DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION


job-related fitness test. Rather than taking medical advice as to the officer’s capabilities they are too often sidelined into unsuitable jobs. The starting point should be that the reasonable adjustment is, wherever possible, implemented in the role the officer is currently doing. The issue I think is the service’s warped


view about what is ‘fair’. Culturally in the police service it is seen as unfair if some people get more of what is thought to be the plum jobs or shifts, and others get more of the prunes. Fairness in this equation is everyone doing exactly the same. This train of thought persisting shows the lack of understanding of equality legislation in the service. In the real world (and in law) fairness is about everyone being


given the opportunity to contribute what they are able to with any barriers to that being minimised – it is not fair to


daily basis. The service is so comfortable with the way it discriminates against disabled officers it doesn’t even notice when it’s doing so. So how do we achieve change? Well,


earlier this month the College published a ‘toolkit’ for forces on reasonable workplace adjustments that, whilst briefly covering the bases of the law, provides nothing specific relating to the role of a police officer. We still keep fighting for our members.


“The disability legislation is 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”


insist everyone should be the same and work the same. Sir Mark also said: “There does come a point that, if you can’t be match-fit to be a police officer, then it’s challenging for us in that it’s a large number of people we can’t properly deploy.”


This is a really saddening comment from one of the most senior police officers in the country. Disabled officers across the country will have felt a familiar pang of recognition of his comment that they are not “match fit”. Sadly, this casually discriminatory comment from the commissioner is one that colleagues across the land hear on a


force level.


Every manager in the service - up to and including the commissioner of the Met - should be trained on the employment provisions of the Equality Act, including the duty to provide reasonable adjustments and what this should look like in the police service. Not more diversity training, but


actual information about the law that applies to our members. We know the discrimination our members face mostly comes from a lack of understanding rather than malice, but it’s been like this for 19 years now and the service needs to enter the real world.


Last year, as we do every year, we spent more than £2 million on external legal support alone to counter the unlawful disability discrimination of our disabled members. The real work, however, is by our workplace reps who are constantly having to negotiate for our members what the force should be providing under the law. The sad thing is that whilst we achieve positive outcomes for individuals, there is


evidently little change at


TIPS FOR MANAGERS


• Seek to determine the officer’s capabilities within their existing role; and not assume automatically the officer needs to be moved from an operational role into an administration role


• Look at possible adjustments to premises, altering hours of work, provision of training, allowing absence for rehabilitation, assessment or treatment, or providing training for colleagues, or otherwise raise their awareness to help deal with the officer’s impairment. This is not an exhaustive list


• Make reasonable adjustments to facilitate retention in their existing post. This should be done in a timely fashion and with the agreement of the disabled officer


• Delays in decision making and putting reasonable adjustments in place may lead to unnecessary distress, cost to both parties and legal challenges


• Consider redeployment to another existing role/post only if impairment warrants such a move


• Look at each case regarding consideration of deployment on an individual basis. For example, if a disabled officer were performing their duties without difficulty and could demonstrate that they were being moved to a new role for a reason related to disability, the decision could be challenged as being discriminatory


35 | POLICE | FEBRUARY 2023


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