Minutes

Minutes of the Equal Opportunity & Diversity Board held on 7 September 2006 at 10 Dean Farrar Street, SW1H 0NY.

Present

Members

• Kirsten Hearn (Chair)
• John Roberts (Deputy Chair)
• Cindy Butts
• Damian Hockney
• Aneeta Prem

MPA officers

• Catherine Crawford (Chief Executive and Clerk)
• Annabel Adams (Deputy Treasurer)
• Laurence Gouldbourne (Head of Race and Diversity)
• Hamida Ali (Policy Development Officer, Race and Diversity Unit)
• Julliett Fearon-Knott (Policy Development Officer, Race and Diversity Unit)
• Doug Lewins (Policy Development Officer, Race and Diversity Unit)
• John Crompton (Committee Services)

MPS officers

• Deputy Assistant Commissioner Rose Fitzpatrick (Diversity and Citizen Focus)
• Deputy Assistant Commissioner Richard Bryan (Central Operations)
• Chief Superintendent Rob Jarman
• Dick Fedorcio (Director of Public Affairs)
• Commander David Johnston
• Detective Superintendent Simon Morgan
• Chief Superintendent Dave George (Territorial Support Group)

Also present:

• Colin Babb attended on behalf of Lee Jasper (co-opted member)
• Rachel Whittaker
• Shereen Samara, Equality Co-ordinator, Croydon & Sutton Law Centre
• Natalie Stewart, Chair, Westminster Equalities, Human Rights and Race Group
• Ben Owusu, Chair, Race Independent Advisory Group
• Dean Miller, GPA Force Co-ordinator, MPS Gay Police Association
• Detective Inspector Stanley Downey, Inspectors' Branch Board representative, Met Police Federation
• Inspector Liz Owsley, Committee Member, British Association for Women in Policing (BAWP)
• Bob Hodgson, Co-Chair, MPS Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Independent Advisory Group (LGBT IAG)
• Patricia Larrigan, Association of Senior Female Police Staff
• Rev George Hargreaves, Chair, Stop & Search Independent Advisory Group
• Gary Rowland, London LGBT Youth Council Co-ordinator, Consortium
• Marion James, Commissioners Women’s Focus Group
• Susan Paterson, Senior Criminologists, Performance, Development and Monitoring Unit, Diversity and Citizen Focus Directorate
• Vicky Kielinger, Senior Criminologists, Performance, Development and Monitoring Unit, Diversity and Citizen Focus Directorate

13. Apologies for absence

(Agenda item 1)

Apologies for absence were received from Cindy Butts and Lee Jasper. A number of apologies from members of the invited community organisations were also submitted.

14. Declarations of interests

(Agenda item 2)

No interests were declared.

15. Minutes – 20 July 2006

(Agenda item 3)

Resolved - That the minutes of the meeting held on 20 July 2006 be agreed and signed as a correct record.

Arising thereon - John Roberts to be advised of the position with regard to the initial encounter training for stop and search.

It was also noted that the Westminster Race Equality Council was now known as the Westminster Equalities, Human Rights and Race Group.

16. Chair and member’s update

(Agenda item 4)

Resolved – That the report be noted.

17. Date of next meeting in January 2007

(Agenda item 5)

A report was submitted which asked the Board to consider a request that the date of the meeting in January 2007 be changed.

Resolved - That the January meeting of the Board be changed from 11 January to 18 January 2007 at 10.00 a.m.

18. Report on focus item – How the Met communicates

(Agenda items 6)

A report was submitted which outlined the work of the Directorate of Public Affairs in communicating with London’s diverse communities.

Resolved - That the report be noted

19. Concurrent report by MPA on the focus item

(Agenda item 7)

This report provided a response from an equality and diversity perspective to the report by the MPS.

Resolved - That

1. the key issues raised at EODB be fed into the DPA scrutiny; and
2. the DPA should be asked to conduct Equality Impact Assessments (EIAs) when looking at reduction in budgets and that these should be published and made available publicly as and where appropriate.

20. Discussion on focus item

(Agenda item 8)

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

Promotion of good race relations

Aneeta Prem asked what work is being done by the Directorate to fulfil its duties to eliminate discrimination and promote equality and good relations between different groups. She also referred to the use of the phrase ‘British born’ when referring to persons arrested which had caused concern in the Asian community. Careful thought should be given to the language used in order not to stigmatise or alienate any particular group. The Director of Public Affairs agreed that his Department may not always have been proactive in challenging the use of phrases like ‘British born’ but the question of ethnic background was one that was of interest to the media.

Aneeta Prem followed up her question by asking what steps would be taken to challenge this practice and what advice was being taken on how to challenge inappropriate language. The Director of Public Affairs said that in the first instance he would look to advice from colleagues in the Diversity and Citizen Focus Directorate.

In reply to a question from the Chair, the Director said that if a story were being covered in a way that would incite racial hatred it would be treated as a criminal matter.

Use of appropriate language

Natalie Stewart Westminster Equalities, Human Rights and Race Group, pointed out that the Hindu and Sikh communities had also been affected by the media spotlight on the Muslim community. It was important to stress that the issue was one concerning terrorism and not faith or racial background. She felt that there was a case for the police limiting its contact with the media to avoid the scope for the police to be compromised and felt that the prime accountability of the police was to the community and not the media.

The Director of Public Affairs confirmed that his priorities were the MPS and the people of London. The phrase “Islamic terrorists” which had been used previously had caused concern and he had raised this directly with the newspaper editors concerned. The language used was often a bugbear and his officers did challenge the language used. One restricting factor was that the press coverage of a case was admissible evidence in the court hearing.

Relationship with the MPA

John Roberts, Deputy Chair EODB, said that he did not think that there was a robust enough relationship between DPA and the MPA’s own publicity department which affected how up to date the news service provided to MPA members was. He asked what steps could be taken to improve the service provided.

The Director of Public Affairs said his understanding was that the details of relevant stories were shared with the MPA press office, which in turn disseminated the information to MPA members. One suggestion would be to add members to the MPS email distribution list but this might result in members feeling they were being bombarded with information. He would be happy to discuss this further with the MPA’s Director of Communications.

Catherine Crawford, MPA Chief Executive, said that the relationship between the two departments was good and she could confirm that information was made available to MPA members in a timely manner. She felt that John Roberts may have been alluding to the provision of a supplementary background briefing, and this might not necessarily be provided by either of the two media departments.

News blackouts and restrictions on responses

Damian Hockney, MPA member, asked about the restrictions on what could be stated during major events such as the shooting during the raid on houses in Forest Gate and the fact that matters were not refuted it led to what could be incorrect assumptions being made by various parties such as the relevant community. MPA members did need more information about major incidents.

The Director of Public Affairs said that the protocol with the Independent Police Complaints

Commission stated that once the IPCC had taken control of a particular incident then the IPCC was responsible for all media contact. This was why the MPS had effectively to be ‘silent’ and it was also the case that the IPCC itself was restricted in what it could say whilst it was assembling the facts. This inability to respond to points that were being discussed in the media was unsatisfactory as it meant that the public did not receive a balanced account. Discussions were taking place with the IPCC as to how this might be addressed.

Damian Hockney followed up by asking whether there was a specific time frame during which comments could not be made. The Director of Public Affairs said that he shared the frustration concerning the period of silence but inevitably inquiries had to take their due course so that justice could be done.

The Head of Race and Diversity referred to the media protocol between the IPCC and MPS on Forest Gate, which stated that the MPS could comment on particular points subject to prior approval by the Commission. The Director of Public Affairs reminded the meeting that the protocol on Forest Gate had been developed some time after the raids and he would stress that it only related to the shooting aspect of the raids.

Bob Hodgson, Co-Chair, MPS Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Independent Advisory Group (LGBT IAG), said that incidents such as Forest Gate and Stockwell had a profound effect on local communities. He asked whether the DPA had any role in ensuring that the information given to the media was accurate and free of spin. The Director of Public Affairs confirmed that this was the case. Following the Stockwell shooting on 22 July 2005 there had been a review of knowledge management that had identified the lessons learnt.

Rev George Hargreaves, Chair, Stop & Search Independent Advisory Group, referred to the media vacuum, which also affected community leaders who were not able to provide information/ reassurance to the community. He also wished to refer to the specific problems that had arisen for the Christian community on the (erroneous) headlines which had appeared concerning child sacrifices in churches. He wanted to know what sanctions were imposed on journalists who misused information supplied to them.

With regard to the delay in denying stories the Director of Public Affairs said that often stories appeared without warning and from a journalist with whom his department did not have regular contact. It was necessary to ascertain and consider the facts before making a response. As a public body the MPS could not chose who it dealt with and he pointed out that in addition to the press bureau there were other avenues of seeking information such as the Freedom of Information Act. It had been his practice not to impose sanctions against any individual journalist, as he did not consider that they were an effective way of dealing with the media. Many journalists in this field were members of the Crime Reporters Association, which took steps against its members who stepped out of line.

DAC Fitzpatrick spoke about independent advice and making contact with communities in a way were there could be discussion on the ways in which community impact and communication would be handled and which would give members of the community assurances on the way in which an investigation was being handled. In the criminal justice system, it was not possible to give constant updates on investigations as this could jeopardise due process.

Equalities aspects

Cindy Butts, Deputy Chair, MPA, said there was clearly some innovative work being carried out within the Directorate. She felt it was necessary to consider the work of the Directorate with reference to the equalities and diversity challenges which were outlined in the report and she would like to have some more specific information.

The Director of Public Affairs said that resource implications were an inhibiting factor and requirements like compliance with the Disability Discrimination Act and the provision of translations came at a cost. His Directorate would take advice from for example the relevant Independent Advisory Group. Specialist ethnic minority media was growing and contacts made.

The Chair referred to a document that had been produced on Disability Discrimination Act compliance. She felt that there had to be a base level which included access. She asked whether the policy been impact assessed.

The Director of Public Affairs confirmed that a lot of work was being done on this aspect with advice being sought widely including from the Central Office of Information. An impact assessment had not been carried out.

Media spokesperson

The Chair asked for more information on how it was decided who would act as the spokesperson during a particular operation and what support they were given.

The Director said that there were a number of factors and it would be decided between the gold officer in his department and the gold operational officer. The spokesperson was not automatically the officer in charge of the operation and he acknowledged that this could send out mixed messages. His view was that it was generally preferable for the spokesperson to be an operational police officer rather than a press officer. He confirmed that ultimately the decision on the detailed content of press releases lay with the lead officer in charge of an operation.

DAC Fitzpatrick said other ways of communicating with specific communities at a slightly lower than ACPO level were being developed and appropriate training was available to officers.

Challenging stories which appeared in the media

John Roberts referred to the press story about Muslim police officers that was referred to at paragraph 12 in the MPA concurrent report. He felt that the story should have been rebutted earlier and asked whether there were any similar stories in the pipeline. He also wished to explore the possibility of more publicity around stop and search.

In reply, the Director of Public Affairs said he did not think the position was quite as referred to in the report. The Head of race and Diversity said he would explore this further with the Director outside the meeting. He felt that the MPA would be interested in seeing the impact assessment.

Summing up

The Chair thanked the representatives of the community organisations for attending and for their contributions. The discussion would feed into the scrutiny that the MPA was carrying out.

21. Diversity issues within the Territorial Support Group

(Agenda item 9)

A report was submitted which provided an overview of the work undertaken by the Territorial Support Group (TSG), identifying not only the strategic support it provides to the Service overall but also the significant impact it has on assisting other business groups in meeting their objectives. The report identifies how the TSG measures its outputs and the indicators it employs to ensure the OCU is effective in meeting their own and Corporate objectives and outlines the activities undertaken to explain the role and tactics of the OCU to those Boroughs on which it is deployed. The report also identifies the actions undertaken by the TSG to ensure it has a diverse workforce who operate within a fair environment and finally gives a synopsis of future action and the structure to support it.

The Chair drew attention to the fact that the ethnicity data in the report was not in the 16+1 format. Chief Superintendent George confirmed that 16+1 was used on the stop database but limitations in the systems meant that the information also had to be kept in other formats for management purposes e.g. dip sampling.

The Chair said that one aspect which people in the community had referred to was the way in which TSG officers ‘steamed in’ which could often be distressing especially to bystanders who might be children or elderly people.

DAC Richard Bryan acknowledged that concerns about the way in which the TSG officers were regarded was a matter with which he was familiar and it was being addressed across the whole of Central Operations. The Citizen Focus Directorate was used to assist in this but he believed that real change had to come from within the operational departments.

Resolved – That the report be noted.

22. The use of DNA in Operation Minstead

(Agenda item 10)

A report was submitted which outlined the use of DNA as part of the inquiry into the hunt for a serial rapist. The Chair advised that a report concerning wider issues on DNA was due to be submitted to the next meeting of the Board.

Resolved – That the report be noted.

23. MPS draft equalities priorities and budget – 2007-08

(Agenda item 11)

A report was submitted which asked members to agree the drat MPS equalities priories to be included in the draft budget submission.

Resolved – That the draft equalities priorities to be included in the draft budget submission for 2007-08 to 2009-10 as requested by the Greater London Authority.

24. MPA Budget and equalities priorities

(Agenda item 12)

A report was submitted members to agree the draft equalities priorities for 2007 - 2008 to be included in the main draft Budget submission for 2007 – 2010 as requested by the Greater London Authority (GLA).

Resolved – That the draft equalities priorities as outlined in paragraph 6 of the report to be included in the main draft budget submission be endorsed and be referred to the Authority for ratification.

25. Race Hate Crime Forum conference

(Agenda item 13)

A report was submitted which provided a summary of the Race Hate Crime Forum Conference held at City Hall and an update on the work of the Forum in addressing the recommendations from the Conference

Resolved - That

1. the success of the Conference; and
2. the processes being put in place to address the recommendations originating from the Conference be noted.

26. London Emergency Planning Seminar

(Agenda item 14)

A report was submitted which provided a summary of the key highlights, outcomes and recommendations of the London Emergency Planning seminar held at City Hall on 17 March.

Resolved - That

1. the summary report of the Seminar in the Appendix be endorsed; and
2. the recommendations emerging from the Seminar be endorsed.

27. Reports from EODB sub-groups

(Agenda item 15)

The following oral reports were given:

• Domestic Violence Forum
  Noted that the next meting was due to be held on 19 September.
• Stop and Search Review Board
  Noted that the meeting due to be held in July had been cancelled which meant the next one would be held on 26 October 2006.
• Race Hate Crime Forum
  The next meeting was due to be held on 20 September.
• Disability Oversight
  Noted that the group was due to meet on 3 October.

The meeting closed at 12.08 p.m.

Send an e-mail linking to this page

Feedback