Memorandum from the Metropolitan Police
Service (DDB 32)
1. This submission is made on behalf of
the Metropolitan Police Service. As far as the comments deal with
employment matters these are also to be taken as representing
the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) position.
2. The Metropolitan Police Service welcomes
the extension of the DDA as further commitment for inclusion in
employment and services provision for disabled people. It recognises
that as a public body it has a responsibility to deliver a non-discriminatory
service to all sectors of the community whether they are witnesses,
victims or perpetrators.
3. The Police Services is currently preparing
for the extension to the current DDA legislation, as it will apply,
in employment terms, to police officers from October 2004. The
inclusion of the diagnosis of HIV, cancer and multiple sclerosis
being classed as a disability from the point of diagnosis is therefore
unlikely to have further impact and does assist in clarifying
the current definition of needing to demonstrate the "substantial
effect on a day-to-day activities."
4. It is worth noting that the extension
to police officers will be a significant challenge given the statutory
duties of a police officer and the police service. There is potential
for conflict in the performance of our statutory role and the
DDA in terms of the range of opportunities for reasonable adjustments.
This area will require careful consideration. The public will
reasonably expect us to perform our statutory functions. The issue
of Health and Safety for our officers also provides an additional
element of challenge which other professionals and other roles
may not experience.
5. A significant impact of the draft Bill
will be extending the scope to "functions" of public
bodies. We see this as applying to all activities where we interact
with the public. In cases where the result of that interaction
requires an arrest, transporting the person to the police station,
undertaking all custody procedures and detention, all will require
us to review our procedures and facilities. Many of our custody
facilities are currently unsuitable for disabled detainees especially
in the area of accessibility. The way we produce our information
will also be an additional new responsibility. There are therefore
potential significant additional costs to comply with the changes
proposed.
6. The service is already sensitive to the
potential differing needs of detainees in custody, for example
those who may require regular medication for a medical condition.
The Bill could require us to review the information, training
and facilities available in custody suites. This may require the
extension of our custody nurse resource that operates only in
one main custody suite. Mental Health issues and those associated
with substance misuse which may present symptoms akin to mental
disorder, will need to be identified. Disability with no apparent
physical manifestation, it clearly a particular challenge within
the custody environment given the natural tension of the situation.
Our custody officers may well need additional professional support,
which could lead to additional cost, although the reasonableness
of the requirement will always be a factor.
7. Training in all aspects of diversity
for our staff has been a challenge over the recent past especially
in the area of race, following on from the recommendations of
the Stephen Lawrence enquiry. There has been some training for
staff across the spectrum of diversity, however it is recognised
that being "Disability confident" requires special attention.
At a police national level a new definition of the "Diversity
Learning Requirement" for training outcomes has recently
been agreed and this should provide the template for diversity
training across the service. The Metropolitan Police, whilst recognising
the resource requirement of awareness training, acknowledges the
positive benefits for both staff relations and service provision
of a more comprehensively aware workforce. Should the new legislation
apply from 2006, we are confident that our staff will have the
opportunity to acquire greater knowledge and confidence in the
field of disability.
8. In order to be able to justify our actions
as a police service, and now additionally with the requirements
in the Draft Bill, there will be a requirement for improved record
keeping. The service already has clear responsibilities under
P.A.C.E. however additionally we will need to review our data
capture processes clarifying how we record disability within the
criminal justice process. This will also have an impact on our
partners ie Crown Prosecution Service. It is anticipated that
joint work in this area will be required.
9. The impact of the new "general duty"
will require significant consideration as to how the service will
impliment this. The Metropolitan Police developed a "Race
Equality Scheme" in response to the Race Relations (Amendment)
Act, which is held by the CRE as an excellent model. We will need
to determine how we can build on that document to, prepare a similar
response to Disability. Policies will need to be compliant, but
in addition need to be embedded in all our practices. Our responsibility
to promote disability equality will need to be considered very
sensitively and in consultation with disabled groups throughout
London. Our experience to date in consulting directly with disabled
groups has been limited, although we are currently in the process
of setting up an Independent Advisory Group for disabled people.
Our commitment remains to have an inclusive approach to the provision
of our services, which is informed by our community consultation.
10. The Metropolitan Police acknowledges
that civil rights for disabled people should exist in any civilised
society, it recognises however that legislation if frequently
required to give rigor to the process and therefore supports the
view that the proposals set out in the draft Bill are necessary.
11. As a public body we are viewed by the
community, as custodians of people's rights in a variety of our
functions and therefore it is reasonable that we ourselves should
reflect on how our behaviour in all aspects of our service delivery
and employment practices, is fair and appropriate.
12. If the Bill is implemented in 2006,
we believe that sufficient time is afforded for us to enable policies,
procedures and practices to be reviewed and adjusted, where necessary,
to ensure compliance. To do this we do recognise the imperative
to engage with disabled people to ensure a satisfactory outcome.
February 2004
| 
