Minutes

Notes of the inquorate meeting of the Equalities & Diversity Sub Committee of the Metropolitan Police Authority held on 5 June 2009 at 10 Dean Farrar Street, London SW1H 0NY.

Present

Members

• Kirsten Hearn (Chair)
• Clive Lawton

MPA officers

• Siobhan Coldwell (Head of Oversight and Review)
• Doug Lewins (Equality and Diversity Officer)
• Jane Harwood Deputy Chief Executive
• Michael Wadham (Oversight and Review)
• Chris Benson (Committee Services).

MPS Officers

• Denise Milani, Director Diversity & Citizen Focus Directorate
• David Skelton
• Shaun Kennedy.

Others in attendance

• Rev Sharon Ferguson LGCM
• Audrey Young GLA
• Wayne Lawley GLA
• Andy Garrett DSA
• Mahmood Bromley CEF
• Maria da Costa RIAG
• Vic Codling GPA
• Helen Buckley CPCG
• Matt Shaer MPS

1. Introductions

Kirsten Hearn, Chair of the Sub Committee introduced herself and invited all those present to introduce themselves.

2. Apologies for absence

(Agenda item 1)

Apologies for absence were received from Cindy Butts. The Chair advised that as the meeting was inquorate any decisions it may make would require the endorsement of the Communities, Equalities and Peoples Committee.

3. Declarations of interests

(Agenda item 2)

No declarations of interest were made

4. Notes of the meeting held on 27 March 2009

(Agenda item 3)

Resolved to approve the notes of the meeting held on 27 March as correct record..

5. Development of the MPS Diversity Strategy

5.1 Denise Milani introduced the report.

5.2 The Sub Committee was invited to note the progress to date in developing the MPS Diversity and Equality Strategy and to comment on the draft strategy.

5.3 The Sub Committee noted that any issues indentified by the Race and Faith enquiry would be incorporated into the strategy.

5.4 The Sub Committee and those in attendance were invited to comment on the draft strategy.

6. Theme 1: Good Governance and Performance Management –following through on what we say we will do.

6.1 The Sub Committee suggested that order of the themes within the report should be reviewed. The current theme 1 to be given less prominence and to be shown supporting the other options.

6.2 Theme 1 did not appear to stand alone and should be redrafted to state its aims and how it relates to the other documents.

6.3 Denise Milani advised that she was happy to revise the order if the Sub Committee thought this theme had been given too much prominence

6.4 The value of collecting the views of the stakeholders was recognised, however it was not possible to have all stakeholder groups present at each meeting were such issues are discussed. The MPS’s staff associations were seen as critical friends whose views were most welcome.

6.5 The Sub Committee felt there would be value in clearly and concisely stating the aims and the key actions of the strategy without referring to the supporting documentation.

6.6 There was a need to demonstrate that improvements had been made, to show the current position, and what benchmarks would be used to assess improvements

6.7 Any new process had to be focused on outcomes. It was noted that there was a lot of detail within the standards. The current baseline had to be established and critically reviewed to identify and promote good practice.

6.8 The Sub Committee would expect any engagement process to ask questions, listen to and reflect upon and respond to the comments made.

7. Theme 2 enhancing engagement with all communities –listening and responding to people both internally and externally

7.1 The Sub Committee welcomed the enhanced engagement with all communities and stakeholders.

7.2 It was noted that the emphasis was on performance management to make individuals accountable. Officers’ performance will be monitored through their Personal Development Reviews, combined with intrusive supervision.

7.3 The Diversity Citizen Focus Directorate was to be restructured to support the strategy.

7.4 It was stated that it was a good policy statement that had clear, specific and focused outcomes that fitted well with the Mayor’s equality framework.

7.5 The Sub Committee wanted to know what was in place to deliver actions; would the police officers on street be able to engage effectively with community?

7.6 The Sub Committee was assured that although traditional methods would continue to be used, the MPS was investigating alternatives to traditional surveys etc. and was exploring new methods and technologies to improve the engagement process.

7.7 It was essential that all voices are heard and listened to, including the quiet voices and the difficult to reach. It was suggested that, in order to ensure voices were heard, resources such as interpreters were made available.

7.8 The MPS wanted the process to be a partnership and would welcome any advice or comments.

7.9 A question remained, why did the MPS carry out community engagement, and what did it hope to gain from it. This report was all about the mechanics of community engagement. The report had to explain why it was done

8. Theme 3 delivering efficient and effective services that are fair and responsive to the diverse needs of people we serve –providing services that are valued by individuals.

8.1 A view was expressed that there seemed to be a mismatch between the aim and outcomes of theme 3. The aim was targeted at individuals and the outcomes appeared to be aimed at communities and groups.

8.2 It was recognised that people behaved differently as individuals to how they behaved as a member of a group. It was this dilemma that made community engagement necessary and was part of the rationale for the diversity and equality agenda.

8.3 It was core MPS business to ensure all communities and individuals are treated fairly and with courtesy. Failure to do so would continue to accentuate the problem.

8.4 What focus was given to race and gender issues during training?

8.5 What training was given in relation to each of the different diversity stands?

8.6 Was there a bench mark established for each of the diversity strands to see how much work had been completed to date?

8.7 The next stage would be to decide what success would look like, and how changes are to be incorporated into operational standards and targets

8.8 The Sub Committee asked what had to be done to encourage ownership of the agenda and individuals to buy into strategy.

8.9 It was acknowledged that the strategy was not yet complete. For it to work, it was essential to get it right internally. Middle rank police officers had to understand and support it. It had to be accepted that the strategy set out core duties and was not an add on to existing duties

8.10 If the strategy failed it was likely that the MPS would face a harsh public backlash and a reputational risk.

8.11 Ownership of the strategy was linked to theme 1. Good governance and performance management would be used to provide oversight of and drivers for the agenda.

8.12 The Strategy had to be marketed better within the community. The benefits had to be clearly explained. It was agreed that the diversity agenda had to be opened up for a proper debate by the communities; a simple tick box exercise would fail.

8.13 Feedback from the communities had to be collated it was not an extra duty, but a key enabler to deliver performance and drive the strategy forward. .

9. Theme 4 Building and developing a talented workforce and working culture that promotes mutual respect, teamwork, productivity and pride in the MPS - having a skilled workforce committee to delivering services of which they are proud

9.1 A concern was expressed that members of diverse groups “get shunted” into specific areas. A profile of race and gender of officers within the fire arms and counter terrorism sections would show under-representation of disabled, female, BME and other diverse groups.

9.2 It was noted that the MPS did not collate and monitor disability data effectively.

9.3 The MPS was aware of problem relating to the poor data on disabilities and was seeking to improve its monitoring through the new MET/HR process. MET HR went live on 2 December and better data will be collected. Work had also begun to collect data across the main diversity strands

9.4 It was accepted that it would take a long time to collect data on staff with disabilities, but it was vital to ensure that all staff can access the opportunities available. However it was questioned if the MPS had to wait for statistical proof to do the “right thing” before driving towards a more diverse workforce that reflects the communities it served.

9.5 The MPS had to use the expertise to be found within its existing staff, for example appointing gay officers as family liaison officers. It was noted that the confidentiality within the monitoring process meant that some individuals did not want their sexual orientation etc known.

9.6 It was noted that in addition to the concept of “glass ceilings” that stop promotion, “sticky floors” were holding back the promotion opportunities for the lowest paid catering and cleaning staff. What opportunities exist for them? They were a clear example of a group of employees who are stuck within the system.

9.7 Directorate of Resources had responsibilities for the canteen and cleaning staff however the point was taken that not enough was being done to provide development opportunities.

9.8 What are the measures of success for the strategy?

9.9 A view was expressed that it was tragic that it had taken a number of high profile public inquiries before the MPS had focused on equality issues.

9.10 It was noted that to give the strategy a high profile the Deputy Commissioner now chaired the Diversity Board and was the lead on the Management Board.

9.11 A major challenge to be overcome was to ensure that the strategy and the supporting initiatives are not seen as a threat, inconvenience or an addition to the existing work load. They were a fundamental core duty.

9.12 The Strategy had to be aimed at the front line staff and the community not the ACPO rank officers

9.13 Police Officers had to be fit for purpose and treat all people fairly. The policy had to explicitly state that individual police officers who are not able to deliver the agenda are not suited for the job. This had to be said with greater emphasis and more frequently.

9.14 In order to be successful, the strategy needs to explicitly say how far it will go to make a step change on all strands of diversity.

9.15 It was noted that diversity goes to the heart of the confidence agenda. To effectively police London, its increasingly diverse communities had to be recognised and respected.

9.16 The MPS had to be honest in its assessment of where it is starting from.

9.17 To succeed, strong leadership was essential, yet the views of the Commissioner on this issue had not been heard. A clear message of what had to be completed and by when had to be given. Strategies were likened to a roller coaster ride that was stopped and started by different Commissioners/senior officers.

9.17 The Sub Committee was assured that individuals would be accountable and monitored through their Personal Development Reviews, combined with intrusive supervision. Sanctions will be available.

9.18 Londoners had to be told what they can expect as a result of all the meetings held, the paperwork and discussions. If the agenda was too big, people would lose sight of its original intention.

9.19 It was recognised that the document was supported by a whole raft of documents and it was a major task to ensure that they seamlessly join together.

10. Conclusion

10.1 To conclude the meeting the Chair thanked all these attending for their contribution to the meeting. All the comments made, and views expressed, would be taken into consideration.

10.2 It was anticipated that a full report will be submitted to the full authority in due course.

The meeting closed at 11:40 am

Send an e-mail linking to this page

Feedback