Final Report of the Morris Inquiry: The Case for Change

THE CASE FOR CHANGE
The structure of the MPS’ Human Resources directorate
4.33 Note 3 to our terms of reference asks us to consider “whether the organisational
structures and allocation of functions … within the MPS is effective”.
4.34 We have described the top level structure of the HR directorate above. We
have also commented on the level at which it should be led. We do not intend to
make further detailed observations and recommendations on the structure of HR
other than to raise two issues. These relate to the Employment Tribunals Unit (ETU)
and the Diversity directorate.
4.35 During the course of the Inquiry we heard much evidence about the ETU.
We have heard from the Head of the Unit, Esme Crowther, as well as from the
Assistant Commissioner (HR), Deputy Assistant Commissioner (DAC) Roberts, who
heads the Directorate of Professional Standards (DPS), his colleague Commander
Phillip Hagon and David Hamilton, Director of Legal Services.
4.36 At the time we were taking evidence, the ETU was situated within DPS; that
is, in the Deputy Commissioner’s Command, and totally separate from HR. We
heard that, until October 2001, the ETU was part of the HR directorate but that
“for reasons of linkage … and to facilitate more effective management of risk and sharing of
intelligence across the range of DPS activity, Management Board decided that the Unit should
be placed within DPS.” (Submission from Esme Crowther, Head of ETU.)
4.37 This was echoed by DAC Roberts and Commander Hagon when they gave
evidence: “… essentially the rationale was to bring within one directorate a whole range of
activities where the Met faced a risk that needed to be managed, short-term and long-term …
So it is really about managing organisational risk, if I can put it that way.” (Evidence of DAC Roberts.)
“… prior to it coming across to the Directorate of Professional Standards, it actually sat within
human resources, and logically, you might think that is perhaps where it should be, but quite
frankly, it did not work very well within that particular domain, and so the decision … was that
it came across to, if you like, those people that are best charged with looking and dealing with
risk, and moreover, were best versed in dealing with the Directorate of Legal Services.”
(Evidence of Commander Hagon.)
4.38 Whilst we can understand the rationale, we do not applaud it. It is clear from
the evidence we have received from individuals that lodging an application to an
Employment Tribunal is not a decision taken lightly but perhaps only after someone
has “run head first into a wall of indifference, incompetence or intolerance whilst trying to
raise and resolve a complaint …” (Submission from the MBPA.)
4.39 We consider that the focus on risk management, when coupled with the
location of the ETU, carries an unfortunate message; that the MPS sees the issues
raised by an Applicant to an Employment Tribunal more as issues of organisational
risk, rather than as a management problem that needs to be resolved.
76