Final Report of the Morris Inquiry: The Case for Change

THE CASE FOR CHANGE
4.43 The Diversity directorate is also part of the Deputy Commissioner’s Command
and thus totally separate from the HR directorate. We understand that the Diversity
directorate has both outward and inward looking roles and we are aware of some
of the advances that have been made by the Diversity directorate in relation to
operational policing and work with London’s communities. These matters are of
course outside our remit. However, we are concerned that the split of
responsibilities between the Diversity and HR directorates may mean that diversity
issues relating to people management receive less attention.
4.44 We have seen the feedback provided to the MPS by Mr Robin Field-Smith on
completion of the HMIC Diversity Matters Thematic Inspection fieldwork. This
stated: “However little evidence was found of a robust, structured inter-relationship between
the diversity strategy and the human resources strategy. This results in confusion and difficulties
in progressing some internal issues.”
4.45 When Mr Hogan-Howe appeared before us, he appeared to concede that the
two directorates could work better together and that structural change could
perhaps be considered. “We do some good things and we could tell you a list of those
things, but perhaps we could do more, and I accept that entirely … But I think that the
structure is likely to cause people to have to compensate for the gap all the time.”
4.46 We support this view. We therefore believe that a change in structure
would ensure that this “gap” was no longer a matter which needed to be
factored into addressing workforce issues and that this would benefit the
organisation.
We therefore recommend that, in addition to relocating the Employment
Tribunals Unit from the Directorate of Professional Standards to the Human
Resources directorate, the people management aspects of the work of the
Diversity directorate are also moved to the Human Resources directorate.
Fairness at Work
4.47 Our terms of reference require us to inquire into the MPS’ policies,
procedures and practices for dealing with grievances and workplace conflicts.
4.48 A well-managed organisation needs to have a clear and accessible mechanism
for its employees to raise issues of concern. In most organisations, such a procedure
is known as the grievance procedure.
4.49 The ACAS Code of Practice on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures argues that
a grievance procedure is necessary because “anybody in an organisation may, at some
time, have problems or concerns about their work, conditions or relationships with colleagues
that they wish to talk about with management.”
78