Minutes

Minutes of the Equal Opportunity & Diversity Board held on 6 October 2005 at 10 Dean Farrar Street, SW1H 0NY.

Present

Members

• Kirsten Hearn (Chair)
• John Roberts (Deputy Chair)
• Cindy Butts
• Lee Jasper
• Aneeta Prem

The following members of the Professional Standards and Complaints Committee attended for consideration of agenda items 8 and 9: Reshard Auladin (Chair) and, Karim Murji.

Also attended: Rachel Whittaker.

MPA officers

• Catherine Crawford (Chief Executive and Clerk)
• David Riddle (Deputy Chief Executive, and Solicitor to the Authority)
• Annabel Adams (Deputy Treasurer)
• Claire Lister (Professional Standards)
• Laurence Gouldbourne (Head of Race and Diversity)
• Doug Lewin, (Race and Diversity Unit)
• Hamida Ali (Race and Diversity Unit)
• Julliett Fearon (Race and Diversity Unit)
• John Crompton (Committee Services)

MPS officers

• Deputy Assistant Commissioner Rose Fitzpatrick (Diversity and Citizen Focus)
• Commander Sue Akers Director of Professional Standards
• David Martin (Diversity Directorate)
• Mark Gervais (Diversity Directorate)
• Kevin Bowsher (Diversity Directorate)
• Yasmin Rehman (Senior Partnerships Consultant, Racial and Violent Crime Task Force, MPS) attended for agenda item 11.

Also present:

• George Rhoden, Chair Metropolitan Black Police Association
• Lionel Harrison, ACAS
• Elena Noel, Southwark Mediation Centre
• Paul Vogler, MPS Jewish Police Association
• Nathalie Stewart, Westminster Race Equality Council
• Halil Huseyin, MPS Turkish Police Association
• Andy Garret, MPS Disabled Staff Association
• Chris Bartlett, Police Superintendents Association
• Ann Stuart, British Association for Women in Policing
• Nicola Williams, Independent Police Complaints Commission
• Sue Sanders, Schools Out!
• John Azar, Independent Advisory Group

17. Apologies for absence

(Agenda item 1)

Apologies for absence were received from Peter Herbert and Damian Hockney. A number of apologies from members of the community were also received.

18. Declarations of interest

(Agenda item 2)

No interests were declared.

19. Minutes of the meeting held on 7 July 2005

(Agenda item 3)

Resolved - That the minutes of the meeting held on 7 July 2005, be agreed and signed as a correct record.

20. Chair and Members’ update (Oral item)

(Agenda item 4)

Resolved – That the report be noted.

21. Follow up to previous meeting (Oral item)

(Agenda item 5)

It was noted that a reply would be given to two questions that had been submitted at the time of the last meeting.

22. Co-opted members

(Agenda item 6)

Members received a report, which invited them to consider the appointment of co-opted members to the Board. The Chair said she supported the re-appointment of Lee Jasper but did not think it was necessary to appoint any further co-opted members.

Resolved – That Lee Jasper be re-appointed as a co-opted member (subject to confirmation by the full Authority).

23. Lead member roles

(Agenda item 7)

A report was submitted which asked the Board to review and appoint the lead member positions. The Chair suggested that the Board revises the way it appoints its lead members by only having as lead members the chairs of the Board’s various sub-groups. This would mean that the following would be lead members:

• Disability - Kirsten Hearn
• Domestic violence - Cindy Butts
• Race hate crimes - Peter Herbert
• Stop and search - John Roberts

The Board indicated that they could not identify any further roles that required a lead member.

Resolved - That

1. subject to confirmation by the full Authority the following lead members be appointed:
   • Disability - Kirsten Hearn
   • Domestic violence - Cindy Butts
   • Race hate crimes - Peter Herbert
   • Stop and search - John Roberts; and
2. the Authority be advised of the basis of the way in which the Board considers that lead members be identified –i.e. those who chair the sub-fora.

24. Report on Professional Standards

(Agenda item 8a and 8b)

and

25. Discussion on Professionals Standards

(Agenda item 9)

Standing Orders were suspended for this item to enable contributions to be made from non-members.

The MPS report was a considered with a concurrent report from the MPA (agenda item 8a), which outlined some of the key challenges and concerns from a variety of equality and diversity perspectives as it relates to professional standards within the MPS. This part of the meeting was a joint meeting with the Professional Standards and Complaints Committee. Reshard Auladin, the Chair of that Committee was co-Chair for this item.

Commander Akers outlined the changes to the Directorate, which it was hoped to introduce. These covered the introduction of a ‘reception desk’, system of reviewing cases, creation of a prevention command and system of reviewing cases.

Points from MPS Staff Associations and IAGs

Andy Garrett, MPS Disabled Staff Association, said that the Samurai group (the umbrella group of MPS staff associations) had agreed that no one group could reasonably be expected to speak on behalf of all the groups on this issue and that contributions would therefore be coming from separate associations and should be recorded as such.

Commander Akers confirmed that this would be done.

George Reardon, Metropolitan Black Police Association said the Association had submitted a detailed submission to the Morris Inquiry. As this was already ‘on the record’, he did not propose to repeat it but it had included a request for a fundamental external review of the DPS. It remained to be seen whether the internal review would adequately address Issues around racism training and empowerment for mangers to adequately deal with racism and other issues and early intervention. Feedback concerning the 90 day rule- if inquiries drag on it is detrimental to the individuals both in terms of work and personally. Management accountability of officers heading investigations – who are they responsible to? He said a particular concern and anomaly concerned the involvement of the Independent Advisory Groups in the gold groups set up by the MPS in connection with some of the more sensitive cases. Clarify was needed on the process for setting them up and how members of IAGs were chosen to serve on them?

DAC Fitzpatrick said the MPS had started to do the work on the issues concerning IAGs that had been highlighted in the Morris Report. She hoped that the outcome would be that existing best practice would be shared and that the result would be that relationship between the IAGs and the MPS would be more effective whilst still ensuring that the individual Groups could continue to have freedom as to how they chose to operate.

John Azar reminded the meeting of the background to reason why the IAGs had been established and he would maintain that the process for appointing members ensured their independence. There was already a process for tasking IAGs in gold groups.

Sue Sanders, Schools Out but speaking as a member of a IAG, said she was sure that the IAGs would wish to retain their independence over issues such as who would serve on a gold group if invited.

Paul Vogler, Jewish Police Association said the Association recognised that there had already been changes to the way the Directorate operates. The Association wished to point out that currently, the IPCC is unable to investigate complaints from police officers that concern colleagues. Would the MPA suggest a change in legislation to facilitate this?”

Nicola Williams, IPCC said it was not strictly true to say that the Commission was not able to investigate complaints about colleagues but these should be referred via a line manager.

Reshard Auladin said he did not envisage the MPA suggesting a change in the legislation as referred to by Mr Vogler.

George Reardon, BPA, observed that the Professional Services Directorate would need to be prepared for resistance to the proposals for change.

DAC Akers pointed out that the changes would mean benefits in terms of a shortening in the process for those being investigated and with matters being dealt with in a more open manner and she would hoped that this would be borne in mind by those who were consulted about the change.

Points from other groups

Ann Stewart, British Association for Women in Policing asked “What are the MPA going to do to address the problem of senior officers not dealing with issues within their Units/Depts/Boroughs, but continually referring them to DPS, which clogs up the DPS system and prolongs minor cases unnecessarily?”

Nathalie Stewart Westminster Race Equality Council said she had been astonished to find out that there was still a lot of basic talk about equalities – this should be a non-negotiable ‘given’. She disagreed with the comments that had been made about not reading too much into headlines as these were invariably where the most easily understood message was given out.

Summing up the discussion the Chair thanked everyone for the contributions they had made. She said that there had been some changes to Professional Standards and everybody looked forward to the introduction of the further improvements, which had been outlined at the meeting.

MPA Concurrent report

The Head of the MPA Race and Diversity Unit said there was four areas of concern, which it was hoped, would be addressed and these were set out in the concurrent report that had been circulated.

Commander Akers said she was very conscious of the question of disproportionably and the research commissioned from Cambridge University will assist.

Data collection and monitoring – any extension to cover further equalities groups would be easier if there was just one point of entry for incoming cases.

Commander Akers said the ‘reception desk’ arrangement would provide some consistency on practice. There were recommendations in the Taylor Report which would provide local managers with the power to deal with some conduct cases with only more serious cases being referred to DPS which George Reardon had referred to although the implementation would be subject to agreement within the organisation. There would need to be adequate training for local managers so that they felt confident and competent to deal with these issues. Gold groups are convened as soon as it felt that there is there is a sufficiently high level of organisational risk. IAGs were involved where felt it would be useful and the process would normally be for the individual to be identified via the respective IAG Chair.

Points from MPA members

Rachel Whittaker, MPA member, referred to other pieces of work such as Together and the Service Review and asked about the training in management skills for staff at OCU level which had been highlighted as being important for this and other areas. Would there be a case for giving priority to the training in Professional Standards matters?

Lee Jasper, Co-opted member EODB, asked about disproportionality. How did the DPA regard this in both qualitively and quantitatively? Could the Director comment on the points made about extended investigations for black officers. He would question whether without training IAG members were qualified to participate in Professional Standard gold groups and he would suggest that as the Police Authority had been established to provide an element of democratic accountability in such matters it was no longer appropriate for the IAGs to have a role in discipline cases.

Cindy Butts, EODB member, asked how the review linked in with the Together Programme. Standards and consistency should not be regarded just as a Professional Standards matter. She felt that the points that had been raised about IAGs would be relevant to a wider piece of work that the MPS was doing on the subject. The Morris report had also commented on the use of IAGs for gold groups.

Karim Murji, MPA member, spoke about timeliness and the fact there is now and extended case management process issues around cases lasting more than 120 days. Disproportionality was a complex issue and he would caution in reading too much into the ‘headline’ figures – it was necessary to know more about the details of each case.

Commander Ackers said she was clear that Professionals Standards had to work in collaboration with Together and Citizen Focus to bring about the cultural change that was hoped for. The ways these links would be made were at a very early stage of development. Disproportionality some of the work commissioned from Cambridge would assist in looking at the underlying issues. It would be important to maintain dialogue with BPA and Samurai.

Lee Jasper referred to recommendations 1.2.3 and 1.2.4 in the Morris Report, which he thought as being clear that the question of disproportionality was proven. He felt that there was sufficient the information and processes in place to address these points and so he would question whether it was necessary to carry out any further research such as that at Cambridge University. With regard to IAGs, he would question whether they were well placed to provide effective contributions to long term and highly detailed investigations.

Commander Akers said she had to differ with Lee Jasper on some of the points he had made about disproptionality and would be happy to discuss the matter further with him.

Cindy Butts asked about the timetable for the HMIC review. Commander Akers said the HMIC review would be taking place shortly and whilst the timing was not ideal it was often the case in HMIC reviews that the MPS was seen as leading in good practice for introduction nation wide and it was hoped that this would also be the case with the changes being made in Professional Standards.

Summing up

A Policy Development Officer from the Race and Diversity Unit provided a summary of the points that had been made.

Reshard Auladin, Chair Professional Standards and Complaints Committee, said a number of the points raised both in the report and during the discussion were ones which were already being dealt with at the Professional Standards and Complaints Committee, for example ways of empowering managers in the way they handled discipline matters so that fewer had to be referred up to DPS. There had undoubtedly been progress in the ways these matters were handled since the inception of the Authority but there was no question that there was scope for further improvement. The Committee had commissioned the work from Cambridge University on disproportionality and comments that had been made would be fed into the review. The Committee was also looking at the question of case management protocol, which came out of the Morris Inquiry, and again this would assist with disproportionality. The Committee was working closely with the Independent Police Complaints Commission to ensure best practice and to ensure that the most relevant data was made available to best gauge performance.

Reshard Auladin concluded by stating that the dialogue with stakeholders would continue including capturing the experiences of those who had gone through the process.

Reshard Auladin stressed that the Professional Standards and Complaints Committee was the lead Committee on the implementation of the changes to Professional Standards, which had been outlined at the meeting. The Committee would be closely monitoring the progress made.

Resolved – That

1. the progress on the agreed outcomes of the Morris, Taylor and CRE and Ghaffur reports as it relates to Professional Standards be noted.
2. a further report be submitted in six months to review progress to the Professional Standards and Complaints Committee.

26. MPS Race and Diversity Strategy

(Agenda item 10)

Member considered a report that presented the revised draft Race and Diversity (Confidence and Equality Strategy). Standing Orders were suspended for this item to enable contributions to be made from non-members. The Chair invited the report author to outline the points that had been raised so far in the consultation process.

Kevin Bowsher explained that the first version of the strategy had been consulted on widely available whereas consultation on the current version was limited to around 1000 people in the organisation and 100 key external stakeholders. The main points that had been raised covered the following areas:

• Style – negativity and focusing on those who are not engaged
• Style and pitch of the writing
• Key encounters and critical incidents – examples quoted not necessarily the most appropriate to quote.
• More cross references to the corporate strategy were required and the linkages with citizen focus
• Structure – some feel it is just too long and uses inappropriate language

There had been specific comments both for and against the use of the phrase ‘race and diversity’. Sue Sanders said that she was very disappointed to see outdated and unacceptable terminology being used in the report.

Several other Board members and speakers from the floor said that although much of the content was admirable they also had reservations about the language used which appeared in places to be a reversal of previous good practice. The approach taken in the document was one which was open to misinterpretation if sections were looked at in isolation – for example the rhetorical questions posed at the beginning could appear to be unduly negative and did not represent a good basis for going forward. There was inconsistency in the use of the word ‘we’. The language needed to be made more inclusive. At present, it seemed to be aimed at police offers rather than staff. The headings for senior managers and strategic leaders rather lost sight of the fact that everybody in the organisation had responsibilities. The point was also made that it was not clear what was to happen about the earlier proposal for impact consultants.

DAC Fitzpatrick said she was grateful for the constructive feedback. She said that it was clear there would need to be careful consideration to the points that had been raised and how these could be addressed. It was likely to be the case that there would be some slippage in the timetable at Appendix 2 which meant that the revised version would be submitted to a meeting of the Authority for sign-off later than had been planned. The revised version would incorporate the work that had been done on values. Every part of the organisation would be required to have an action plan for the implementation of the strategy. There would be a central monitoring unit, which would monitor implantation and offer guidance with a much smaller number of impact consultants than had been planned originally.

Resolved –That

1. That the comments made at the meeting be taken into account as part of the consultation process; and
2. A progress report be submitted to a future meeting.

27. MPA Domestic Violence Board

(Agenda item 11)

The Board received a report which outlined a proposal to establish a MPA-owned multi-agency board which can monitor and scrutinise MPS performance on domestic violence; highlight best practice and innovation, and support the MPS to identify solutions to improving performance in keeping survivors safe and holding perpetrators to account.. Yasmin Rehman, Senior Partnerships Consultant, Racial and Violent Crime Task Force, MPS, attended for this item.

The Chair and other members said they warmly welcomed the establishment of the Board. Cindy Butts, the proposed co-Chair of the new Board, said she would welcome further MPA members joining the Board. Kirsten Hearn and Aneeta Prem indicated that they would wish to join the Board.

The Deputy Chief Executive and Clerk said that given the corporate implications of establishing the Board the report should be referred to the November meeting of the Co-ordination and Policing Committee at its meeting on 4 November for ratification. This would also provide a further opportunity for MPA members to join.

Resolved – That subject to the concurrence of the Co-ordination and Policing Committee

1. Members agree the proposal for an MPA Domestic Violence Board to oversee MPS performance in relation to domestic violence; and
2. agree that the first meeting should coincide with the 16 Days of Activism against Gender Violence between the International Day Against Violence Against Women (25.11.05) and the International Day of Human Rights (10.12.05).

28. Budget and Equalities

(Agenda item 12)

A report was received which asked members to agree the draft equalities priorities to be include in the main draft budget submission for 2006-2009. The costs attached to these priorities were due to be considered at the joint Finance and Planning Performance and Review Committee on 10 October.

Resolved – That members endorse the draft equalities priorities as outlined in paragraph 3 of the report to be included in the main draft budget submission.

29. Race Hate Crime Forum

(Agenda item 13)

The Board received a report that asked the Board to ringfence resources to support the London-wide Race Hate Crime Forum taking place on 17 November. Cindy Butts asked to be advised of the anticipated outcomes of the conference. The Chair reported that she had asked that the Conference be designed to include as many community groups as possible.

Resolved –.£15,000 be ringfenced from the MPA Race and Diversity Unit budget to support the London-wide Race Hate Crime Forum.

30. Stop and searches Scrutiny Board

(Agenda item 14)

A report was submitted which outlined the reforming of the Stops and Searches Scrutiny Board (SSSB). The SSSB proposes to meet bi-monthly. It will be a meeting held in public and key stakeholders will be invited to comment on progress towards the original 55 recommendations. In addition, the Board will also focus on stops and searches as it impacts on community reassurance and resilience. The Board will also provide a regular place on its agenda for members of London’s diverse communities to relate their experiences of stops and searches. Another significant feature of the new SSSB are borough visits that will be undertaken by the Board.

Lee Jasper said he had conducted a piece of research which had revealed that there were a large number of bodies within the MPA and MPS carrying out work on stop and search and/or Recommendation 61. He felt that apart from being confusing and unhelpful it was highly likely that this high number would indicate some duplication of effort. He would therefore strongly urge that there be some pruning and rationalisation.

John Roberts the Chair of the Scrutiny Board said he shared the concerns that had been expressed and would be looking at ways that there could be some rationalisation.

Resolved - That

1. the report be noted; and
2. the activities of the scrutiny Board which will be carried out in the boroughs be noted.

Send an e-mail linking to this page

Feedback