Minutes - draft

Please note these minutes are currently draft and are subject to committee approval.

Minutes of the Equal Opportunity & Diversity Board held on 10 March 2005 at 10 Dean Farrar Street, SW1H 0NY.

Present

Members

• Kirsten Hearn (Chair)
• John Roberts (Deputy Chair)
• Lynne Featherstone
• Aneeta Prem
• Karim Murji also attended

MPA officers

• Catherine Crawford (Chief Executive and Clerk)
• Elizabeth Turner (Management Accountant)
• Gemma Walters (Analyst)
• Hamida Ali (Race and Diversity Unit)
• Doug Lewins (Race and Diversity Unit)
• Bennett Obong (Project Manager Race Hate Crime Forum)
• John Crompton (Committee Services)

MPS officers

• Deputy Assistant Commissioner Richard Bryan
• Commissioner’s Chief of Staff
• Deputy Assistant Commissioner Brian Paddic (Territorial Policing)
• Chris Haselden (Head of HR Strategic Management)
• Shabir Hussain (Director of Training)
• Martin Bagg (Diversity Directorate)
• Carl Wonfor (Strategic Relationships Team, Diversity Directorate)

The following attended for the discussion on LGBT issues:

• Hilary-Claire Wears, Project Director, Camden LGBT Forum
• Rob Downey, LGBT Stakeholder Co-ordinator, GLA
• Sukhjinder Sandhu, Male Sexual Health Office, Naz Project London
• Bob Hodgson, Co-Chair MPS LGBT Advisory Group
• Paula Thomas MPS LGBT Advisory Group – transgender issues
• Andy Forrest, Communications Officer, Stonewall
• Antony Smith, National Development and Policy Officer (Older Lesbians, Gay Men and Bisexuals) Age Concern England
• Sue Sanders Co-chair, Schools Out!
• David Pennells, Croydon LGBT Forum
• Jackie Fernandez and Deborah Gold Stonewall Housing
• Rosie Bucland, Volunteer Co-ordinator, London Lesbian and Gay Switchboard
  Tor Doherty (GALOP)
• Julian Aubrey Chair and C/I Jerry Blood
• PC Darren Harmston Kensington and Chelsea Liaison group

Several MPS LGBT borough liaison officers also attended.

49. Introductions and apologies for absence

(Agenda item 1)

Apologies or absence was received from Cindy Butts, Damian Hockney and Lee Jasper.

50. Declarations of interests

(Agenda item 2)

No declarations were made.

51. Minutes of the meeting held on 10 January 2005

(Agenda item 3)

Resolved - That the minutes of the meeting held on 10 January 2005 be agreed and signed as a correct record.

52. Chair and members’ update

(Agenda item 4)

CRE Formal Investigation into the Police Service in England and Wales.

The Chief Executive and Clerk reported that that the report had been published earlier in the week. A report on the recommendations would be made to the Authority meeting on 31 March.

Gender based violence discussed at January EODB

The Policy Development Officer, Race and Diversity reported that a meeting had been held with Anni Marjoram, Mayor’s Policy Adviser on Women’s Issues to discuss how to progress the decision which had been made to develop a London wide strategy on sexual violence.

53. Date of next meeting of the board

(Agenda item 5)

A report was submitted which asked the Board to consider whether it wishes to change the date of its next meeting if, as is widely expected, the general election is held on 5 May. It also suggested some alternative dates.

Resolved - That if the general election is held on 5 May the next meeting of the Board be held on 19 May at 10.00 a.m.

54. Lesbian Gay Bisexual and Transgender Issues

(Agenda item 6a and item 6b)

A report (6a) was submitted which outlines issues relating to Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender (LGBT) recruitment and retention within the MPS, training of police officers on LGBT issues in relation to staff and service delivery, homophobic crime and policing, role and function of LGBT liaison officers, the LGBT Advisory Group to the MPS and same sex domestic violence. A separate report (6b) provided an update on LGBT issues in the MPA.

Carl Wonfor clarified the position with regard to the provision of safe havens for victims of same sex domestic violence discussed at paragraph 54 by explaining that suitable premises had yet to be secured.

A member said that he did not think the Board had sufficient information on which to make a decision about whether the MPA should apply to become a Stonewall Diversity Champion. It was agreed that recommendation 2 in report 6b be deferred to the next meeting.

Resolved - That

1. the reports be noted; and
2. a decision on whether the MPA should apply to become a Stonewall Diversity Champion be deferred to enable more information to be provided.

55. Discussion on Lesbian Gay Bisexual and Transgender issues

(Agenda item 7)

Standing Orders were suspended for the consideration of this item. The Chair welcomed representatives of many community groups to the meeting to take part in the discussion.

A summary of the discussion is attached as Appendix 1 to these minutes.

56. Appropriate ethnicity terminology

(Agenda item 8)

A report was submitted which summarised the Authority’s position in relation to appropriate ethnicity terminology.

The Chief Executive and Clerk stressed that phrase ‘Visible Ethnic Minority’ was no longer to be used when describing an individual.

Resolved - That the terminology described in the report be used when describing staff, people and communities and submitting reports and quoting information form either self-defined or IC codes.

57. Morris Inquiry

(Agenda item 9)

A report was submitted which provided an update on the MPA’s agreed approach to responding to the recommendations made by the Morris Inquiry and outlined areas of responsibility for the Board.

The Board noted that there the recommendations from the CRE and Taylor reports would also needed to be taken into consideration when taking forward the Morris Inquiry recommendations. The Board also considered that it might be useful for its next meeting with the MPS Independent Advisory Groups to be on issues relating to the implementation of the Morris report.

Resolved – That regular reports be submitted to the Board on the implementation of the recommendations.

58. Stop and Search Scrutiny Implementation Panel

(Agenda item 10)

A report was submitted which provided an update on the work of the panel leading on the oversight of the recommendations made by the MPA scrutiny on stop and search practice.

Lynne Featherstone, the Chair of the panel, referred to the fact that the MPS Stop and Search Steering Group is now chaired by DAC Paddick and said it would be useful if he were to be formally invited to attend meetings of the panel.

The Board endorsed the view of the scrutiny panel that it would be most appropriate if the ACPO lead within the MPS for taking forward the work of the scrutiny be located in Territorial Policing.

Resolved – That

1. the report be noted; and
2. Deputy Assistant Commissioner Paddick be invited to attend meetings of the panel

59. Race Hate Crime Forum

(Agenda item 11)

A report was submitted which provided an update on the work of the Race Hate Crime Forum in supporting all London boroughs to ensure the reduction of race hate crimes and the fear of such crimes to all of London’s communities.

The Project Manager of the Forum stated that although the Forum had made useful and sustained links in many boroughs difficulties were experienced in getting some boroughs to engage with the work of the Forum. It was suggested that it might be useful if the MPA link member was copied into relevant correspondence.

Resolved – that the report be noted and the Board continues to support the work of the Forum.

60. Update on equality standard for local government

(Agenda item 12)

This report set out the details of how the MPS intended to demonstrate verifiable and auditable level 3 or level 4 compliance with the Equality Standard for Local Government.

Resolved – That the Board notes the purchase of the electronic self-assessment tool and the recommendation that the Greater London Authority acts as peer scrutineers for the MPS.

61. MPA Equalities Forum

(Agenda item 13)

A report was submitted which described the setting up of the internal MPA Staff Equality Forum, its aims and objectives and the issues it has considered.

In introducing the report, the Chief Executive and Clerk confirmed that the Forum had quickly established itself as an important part of the corporate governance of the Authority.

The Chair said that the Board wished to receive a report from the Forum in a year’s time but this did not preclude the Forum from report any pressing issues in the interim.

Resolved – That

1. the report be noted; and
2. A further report be submitted in a year’s time.

62. Performance management information

(Agenda item 14)

A report which submitted which provided the Board with relevant performance management information.

The Deputy Chair asked to be supplied with the Home Office figures for section 44 stops.

Resolved – that the report be noted.

63. Monitoring according to religion - discussion paper

(Agenda item 15)

A discussion paper was submitted to enable members to discuss the monitoring of service delivery and employment practice by religion.

DAC Paddick referred to the letter that the Mayor had sent in August 2004 as discussed at paragraph 2.3. He confirmed that consideration was being given within the MPS to the practical aspects of how religion might be recorded. He stressed that this was still at the planning stage and there was no plans to carry out a pilot. DAC Paddick also referred to recent reports in the media of remarks made by the Commissioner and Hazel Blears the Home Office Minister on the proportionality of Section 44 stops (i.e. relating to terrorism) being carried out on members of the Muslim community. He was confident that in both cases the remarks had been quoted out of context and did not reflect what either party had actually said.

Among the points raised during the discussion were:

• Religion should be recorded as otherwise how can there be effective monitoring.
• The model being used by Birmingham City Council might provided some learning points.
• Concerns that an individual would not wish to disclose as faith perceived to be a personal matter.
• Young people in particular might feel uncomfortable about having to what is seen to account for aspects of their personal life to a police officer.
• Concerns about the practicalities.
• Concern that the individual might not wish to disclose due to perception that the answer given may affect the way they are treated.
• Accuracy of the information revealed.
• Would it really do anything to clarify perceptions around discrimination based on faith v ethnicity.
• Concern that there was not a readily available base line upon which proportionality could be judged - there were for example concerns over the accuracy of the information captured in the 2001 census.

The meeting closed at 4.40 p.m.

Appendix 1

55. Discussion on Lesbian Gay Bisexual and Transgender issues

(Agenda item 7)

Standing Orders were suspended for the consideration of this item.

Kirsten Hearn the Chair of the Equal Opportunities and Diversity Board (EODB) welcomed representatives of the community groups to the meeting and said she hoped the reports which had been sent out ahead of the meeting would provide a starting point for the discussion although she would also encourage people not to hesitate to raise points on aspects which were not covered in the reports.

MPS as employer

John Roberts, Deputy Chair EODB, asked for an indication of the number of MPS officers in membership of the Gay Police Association (GPA). He also referred to comments in the report concerning recording of sexual orientation as part of the police officer application form and asked whether there were any timescales for the storage of this information.

Paula Thomas, MPS LGBT Advisory Group, pointed out there was not consistency in the way in which transgender was recorded.

In reply Carl Wonfer, Strategic Relationships Team, MPS Diversity Directorate said that the GPA had a very clear policy of not revealing any information about its membership, not even in abstract form. As regards the recording of sexual orientation Chris Haselden (Head of HR Strategic Management), said the position was that the confidentiality plan had not been agreed. It was hoped that it would be in place by the end of June. The issue of storage of the data obtained from the police officer application form had still to be resolved. There was an expectation from the Home Office that the MPS would conform to national guidelines.

A long serving police officer enquired about support for officers such as himself who had experienced problems due to their sexuality. The meeting was advised there was no specific welfare support within the MPS dealing with sexuality so an officer would have to turn to the Gay Police Association. Another speaker said she was concerned at reports of inequality of treatment given to the staff support organisations. The Head of HR Strategic Management said that issues on support for staff and officers had been identified in the Morris report.

A police officer asked about the roll out of the new race and diversity training referred to in the report.

The Director of Training confirmed that the training would be compulsory and was the minimum standard that each officer would receive. He said he was pleased with the content of the training although his personal preference would be for it to be called diversity training rather than race and diversity.

MPS as service provider

LGBT liaison officers

Hilary-Claire Wears, Project Director, Camden LGBT Forum referred to the fact that each borough now had a nominated LGBT liaison officer. Whilst this was to be welcomed, there were concerns that the success of the arrangement was being put in jeopardy as other demands on their time were being made at the expense of the LGBT work. Other speakers, including several LGBT liaison officers, indicated that they shared the concern that they were not being allocated sufficient time to develop the role or make it work properly and there were concerns about training.

Deputy Assistant Commissioner Paddick explained that the LGBT liaison officers were under the control and direction of Borough Commanders. He confirmed that there should be a certain level of provision across London although the provision had to be made with reference to the population of the borough and other known characteristics. The local LGBT community could advise borough Commanders on the appropriate level of provision.

Reaching the LGBT community

David Pennells, Croydon LGBT Forum, said it was important not to lose sight of the fact that although gay people were more visible in central London than in the suburbs this was because central London this was because where most of the opportunities for socialising existed. There should be recognition however that members of the LGBT community were as likely to live in the outlying boroughs as in central London and they made up a notable percentage of the population of each borough although they were not always “visible”.

Antony Smith, National Development and Policy Officer (Older Lesbians, Gay Men and Bisexuals), Age Concern England said his experience was that organisations did not always try hard enough to reach groups which were referred to as hard to reach. There was a need to be aware that some members of the LGBT communities might also be members of other minority groups –elderly gay people for example were usually overlooked.

Commander Paddick confirmed that the police were continually striving to improve their awareness of all sections of the LGBT community. Speaking personally he would acknowledge that he was familiar with the gay male community but less so with other aspects of the LGBT community.

Young people

Sue Sanders, Co-chair, Schools Out!, referred to the excellent work on homophobic bullying in schools which had not been mentioned in the report. It was unfortunate that the work was limited to a few boroughs e.g. Croydon and Lambeth and she asked whether there were any plans to introduce it in other boroughs.

Carl Wonfer confirmed that at present there was no mechanism in place for sharing and delivering the good practice on school bullying across the boroughs. There was a vast number of education authorities and schools with which an effective partnership would have to be built up to do this work and the inequality in the legislation in this area was not helpful either.

Reporting

Tor Doherty (GALOP) referred to the issue of value of reporting of all crimes experienced by people in the LGBT community. She asked whether the MPA would require the MPS to prioritise increasing reporting. Another speaker said that the MPS on-line reporting did not at present have specific provision for reporting LGBT hate crimes.

Carl Wonfer agreed that this was an important area and confirmed that work was being carried out in conjunction with Broken Rainbow on 3rd party reporting.

Changes in service delivery

Several speakers made reference to the new devolution arrangements that were being introduced which meant that some of the work that currently sat within the Diversity Directorate of the MPS would be devolved to other parts of the organisation. In the case of LGBT issues this was largely to Territorial Policing (TP). There was concern that the some of the commendable work done by the Diversity Directorate in the LGBT arena might lose focus.

Bob Hodgson, Co-Chair MPS LGBT Advisory Group, asked how TP would access advice from the IAGs and community groups which worked with the LGBT community.

DAC Paddick said that it was too early to comment on how the new mainstreaming arranging were working out in practice. As part of his role, he was responsible for the successful implementation of the new arrangements within Territorial Policing. He felt that this was appropriate as the first point of contact which victims of crime had with the police would usually be Territorial Policing. His view was that same sex domestic violence should be mainstreamed with domestic violence. DAC Paddick assured the meeting that the new Commissioner, Sir Ian Blair, was committed to the MPS continuing to working together with the LGBT community.

Summing up

In summing up the discussion, the Chair said some important points had been raised and felt this had reflected the value of people feeling able to hold an open discussion. She felt that the more that was known about the characteristics and expectations of the people who made up the LGBT community then this would help in the delivery of services to the community. The Chair also asked the Commissioner’s Chief of Staff to brief the Commissioner on the points which had been raised.

Send an e-mail linking to this page

Feedback