A few weeks ago, the Department of Work and Pensions (DWP) quietly relaunched Disability Confident, a initiative originally launched in 2013 by David Cameron as a replacement for the Two Ticks positive action scheme.

Disability Confident encompasses a number of voluntary commitments to encourage employers to recruit, retain and develop disabled staff, such as offering work experience opportunities and implementing a flexible recruitment process. The scheme is intended to address the shortcomings of Two Ticks, which was criticised for not setting rigorous standards for employers displaying the TT logo.

The scheme is organised into three tiers of commitment:

Level 1: to be a Disability Confident committed employer, organisations must commit to five pledges (similar to the Two Ticks scheme), which include ensuring recruitment processes are inclusive and accessible, and supporting any existing employee who acquires a disability or long term health condition. They must also  implement at least one employment opportunity that will make a difference for disabled people  (e.g. offering work experience).

Level 2: to be a Disability Confident employer, organisations must commit to 13 statements and at least two actions grouped into two themes: “Getting the right people for your business” and “Keeping and developing your people”. Level 2 includes a positive action commitment to offer interviews to disabled candidates who meet the minimum requirements for a job or role.

Level 3: in addition to Level 2, employers can achieve Disability Confident leader status by achieving external accreditation from a disability support organisation or other recognised body, and actively helping other employers to become Disability Confident.

The Disabled Police Association welcomes this initiative, and we hope that the DWP will continue to promote it. We look forward to all UK police forces becoming Disability Confident employers in order to effectively support and represent the 19% of the UK population who identify as disabled.

By assisting disabled candidates in reaching the interview stage of selection processes, Disability Confident will help to achieve a police service in which disabled officers and staff are represented at all ranks and grades. It is important to recognise that this example of positive action does not constitute an unfair advantage – it is there to help disabled staff overcome barriers that may prevent them from participating in a competitive selection process. One of the DPA’s key aims is for people to be valued for their abilities: this means, for example, allowing promotion candidates to evidence a broad range of leadership ability, rather than an implicit requirement for operational evidence which is likely to disadvantage a disabled officer. The College of Policing has recognised the importance of representing the full spectrum of diversity throughout all levels of the police service, reflected in its current work around valuing difference and inclusion.

The new guidance for employers wishing to sign up to the Disability Confident scheme can be found here.

That is what the Black Police Association have suggested according to Police Oracle.

Following recent national debate about the number of ethnically diverse officers in the police service, led by the BPA and the Home Affairs Select Committee, the BPA are alleged to have asked to be placed on an “equal footing to statutory staff support associations”. The report states:

“Given the lack of diversity in the statutory staff support associations. The NBPA would like the government to consider that NBPA is placed on an equal footing at both national and local level in engaging with chief constables and police and crime commissioners,” it says.

The worrying thing, given the seemingly unequal treatment by the Government of minority ethnicities in policing over all other protected characteristics, is that the NBPA could be given such status, bit the rest of the staff support associations, including the DPA, will be ignored.

But is it necessary for staff support associations to be given a statutory mandate?

Judge raises contradiction in the rights afforded to police

A Court of Appeal judge has highlighted an apparent contradiction in the right of police officers to take legal action under the Equality Act 2010.

Lord Justice John Laws last week found in favour of the Met in an employment tribunal appeal.

An officer who suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) after being assaulted was involved in an incident while drunk on a night out which led to her arrest and dismissal.

The officer – named in court only as ‘P’ – said the misconduct panel which ended her career in 2012 had been guilty of disability discrimination because it failed to take her PTSD into account.

She admitted most of the allegations against her but said her condition – and a lack of support from the force – was responsible for her behaviour.

Lord Justice Laws dismissed the specific appeal because police misconduct panels are immune from legal action such as describing them as discriminatory.

But he said: “I have been troubled by a particular feature of the case. If I am right, it would appear that claims of discriminatory dismissal brought by police officers, where the effective dismissing agent is a disciplinary panel such as was convened here, will not be viable in the Employment Tribunals; yet parliament has legislated to allow such claims to be made.

“Parliament, however, must have passed the Equality Act 2010 in the knowledge of the Heath judgment [which set the precedent that police misconduct panels are immune from being sued for discrimination], and included no provision to remove the cloak of immunity from the disciplinary panels.”

Police officers are not employees so cannot sue for unfair dismissal.

Commenting on the ruling, which his firm had no connection to, solicitor Jonathan Goolden, a partner at Wilkin Chapman, told PoliceOracle.com: “The judge in this case has upheld the view that you can’t take legal action against a misconduct panel because it’s a judicial tribunal but he has highlighted that you can’t give a right to a police officer to sue for discrimination under the Equality Act and then prevent them being able to action a claim.”

(Original article published by Police Oracle on 25/01/16)