Minutes - draft

These minutes are draft and are to be agreed.

Minutes of the meeting of the Equalities & Diversity Sub-committee of the Metropolitan Police Authority held on 8 December 2011 at 10 Dean Farrar Street, London SW1H 0NY.

Present

Members

• Kirsten Hearn (Chair)
• Amanda Sater

MPA officers

• Fay Scott (Head of Equality and Diversity)
• Michael Wadham (Policy Development Officer)
• Shirani Gunawardena (Policy Development Officer)
• April May-Zubel (Policing, Policy, Scrutiny and Oversight Unit)

MPS Officers

• Darren Bird (Deputy Commissioners Portfolio)
• Simon Hockley (Deputy Commissioners Portfolio)
• Carl Bussey (Directorate of Professional Standards)
• Jim Foley (Crime and Customer Strategy Command)
• Stuart Smith (Superintendent Diversity and Citizen Focus Directorate)
• Matthew Shaer (Jewish Police Association)
• Michael Lucas (Disabled Staff Association)

Others in attendance

• Carole Atkinson (Richmond upon Thames Community and Police Partnership)
• Tayo Disu (Lewisham Community Police Consultative Group)
• John Howard (De Beauvoir Safer Neighbourhood Team)
• Royston John (National Coalition Building Institute)
• Dave Rich (Community Security Trust)
• Jamey Fisher (Galop)
• Doug Lewins
• Carol Demuth (Bexley CPEG coordinator)
• Marie Stewart
• Geoffrey Alderman

33. Apologies for absence

(Agenda item 1)

33.1 Apologies were received from Clive Lawton (MPA Member), Cindy Butts (MPA Member), Tim Fellows (Enfield Community Police Partnership), Stephen Thompson (Barking and Dagenham Community Police Engagement Group), Councillor Melvin Collins (London Borough of Hounslow), Deborah Gold (Galop) and Michael Whine (Community Security Trust)

33.2 The Chair opened the meeting, outlining housekeeping and fire safety procedure. Due to the implementation of the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011, the MPA is now scheduled to be replaced with the Mayor's Office for Policing and Crime (MOPC) on 16 January 2012. This meeting will therefore be the last Sub-Committee. At this meeting standing orders are suspended to allow members of the public to speak on the subjects covered.

34. Declarations of interests

(Agenda item 2)

34.1 No declarations of interest were made.

35. Minutes: Equality and Diversity Sub Committee  - 2 June 2011

(Agenda item 3)

35.1 The Chair noted that since the last sub-committee, discussions regarding the estate strategy are being taken forward by the MPA Head of Engagement & Equality outside of the committee process. Carol Demuth clarified that regarding point 31.11, there is only one police station in Bexley.

36. Unsatisfactory Performance Procedures (UPP)

(Agenda item 4)

36.1 Darren Bird introduced the report, which responded to a number of concerns members raised from a previous report presented in February 2011. Since the initial concerns were raised, the MPS has developed a more robust central recording procedure. 145 cases have now been subject to informal stages of UPP; previously there were only 39 cases. The MPS are reluctant to extrapolate conclusions from such a small sample group; however arising issues have been examined. The five MSC officers were all from the same borough, and the reason for instigating UPP was that they had not attended a mandatory training course.

36.2 The Chair enquired whether guidance exists for managers regarding when to use the UPP or misconduct procedures. The MPS said they have introduced a process over the last 18 months where line managers can consult designated Specific Points of Contacts (SPOCs), who are specially trained to provide advice and guidance.

36.3 Doug Lewins enquired when line managers themselves will be trained on this guidance, so that they will not have to consult with SPOCs. The MPS responded that 25,000 managers have taken a Computer Based Training (CBT) course on UPP and misconduct procedures. The MPS is looking to further improve training for managers.

36.4 Marie Stewart enquired about the extent of disproportionality in misconduct procedures. The MPS agreed that disproportionality between white and Black & Minority Ethnic (BME) officers does exist, although they do not have exact figures, previous research, including by Cambridge University, has confirmed this. An example of failure of duty could be not informing the victim of progress and, while a real problem, should not be counted as a misconduct process. Members noted that line managers should intervene at the earliest stage before they are elevated to misconduct cases. At the moment it is easier for a line manager to place officers on misconduct, when managers should instead undertake more proactive supervision.

Action: MPS to provide the exact figures for disproportionality in misconduct procedures.

36.5 Marie Stewart enquired about the barriers and treatment of BME officers placed on misconduct procedures. The MPS said they have not extrapolated the 145 cases into ethnicity. This will be done over the next 12 months. The Chair noted there will be an equality and diversity function in MOPC, so she looks forward to receiving these answers in the future.

36.6 Michael Lucas enquired why there was no breakdown in the report of disproportionality for disabled officers. The MPS said they will provide these figures outside of the meeting.

Action: MPS to provide disproportionality figures for disabled officers.

36.7 Michael Lucas enquired at what stage is the SPOC engaged in the process. The MPS responded that line managers have access to SPOC’S which should be consulted at the early stages. SPOC’s should help managers decide if this should be processed as UPP or misconduct. Noted it is not mandatory for managers to consult SPOC’s.

36.8 Michael Lucas enquired whether there was a quality assurance process to monitor line mangers action plan content. The MPS said there is no formalised central process, but that if managers have difficulty they can speak to Darren Bird’s team for guidance.

36.9 Royston John informed the MPS that he felt that the 12 months taken to extrapolate the 145 cases ethnicity implications was too long and some work should have been prepared for this meeting. The MPS responded that this report is now historic as it was originally scheduled to be presented in the summer, and that they have the overall statistics but have not had time to break them down. The MPS said that the purpose of the report was to answer concerns raised in the February meeting and this has been achieved in the report. The Chair agreed that the MPS had done what they were asked, but noted that these further comments and concerns are welcome and should be addressed.

36.10 Royston John noted that the test case on the five officers from the same boroughs is really helpful. However, this leads to more questions that would be helpful if they could be answered, such as the time frame for compliance, the percentage of non-compliance and proportion of BME/white officers. The MPS said only basic data has been provided and they have not yet done a cross comparison across boroughs, however, they will bear these comments in mind when doing further analysis.

36.11 Carol Demuth enquired who makes the decision about UPP or misconduct, and enquired what would happen if an officer felt they had been treated unfairly. The MPS said it is ultimately the line manager’s decision, which is usually one rank above the officer. If it was gross misconduct then it would be referred to the Directorate of Professional Standards (DPS) and be their decision. There are appeal processes against the line manager’s decision for UPP. This would go to the second line manager to check decision, then progressively up the management chain. Ultimately, the final stage of appeal process if an officer kept appealing would be for an ACPO officer to make a final decision. Carol Demuth noted that the MPS had just outlined that a misconduct process is much faster than UPP. The MPS responded that UPP is set by the Home Office and nationally applied. The MPS only has a limited scope to change the process, and if they could, they would make is less bureaucratic.

36.12 John Howard enquired if the sub-committee could make recommendations to the Home Office to amend the UPP. The MPS agreed that this would be welcome, however they are constantly liaising with the Home Office, but that is takes time to involve all national police services. The MPS agreed that the current system is quite slow and that there is room for improvement in some elements of the MPS process. Members noted that the Winsor review mentions UPP, and hope that this will lead to change. Ideally the process should be kept simple during the first stage and address issues straight away at supervisory level. Action plans can be used for 72 hours and do not necessarily need to be extended for six months.

36.13 Doug Lewins said he feared that the UPP process could become similar to the grievance procedures where there is a great process but it does not lead to results or change and no one is following up to ensure it is being used correctly. He recommended that the MPS should ensure that people have basic knowledge of equality and diversity issues. The MPS responded they believed that this perception was not accurate, with 200 officers having been through UPP this year. The MPS works hard to improve performance to provide a better service to London.

36.14 Carole Atkinson said the first point of contact for the UPP process has to be fully knowledgeable and noted that most line managers at Sergeant’s rank have high workloads, so their ability to provide supervision may suffer. The MPS should ensure that line managers have adequate training and consider whether they may be contributing to the problem.

36.15 Royston John noted that the delays in process means BME officers could be blocked from reaching senior positions within the MPS and recommended that the MPS should develop the process to ensure that BME staff are retained and do not leave in frustration.

36.16 The Chair concluded that this has been a useful debate and said it will be difficult, but essential, that the MPS introduce a cultural change to make the most of UPP. The Chair noted that the most important thing is that managers are adequately trained and realise that UPP is a helpful tool.

37. Third party reporting

(Agenda item 5)

37.1 Carl Bussey introduced the report and provided an overview including a brief history of third party reporting within the MPS and its response to recommendation 16 in the Macpherson report. There is still wide under-reporting of hate crime; although 200 hate crime reports were received through third party reporting there were 10,000 hate crime reports overall. The MPS said that investigations should be victim lead and that there should be a 24/7 pan London third party reporting function established to facilitate this. It was noted that the MPS should have a supporting advisory role instead of a leading role, as otherwise it would defeat the purpose of third party reporting. It was noted that even if a victim does not want to pursue the case, intelligence is vital to correctly allocating resources and to enable a sufficient police response.

37.2 The Chair noted that communities and the MPS agree to the benefits of third party reporting, however there was clearly an underuse; has anyone done any evaluation as to the reasons for this? The MPS said the MPA have done a brief evaluation through their Race Hate Crime Forum. The Chair acknowledged this but clarified this was but a brief look in the absence of anything more detailed and that a more in depth evaluation was needed.

37.3 Members enquired if there was any feedback about the use of the 101 telephone number. The MPS responded that usage has not been as high as expected, noting that people were still ringing 999 if they could not get through on 101. An evaluation is currently ongoing and will be ready in roughly two months time. It was noted that 101 is a national scheme and that it is crucial that all communities have one number they can call in order to be directed to the right services. The MPS has recently conducted a promotional campaign for the 101 number to increase its usage.

37.4 The Chair enquired if anyone round the table had any concerns regarding Stop Hate Crime UK extending their services to provide 24/7 pan London function. Jamey Fisher said that Galop have concerns about a ‘one size fits all’ approach and that people like to have representatives from their communities they can discuss issues with. This should be someone who they can relate to as some people do not trust those outside of their communities. Galop already have a 24/7 function where people can request a call back if contacting them out of hours, and recommends that there needs to be extra work to support the vulnerable, a larger service cannot provide this level of support.

37.5 Dave Rich agreed and said he feels it is more effective if support is from the same community. The Community Security Trust already provides 24/7 function where volunteers can assist the public and have been doing this for years. The Trust has concerns that a pan-London approach may not improve services, but will only confuse people and that this service is not needed across the Jewish community. There is also a cost issue as the Trust do not currently charge the MPS for their work.

37.6 The Chair enquired how the Stop Hate Crime UK service is operating with communities across the North of the country. The MPS noted they have received a quarterly report from them which contains a lot of detail, and that they will provide this to members.

Action: MPS to forward a copy of the Stop Hate Crime UK quarterly report.

37.7 Michael Lucas enquired about the accuracy of flags used on the CRIS system. The MPS responded that this was not found to be reliable as it has to be entered manually and is not widely known.

37.8 Carole Atkinson enquired if there was a role for CPEG’s and that all CPEG’s should find out what third party reporting facilities exist in their borough. All this information could be put together to create a pan-London information package. The MPS said this is a very good idea, and an opportunity to ensure it is not just the borough commanders responding. It was noted that all CPEG’s hold monthly meetings at New Scotland Yard and that these present an opportunity to identify gaps in reporting in the 32 boroughs.

37.9 Royston John enquired if the MPS could use a post-box at supermarkets, main line stations or outside police stations so that people can provide intelligence and be reassured this is completely anonymous, because young people are often reluctant to engage with the police. The MPS responded that they have tried this approach before with post boxes outside police stations; however there were concerns around issues such as security. Some of the boxes were also stolen, which raised concern as people had put their contact details and addresses on their forms. There is also the issue of ensuring that disabled people have correct assistance and access when filling in the forms. Members noted that the MPS should consider Smartphone apps to engage with young people as this can be made anonymous.

37.10 Jamey Fisher said that Galop already offers anonymity for people’s concerns, and they have found most people are not concerned about anonymity. The public are concerned about their community’s response and want to speak to someone who understands their concerns.

37.11 Marie Stewart enquired about disability issues and how the need for ensuring advocacy work progresses alongside the reporting process is addressed. The MPS said that a lot of work has been done, especially following the Pilkington case and the EHRC report. Although there were only 124 reported disability hate crimes there were over 16,000 disabled victims of all crime. The MPS recognises that these numbers are only representative of the public who report and that there are many disabled victims who do not make reports. The MPS agreed that there is a long way to go to improve this, however, although the MPS should not lead on third party reporting, they can identify, inform and guide others, such as providing statistics about what the issues are, in order to hopefully increase third party reporting. The MPS record levels of antisocial behaviour cases to help create a true picture of issues, so that the same level of response will be directed to similar types of crime. The MPS stated that this is a work in progress. The Chair said that this is good progress, as hate crime often starts out as low level anti-social behaviour crime.

37.12 John Howard enquired about training provided for the MPS officers, and also said that he was not convinced that six months is enough time to deliver disability awareness, as otherwise these crimes would have reduced over the last 12-18 months. He also recommended that the lack of financial resources should be addressed. The MPS responded that in May 2009 they rolled out Hydra training on disability issues. This training includes challenging inappropriate terms and identifying and dealing with arising issues. This training is currently offered to probationers, but the MPS are looking to expand this. The MPS noted that regarding Mencap 10 point training promise they are identifying a training package, however this will not be ready for at least six months.

37.13 Doug Lewins said there is an issue with flagging, as people are not trained to categorise the crime that is being reported. He is aware of the good work being done by Jim Foley’s team, and that funding should not be reduced, and that the MOPC should consider having dedicated resources for addressing hate crime. He noted that intelligence is key and that partners should be sending out this message to their communities and that the MPS should improve relationships with local communities, as some boroughs are not as good as engaging as others. The MPS said they are continually evaluating how they engage with communities, and are concerned about the lack of engagement with young people. The MPS is considering holding virtual youth panels.

37.14 Michael Lucas noted that the last customer satisfaction survey showed substantial discontent of disabled staff in the MPS and inquired if this was the same for hate crime? He said the internal response to disability issues is often representative of the way it is policed externally. The MPS responded that hate crimes for disability should be recorded and that for the financial year to date (1 April-4 December 2011), there were 127 disability hate crime incidents. 101 of these were offences and 26 were 'non crimes'. It was noted that the report lists barriers to why people do not report hate crime, including people not wanting to queue at a police station to report the crime, and some being reluctant to go through the court process. The Chair noted that the barriers list is mirrored in the EHR report.

37.15 Marie Stewart said there is poor organisational memory in the MPS and that previous experience has found that concerns raised by young trainers have been dismissed by senior officers. She recommended that the organisational culture of the MPS should be improved.

37.16 Geoffrey Alderman stated he felt uneasy listening to today’s discussion, and said that when people want to report a crime they do, and should, go straight to the police.

37.17 The MPS thanked the group for today’s discussions and said that they have taken away a number of points. The Chair encouraged organisations around the table to continue discussing the issue of third party reporting, as it is important work to continue. Doug Lewins said that he hoped the MOPC will take forward something that is as helpful as this sub-committee has been.

37.18 A member thanked the Chair for her work on this sub-committee and members thanked the public for their participation.

The meeting was closed at 11.40am

Send an e-mail linking to this page

Feedback