By Jamie Mills
DPA General Secretary

For the past three years the DPA have been working hard to change hearts and minds to change the culture in policing for disabled officers and staff to a culture that first considers what disabled officers and staff can do rather than what they can’t do.

This ethos must also be mirrored by disabled officers and staff themselves, as arguably we have a greater responsibility for our own career and career development than does the police service.

By focusing on what we can do, rather than what we can’t, managers and employers are much more likely to find a person well suited to the gap they are trying to fill. They will also be making best use of that person’s skills, abilities and training, reaping the reward of the investment they or someone else have already made. Its a ‘no brainer’ really!

But, all too often over the years, even today, we hear from some leaders who freely admit that they “don’t want the sick, the lame or the lazy on their team”.

Too much time has been spent thinking about and developing strategies to get ‘that’ individual “moved to another team”, rather than looking for their strengths and developing them.

If only these efforts were put towards being creative and making the best use of that individual, they would soon realise what a blessing, rather than a burden that person truly is.

Hence the drive to shift policing culture from “can’t do” to “can do”.

As mentioned previously, the individual in question must also adapt to this cultural change. Disabled officers and staff are the true leaders of this change. Adopting an approach of telling a senior officer how you can solve their problem, rather than the problems you want them to solve for you, will inevitably lead to an increased demand for what you have to offer.

After all, you wouldn’t go to a job interview and tell the interviewer about everything you can’t do and expect to be given the job, would you?

This cultural change is starting to slowly embed, with regular references to the “can do” phrase now being made by Home Office policy makers, Chief Constables, HR professionals and the Police Federation of England & Wales. The Limited Duties recommendations by Sir Tom Winsor have ironically provided the perfect platform to ‘turn the tide’.

But is it working?

Plenty of people are now saying it, but how many are actually doing it?

Momentum is building, but we are far away from the tipping point whereby it becomes embedded as ‘normal practice’ in policing.

Sadly, stories are already emerging from forces trying to implement new Limited Duties policies and struggling to get it right, causing disabled officers to feel undervalued and in fear of being pushed out of a career they once loved.

As if having to live with the challenges of a disability wasn’t enough.

Officers are already being told by line managers, senior leaders and even HR professionals: “that’s not an adjusted duties role so you can’t apply for that”, and “we only have one role available for a limited duties officer”.

These conversations aren’t malicious, well not as far as I can tell, usually just misguided and insensitive.

It must not be forgotten that people, human beings, come in all different shapes and sizes, its commonly referred to as ‘diversity’. So too do health conditions and disabilities. We were all made different to the person standing next to us, and so to that difference and variation exists amongst illness, injury and disablement.

For example, one person with an ileostomy (an abdominal stoma) may have a totally different level of ability to the next person with an ileostomy. One may have suffered surgical complications, or practical difficulties based on their size or stature, or any number of other factors. They may not even be able to be able to continue in employment. The other, may have no limitations whatsoever and is now defined as being ‘fully deployable’.

So, taking account of this level of difference in one single medical condition, not even considering the many hundreds, thousands or even millions of other health conditions in existence, how can it possibly be said that a policing role has been classified ‘suitable’ or ‘unsuitable’ for an officer on adjusted duties (an officer with a disablement)?

The message is getting out – not quickly enough, but it is starting to permeate with those who are more open to change and dialogue.

We are seeing some great examples of this cultural shift, with key people in policing and stakeholders asking the right questions. For example: where could the skills of disabled officers be best utilised in modern policing?

However, these questions and conversations don’t yet appear to be translating into actual strategy.

How can we truly understand the needs of the communities we serve when we don’t even understand our own staff?

It takes good leaders to see potential. It takes the best leaders to turn it into something.

Disabled police officers have understandably become increasingly concerned about their employment status following the police pay and conditions reviews conducted by Sir Tom Winsor. Fitness testing, Limited Duties and Capability Dismissal are all new concepts which appear to disadvantage disabled officers when compared to other protected characteristics.

However, the imbalance could be slightly redressed if only Sir Tom Winsor’s review was revisited, to ensure important elements haven’t been over looked, possibly inadvertently, hopefully not intentionally.

To illustrate my point, we should look at Recommendation 39 and the supporting evidence within the review. Winsor rightly identified the current situation of ‘restricted officers’ could be untenable, with too many officers on restricted duties and crucially, not enough officers receiving an ill health retirement pension.

At the time of writing his review, Winsor identified that although the National Policing Plan for 2003-2006 required a reduction in the number of officers being retired through ill health grounds, the target was still set at 6.5 retirements per 1000 officers, a figure set by the Government Actuaries Department. However, his research revealed that forces were only retiring on ill health grounds at a rate of 2.2 retirements per 1000 officers, significantly less than the recommended level.

One of the biggest changes to police pay and conditions over the past 5 years has undoubtedly been the changes to police officer pensions. For this to happen, pension regulations would have been reviewed, consulted on and eventually re-written. The ill health retirement process sits firmly within pension regulations for all three pension schemes, and so it is conceivable that as part of the pensions review, ill health retirement would have also been reviewed.

So what changes occurred to Ill health retirement regulations? What instructions have been given to Chief Officers about retiring more officers on ill health grounds? What review took place of the Selected Medical Practitioner and Police Medical Appeals Board Process?

As far as I can tell the answer appears to be none.

In which case the next question is: why is change needed?

Simple: as a Federation rep I have had the responsibility of representing and advising officers on ill health retirement and appeals processes. My usual advice to officers wanting to seek ill health retirement is this: Your chances of success are low – around about 25% presently. There is little point trying for an ill health retirement pension unless you have tried every possible treatment available for your condition, in order to be considered as permanently disabled. Even if your own GP or consultant hasn’t recommended or even offered the treatment, because you can guarantee the SMP or Appeal Board will deny you are permanently disabled without having tried it. This can often be in spite of the fact your own specialist is infinitely more qualified in that particular field of medicine than those assessing your case.

Even having exhausted every possible pill, experimental therapy and ancient tribal medicine from the far reaches of Peru, your chances of being deemed as having a permanent disability and therefore eligible for ill health retirement, are still only as good as a flutter on a roulette wheel.

Capability Dismissal is now being pitched as a tool that will be used on the ‘minority of officers’, to plug a gap that exists where officers are not eligible for ill health retirement. It is being claimed that only a mere fraction of disabled officers will be affected.

This I am sure, is said with absolute belief in this statement; however, unless the ill health pension implications above are fully understood, reviewed and rectified, this will absolutely not be the case. In fact, there is potential in the future for this to apply to the ‘vast majority’ of disabled officers if the ill health retirement process is not reviewed, especially as it will become the cost effective follow-up to ill health retirement, either intentionally or not.

If ill health retirement rates remain at approximately 25% success rate (PFEW estimations), the other 75% of officers who are unsuccessful will surely be walking the lonely trail into the deep dark depths of dismissal from the police service. It is not inconceivable that 100% of those officers will be disabled.

The cynicism in us all led us to assume that ‘X factor’ pay reductions were just another tool to help Forces to save money, by cutting the wages of disabled officers. It is now becoming clear that for every £1 a force saves in doing this, they are likely to have to pay out several times that amount in defending litigation, so not really the money saving tool some may have hoped for.

Our focus must now turn to the second half of the Limited Duties regulations, Capability Dismissal. This equally contentious concept is already undergoing consultation, a process that the Disabled Police Association has a front row seat at, that will soon draw to a close once final proposals are taken to the Police Arbitration Board (PAB) for final sign-off within the coming months.

Requests have been made on more than one occasion to review the ill health retirement process.

This is where the real threat lies to disabled officers. At least with an ‘X factor’ pay reduction, ‘they’ only manage to chew off a small piece, but you still manage to get away to fight another day. You will still have a job. It may require some very tough lifestyle changes, but for most it will be achievable.

Capability Dismissal on the other hand would see you dismissed from your Force on the grounds of your ‘capability’ to perform the role of the office of Constable, having not been eligible for ill health retirement.

If ill health retirement isn’t addressed soon, Capability Dismissal won’t just chew a piece off – it will swallow you whole.

DPA National Secretary

Andy Garrett, DPA Vice-Chair comments on the Police Arbitration Tribunal & Home Secretary decisions on the ‘X-factor’ deployability element of pay

We note with dismay there is no reference in the PAT judgement, Home Secretary letter and subsequent circulars from Federation to the employers Equality Act (impact assessment & reasonable adjustment) duties in cases of protected characteristic (disabled) officers on restricted duty – i.e. exploring avenues of reasonable alternative deployment & re-training to enable their wider ‘deployability’ before moving to reduce pay.

We believe that this change in regulations would amount to a provision, criterion or practice (PCP) which places disabled officers at a substantial disadvantage to non-disabled officers. We believe the employer would have to either:

Make reasonable adjustments in order to eliminate or mitigate the disadvantage – OR – Objectively justify on a case by case basis the PCP as a ‘proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim’. 

Reasonable adjustments should be explored first, such as interventions aimed at enabling the disabled person to do their job, or if not possible, a reasonable alternative job. –  That is the job of a ‘deployable’ police officer whatever that is determined as.   

As seen in other equality act tribunal judgements, (such as the recent ruling in which A19 as used in those forces, amounting to indirect age discrimination), forces would be opening unnecessary legal challenge in cases where decision makers (line managers) are permitted to jump to punitive sanction in disability cases (UPP or pay cut), before fully exploring reasonable alternatives or adjustments aimed at enabling/supporting the officer to reach the required standard (of deployability).

It is not in the spirit of engagement where “in-Force” communications on such emotive topics are prepared & published without proper consultation with disabled officers (through disability staff networks) as to wording & content.

In terms of national guidance, we continue to lobby and encourage the College of Policing to fully consider reasonable adjustments which would enable wider ‘deployability’ & support for disabled officers to reach a position where they meet whatever criteria comes into in the deployability assessment

The Disabled Police Association is further dismayed at the lack of stated commitment in communications on this subject to consult and engage directly with disabled/restricted officers, especially at this time when the federation position is weakened. This is particularly evidenced in the equality & diversity section of the Royal Society of Arts review of Police Federation of England and Wales. We will vigorously challenge the robustness of consultation on this topic if it takes place about us, without involving us in some way. Disabled people are too often left with the impression that non-disabled people in influential positions feel they know what is right for us and can talk on our behalf,.

If the police service cannot value, support and creatively enable their own to contribute fully and effectively in the ways they can, to execute the office of constable, how can we aspire to reflect the diversity of our UK population?

Or is the Police Service going to continue limiting overt commitment only to visible diversity?

We would remind colleagues that should they experience any inappropriate management or colleague behaviour referencing this emerging new assessment and reform to officer pay, they should take steps to secure hard evidence of it (inappropriate behaviour & assumptions) and be further reminded of their entitlement to make use of the in-Force formal grievance process in writing, or other legal remedy seeking to address evidence of unfair, inappropriate or discriminatory treatment.

Local Disability Network representatives will always work towards engagement and resolution in disputes within the resources available to them, but would rather colleagues didn’t make ill-informed assumptions, judgements & actions which could give rise to formal process.

Let us focus on helping people do the job and not punish them for becoming (not by choice) a member of the 1 in 6 people who will become disabled during working life.

The Disabled Police Association is doing everything it can to work with the Police Federation and police employers to support effective discharge of their statutory functions and equality obligations.