The
Independent
Equality Advisory Group
14th January 2014
Kaposvar Room, Guildhall, Bath
Minutes
Attendees
Louise Murphy, Corporate Equalities Officer, B&NES Council
Richard Cadden – Superintendent, Bath Police
Norman Pascal – Chief Inspector, Bath Police
Stuart Durrant – Constable, Bath Police
Jan Bebbington – Victims Advocate, Bath Police
Roy Woods – Action on Hearing Loss
Samantha Jones – B&NES Council
Berkeley Wilde – Diversity Trust
Lynda Williams – Off the Record
Greyam Crowl - Black Workers Group
Iwona Erturan – Bath Polish Association
David Pendle – Faith Forum
Martin Bolt – Avon Fire and Rescue
Chris Bailes – Avon Fire and Rescue
Nainesh Pandit – Stand Against Racism & Equality
Grace Morris – Victim Support
Jude King – Bath Mind
Apologies
Lloyd Katz – Associate Pastor, Bath City Church
Jocelyn Dawson-Wood – Avon Fire and Rescue
Martin Glanvill, Avon Fire and Rescue
Matt Hannah – Julian House Homeless Shelter
Louise Madden – LGBT Workers Group, B&NES Council
Kieren Bourne – Living Springs Metropolitan Community Church
Suzanne Morys – Corporate Disabled Workers Group, B&NES Council
Sarah Howard – DICE, West of England Centre for Inclusive Living
Pauline Swabey Wallace – Black & Ethnic Minority Senior Citizens
Jo McKean – Ethnic Minority Traveller Achievement Service
Emma Weskin – Bath Spa Students Union
Claire Gresswell – Strategy and Performance, B&NES Council
Guests
Denise Perrin – West of England Rural Network
Nick Nicklin – Force Vetting Coordinator, HQ Police
Sumita Hutchison – Strategic Service Improvement, HQ Police
1. Welcome from Police and Council Representatives.
Louise welcomed everyone to the meeting and everyone introduced themselves to those present. Superintendent Richard Cadden and Chief Inspector Norman Pascal explained to the group that they had taken over the roles of Superintendent Mike Carter and Chief Inspector Simon Ellis respectively.
2. The Village Agents Scheme
Denise Perrin gave a power-point presentation on the work of the West of England Rural Network in supporting people who are isolated in rural areas, with a particular focus on the Chew Valley area.
The presentation covered client demographics; the ‘Isolation Spiral’; onward referrals; patient profiles; the local dementia challenge; car scheme medical journeys, measuring the value of the service and social impact measures.
Sumita asked if there were examples of occasions whereby clients suffered harassment or discrimination. Denise explained that the best example of this was through familial relationships, particularly elderly people feeling bullied by their sons or daughters.
Lynda asked whether the work of the West of England Rural Network operated anywhere else geographically. Denise explained that currently they did not but there was a lottery bid pending to expand provision.
Louise asked whether services provided were means tested to which Denise explained they were not, provisions were accessible by all. Louise also asked whether a shift in ethnic demographics was likely in the Chew Valley area (as currently only one person accessing the service is from a BME background) and Denise explained that there was not much demographic movement in the area.
3. Vetting and Barring
Nick Nicklin delivered a presentation on police vetting policies and procedures and the work of DBS Liverpool. The presentation covered the differing levels of vetting; vetting processes; authentication methods; refusals, reviews and appeals; DBS referrals and barring; information filtering and useful additional sources of information.
Samantha asked whether there was a PCC that had been required to stand down because of previous convictions. Nick explained that there were a few PCCs with previous convictions but that this is not an automatic bar to working with the police.
Grace enquired as to why Victim Support no longer received copies of certificates for volunteers and Nick explained that, in the interest of fairness, applicants are now given the certificates directly.
Norman asked how often police officers are re-vetted. Nick explained that this varies but as standard it is every 10 years but every 5 years in some case such as management vetting. Norman also asked what sort of thing would be picked up in re-vetting and Nick stated that most commonly it is FPNs or financial issues.
Samantha asked whether non-disclosure of information by police officer is classed as a breach of contract and Nick confirmed that it is.
Louise asked about the vetting of family members and what sort of things usually come up when officers are re-vetted. Nick explained that the organisation is aware of most things and that officers have to inform the Force of changes to address or partners. Nick acknowledged that this doesn’t always happen but stated that the organisation is mainly interested in those parties that are living with the officer, not just new boyfriends or girlfriends.
Samantha asked whether parents of new partners are also checked through the vetting process. Nick explained that the police would vet everybody living in the same address.
Norman asked whether there was an age limit on those vetted to which Nick stated that all those parties aged 10 years and over are vetted.
Berkeley raised concern that those applying to work with or for the police were not able to do so without disclosing their sexuality and that this could be a bar to recruitment. He went on to explain that 60% of gay workers are not ‘out’ in their respective working environment and this process could cause problems in terms of disclosure. Nick explained that the vetting unit make no assumptions about relationships from information provided in the vetting process. He went on to explain that applicants are expected to make honest disclosures on the vetting applications within that specific restricted environment but are not asked explicitly to disclose their sexuality. Norman contributed by adding that should there be an occasion whereby an applicant failed to disclose a gay relationship for the reason of not wanting to disclose their sexuality, this would not be considered a fundamental issue. Berkeley again raised concern that although an applicant’s sexuality is not asked for explicitly, the vetting process by its nature would uncover it and Nick agreed that this was the case. Again Berkeley raised concern about this being a bar to recruiting people from this community and the police should be encouraging rather than blocking participation. Norman stated that this should be looked at. Action 1 – Nick to feedback concerns centrally on this issue. Nick expanded on this topic by stating that transgender applicants are required to complete two vetting forms to ensure research could be completed against both names used. Berkely questioned the legality of this process and Nick explained a number of legal exemptions that the police have in terms of vetting processes. Berkeley acknowledged a need for accurate vetting but pointed out that it was a problem and Nick agreed. Roy further contributed to this area of discussion raising his concern that the police processes were draconian and created a barrier to recruitment into the police and should be looked at in the interest of encouraging diversity. Action 2 – Nick to re-look at the requirement for transgender applicants to complete two vetting applications
4. Working with Victims across Bath & North East Somerset
Grace Morris gave an overview of the work of Victim Support (VS) and her role. Grace explained that she has been located at Bath Police station since May 2013 and shares an office with Jan. She explained that the majority of work comes from the police. Victims are referred through a central office in Bishopsworth and Grace deals with those in the B&NES area. Grace explained that all victims are contacted with a few exceptions such as those victims of domestic abuse or sexual violence who would need to opt in to the referral mechanism. Grace also stated that victims can self-refer to Victim Support. Referrals also come from other partners such as housing associations. Grace explained to the group that she was looking for any ideas or suggestions on ways to better the service VS provide.
Grace went on to explain some elements of the work carried out in our area by VS. There is now a fortnightly VS presence in the on-stop-shop and Lewis House in Bath and that they are looking to expand this provision to the community centre in Snow Hill. Acknowledging that victims of crime don’t always feel comfortable talking openly in their own geographical area, VS can provide cross-district support so clients can talk to someone outside of their home area. Grace offered group members promotional literature about VS and highlighted that this has been produced in 8 different languages.
Grace then went on to explain that in May 2013 she had just 1 volunteer in the B&NES area and that this has now increased to 9. These volunteers are aged between 21 and 68 and are mostly female. VS are trying to recruit more volunteers, particularly men and are trying to promote this wherever possible. Grace went on to explain the training process for volunteers. 5 days mandatory training is provided to volunteers with 1 full day dedicated to equality and diversity. Volunteers are observed on their first visit and after 6-12 months are eligible for more specialist training in domestic violence, LGBT, mental health or sexual offences. VS hold 2 conferences a year, May 2013 was themed on hate crime and November’s was FGM and human trafficking. VS have trained all police front office staff with a day’s equality and diversity input and also attend training days for new recruits at HQ. They also offer placements for police officers.
Grace once again asked for any ideas or suggestions on how to better the services of VS, how to raise the profile of VS and how to recruit more volunteers.
David asked how long support is offered to victims of crime. Grace explained that whilst the support is not on-going its duration can vary depending on circumstances.
Chris (Avon Fire and Rescue) asked whether VS engage with the fire service in relation to fire safety issues for clients. Grace confirmed that they didn’t but would be interested in further conversations.
Action 3 – Grace to provide VS promotional literature to the group (including volunteering opportuinities)
Samantha recalled a time when VS had contacted her after a serious incident involving a colleague. She wasn’t expecting the contact and it occurred sometime after the incident and as such made her feel quite uncomfortable. This highlighted the question regarding automatic referrals. Richard confirmed that officers used to ask the question regarding referral but this was not consistent so, barring the aforementioned exemptions, referrals are now automatic. Samantha remarked that the time lapse between the event and the call from VS meant the contact was unexpected and therefore uncomfortable.
Denise commented that the use of the word victim should be addressed as people don’t always regard themselves as victims. Grace agreed stating that it was a national issue and in her local work she encourages the word ‘client’ amongst her volunteers.
With regard to the recruitment of volunteers, Samantha informed Grace that the Council have recently passed a policy allowing up to 3 days voluntary work during working hours for each employee and as a consequence this may be a useful avenue to explore. Action 4 – Louise to pass information regarding this scheme to Grace
5. Reflecting on the First Year of the IEAG
Samantha reminded the group of the topics covered in the first 4 meetings that made up the pilot period. These included Stop & Search; the Night Time Economy; Customer Access (One-Stop-Shop); Connecting Families and Gypsy & Traveller Communities. Samantha asked the group to give some thought top what has worked well and whether the IEAG should continue.
Norman commented that his group felt it had been good to meet people from different communities and specifically the interaction and challenge around vetting at this meeting had been really good. It was considered useful to have this mechanism in place to reflect barriers within police systems and processes.
Chris (AFR) suggested that future meetings should include a mechanism for outcomes of relevant discussions. Asking ourselves “What do we want to achieve?” Berkeley echoed this suggesting there should be some level of accountability on those of whom questions are asked or feedback is given.
Roy commented that having agenda items that support change in local communities in a real and tangible way was important, as is being able to provide people with information about what services are locally available.
Denise suggested that the group needed a database of services to help inform people of what’s available.
Stuart stated that he and Sumita has been discussing more to do with the meetings going forward and that he will be looking at all the comments and suggestions from the group to see how the structure/content can be improved for the future.
The group confirmed that they would like to see the IEAG continue.
Louise let the group know that she will be sending out future meeting dates via Outlook meeting requests in the near future.
6. Suggestions for Future Topics