lines of our suggested protocol would be very helpful. Sir William Morris: Thank you very much indeed. Miss Weekes has some questions. Questions by Miss Weekes Miss Weekes: Can I follow on from that important topic and perhaps emphasise it in this way. Yesterday we had evidence from Superintendent Ali Dizaei and he said repeatedly, on a number of occasions, that he felt one of the most important things that we should consider is the accountability of the Metropolitan Police in relation to those who make decisions on investigations, complaints and discipline. And he added that he felt the Metropolitan Police Authority could play a greater role in dealing with what happens when things go horribly wrong. He clearly, and understandably, used his case as an example. None of the officers so far in relation to his case, or Sergeant Virdi's case, have been brought to the table to give an account for why things went wrong. They have not gone as far as sanctions, just the accountability of explaining, "Well, we did spend millions on this case, we have settled for £500,000; why?" I think that that is legitimate concern that an officer can have after having gone through years of waiting for his complaint and he sees that no one is accountable, no one has given an explanation. Is that a role that you can play? Mr Riddle: Yes, I think it is a role that the Authority can play. Precisely how that role plays out is a function also of the discipline procedures that operate within the force. There is this intimate interlinking between the regimented discipline procedures and mechanisms of accountability. But I think that implicit in the Authority's concept of a different relationship between professional standards and Authority members, and implicit in our thinking around a revised protocol, is the requirement, the need for the Authority to be able to demand a detailed explanation of what has happened and to be able to give advice to the Commissioner, the chief officer of police, to ensure that something changes in the way that matters are conducted and the handling of cases proceeds. It seems to me that unless there is quite an extensive redrawing of the discipline framework that currently obtains in respect of policing, there will always be tensions around exactly what the Authority can do to bring individual officers to account. As I say, I think it is implicit in the proposals that the Authority has made to you that it would wish to have a framework in which it could hold the Commissioner or the Deputy, or the Director of Professional Standards, more clearly to account for the way that individual cases are conducted. Miss Weekes: Do you say that your statutory provisions actually stop you – and I am going to use Dr Dizaei's case as an example – do you say that the statutory provisions stop you asking this question: why have you spent millions of taxpayers' money on this case, investigating it in this way? Is that what you are really saying? At the moment you are just not allowed to ask that question? Mr Riddle: I think within the present statutory framework the Authority could ask that question and expect an answer. Miss Weekes: Right. Well, have you asked it, and if not, why not? Mr Auladin: We have asked the question, and one of the reasons why we do have this Inquiry here today, it is part of that questioning process that has taken place after the case was settled. I think what we are very keen to do is to learn from what happened in that case, and we have asked a number of questions, and we have asked for a review of the case to be undertaken, and what we hope will happen as a result of this Inquiry here, and the review that the MPS is undertaking, we will have some not only lessons but answers as to why some of the decisions that were made were made at the time and what would be the best ways of preventing similar things happening in the future. Mr Riddle: I just recollect that the Authority in its first evidence – and I think Superintendent Dizaei yesterday said that the manner in which individual members of the Authority had become involved at a relatively early stage, and quite intimately in some form of oversight of the investigation, compromised the ability of the Authority to hold the Commissioner to account at the end of the day. Miss Weekes: That was his view. Do you happen to agree with that? Mr Riddle: I think the Authority in its own first submission said that the manner in which individual members came to be involved in that case was with all the benefit of hindsight undesirable because it did cloud the issue of accountability. In a sense, all of that underlies our set of proposals which are about clarifying the accountability of the Commissioner to the Authority within a clear, transparent framework, to avoid the situation where individual members get called in to oversee or to give guidance or to offer some advice, as happened in relation to Operation Helios, which does, I think, tend to compromise the ability of the Authority at the end of the day to say, "This was not well done", or whatever. Miss Weekes: But of course, Mr Riddle, is it not really about how you conduct your supervisory role? Is that not the real issue? You would not want, I hope, to say that the Metropolitan Police Authority should not take the supervisory role because you are worried about being accused of contaminating yourself later. It is really about how you do it and how you maintain independence whilst asking perfectly proper questions, "How is this investigation running? What are your decisions so far? Where are you going with it?"; is that right or not? Mr Riddle: I would say that is exactly right, and it is that kind of relationship that we have attempted to put into words in our revised protocol. It is precisely that kind of question that the Authority should be asking and getting answers to. Mr Auladin: Can I just say that I would concur with that strongly. It is something that we have been attempting to do, but, as you have said, it is getting the right format to do this supervisory role which we need to find. Miss Weekes: Yes. Two other points, again they are related to the issue of discipline. I do not think you were asked about this at the first session, but one of the major difficulties, of course, is the length of time that these cases take. I know that you will be familiar, as a magistrate, that your case load is managed by a case manager, who is accountable for how many cases come before your court, how quickly, why they settle, why they do not, and who does and does not ask for adjournments. What do you both say of the suggestion that there should be an independent case manager who will deal with the fixing of cases, applications for adjournments, possibly applications for disclosure, applications by officers who go sick – sometimes we are told legitimately, sometimes not – delays within the investigations themselves which are often perfectly proper, sometimes not? Just the principle of the case manager, a legally qualified person who themselves may be subject to judicial review. The practicalities, of course, must be worked out, but it seems to me that at the moment whoever works within the Department of Professional Standards is not coping very well with fixing cases and having them go through in a regular, timely fashion. Mr Auladin: It is a principle that I will very strongly support. I do remember mentioning case management in my first – Miss Weekes: I think you did actually. Mr Auladin: It is an issue that I have raised personally with the Director of Professional Standards on a number of occasions. Miss Weekes: Can you just tell me what their response was? Mr Auladin: I think they will say that they are trying their best to reduce delays. They will cite examples of police officers using delaying tactics by, as we have talked about, sickness, availability of their representatives and challenging processes and so on and so forth, but I do think the manner in which cases are being managed now has room for improvement. The way, for example, the boards are set up, time commitment for panel members, and the way that officers are represented at these panels and all sorts of other issues. I think it is an area we need to look at and do some further work. But I agree with you, from my experience in court there are better ways of managing cases here, and it is a principle that I think we need to be exploring very seriously. I do not know whether you want to add to that, David? Mr Riddle: I think I would just briefly comment that I would suggest there is a distinction between the management of cases which are under investigation and then the management of a case from the point at which a disciplinary charge is articulated. I can see the role of the case manager very clearly and very readily acknowledge that in the process once a disciplinary charge has been put. I am less clear how it would work in the investigation stage, and how it would reconcile itself with the proper conduct of an investigation by an experienced senior investigating officer. Miss Weekes: I think that needs to be discussed, for obvious reasons. I wonder whether I could have brought up on the screen the Virdi recommendations. I am sorry I did not say this before. I would like your assistance on the meaning of a particular recommendation within the Virdi Report, and, as you know, we are asked to look at those recommendations. If we scroll down to the end of the page, number 11, if we can just read that: "The MPS should monitor the composition of representatives of the Police Federation's Joint Branch Board, ensuring that concrete measures are taken to address under-representation, especially from ethnic minority groups." I know that does not say yourselves, but I just wanted your help, if I may, just generally, as an review and an umbrella organisation, whether you think that recommendation is workable, because the Police Federation is a statutory body, run by statute, and the issue of representation on the Police Federation joint branch board is obviously relevant to taking on board the complaints, dissatisfactions of officers from all walks of life and backgrounds. And if that is done well, it can often avoid a complaint, a problem, workplace conflict. So it goes to the root of avoiding discipline, avoiding employment tribunal cases, et cetera. I just wondered, as an umbrella organisation, having commissioned this report, which was your report, whether you think that recommendation is in fact workable in practical terms. I only ask because it was your report, commissioned by you. Mr Auladin: I belief it is workable in terms of being able to monitor the composition of the representatives. I stand to be corrected, but I seem to remember that this recommendation came as a result of an issue that Sergeant Virdi raised about his representation and the help that he received at the time that his case was being dealt with. Clearly, what this recommendation is about, it is good practice – we have talked about all areas and all organisations to do with policing to be able to reflect the diversity which exists within not only the police force but the population of London itself, and I have personally no doubt that the Federation will take that on board. But I do not think we have the power to instruct the Federation to construct their boards in any particular way. Miss Weekes: That is right. And that leads me, conveniently, into the terms of reference that deals with the MPA's duties under the Amendment to the Race Relations Act. Just following on from that recommendation, how do you see your overall role so far – because I know that you have been in place for four years; how effective do you think you have been in promoting racial equality under the terms of the amendment? Mr Auladin: I think we have endeavoured to do quite a good deal of work, and I think we have been successful in a number of areas. We have, for example, in terms of having a representative workforce, carried out a number of exercises, including members being involved in recruitment campaigns and so on. The MPA itself is now in the process of putting its diversity and equality scheme in place, and the Equality and Diversity Board has, over the last two years, done a significant amount of work in getting information from the MPS and being able to not only deal with the information but to question some of the findings of this information, to make sure that the MPS is complying with the various Acts, really. Miss Weekes: If there was an immediate area for improvement in your role in promoting racial equality under the Amendment Act, what would you say it is? Mr Auladin: I think most important to the people of London at the moment is stop and search, and it is an issue which was raised last week when the report was launched, and it is an issue which is a sticking point in the communities because, although there is a recognition that the MPS has done a great deal to improve relationships with communities, stop and search is an obstacle to further improvement in that relationship. It is an area where I think we need to be able to defer the work and where we hope to be able to hold the Commissioner to account in terms of seeing improvement in that area. We also feel that it is extremely important for the force, or the service, to be representative of the people of London, and again we will continue to work very hard to try and achieve the sort of representation which would be equitable for London. Miss Weekes: The last question is this: in relation to discipline and complaints, we have received sufficient evidence that demonstrates that there is often – not always, but often – disparity of treatment between visible ethnic minorities and white officers. It is quite difficult, is it not, for you to influence that change when the problems are occurring with line management? Can you really be effective about bringing about change in your position? Mr Auladin: I think we can. With the advent of the new Professional Standards Officer, we hope to actually look at more cases that have been completed. We are hoping to be able to learn from these cases whether there are disparities, and to look at the logic behind decisions that investigating officers have actually taken to examine their log books in terms of decision-making processes, and for us to be able then to have a proper picture as to whether this disparity is perceived or real. Certainly, looking at figures, we have seen that there is an appearance of disproportionality in terms of complaints and discipline, and we have asked the MPS on two or three occasions to have some information and a report, really, on this issue, and we have been given some explanations, but they themselves agree that there is no concrete explanation as to why disproportionality is there. What I do know is happening is that there is some research being carried out. It was going to be carried out in conjunction with the Home Office, but I am not sure what status it has reached now, but there will be some research carried out to find out what the reasons are behind the figures that we presently have. But it is something that we are dealing with. We are on the case. Miss Weekes: And are you satisfied that all the recommendations from the Virdi Report have been fulfilled by the Metropolitan Police Service? Mr Riddle: I am sure the answer to that must be no because included in the Authority's terms of reference to this Inquiry is to undertake a review of the extent to which they have been carried out. So I think the Authority is not convinced that all of the recommendations of the Virdi Inquiry have been driven down in practice throughout the MPS. I think the record shows that they have been considered and adopted in areas of policy of the MPS, but is the MPA satisfied that what the Virdi Inquiry expected to happen by way of change has happened? The answer must be no. Sir William Morris: Thank you very much indeed. Sir Anthony has one or two questions. Questions by Sir Anthony Burden Sir Anthony Burden: Only one very small point, Mr Auladin, just drawing on your vast experience as a magistrate. Looking at some of the sanctions imposed within the MPS, because it is such a vast organisation and more than one chief officer disciplines, there appears to be some disparity in sanctions handed down. Would you see any value in a tariff system which gave guidance to officers who were actually issuing sanctions? Mr Auladin: I do see value in it. It is something that we have asked the MPS for for the last two years. They have recently produced draft sanction guidelines, but it does not go as far as producing a tariff. They have suggested that there are some legal problems in producing a tariff. I personally do not agree with that, and I will continue to push for some sort of tariff. We share the concerns of many that there is a great inconsistency in the sort of sanctions that are given out to police officers, and I think it is crucial that we have consistency not only in approach, as their draft sanction guidelines will provide, but also in sentencing itself. Sir Anthony Burden: Just on the issue raised by my colleague in relation to statistics provided to you, have you reached a stage now, in maturity of the organisation, your organisation, where you are getting the statistics that you want, as opposed to the statistics that the MPS want to give you? Mr Auladin: It is a mixture of both. The MPS has been very co-operative in giving us the figures that we want. In complaints and discipline, for example, we have, over the last four years, asked for a number of changes in the format in which material is presented to us; for example, when we are looking at trends in timeliness and the number of cases that are being dealt with by individual investigating officers, and they have put schemes and programmes, IT programmes, in place for them to be able to capture the information and present it to us. But it is a vast organisation which has a large area of operation, and therefore it is not always possible, I would say, for them to judge the sort of information that we require. But I do have to say that they have been co-operative and we have actually received the information that we have wished for. Sir William Morris: Well, that concludes the series of questions that we wanted to explore with you, but you will recall that in my introductory comments I said that when we had completed our questions we would provide you with the opportunity to make a brief closing statement, if you so wish. If you do wish, this is the time to do it. Closing comments by Mr Auladin Mr Auladin: I would like to say a few words. You did mention in your opening remarks about the purpose of this Inquiry. It is something that we fully support, which is to find out how best to deal with some of the problems that we have had over the last few years in this area. Over the last four years, since the MPA has been in existence, we have to acknowledge that there has been significant progress made, not only in the relationship, but also in the manner that business is carried out by the Police Service. But there is still room for improvement, and I think both the MPA and the MPS are willing to look at ways of improving their processes. What we would like to see, certainly, is for us to be able to find a way of holding the MPS and the Commissioner to account, certainly in this area, in an improved manner, which will bring, as I have said before, transparency, but also bring confidence in that process, not only from the people of London, but from officers within the Service itself. And we will therefore look forward to the Inquiry's report. Sir William Morris: Thank you very much. Thank you both very much, and thank you for your submission this afternoon, and indeed the submissions that we previously received from the MPA when the chairperson came in for us sometime past. Thank you for the evidence, and just a final thank you on behalf of my colleagues and myself for the overall contribution that the MPA is making to our work. We are very grateful to you. Thank you. Mr Auladin: Thank you. Sir William Morris: We stand adjourned until 10.30 tomorrow. 3.05 pm (The Inquiry adjourned until 10.30 am on Wednesday, 9th June 2004) Internal links On this website: Evidence: Metropolitan Police Authority Evidence provided by and documents referred to by the Metropolitan Police Authority to the Inquiry. Transcript: Metropolitan Police Authority (23 February 2004) The full transcript of the first public session with Lord Toby Harris of Haringey, Mr R Auladin and Ms C Wright of the Metropolitan Police Authority, held at 10am on 23 February 2004.
	Previous Next
Transcripts > Metropolitan Police Authority (08 Jun 04)
© Copyright 2004, The Morris Inquiry. Standards compliant HTML. Designed and maintained by Netfundi