Review of progress report relating to agreed outcomes of Morris, Taylor, Commission for Racial Equality and Ghaffur reports as it relates to Professional Standards

Report: 9a
Date: 12 January 2006
By: Chief Executive and Clerk

Summary

This report is a reference from the joint EODB-PSCC meeting of 6 October 2006. It outlines some of the key debates emerging themes from the meeting and highlights the major equality and diversity challenges as they relate to professional standards within the MPS.

A. Recommendations

That

1. members agree to review progress across the four key headings outlined in sections 2 - 5 of the report contained in Appendix 1 within the next six months; and
2. the Committee invite DPS to use the questions as outlined in Appendix A of Appendix 1 as a basis for quality assuring existing policies, procedures and practices; and
3. to receive a report that demonstrates the remedial steps taken by DPS to resolve the declining trend of available and accurate equalities data in casework.

B. Supporting information

1. At the joint EODB-PSCC meeting of 6 October 2005, four key areas were raised of both the Directorate of Professionals Standards (DPS) and the MPS in relation to progressing and supporting the fundamental review:

• Policies, procedures and practice;
• Data collection and monitoring;
• Engagement with stakeholders; and
• Evidence of learning.

2. A report for this committee meeting has been prepared by MPS DPS for consideration by members on progress made against these four areas (see agenda item 9b)

3. At the meeting of 6 October 2005, an issue was raised as to the use of Independent Advisory Group (IAG) members in ‘critical incidents’. Paragraphs 22 – 25 of item … of this agenda explain the rationale for when ‘gold groups’ would be called and how ‘independent advice’ would interface with an investigation. However, when asking for independent advice, it might be useful to consider what skills, knowledge and experience the host Borough Operational Command Unit/Operational Command Unit (BOCU/OCU) requires in terms of independent advice – rather than requesting an individual by name, which may give rise to some concerns. The Diversity and Citizen-Focus Directorate (DCFD) is currently working on developing a framework under which all IAGs can operate – thus providing minimum standards of operation and expectations.

4. Finally, it should be noted that some of the proposed structural changes outlined by DPS in terms of its ‘Detailed Aspirational Model’ and ‘Interim Model’ as part of its fundamental review are to be welcomed. The DPS Reception Desk, the encouragement of more local and speedier resolutions at BOCU/OCU levels and the development of a Prevention and Organisational Learning Command should be major drivers for change. Having a dedicated Diversity Co-ordinator working across all three commands within DPS is a key step towards successfully starting to mainstream equality and diversity. If not already undertaken then a equality impact assessment of the interim and proposed new models should be undertaken as a matter of urgency.

5. However, the major concern that has historically revolved the handling of complaints has not been about structures, but about behaviours. This includes (but is not limited to): which cases are decided as ‘major’ or ‘minor’ (whilst awaiting a definitive answer from the Home Office); how those under investigations are notified and kept informed as to the progress of their case(s); dealing with the delays in investigations; addressing the issue of disproportionality; and demonstrating that both DPS and the MPS have truly learned from previous cases.

C. Race and equality impact

1. Holistically addressing the four key areas as outlined in paragraphs 2 – 5 of Appendix 1, as well as the questions in Appendix A will start to ensure that equality and diversity is at the heart of this review. Data collection and monitoring will be vital to this success and should be an integral part of this process.

2. Contrary to the comments in paragraph 2 OF the ‘Race and Equality Impact’ section in the ‘Update on the Programme for the Fundamental Review of the DPS’ report, making these changes will lead to improvements in trust and confidence, both internally and externally.

D. Financial implications

There are no direct budgetary requirements arising from this paper. However, if MPA officers are to support DPS in undertaking its Review, there will be an opportunity cost, which will have to be met.

E. Background papers

• PSCC 12 January 2006

F. Contact details

Report author(s): Laurence Gouldbourne, MPA

For more information contact:

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

Appendix 1

Report presented to the Equal Opportunities and Diversity Board on 6 October 2005

Review of progress report relating to agreed outcomes of Morris, Taylor, Commission for Racial Equality and Ghaffur reports as it relates to Professional Standards

Send an e-mail linking to this page

Feedback