Transcript of public session: Mr A Robinson of the MPS Disabled Staff Association

Wednesday, 7 April 2004
3.35 pm

Sir William Morris: Mr Robinson, good afternoon to you, and welcome. Thank you very much indeed for accepting our invitation to attend the Inquiry this afternoon to give some evidence. Let me say straight away that we have your written submission and we are very grateful for it, because it does take us forward.

Could I say that I appreciate very much indeed that for some of our witnesses the process that we are adopting can be somewhat daunting, so I thought it might be helpful if I just very briefly try and set out how we propose to conduct the hearing this afternoon.

But first of all, let me introduce the panel to you. My name is Sir Bill Morris, I am the recently retired General Secretary of the Transport and General Workers Union, but as you can see, the panel consists of two additional members. On my right is Sir Anthony Burden, who recently retired as Chief Constable of South Wales Constabulary, after a very long and distinguished career in the police service. On my left is Miss Anesta Weekes QC. Anesta is a very eminent barrister, and sits as a recorder and part-time chairperson of employment tribunals. She was also counsel to the Lawrence Inquiry.

As you know, Mr Robinson, we have been asked by the Metropolitan Police Authority to conduct an independent inquiry into professional standards and employment matters in the Metropolitan Police Service. The focus that we have taken is one which focuses on the MPS as an organisation, and not the individuals who make up the organisation, and our inquiry is an inquisitorial inquiry, not an adversarial one, by character or indeed nature.

We are very keen to explore the issues raised by our terms of reference, and to make the appropriate recommendation for further good practice within the Met.

To help us in our task, we are very keen to hear from all our witnesses not just what is wrong with the Metropolitan Police Service but what is right with it, but more importantly we are looking for suggestions, practical ideas, any contribution that can make the MPS better.

For the record, let me say that a transcript is being taken so that we can have a proper record of all the evidence given by our witnesses, and this will be posted on our website later today.

At the end of these introductory remarks, I will lead the questions to your good self, followed by my colleague Miss Weekes, and then followed by Sir Anthony Burden, and indeed any supplementary questions that I might find necessary.

At the conclusion of our questions, I will offer you an opportunity for a brief closing comment if you so wish.

You very helpfully provided us with a written submission on behalf of your organisation. This will also be posted on the Inquiry website. In your submission, you have led us to consider the following areas: firstly, information about the MPS' Disabled Staff Association; its involvement in the creation of MPS' policy; and your comments on the MPS as an organisation in respect of officers with disability, and also staff with disability.

We would like to ask you questions about these, naturally, but before we do that, for the benefit of our transcript notes, could I invite you, please, to formally introduce yourself to the Inquiry?

Mr Robinson: Yes, thank you, chairman. I am Alan Robinson, I am the chairman of the Disabled Staff Association for the Metropolitan Police. I am a police constable with 22 years' service, based at West End Central police station.

Sir William Morris: Thank you very much, Mr Robinson.

Questions by Sir William Morris

Sir William Morris: By way of introduction, I know that you have read our terms of reference, and no doubt you have followed the progress of our work as well. With that in mind, and taking account of your association's particular concerns, I wonder if you would mind setting out what your association think is the most important thing that our Inquiry needs to learn from your association's experience.

Mr Robinson: The way the police have always operated in its history, someone becomes disabled, they have been medically retired, that has all stopped. But no provision to employ the people who are left behind has been made to employ them, and often they are given jobs that are invented for them, or so menial that it is way below their capabilities, but they are never consulted about what they are capable of.

And the manager that decides on their future thinks that he is an expert, and gives them the job, and makes them feel grateful for it. In time, it evolves to a bullying culture, where – and it is very difficult for someone who is a disabled police officer, for example, who has spent most of his career dealing with bullies, when all of a sudden his boss is his bully, and he cannot fight back. And there is a terrible feeling of impotence.

Sir William Morris: Yes. The legislation, the Disability Discrimination Act, requires employers to make suitable adjustments to facilitate and accommodate disability of employees. Can you give us some examples where the Met has entered not just into the – if you like, the letter of the law, but into the general spirit of the law, in making suitable adjustments?

Mr Robinson: A very common one these days is people with back problems asking for a chair. The downside is that the process is so bureaucratic, it can take six months.

Sir William Morris: Diversity is one of the flagship policies in the Met; indeed, the Commissioner has staked his personal commitment and reputation to some extent on having a Metropolitan Police Service which is responsive to the needs of all the people who work for the organisation under the flagship of diversity.

Could you give us any example where, say, access to appropriate training and access to opportunity has benefitted and enhanced the working and learning experience of your association members within the Met?

Mr Robinson: We asked for training very early on, because we were dealing with people who were at their wits' end and desperate, to such an extent that two attempted suicide.

We did ask for training; initially we were told there was not any, but we were provided a half day with occupational health about overload mainly, for us. We were concerned that people at such a low ebb – if we said the wrong thing, you know, they might carry out their threat to kill themselves, and we needed some training for that. Well, we got the half day with occupational health.

Sir William Morris: Could you outline for us how your association gets consulted, what is the consultative process about policy development for your members with disabilities within the Met? Obviously they would consult the association rather than the individual police officers. How does it work?

Mr Robinson: There is an e-mail loop, basically, and we all get an e-mail of whatever policy it is. The last one, I think, was Mr Ghaffur's, and I think his was probably the biggest, with the shortest time to read it. I think I was given five days to read, digest and comment on something that was 165 pages.

We all have day jobs, and we are allowed 20 hours a week per association, but that is easily swallowed up just by one welfare case, and now that we have got a website up and running on the intranet, we are getting cases daily.

Sir William Morris: So the consultation is by and large a time issue, more time is required –

Mr Robinson: It is not so much time. I mean, when you think that a policy consisting of so many pages will take some six months to create, I think it is part of the rubber-stamping process, if you like, that it is sent to the associations for a quick read-through, rubber-stamp it, and then it is on its way to become policy.

Sir William Morris: Does your organisation associate with and contribute to the Samurai group?

Mr Robinson: Yes.

Sir William Morris: You are part of it?

Mr Robinson: Yes.

Sir William Morris: How useful do you find it, as a co-ordinating forum?

Mr Robinson: Very useful. I was quite surprised that the problems we had as a fledgling organisation – they had the exact same problem, which was a sort of, "Let us get them created, and then that is a ticked box, and leave them to it". That and the problems that our members faced were very similar to the problems that the members of the BPA or the Hindu Association faced.

Oddly enough, the problems that we have had, both as an association and individually, every single person that we have had the problem with has been between chief inspector and chief superintendent level, and they have all been middle-aged and white, and there has not been any from any minority groups, which I find somewhat odd. But there would appear to be some kind of macho culture with the management of the Met, and certainly I believe it is part of the promotion process within the Met that there be some kind of background within firearms or TSG or any of the what I would call rufty tufty groups, and it seems to be that that mindset now runs the Met.

Like I say, there is no provision for keeping the likes of me in a job, unless I find one for myself. There is no provision for me to go to the job and say "I need this reasonable adjustment, what are you going to do about it?", because the DDA does not cover me as yet.

The Disability Rights Commission have published that 19.6 per cent of the working population have some form of disability. If the Met reflects that, then we could be looking, on 1st October, at 8,000 people saying, "I need a reasonable adjustment", and there is no mechanism in place for that.

Sir William Morris: Have you raised this practical difficulty?

Mr Robinson: Yes, I raised it with the Assistant Commissioner before Christmas. The wheels of the mill grind slowly, it would appear.

Sir William Morris: Yours is one of 14 staff support associations. You are all, of course, at your rank members of the Police Federation. Why do you think that we need all these groups when the rights and opportunities of people with disabilities is a normal, ordinary trade union function, representing all your members in the workplace? Why do we need a support group when we have the Federation?

Mr Robinson: We have all individually contacted the Federation about our problems, and we have all been tapped on the back and said, "There, there, there, sorry but there is nothing we can do for you".

I have had two members come to me so far and say, "You have done more for me than the Federation has ever done".

Sir William Morris: But you are a police officer, you are a member of the Federation, 15 or 20 years' membership, suddenly something happens, and you are unfortunately sustaining physical disability, shall we say. Are you saying that at that point, when you incur this disability, the Federation no longer look after you as a member –

Mr Robinson: They look after you quite well –

Sir William Morris: – and promote the needs that you now have?

Mr Robinson: If you are in trouble, the Federation are marvellous. They have not quite grasped the welfare concept, it would appear, and they just see themselves as a defence agency, in courts and tribunals. That is the impression I get.

Sir William Morris: Just one final question, and it is, if you like, an opportunity question: we have to write a report sooner or later based on the evidence that we have heard, but we have fairly wide terms of reference, and we have heard a lot of evidence. If we gave you the opportunity to advance two recommendations to us on behalf of your organisation, what would you be saying to us that we should recommend that would make a difference to the lives and the work experience of people employed by the Metropolitan Police Service who have disabilities? Two recommendations, what would they be?

Mr Robinson: The first recommendation would be to make provision to employ these people.

Sir William Morris: This is the suitable adjustment point, reasonable adjustment point.

Mr Robinson: Just for argument's sake, on a normal police division, if somebody becomes disabled and can only do office-based work, then there are only two units that he can go to. One is the intelligence unit and the other is the crime management unit; possibly station officer, depending on his condition.

So each division can only cope with perhaps five to ten people at most. And when you look at places like Scotland Yard, which is a massive sort of complex of offices, the likes of the training school, where people with 25 years' service would be ideally employed teaching the recruits, and I took them to task about the fact that they were advertising for posts demanding recent operational experience, when it is not necessary. In the end, they changed their mind and changed that.

So there are pockets of good practice out there, it is just sad that – it is a bit like pushing water uphill sometimes, but we are getting there slowly.

Sir William Morris: Good, terrific. I am going to hand you over straight to Sir Anthony Burden; he has a few questions he would like to put to you, Mr Robinson. Thank you very much indeed for your answers.

Questions by Sir Anthony Burden

Sir Anthony Burden: Mr Robinson, I can very much relate to the culture you refer to about medically retiring officers who have been sick, within a culture in which A1 fitness is the standard, but as you have rightly said, things have got to change; by legislation, that change will be forced through.

Would you agree, I mean, the police service in Northern Ireland, or the RUC, as it was previously called, has employed disabled officers, limbless officers, for many, many years, not in frontline operational duties, but in a more advanced way than perhaps you are seeing in the Metropolitan Police?

Mr Robinson: I have no personal experience of that.

Sir Anthony Burden: If I could give you a hand, schools liaison work, for example, is undertaken very, very successfully by two officers that I personally know who have lost limbs, and so it is feasible, is it not, what you are saying about working in a broader environment; it would work?

Mr Robinson: Oh yes.

Sir Anthony Burden: You make mention in your submission that you do not feel the management board is aware of what is actually happening on the ground. So I think what you say there is the policies and what is promoted from the top of the organisation is one thing, but it has not been interpreted in that way on the ground; is that right?

Mr Robinson: It is often ignored, often interpreted the way the manager decides it is going to be interpreted. So, for example, if you have got the – what I would call the ex-TSG mindset, they would take the hardline stance and say, whatever you want, no is the question, no is the answer. And yet the more human manager, and I have met quite a few recently, would say, "Well, how do we solve this problem?" And it is that mindset that we need to get back in the middle, because we have the top saying it should happen, we have the bottom saying, "Can it happen?", and the middle blocking it.

Sir Anthony Burden: Can you tell me, please, in preparation for the Act biting, has a scoping exercise been done in this organisation to assess each role in relation to the ability for people with disabilities undertaking that role?

Mr Robinson: Not that I am aware of.

Sir Anthony Burden: At the other extreme, things like disability audits, access to buildings for disabled staff, have those been undertaken?

Mr Robinson: They have, yes.

Sir Anthony Burden: So the hard end has been dealt with, everything will be in place in terms of lifts, ramps and whatever –

Mr Robinson: Well, they will not all be in place, but they will have some facility on each division.

Sir Anthony Burden: You referred just a moment ago to the macho culture that you feel is driving the general culture within the Metropolitan Police, which impacts upon disability. Do you feel that, as an organisation, you will be able to influence that culture sufficiently to move in the direction that you know the organisation has got to go?

Mr Robinson: I would like to think so. I have some eight months left before I retire, and I would like to leave a positive impact before I go. That is my personal mindset.

Sir Anthony Burden: Sure.

Mr Robinson: I would like to think that I can help the Met, but it is hard to help an organisation that does not seem to want to be helped; that is the impression I get.

Sir Anthony Burden: You may or may not know this, but does the current sort of policy of retiring officers with a medical condition – does that also apply to officers who have been injured on duty?

Mr Robinson: As far as I am aware, yes.

Sir Anthony Burden: In your dealings with commanders in relation to grievances and conflicts in the workplace around disability, is this sort of hard-nosed macho culture digging in then?

Mr Robinson: For myself personally, yes, and for many others who have submitted individually. I can honestly say that I had been hiding my condition for many years, and eventually it came to a head when I did a raid on a crack house, and it was insisted that I wear a stab-proof vest, which I cannot wear.

Because of that, I was put in front of occupational health, who grounded me instantly and said, "That is it". And from that point on, my bosses treated me as a malingerer, because I did not have a visible disability, if you like. It is a common thread: if your disability can be seen, not a problem, with that mindset, whereas if it is not seen, you are just a skiver.

Sir Anthony Burden: How many members, can I ask you, currently do you represent as an association?

Mr Robinson: Last count, I think it was about 75.

Sir Anthony Burden: But that, I would guess, is just the tip of the iceberg when you look at the new definition of disability, as you referred to just a moment ago –

Mr Robinson: Indeed, and it is only yesterday that our website went live, so we are now actively advertising that we are around, for the first time.

Sir Anthony Burden: So you have a website now for the association?

Mr Robinson: Yes.

Sir Anthony Burden: So we can monitor, the same as you can, the growing interest that will be shown in disability, we hope.

Mr Robinson: I would like to think so, yes.

Sir Anthony Burden: Thank you very much.

Sir William Morris: Thank you, Sir Anthony. If I hand you straight over to Miss Weekes; she has one or two questions for you, Mr Robinson.

Questions by Miss Weekes

Miss Weekes: Thank you. Mr Robinson, I have two questions, both of which I think are rather crucial to our considerations of the matters you bring to us from the Disabled Staff Association. The first is the attitude of management when they deal with your representations, and I think, in relation to a paragraph of your submission, you say basically you have been ignored; you have presented common sense alternatives, which have basically not been taken up, or ignored.

Is there anyone in the Met of a sufficiently senior rank who would listen to you, would listen to your organisation?

Mr Robinson: Since our submission in fact Commander Allen has spoken to us, and he is keen to progress both what we profess and also the Releasing the Excellence document that was submitted.

Miss Weekes: It is interesting you mention him, because I was about to mention him by name. But essentially, you would say it is a pity it has waited that long to get somebody of that seniority to notice what has been going on.

Mr Robinson: To be honest, it is not just below him, it is above him as well. I mean, I have taken things to the Assistant Commissioner and been ignored. Had it been reversed, I would have been dragged into his office and given a dressing-down; I cannot do that.

Miss Weekes: Is part of the reason why you are being ignored because it is not an issue they know how to deal with, or are they embarrassed by it, or do they just not want to know?

Mr Robinson: I do not know, I really do not know. They are not the sort of people in my sort of circle, so I would not speak to them socially, or as normally as I would a friend, and it is very much a boss and employee type conversation, so I could not answer that question, I am afraid.

Miss Weekes: It is quite clear that in order to take further the genuine issues that you have to raise before the law kicks in, someone is going to have to listen to you.

Mr Robinson: Indeed, yes. We have found that public embarrassment is a good vehicle to get the Met to do something.

Miss Weekes: You threatened to report something to the press, did you not?

Mr Robinson: Our treasurer was asked by Disability Now, which is a newspaper, to do an article on his fight for promotion. The response was that he was threatened with discipline because it was his personal matter, and he was using the association to progress a personal matter.

BBC Radio 4 then jumped on the bandwagon and invited us to a forum, just after that, and we decided that we were a fledgling organisation really, and we did not feel comfortable with going on live radio, so we just issued a statement saying that we had been threatened, and that what we had to say was for the Morris Inquiry anyway.

Miss Weekes: I understand that. Who else is aware that you have gone as high as an Assistant Commissioner to raise a perfectly legitimate matter, but you have been ignored? Because this is obviously quite serious to you, is it not?

Mr Robinson: Indeed, yes. Just the association members, really.

Miss Weekes: Are you prepared to tell us confidentially or otherwise as to who the Assistant Commissioner is?

Mr Robinson: It was Mr Hogan-Howe.

Miss Weekes: Because it may well be that we can ask him about what steps he would like to take in relation to your complaint. And when did you speak to him?

Mr Robinson: Before Christmas.

Miss Weekes: And nothing said to you since Christmas?

Mr Robinson: No.

Miss Weekes: Nothing at all?

Mr Robinson: I have met him on a couple of occasions since; the subject was never brought up. To be fair to him, if you are going to question him, the subject was about a centralised department which we need to find jobs for these people, we need to make the adjustments.

Miss Weekes: The adjustments to find jobs, so it was in relation to disability?

Mr Robinson: Indeed, yes.

Miss Weekes: One final point: again, in preparation for when the Act kicks in, are you confident that the Met will be ready with the personnel skills and HR issues to deal with the things that you are now being told are going on, you know, by the 75 people that you represent?

Mr Robinson: The speed they have moved so far, I would say no.

Miss Weekes: Now what would you like us to recommend to be in place for when the Act does kick in?

Mr Robinson: We need the centralised department that can make the reasonable adjustments quickly. At the moment, I have got three welfare cases going where one has been waiting two years to find a job, and eventually found it by herself; another where he was being bullied by his boss until we got involved, but he is now just sat in a guard room at Buckingham Palace twiddling his thumbs all day, because he is not physically capable of the job that he is supposed to be doing.

It was initially said that they would take it to the postings panel as a welfare case and deal with it quickly, but I have since found out that they are just going to do it as a monthly sitting on the 19th, and they have had this case now for three weeks. In the meantime, he is in a place that no longer wants him.

Where I work, we were looking for personnel who are on restricted duties, because it is – basically, we are taking crimes over the Internet and over the telephone, ideal for someone who needs office work. So we have said we want him, his department have said they want rid of him, and yet it is taking some five to six weeks to actually do it, when at the stroke of a pen, it could be done.

Miss Weekes: Thank you very much indeed for your help.

Sir William Morris: Mr Robinson, that concludes the list and range of questions that we wanted to put to you. Let me say thank you for your help and assistance. In my opening introductory statement earlier on, I said that at the conclusion of our questions we would offer you the opportunity to make a brief closing comment if you so wished. If you do wish to do so, this is the time when we invite you to do that.

Mr Robinson: Thank you. I have been asked by some of the members to pass these quotes and comments on, if you have no objection.

The first one is: the managers operate by what they can get away with, rather than what is right. That is the ethos of the criminal adopted by the police, it would appear.

Now that I have found a job that is permanent, full-time, worthwhile and challenging, my blood pressure and cholesterol have gone way down and I no longer need medication for them. I am back to the same level of health I was before coming on restricted duties two years ago. It is a shame that I had to fight to get this job myself, despite asking for a decent job for the last two years.

Now I am disabled, my career is over. Despite having 25 years' experience, I am given a series of menial jobs far below my capabilities, and I am expected to be thankful.

What have I done wrong? Becoming ill, it appears, gets you punished, and the more you complain, the worse it gets. I have been with the Met for three years, and I have never been lied to so much by my managers in my life.

The Met is more disabling than our conditions. When will the MPS honour its moral obligations and treat their most valuable asset as humans and not as the enemy? After all, a happy workforce is a productive workforce, and employing armies of people to defend and support the indefensible is a perverse folly.

Thank you.

Sir William Morris: Well, thank you very much indeed, Mr Robinson, for your closing comments. For the record, I have to put some words formally on the transcript, and it is as follows: as with all our witnesses, it may be that once we have heard from other witnesses, we may want to ask a few more questions of you. If we decide to do that, we will either do it in writing or we will ask you to come back to one of these hearings. If that is a decision that we take in inviting you, then obviously we will want to do it in a way which causes the least possible inconvenience for you personally and your organisation.

But for the moment, my task is to say thanks for your submission, thanks for your attendance and contribution this afternoon, and thanks equally for the overall contribution that you and your association are making to the work of this Inquiry. So thank you very much indeed, it is good to see you again.

Mr Robinson: Thank you.

Skip Navigation \| Accessible

Accessibility About the Inquiry Contacts Search
Home News Schedule Transcripts Evidence Report Links
Transcripts > MPS Disabled Staff Association (07 Apr 04)
QuickSearch See also On this website: Evidence: Mr A Robinson	Previous Next	Views Print Accessible Actions Send
	Archive note Important note: This is an archive of the website that was formerly at www.morrisinquiry.gov.uk. It is being hosted on the MPA website for archival purposes only and may contain out-of-date information. Page summary This resource is from the Transcripts section. This section contains a transcript of the public session with Mr A Robinson, Chair of the MPS Disabled Staff Association, on 7 April 2004. Sections available here: Transcript of public session: Mr A Robinson of the MPS Disabled Staff Association Questions by Sir William Morris Questions by Sir Anthony Burden Questions by Miss Weekes Alternative versions This transcript is also available with original line and page numbering. Content Transcript of public session: Mr A Robinson of the MPS Disabled Staff Association Wednesday, 7 April 2004 3.35 pm Sir William Morris: Mr Robinson, good afternoon to you, and welcome. Thank you very much indeed for accepting our invitation to attend the Inquiry this afternoon to give some evidence. Let me say straight away that we have your written submission and we are very grateful for it, because it does take us forward. Could I say that I appreciate very much indeed that for some of our witnesses the process that we are adopting can be somewhat daunting, so I thought it might be helpful if I just very briefly try and set out how we propose to conduct the hearing this afternoon. But first of all, let me introduce the panel to you. My name is Sir Bill Morris, I am the recently retired General Secretary of the Transport and General Workers Union, but as you can see, the panel consists of two additional members. On my right is Sir Anthony Burden, who recently retired as Chief Constable of South Wales Constabulary, after a very long and distinguished career in the police service. On my left is Miss Anesta Weekes QC. Anesta is a very eminent barrister, and sits as a recorder and part-time chairperson of employment tribunals. She was also counsel to the Lawrence Inquiry. As you know, Mr Robinson, we have been asked by the Metropolitan Police Authority to conduct an independent inquiry into professional standards and employment matters in the Metropolitan Police Service. The focus that we have taken is one which focuses on the MPS as an organisation, and not the individuals who make up the organisation, and our inquiry is an inquisitorial inquiry, not an adversarial one, by character or indeed nature. We are very keen to explore the issues raised by our terms of reference, and to make the appropriate recommendation for further good practice within the Met. To help us in our task, we are very keen to hear from all our witnesses not just what is wrong with the Metropolitan Police Service but what is right with it, but more importantly we are looking for suggestions, practical ideas, any contribution that can make the MPS better. For the record, let me say that a transcript is being taken so that we can have a proper record of all the evidence given by our witnesses, and this will be posted on our website later today. At the end of these introductory remarks, I will lead the questions to your good self, followed by my colleague Miss Weekes, and then followed by Sir Anthony Burden, and indeed any supplementary questions that I might find necessary. At the conclusion of our questions, I will offer you an opportunity for a brief closing comment if you so wish. You very helpfully provided us with a written submission on behalf of your organisation. This will also be posted on the Inquiry website. In your submission, you have led us to consider the following areas: firstly, information about the MPS' Disabled Staff Association; its involvement in the creation of MPS' policy; and your comments on the MPS as an organisation in respect of officers with disability, and also staff with disability. We would like to ask you questions about these, naturally, but before we do that, for the benefit of our transcript notes, could I invite you, please, to formally introduce yourself to the Inquiry? Mr Robinson: Yes, thank you, chairman. I am Alan Robinson, I am the chairman of the Disabled Staff Association for the Metropolitan Police. I am a police constable with 22 years' service, based at West End Central police station. Sir William Morris: Thank you very much, Mr Robinson. Questions by Sir William Morris Sir William Morris: By way of introduction, I know that you have read our terms of reference, and no doubt you have followed the progress of our work as well. With that in mind, and taking account of your association's particular concerns, I wonder if you would mind setting out what your association think is the most important thing that our Inquiry needs to learn from your association's experience. Mr Robinson: The way the police have always operated in its history, someone becomes disabled, they have been medically retired, that has all stopped. But no provision to employ the people who are left behind has been made to employ them, and often they are given jobs that are invented for them, or so menial that it is way below their capabilities, but they are never consulted about what they are capable of. And the manager that decides on their future thinks that he is an expert, and gives them the job, and makes them feel grateful for it. In time, it evolves to a bullying culture, where – and it is very difficult for someone who is a disabled police officer, for example, who has spent most of his career dealing with bullies, when all of a sudden his boss is his bully, and he cannot fight back. And there is a terrible feeling of impotence. Sir William Morris: Yes. The legislation, the Disability Discrimination Act, requires employers to make suitable adjustments to facilitate and accommodate disability of employees. Can you give us some examples where the Met has entered not just into the – if you like, the letter of the law, but into the general spirit of the law, in making suitable adjustments? Mr Robinson: A very common one these days is people with back problems asking for a chair. The downside is that the process is so bureaucratic, it can take six months. Sir William Morris: Diversity is one of the flagship policies in the Met; indeed, the Commissioner has staked his personal commitment and reputation to some extent on having a Metropolitan Police Service which is responsive to the needs of all the people who work for the organisation under the flagship of diversity. Could you give us any example where, say, access to appropriate training and access to opportunity has benefitted and enhanced the working and learning experience of your association members within the Met? Mr Robinson: We asked for training very early on, because we were dealing with people who were at their wits' end and desperate, to such an extent that two attempted suicide. We did ask for training; initially we were told there was not any, but we were provided a half day with occupational health about overload mainly, for us. We were concerned that people at such a low ebb – if we said the wrong thing, you know, they might carry out their threat to kill themselves, and we needed some training for that. Well, we got the half day with occupational health. Sir William Morris: Could you outline for us how your association gets consulted, what is the consultative process about policy development for your members with disabilities within the Met? Obviously they would consult the association rather than the individual police officers. How does it work? Mr Robinson: There is an e-mail loop, basically, and we all get an e-mail of whatever policy it is. The last one, I think, was Mr Ghaffur's, and I think his was probably the biggest, with the shortest time to read it. I think I was given five days to read, digest and comment on something that was 165 pages. We all have day jobs, and we are allowed 20 hours a week per association, but that is easily swallowed up just by one welfare case, and now that we have got a website up and running on the intranet, we are getting cases daily. Sir William Morris: So the consultation is by and large a time issue, more time is required – Mr Robinson: It is not so much time. I mean, when you think that a policy consisting of so many pages will take some six months to create, I think it is part of the rubber-stamping process, if you like, that it is sent to the associations for a quick read-through, rubber-stamp it, and then it is on its way to become policy. Sir William Morris: Does your organisation associate with and contribute to the Samurai group? Mr Robinson: Yes. Sir William Morris: You are part of it? Mr Robinson: Yes. Sir William Morris: How useful do you find it, as a co-ordinating forum? Mr Robinson: Very useful. I was quite surprised that the problems we had as a fledgling organisation – they had the exact same problem, which was a sort of, "Let us get them created, and then that is a ticked box, and leave them to it". That and the problems that our members faced were very similar to the problems that the members of the BPA or the Hindu Association faced. Oddly enough, the problems that we have had, both as an association and individually, every single person that we have had the problem with has been between chief inspector and chief superintendent level, and they have all been middle-aged and white, and there has not been any from any minority groups, which I find somewhat odd. But there would appear to be some kind of macho culture with the management of the Met, and certainly I believe it is part of the promotion process within the Met that there be some kind of background within firearms or TSG or any of the what I would call rufty tufty groups, and it seems to be that that mindset now runs the Met. Like I say, there is no provision for keeping the likes of me in a job, unless I find one for myself. There is no provision for me to go to the job and say "I need this reasonable adjustment, what are you going to do about it?", because the DDA does not cover me as yet. The Disability Rights Commission have published that 19.6 per cent of the working population have some form of disability. If the Met reflects that, then we could be looking, on 1st October, at 8,000 people saying, "I need a reasonable adjustment", and there is no mechanism in place for that. Sir William Morris: Have you raised this practical difficulty? Mr Robinson: Yes, I raised it with the Assistant Commissioner before Christmas. The wheels of the mill grind slowly, it would appear. Sir William Morris: Yours is one of 14 staff support associations. You are all, of course, at your rank members of the Police Federation. Why do you think that we need all these groups when the rights and opportunities of people with disabilities is a normal, ordinary trade union function, representing all your members in the workplace? Why do we need a support group when we have the Federation? Mr Robinson: We have all individually contacted the Federation about our problems, and we have all been tapped on the back and said, "There, there, there, sorry but there is nothing we can do for you". I have had two members come to me so far and say, "You have done more for me than the Federation has ever done". Sir William Morris: But you are a police officer, you are a member of the Federation, 15 or 20 years' membership, suddenly something happens, and you are unfortunately sustaining physical disability, shall we say. Are you saying that at that point, when you incur this disability, the Federation no longer look after you as a member – Mr Robinson: They look after you quite well – Sir William Morris: – and promote the needs that you now have? Mr Robinson: If you are in trouble, the Federation are marvellous. They have not quite grasped the welfare concept, it would appear, and they just see themselves as a defence agency, in courts and tribunals. That is the impression I get. Sir William Morris: Just one final question, and it is, if you like, an opportunity question: we have to write a report sooner or later based on the evidence that we have heard, but we have fairly wide terms of reference, and we have heard a lot of evidence. If we gave you the opportunity to advance two recommendations to us on behalf of your organisation, what would you be saying to us that we should recommend that would make a difference to the lives and the work experience of people employed by the Metropolitan Police Service who have disabilities? Two recommendations, what would they be? Mr Robinson: The first recommendation would be to make provision to employ these people. Sir William Morris: This is the suitable adjustment point, reasonable adjustment point. Mr Robinson: Just for argument's sake, on a normal police division, if somebody becomes disabled and can only do office-based work, then there are only two units that he can go to. One is the intelligence unit and the other is the crime management unit; possibly station officer, depending on his condition. So each division can only cope with perhaps five to ten people at most. And when you look at places like Scotland Yard, which is a massive sort of complex of offices, the likes of the training school, where people with 25 years' service would be ideally employed teaching the recruits, and I took them to task about the fact that they were advertising for posts demanding recent operational experience, when it is not necessary. In the end, they changed their mind and changed that. So there are pockets of good practice out there, it is just sad that – it is a bit like pushing water uphill sometimes, but we are getting there slowly. Sir William Morris: Good, terrific. I am going to hand you over straight to Sir Anthony Burden; he has a few questions he would like to put to you, Mr Robinson. Thank you very much indeed for your answers. Questions by Sir Anthony Burden Sir Anthony Burden: Mr Robinson, I can very much relate to the culture you refer to about medically retiring officers who have been sick, within a culture in which A1 fitness is the standard, but as you have rightly said, things have got to change; by legislation, that change will be forced through. Would you agree, I mean, the police service in Northern Ireland, or the RUC, as it was previously called, has employed disabled officers, limbless officers, for many, many years, not in frontline operational duties, but in a more advanced way than perhaps you are seeing in the Metropolitan Police? Mr Robinson: I have no personal experience of that. Sir Anthony Burden: If I could give you a hand, schools liaison work, for example, is undertaken very, very successfully by two officers that I personally know who have lost limbs, and so it is feasible, is it not, what you are saying about working in a broader environment; it would work? Mr Robinson: Oh yes. Sir Anthony Burden: You make mention in your submission that you do not feel the management board is aware of what is actually happening on the ground. So I think what you say there is the policies and what is promoted from the top of the organisation is one thing, but it has not been interpreted in that way on the ground; is that right? Mr Robinson: It is often ignored, often interpreted the way the manager decides it is going to be interpreted. So, for example, if you have got the – what I would call the ex-TSG mindset, they would take the hardline stance and say, whatever you want, no is the question, no is the answer. And yet the more human manager, and I have met quite a few recently, would say, "Well, how do we solve this problem?" And it is that mindset that we need to get back in the middle, because we have the top saying it should happen, we have the bottom saying, "Can it happen?", and the middle blocking it. Sir Anthony Burden: Can you tell me, please, in preparation for the Act biting, has a scoping exercise been done in this organisation to assess each role in relation to the ability for people with disabilities undertaking that role? Mr Robinson: Not that I am aware of. Sir Anthony Burden: At the other extreme, things like disability audits, access to buildings for disabled staff, have those been undertaken? Mr Robinson: They have, yes. Sir Anthony Burden: So the hard end has been dealt with, everything will be in place in terms of lifts, ramps and whatever – Mr Robinson: Well, they will not all be in place, but they will have some facility on each division. Sir Anthony Burden: You referred just a moment ago to the macho culture that you feel is driving the general culture within the Metropolitan Police, which impacts upon disability. Do you feel that, as an organisation, you will be able to influence that culture sufficiently to move in the direction that you know the organisation has got to go? Mr Robinson: I would like to think so. I have some eight months left before I retire, and I would like to leave a positive impact before I go. That is my personal mindset. Sir Anthony Burden: Sure. Mr Robinson: I would like to think that I can help the Met, but it is hard to help an organisation that does not seem to want to be helped; that is the impression I get. Sir Anthony Burden: You may or may not know this, but does the current sort of policy of retiring officers with a medical condition – does that also apply to officers who have been injured on duty? Mr Robinson: As far as I am aware, yes. Sir Anthony Burden: In your dealings with commanders in relation to grievances and conflicts in the workplace around disability, is this sort of hard-nosed macho culture digging in then? Mr Robinson: For myself personally, yes, and for many others who have submitted individually. I can honestly say that I had been hiding my condition for many years, and eventually it came to a head when I did a raid on a crack house, and it was insisted that I wear a stab-proof vest, which I cannot wear. Because of that, I was put in front of occupational health, who grounded me instantly and said, "That is it". And from that point on, my bosses treated me as a malingerer, because I did not have a visible disability, if you like. It is a common thread: if your disability can be seen, not a problem, with that mindset, whereas if it is not seen, you are just a skiver. Sir Anthony Burden: How many members, can I ask you, currently do you represent as an association? Mr Robinson: Last count, I think it was about 75. Sir Anthony Burden: But that, I would guess, is just the tip of the iceberg when you look at the new definition of disability, as you referred to just a moment ago – Mr Robinson: Indeed, and it is only yesterday that our website went live, so we are now actively advertising that we are around, for the first time. Sir Anthony Burden: So you have a website now for the association? Mr Robinson: Yes. Sir Anthony Burden: So we can monitor, the same as you can, the growing interest that will be shown in disability, we hope. Mr Robinson: I would like to think so, yes. Sir Anthony Burden: Thank you very much. Sir William Morris: Thank you, Sir Anthony. If I hand you straight over to Miss Weekes; she has one or two questions for you, Mr Robinson. Questions by Miss Weekes Miss Weekes: Thank you. Mr Robinson, I have two questions, both of which I think are rather crucial to our considerations of the matters you bring to us from the Disabled Staff Association. The first is the attitude of management when they deal with your representations, and I think, in relation to a paragraph of your submission, you say basically you have been ignored; you have presented common sense alternatives, which have basically not been taken up, or ignored. Is there anyone in the Met of a sufficiently senior rank who would listen to you, would listen to your organisation? Mr Robinson: Since our submission in fact Commander Allen has spoken to us, and he is keen to progress both what we profess and also the Releasing the Excellence document that was submitted. Miss Weekes: It is interesting you mention him, because I was about to mention him by name. But essentially, you would say it is a pity it has waited that long to get somebody of that seniority to notice what has been going on. Mr Robinson: To be honest, it is not just below him, it is above him as well. I mean, I have taken things to the Assistant Commissioner and been ignored. Had it been reversed, I would have been dragged into his office and given a dressing-down; I cannot do that. Miss Weekes: Is part of the reason why you are being ignored because it is not an issue they know how to deal with, or are they embarrassed by it, or do they just not want to know? Mr Robinson: I do not know, I really do not know. They are not the sort of people in my sort of circle, so I would not speak to them socially, or as normally as I would a friend, and it is very much a boss and employee type conversation, so I could not answer that question, I am afraid. Miss Weekes: It is quite clear that in order to take further the genuine issues that you have to raise before the law kicks in, someone is going to have to listen to you. Mr Robinson: Indeed, yes. We have found that public embarrassment is a good vehicle to get the Met to do something. Miss Weekes: You threatened to report something to the press, did you not? Mr Robinson: Our treasurer was asked by Disability Now, which is a newspaper, to do an article on his fight for promotion. The response was that he was threatened with discipline because it was his personal matter, and he was using the association to progress a personal matter. BBC Radio 4 then jumped on the bandwagon and invited us to a forum, just after that, and we decided that we were a fledgling organisation really, and we did not feel comfortable with going on live radio, so we just issued a statement saying that we had been threatened, and that what we had to say was for the Morris Inquiry anyway. Miss Weekes: I understand that. Who else is aware that you have gone as high as an Assistant Commissioner to raise a perfectly legitimate matter, but you have been ignored? Because this is obviously quite serious to you, is it not? Mr Robinson: Indeed, yes. Just the association members, really. Miss Weekes: Are you prepared to tell us confidentially or otherwise as to who the Assistant Commissioner is? Mr Robinson: It was Mr Hogan-Howe. Miss Weekes: Because it may well be that we can ask him about what steps he would like to take in relation to your complaint. And when did you speak to him? Mr Robinson: Before Christmas. Miss Weekes: And nothing said to you since Christmas? Mr Robinson: No. Miss Weekes: Nothing at all? Mr Robinson: I have met him on a couple of occasions since; the subject was never brought up. To be fair to him, if you are going to question him, the subject was about a centralised department which we need to find jobs for these people, we need to make the adjustments. Miss Weekes: The adjustments to find jobs, so it was in relation to disability? Mr Robinson: Indeed, yes. Miss Weekes: One final point: again, in preparation for when the Act kicks in, are you confident that the Met will be ready with the personnel skills and HR issues to deal with the things that you are now being told are going on, you know, by the 75 people that you represent? Mr Robinson: The speed they have moved so far, I would say no. Miss Weekes: Now what would you like us to recommend to be in place for when the Act does kick in? Mr Robinson: We need the centralised department that can make the reasonable adjustments quickly. At the moment, I have got three welfare cases going where one has been waiting two years to find a job, and eventually found it by herself; another where he was being bullied by his boss until we got involved, but he is now just sat in a guard room at Buckingham Palace twiddling his thumbs all day, because he is not physically capable of the job that he is supposed to be doing. It was initially said that they would take it to the postings panel as a welfare case and deal with it quickly, but I have since found out that they are just going to do it as a monthly sitting on the 19th, and they have had this case now for three weeks. In the meantime, he is in a place that no longer wants him. Where I work, we were looking for personnel who are on restricted duties, because it is – basically, we are taking crimes over the Internet and over the telephone, ideal for someone who needs office work. So we have said we want him, his department have said they want rid of him, and yet it is taking some five to six weeks to actually do it, when at the stroke of a pen, it could be done. Miss Weekes: Thank you very much indeed for your help. Sir William Morris: Mr Robinson, that concludes the list and range of questions that we wanted to put to you. Let me say thank you for your help and assistance. In my opening introductory statement earlier on, I said that at the conclusion of our questions we would offer you the opportunity to make a brief closing comment if you so wished. If you do wish to do so, this is the time when we invite you to do that. Mr Robinson: Thank you. I have been asked by some of the members to pass these quotes and comments on, if you have no objection. The first one is: the managers operate by what they can get away with, rather than what is right. That is the ethos of the criminal adopted by the police, it would appear. Now that I have found a job that is permanent, full-time, worthwhile and challenging, my blood pressure and cholesterol have gone way down and I no longer need medication for them. I am back to the same level of health I was before coming on restricted duties two years ago. It is a shame that I had to fight to get this job myself, despite asking for a decent job for the last two years. Now I am disabled, my career is over. Despite having 25 years' experience, I am given a series of menial jobs far below my capabilities, and I am expected to be thankful. What have I done wrong? Becoming ill, it appears, gets you punished, and the more you complain, the worse it gets. I have been with the Met for three years, and I have never been lied to so much by my managers in my life. The Met is more disabling than our conditions. When will the MPS honour its moral obligations and treat their most valuable asset as humans and not as the enemy? After all, a happy workforce is a productive workforce, and employing armies of people to defend and support the indefensible is a perverse folly. Thank you. Sir William Morris: Well, thank you very much indeed, Mr Robinson, for your closing comments. For the record, I have to put some words formally on the transcript, and it is as follows: as with all our witnesses, it may be that once we have heard from other witnesses, we may want to ask a few more questions of you. If we decide to do that, we will either do it in writing or we will ask you to come back to one of these hearings. If that is a decision that we take in inviting you, then obviously we will want to do it in a way which causes the least possible inconvenience for you personally and your organisation. But for the moment, my task is to say thanks for your submission, thanks for your attendance and contribution this afternoon, and thanks equally for the overall contribution that you and your association are making to the work of this Inquiry. So thank you very much indeed, it is good to see you again. Mr Robinson: Thank you. Internal links On this website: Evidence: Mr A Robinson Evidence provided by and documents referred to by Mr A Robinson, Chair of the MPS Disabled Staff Association, in his appearance at the Inquiry.
	Previous Next
Transcripts > MPS Disabled Staff Association (07 Apr 04)
© Copyright 2004, The Morris Inquiry. Standards compliant HTML. Designed and maintained by Netfundi