Final Report of the Morris Inquiry: The Case for Change

THE CASE FOR CHANGE
3.62 The Police Federation, both nationally and within the MPS, considers that any
problems with the Regulations are due to the way they are applied rather than any
inherent defects.
3.63 The National Police Federation believes that the procedures “provide managers
with a wide scope of discretion and flexibility in the way they deal with officers.” They also
told us “it is our view that these Regulations have not been robustly managed at senior level.
There has been little or no training given to managers to deal properly with the procedures.”
3.64 In their written submission, the Metropolitan Police Federation told us:
“We would consider that the suggestion that the discipline procedures are inappropriate
is misguided and may be being used as an excuse for management inadequacies.”
3.65 It is important that we give due consideration to the views of the Police
Federation on this important matter. The Federation represents all police officers
of the rank of Chief Inspector, Inspector, Sergeant and Constable; that is, over
136,000 individuals. In addition, Federation representatives have a reservoir of
expertise on the operation of the Regulations, as it is part of their role to assist
members who are subject to disciplinary proceedings.
3.66 However, we are not persuaded that the defects in the current system, on
which we have received so much evidence, are due simply to a lack of training of
managers and that the issue is solely one of managerial competence.
3.67 We accept that the Regulations are poorly understood by some managers but
the essence of a good disciplinary regime is, in our view, simplicity. It should be
easily accessible to both managers and those who may be subject to it. Managers
should not need to receive extensive training to be able to use a disciplinary or
incapability procedure.
3.68 We do not accept that the existing Regulations provide the flexibility
managers need to manage. This is underlined by the fact that the Police (Efficiency)
Regulations 1999 and the Police (Efficiency) (Amendment) Regulations 2003,
which are designed to deal with unsatisfactory performance and unsatisfactory
attendance, have rarely, if ever, been used.
3.69 Therefore, we do not accept the Police Federation’s defence of the current
regulatory framework. We are persuaded that there is a sound case for radical
change to the current arrangements and agree that “Careful planning and thought
could provide a system that extends the normal rules of employment to matters of
misconduct and the system simplified in line with best employment practice elsewhere whilst
ensuring the rights of complainants and police officers are properly balanced … Changes …
are overdue.” (Submission from Christopher Fox, President of ACPO.)
3.70 We are not prescribing the disciplinary processes which should apply –
beyond saying that they should accord with best practice in the employment field.
The detail should be the subject of negotiation between those involved.
60