DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION
ENDING DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION
Met Commissioner Sir Mark Rowley’s reference
to disabled officers not being “match-fit” reflects widespread ignorance and prejudice - and it has to change, says Equality Lead Ian Saunders
In an interview with The Times, Sir Mark Rowley said: “We can’t deal with a workforce where such a big proportion are not properly deployable. Many of these people, they can’t work shifts, or they can’t work many hours in a day, or they can only have limited contact with the public.” What he is talking about here is police officers on adjusted duties. Most, if not all of whom, will be disabled people. What he misunderstands is that his job includes the responsibility to ‘deal’ with the small (and manageable) percentage of his workforce who are disabled and require the reasonable adjustments they are entitled to in law. Fewer than five per cent of officers nationally are on adjusted duties, and whilst this figure is higher for the Met (and this data should be explored), it is a small fraction of the workforce who could be easily accommodated if forces properly
34 | POLICE | FEBRUARY 2023
organised working practices. For 19 years the police service has despaired at no longer being able to retire people early and having to retain disabled officers. Previous chief constables and commissioners lobbied the Home Office to keep the service out of the disability legislation and have continued to do so periodically since.
Sir Mark is doing so again but he is
“What he misunderstands is it is in fact his job to “deal” with the small percentage of his workforce who are disabled”
missing the point – that the disability legislation is in fact designed to keep disabled people in work where they can contribute to the public purse through tax and national insurance rather than drawing state benefits. Enabling disabled people to stay in work benefits not just their own mental and
physical wellbeing but benefits the country too. Forces too can benefit but they need to change to ensure they have people with the right skills in the right roles. Forces still insist that to execute a large number of roles, an officer must be able to perform full rotating shifts – why? If for example an officer receives medical advice that they shouldn’t work nights, there should be space in the rota to keep them on the team. The rest of the team may need to be reorganised and it may not be ‘fair’ to those who need to work more nights as a result, but they will be compensated by receiving the unsocial hours payment. Why do forces insist that officers who fail the in-service fitness test are automatically removed from operational roles? We know that many are able to perform officer safety training (and an operational role) but for medical reasons, either physical or mental, may not be able to pass the
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56
