Appropriate ethnicity terminology

Report: 08
Date: 10 March 2005
By: Clerk

Summary

This report summarises the Authority’s position in relation to appropriate ethnicity terminology.

A. Recommendations

That the Board and the MPS note the MPA’s view of appropriate ethnicity terminology when

• describing staff, people and communities
• submitting reports and quoting information from either self defined ethnicity, or IC, codes.

B. Supporting information

Language

1. The Chair of EODB has received feedback and concerns from MPS staff regarding the use of ethnicity related terminology, in particular ‘Visible Ethnic Minority’.

2. This term is a specific Home Office reference established to measure the ethnic diversity of the MPS’ workforce over time.

3. However, clear feedback from MPS staff suggests that this language is being used to describe black and minority ethnic staff generally, which is causing offence and distress.

4. The abbreviation VEM was introduced by the Home Office to describe a statistical measure used to track improvement by police services across England and Wales in relation to recruitment and retention of black and Asian officers. This measure continues to be used and can only reference organisational performance in relation to this performance indicator.

5. However, staff experience has shown that this abbreviation (VEM) is a common place reference used to describe black and minority ethnic members of staff resulting in those colleagues feeling dehumanised as if they too are reduced to a statistic. Colleagues have also expressed concern that the organisation has not been able to have a positive impact on this aspect of the organisational culture.

6. The MPA is clear that appropriate terminology in relation to ethnicity is black and minority ethnic communities / people as a generic descriptor – not black and ethnic minority; not ethnic minority or visible ethnic minority. This language is widely accepted currently as appropriate ethnicity terminology and is used across public service including the GLA Group, of which the MPA is part, as a functional body.

7. Use of the ‘IC Code’ system has also caused concern among MPA members. Both the Chair and the Clerk have stated in committee that MPS reports must reference the self-defined ethnicity classification and if the IC system must be referenced to, the IC reference code is unacceptable and the descriptor e.g. ‘black’, ‘Asian’ etc must be quoted in its place.

Ongoing work

8. Officers from the MPA and the MPS are already in discussion to improve the analysis of under-representation within the MPS. An increasingly complex examination of under representation within, and across, equality groups will ensure previously unidentified discrimination is uncovered.

C. Race and equality impact

The MPS and MPA have clear legislative and organisational commitments to promoting equality and diversity which can only be undermined by inappropriate language which has an adverse impact on black and minority ethnic staff and communities. Joint public service agreements within the criminal justice system make specific reference to improving disproportionately lower levels of confidence within London’s black and minority ethnic communities.

D. Financial implications

There are no financial implications in this report.

E. Background papers

None

F. Contact details

Report author: Hamida Ali

For more information contact:

MPA general: 020 7202 0202
Media enquiries: 020 7202 0217/18

Send an e-mail linking to this page

Feedback