Thank you.

No, I think they're covered within my statement, thank you.

It is very helpful, and of course we are also helping HMIC and the Met itself implement some of the issues that may well be arising out of this Inquiry.

Yes.

Mm-hm.

No, I think there has been and I think our report evidences a difference in interpretation of the policy.

Yes, it is.

I think our recent review did focus in particular on senior officers and that did include management board as well as some borough commanders, and it did show that there was a difference in interpretation of the policy.

I think there's been certainly an improvement in the recording of hospitality over time, which is still evident. I would say that some of the applications of the key controls around that have been inconsistent over the period.

Yes, I do.

Yes.

Mm-hm.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes. I think possibly a key issue there is that back in September 2011 this was the first time that the Met had actually put their records online, and publicly, and they were doing everything they could to ensure that that record was complete.

Mm-hm.

Yes. I mean the difficulty would have been in the past that a lot of that information was actually in individual books stored in various locations across the MPS and having the ability to analyse that would be actually quite difficult.

Yes. I think they reflect the findings of our recent audit in particular.

I mean that would be one thing for me, but I think more importantly the officers and the staff of the Met need that guidance and they need to be very clear when that criteria actually applies.

I think the main issue that we're still seeking further clarification is the circumstances when damaging working relationships in particular would apply to rejecting hospitality.

Yes.

Yes, I think it's true to say they thought it was more explicit than the previous policy.

Yes.

Yes, that is an issue as well.

I think if you look back from -- back to 2011 and now, what you see is that there is a pattern, that the process itself has been improved, and in fact a couple of the follow-up reviews did show that the recommendations had been implemented and that there had been ...

Yes, absolutely.

Yes. That recommendation was from a previous audit that we felt needed to be implemented, the justification needs to be clear, and we were following up and giving a review as to whether that had taken place.

We would say it was a risk that wasn't being managed as effectively as we would want it to be.

Mm-hm.

Yes.

What we're saying is these are the actual key risks that senior management need to concern them with, yes, and to address.

Yes.

I think if I could just put that in context, these aren't problems as such, they are generic risks that you would associate with a gifts and hospitality process, and we're seeking to give assurances as to whether they're operating effectively or not.

I may well have been asked to do that, sir, yes.

No, it was already in the approved plan.

No. I think members felt that that was in the public domain.

Yes, into the procedures.

Yes.

Yes, it certainly was at the time, yes.

No.

Yes.

No.

I can't recall the exact issue. I think it may have been that there was a reference in the giving of corporate hospitality that alcohol may be provided, but there wasn't anything more detailed than that.

In fact I think the review that we conducted earlier did actually say that the policy hadn't been reviewed for some time.

Yes, I think the Met decided it was time that they needed to review the policy.

That's the Corporate Governance Committee that performs the audit panel function. We changed its name in 2004.

Yes.

Yes.

It would have been actually that we would have been invited to. As a consequence of a number of the recommendations that were made in the previous report, they did actually relate to making improvements to the policy and I think the director at the time just wanted us to ...

It was actually I think 15 for the MPS and one for the MPA, so that was the distinction.