Development Schemes
& Positive Action
The definitive authority guide to workforce progression, Section 158 legal boundaries, and mentoring frameworks in UK policing.
Snippet Goal: Are Police Development Schemes Lawful?
Police development schemes are lawful when they address documented inequality via proportionate Section 158 measures.
Under the Equality Act 2010, police forces may apply proportionate positive action measures to address disadvantage or underrepresentation. Such schemes—including mentoring, exam preparation, and leadership coaching—are lawful provided they remain "pipeline interventions" and do not cross into positive discrimination. Selection for promotion must always be based on individual merit and consistent competency standards.
Institutional Lens: A development scheme is a capacity-building tool, not a selection guarantee. To remain defensible, any targeted intervention must be supported by a robust Equality Impact Assessment (EIA) and periodic proportionality reviews.
The Architecture of
Workforce Progression
In the complex hierarchy of UK policing, the path from Constable to senior leadership is rarely a straight line. It is a journey fraught with structural gatekeepers, informal networks, and high-pressure assessment points. For decades, workforce data has highlighted a persistent reality: talent is evenly distributed across the service, but opportunity—and the preparation required to seize it—often is not.
Development schemes exist to treat "pipeline bottlenecks," ensuring that the pool of candidates for promotion is as broad, diverse, and well-prepared as the communities they serve.
A primary driver for these schemes is the identification of structural underrepresentation in supervisory and senior officer ranks. While entry-level recruitment has seen significant shifts in diversity, the "stagnation point" often occurs at the Sergeant or Inspector ranks. This creates a leadership vacuum where the decision-making echelons of a force do not reflect the lived experience of the frontline or the public. This is not merely an equity issue; it is a matter of operational legitimacy and institutional stability.
Furthermore, certain specialist pathways—such as Firearms, Roads Policing, and CID—frequently exhibit even sharper disparities. These units are often the traditional "fast tracks" to rank, as they provide the operational exposure and "heroic" evidence portfolios that interview boards traditionally favor. When specific groups are informally or structurally excluded from these units, their entire career trajectory is suppressed. Development schemes bridge this gap by providing the exposure and preparation that informal networks traditionally provided only to the majority.
The Retention Link
Officers who perceive a "glass ceiling" are mathematically more likely to leave the service mid-career. Development schemes serve as a vital retention tool, demonstrating that the force is invested in the long-term trajectory of all talented officers.
Financial Impact
Progression is the primary lever for pay growth. By ensuring fair access to promotion prep, forces address the "ethnicity pay gap" and "gender pay gap" at their source: rank distribution.
Crucially, these schemes must be understood as interventions in preparation, not interventions in outcome. A mentoring program for minority ethnic Sergeants is not designed to "give" them an Inspector slot; it is designed to ensure that when they sit the board, they have the same level of polish, confidence, and structural understanding of the CVF as an officer who has spent years in a high-vis HQ project.
The financial and professional stakes of promotion are immense. A promotion to Sergeant can represent a £10,000+ increase in basic salary, alongside significant shifts in pension valuation. In this context, the perceived "fairness" of the pipeline is essential for workforce morale. If a segment of the workforce feels the system is rigged against them through a lack of support, the social contract of the organization begins to fail. Institutional stability depends on a neutral, defensible, and visible commitment to developing everyone.
Ultimately, development schemes are a response to the mathematical reality of the "leaky pipeline." If 100 officers of diverse backgrounds join as Constables, but only 2 remain at the rank of Inspector, the force has suffered an unacceptable loss of human capital and cultural intelligence. Development schemes are the structural fix for this loss.
Equality Law
& Section 158
In the United Kingdom, the deployment of targeted development schemes is governed by a strict legal architecture. Police forces do not have broad discretion to favor one group over another; they must operate within the boundaries established by the Equality Act 2010. Crucially, the law distinguishes between supporting a group (Positive Action) and favoring a group at selection (Positive Discrimination).
Section 158: General Positive Action
Section 158 is the primary mechanism for development schemes. It permits an employer to take any action (including targeted training or encouragement) that is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim, provided they reasonably think that:
- (a) Persons with a protected characteristic suffer a disadvantage connected to that characteristic.
- (b) Their needs are different from the needs of persons who do not share it.
- (c) Participation in an activity is disproportionately low.
The "permission" granted by Section 158 is broad but not infinite. The key test is proportionality. A force cannot launch a massive, expensive, exclusive mentoring scheme to address a minor 1% representation gap. The intervention must be "proportionate" to the depth of the disadvantage. This requires analytical rigor and mathematical proof before the first mentor is assigned.
Furthermore, Section 158 does not permit selection by identity. It only permits provision of support. If a force runs an exam prep course only for minority ethnic Constables, that is lawful under S.158. However, if they then give those Constables an extra "diversity point" in the actual exam score, they have crossed into unlawful territory.
Section 149: The Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED). This is the "engine" of the PSED. It requires forces to have 'due regard' to the need to advance equality of opportunity. This duty often justifies the very existence of a development scheme, as doing nothing in the face of severe underrepresentation may constitute a failure of the PSED.
Section 159 (The Tie-Breaker) is often confused with development schemes. S.159 applies specifically and only at the point of *selection for appointment*. It allows a force to choose a candidate from an underrepresented group if, and only if, they are **equally qualified** to the alternative. Development schemes (S.158) happen months or years before the S.159 tie-breaker is ever invoked.
Finally, there is Section 20: Reasonable Adjustments. While Section 158 is an optional permission to address disadvantage, Section 20 is a **mandatory duty** to address disability. If an officer with dyslexia requires 25% extra time to complete a development scheme's written assignment, the force *must* provide it. This is not positive action; it is disability accommodation.
The "Merit Principle" Buffer
Institutional stability depends on the "Merit Principle." Every legal framework discussed here includes a safeguard: the intervention must not lower the bar. A development scheme prepares the officer to jump the bar; it does not lower the bar for them. Any scheme that undermines the perceived merit of the rank will fail the judicial scrutiny of the High Court.
Defining the
Portfolio
A "development scheme" is a broad umbrella term spanning everything from an informal coffee with a mentor to a highly structured, multi-year fast-track programme. To remain lawful and effective, these schemes must be categorized and governed by the specific type of intervention they provide.
Targeted Mentoring
The most common and cost-effective intervention. It bridges the 'social capital gap' by providing access to senior leaders' decision-making logic and career advice.
Leadership Shadowing
Allowing candidates to observe senior officers in high-stakes environments (e.g., Gold Command, Strategic Boards) to build confidence and semantic familiarity.
Promotion Workshops
Intense seminars focused on the 'mechanics' of the board: how to structure evidence, how to decode CVF questions, and how to deliver under pressure.
Exam Preparation
Structured legal study groups or mock exam days for the NPPF Step 1 legal exams, addressing historical disparites in exam pass rates.
Confidence Coaching
Psychological and behavioral coaching to address 'imposter syndrome' and performance anxiety in high-stakes selection environments.
Pathway Exposure
Programs inside specialist units (e.g., firearms, CID) to demystify entry requirements and ensure diverse units are not exclusionary by culture.
Regardless of the format, a successful scheme must have three constants: Clear Eligibility, Measureable Outcomes, and Transparent Governance.
Eligibility is the most sensitive area. To target "Black and other minority ethnic officers" lawfully, the force must be able to show that these groups are specifically disadvantaged in the area the scheme addresses. If the data shows that minority officers are already outperforming the majority in a specific unit, a targeted scheme for them in that unit may be unlawful.
Measureable outcomes are critical for proving proportionality. A force should be able to say: "Before this mentoring scheme, our conversion rate from Sergeant to Inspector for this demographic was 10%. After three years of mentoring, it is 18%." This data justifies the continued expenditure of public funds and the targeting of the protected group.
Minority Ethnic
& Progression
Development support for **Black and other minority ethnic officers** is a focal point of most force diversity strategies. The rationale is grounded in the "Promotion Gap"—the statistically significant trend where minority officers spend longer at the rank of Constable and are less likely to apply for specialist roles.
Lawful mentoring and development for these groups are intended to counter "Cultural Exclusion." This is the unspoken reality where information about how to "get on" is traded in informal spaces—pubs, gyms, or specific social circles—that may feel inaccessible to minority officers. By formalizing this knowledge transfer through a development scheme, the force ensures that "how to pass the board" is no longer a secret whispered among friends, but a technical skill taught to everyone with potential.
Targeted but Open
The most legally resilient schemes are those that are targeted but open. For example, a "Senior Leadership Seminar" might be advertised specifically to Black and other minority ethnic Sergeants, but if a white Sergeant from a similarly disadvantaged background (e.g., lower socio-economic status) asks to attend, refusing them solely on the basis of their race would create a high legal risk. Creating inclusive schemes with a targeted marketing focus is often the safest path.
Retention is the ultimate goal. When an officer sees others from their background being mentored, developed, and eventually promoted, it creates a "proof of concept" for their own career. Without development schemes, the natural effect of bias is a homogenization of leadership, leading to groupthink and an inability to solve complex community problems.
Development &
Reasonable Adjustments
A critical and often misunderstood distinction in workforce governance is the difference between Positive Action and Reasonable Adjustments. While positive action (Section 158) is a discretionary power used to address representation gaps, reasonable adjustments (Section 20) are a mandatory statutory duty.
For officers with disabilities—including neurodivergent conditions such as dyslexia, ADHD, and autism—access to development schemes is protected by this mandatory duty. If a force runs a "Senior Leadership Preparation Course," it cannot simply offer it on a "one-size-fits-all" basis. It must proactively ensure that the delivery of that course does not place disabled officers at a substantial disadvantage.
Adjustments in Development
Time & Format
25% extra time for written assignments or providing prep materials in accessible digital formats.
Delivery Methods
Allowing remote participation or providing session transcripts to aid information processing.
Assistive Tech
Providing access to screen readers or speech-to-text software during workshops.
Reasonable adjustments remove the hurdle; they do not lower the height of the jump. An officer with a disability must still meet the same competency standards for the rank as any other officer.
Effective development support for disabled officers is often anticipatory. Forces should not wait for an officer to struggle before offering support. By designing leadership preparation that is "inclusive by design"—using clear language, structured templates, and flexible timings—forces reduce the need for individual interventions and create a more professional developmental culture for everyone.
Specialist
Unit Bottlenecks
Workforce progression is often dictated by early-career choices, particularly the move into specialist units. In UK policing, roles in Firearms (ARV), Roads Policing, and CID leadership are traditionally seen as high-prestige "evidence goldmines." Officers in these roles frequently handle complex, high-visibility incidents that translate easily into the competency-based evidence required for promotion boards.
However, national data reveals severe underrepresentation of Black and other minority ethnic officers and women in these "hard" specialist units. This creates a structural bottleneck: if you cannot get onto an ARV course, you cannot get the ARV evidence; and if you don't have the ARV evidence, you are less likely to succeed at the Inspector board.
The "Glass Gateway"
Specialist unit entry requirements (vetting, physical standards, informal interviews) can act as unintentional gatekeepers. Development schemes targeting these units focus on "familiarisation" to de-risk the application process for underrepresented groups.
Operational Legitimacy
Diverse representation in high-stakes units (like Firearms) is critical for public trust. A tactical firearms unit that does not reflect the community it patrols faces increased risk during critical incidents.
Lawful Section 158 interventions in this area include "taster days", modified fitness prep sessions, and shadowing opportunities in specialist units for historically excluded groups. These schemes do not guarantee a spot in the unit; they simply ensure that the candidate pool for the unit is sufficiently diverse to hit aspirational representation targets.
Risk Analysis: Targeted schemes in specialist units must be tightly governed. If a scheme appears to "waive" mandatory vetting or safety standards for specific groups, it becomes unlawful and operationally dangerous.
Lawful vs
Unlawful Cases
Navigating the technical boundaries of Section 158 through real-world institutional applications.
SCENARIO 1: Mentoring for Underrepresented Groups
"A force identifies a 2% representation of Black officers at Inspector rank versus 10% in the community. It launches a 'Command Mentoring' scheme exclusively for Black Sergeants."
Lawful under Section 158. The intervention builds preparation and provides access to leadership networks without guaranteeing a promotion outcome.
SCENARIO 2: Specialist Unit Familiarisation
"A tactical unit runs an open day specifically marketed to female officers to de-risk the perception of the 'boys' club' culture."
Lawful. Targeted encouragement is a classic S.158 measure. All attendees must still pass the same physical and tactical tests to join.
SCENARIO 3: Guaranteed Interview Slots
"A development scheme guarantees that any candidate who completes the program will automatically bypass the paper-sift stage and get an interview."
High Risk — likely Unlawful. Guaranteed advancement regardless of comparative merit at the filter stage crosses from preparation into selection preference.
SCENARIO 4: Lowering the Pass Mark
"To increase diversity in a leadership pool, the force allows candidates from underrepresented groups to enter with a score of 60%, while others need 70%."
Unlawful. This is positive discrimination. You cannot lower the competency standard based on a protected characteristic.
SCENARIO 5: Dyslexia Support in Prep
"An officer on a leadership course is provided with mind-mapping software and extra preparation time for their mock board."
Lawful. This is a mandatory S.20 adjustment to remove disability-related disadvantage, ensuring the candidate can demonstrate their actual merit.
SCENARIO 6: Mock Boards based on Identity
"A force offers additional mock interview practice sessions only to candidates from backgrounds with statistically lower success rates."
Lawful. Preparation and practice are developmental (S.158). It does not change the final scoring of the actual promotion board.
The
Unlawful Line
Explicit boundaries where positive action crosses into prohibited positive discrimination.
For a development scheme to remain defensible, it must strictly adhere to the principle of non-selection. The moment a scheme interferes with the final merit-based choice of a promotion board, it likely ceases to be "positive action" and becomes unlawful.
No Guaranteed Outcomes
A scheme cannot promise that completion leads to a role. The candidate must still win the role on merit in an open competition.
No Lowered Standards
The pass mark for the NPPF exam or the Sergeant interview must be identical for everyone, regardless of the support they received.
Furthermore, development schemes cannot reserve posts. In the UK, it is unlawful to say "the next three Sergeant vacancies are for Black officers." While a force can have an aspirational target to through development and recruitment pipeline improvements, not by blocking non-minority candidates from competing for specific roles.
Case Law Warning: In Furlong v Chief Constable of Cheshire Police, the court found that the force had unlawfully applied positive action by rejecting better-qualified white male candidates simply to improve diversity statistics. Development schemes must steer well clear of this "pre-determined outcome" trap.
Finally, schemes must not bypass mandatory assessment stages. If a force requires a paper-sift, an interview, and a presentation, a development scheme cannot "waive" the presentation for specific groups. Doing so would violate the principle of equal treatment in the selection process.
The
Proportionality Test
Before any targeted development scheme is launched, it must pass the Four-Stage Proportionality Test. This is the judicial standard used to determine if an intervention is a "proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim."
01. Legitimate Aim
The force must identify a genuine need. For example: 'Our data shows zero female Sergeants in the Specialist Firearms Command, which harms our ability to engage with female victims in high-threat scenarios.'
02. Rational Connection
The scheme must actually solve the problem. If the barrier is a lack of training, the scheme must provide training. If the barrier is childcare, a mentoring scheme may not be rationally connected.
03. Necessity (Minimal Impairment)
Is there a less intrusive way to achieve the aim? If a general coaching scheme for everyone would solve the diversity gap, a targeted minority-only scheme might be seen as unnecessary.
04. Balancing (Stricto Sensu)
Do the benefits of the scheme (improved representation) outweigh the potential negative impact on those excluded from the scheme? This is the final value judgment of the EIA.
This technical governance is what separates a professionally managed force from one at risk of litigation. Institutional memory often fades, but the EIA remains. It is the "living document" that proves why the force took the action it did. Without a clear proportionality audit, a scheme is effectively a legal time-bomb.
Structural
Risk Balance
Managing a police workforce requires a constant balancing of competing risks. In the context of development schemes and positive action, there is no "zero-risk" path. Each institutional decision carries consequences for the social fabric of the force and its relationship with the public.
Risks of Inaction
- Persistent representation gaps leading to a loss of community legitimacy.
- Leadership "Groupthink" where critical decisions lack diverse perspectives.
- High turnover (attrition) of talented minority officers who see no career path.
Risks of Overreach
- Legal challenges (Employment Tribunals) for direct discrimination against majority groups.
- Workforce division and the perception that some officers are "favored" over others.
- Undermining the "Merit Principle," which can harm organizational morale and standards.
The optimal strategy is one of Radical Transparency. When a force can clearly explain why a scheme exists, what data justifies it, and how it preserves merit-based outcomes, the internal friction is significantly reduced. The most successful development schemes are those that are seen not as "special treatment," but as a professional intervention to ensure the *best* talent rises to the top, regardless of where it started.
Finally, we must consider the Collective Benefit. A development scheme that successfully prepares a diverse pool of Sergeants for the Inspector rank benefits the entire force. It ensures that senior leadership teams have the cultural fluency to solve community problems, the operational experience to mitigate risk, and the personal resilience to lead through crisis. Development is not a zero-sum game; it is an investment in the service's future.
NPPF Step 4
& Workplace Assessment
The National Police Promotion Framework (NPPF) creates a multi-stage journey toward substantive rank. While Step 2 (Legal Examination) and Step 3 (Selection Board) are the most visible hurdles, Step 4 (Workplace Assessment) is where development support often becomes the most critical—and the most legally contested.
Step 4 is a period of temporary promotion where the officer must demonstrate their competence in the actual rank. For many officers from underrepresented backgrounds, this period can be a "lonely transition." Without formal mentoring or a structured development scheme, these officers may lack the informal peer support that majority officers rely on to navigate the cultural nuances of supervisory command.
The "Glass Cliff" Risk
Officers promoted via positive action initiatives occasionally face the "glass cliff"—being placed in high-risk, low-support roles during their Step 4 assessment. Development schemes must include "Sustained Mentoring" through Step 4 to mitigate this risk and ensure long-term success.
Assessor Neutrality
Forces must ensure that Step 4 assessors are trained in unconscious bias. If an officer's participation in a "Positive Action" development scheme is viewed negatively by their assessor, it creates a risk of direct discrimination in the final certification of rank.
Lawful development support during Step 4 includes Action Learning Sets, where groups of newly promoted officers from diverse backgrounds can share tactical dilemmas in a safe, non-judgmental environment. This is a classic Section 158 measure designed to address the "Needs are Different" provision (S.158(b)), recognizing that the lived experience of a minority Sergeant in a predominantly white station carries unique stressors.
Case Analysis: A force that provides extra coaching specifically to minority Sergeants during their Step 4 assessment is acting lawfully to address historical attrition rates at this specific gatekeeper point.
Service Bonds
& Training ROI
High-value development schemes—particularly those involving external university-level accreditation or expensive leadership retreats—often involve Return of Service Bonds. These are contractual agreements where the officer agrees to remain with the force for a set period (usually 2 years) or repay a portion of the development costs.
While these bonds are standard commercial practice, their interplay with Positive Action requires careful legal handling. If a force waives a bond for an officer from a protected group while enforcing it for others, they risk a Section 13 direct discrimination claim. Repayment of costs is a financial liability; selective application of that liability based on race or sex is generally unlawful, even under the guise of positive action.
The "Double Disadvantage" Trap
Conversely, forces must ensure that bonds do not disproportionately penalize groups protected by the Equality Act. For example, a bond that requires full repayment if an officer leaves to provide childcare may constitute indirect sex discrimination. A legally "bulletproof" development scheme will have clear, non-discriminatory exemptions for childcare, disability-related retirement, and catastrophic life events.
From an institutional perspective, the "Return on Investment" (ROI) of a development scheme is not just financial; it is cultural capital. A minority officer who reaches senior rank provides a "diversity dividend" that far outweighs the cost of their training. However, the Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED) requires forces to be transparent about these costs. Using public funds for targeted schemes is only defensible when the long-term benefit to community policing and workforce stability is evidenced.
Policy Recommendation: Service bonds should be tied to the value of the accreditation, not the identity of the officer. Any waiver should be based on universal criteria (e.g., ill-health retirement) rather than protected characteristics.
Governance Audits
& Review Cycles
Positive action is not a permanent right; it is a temporary intervention intended to remedy a specific disparity. To remain lawful under Section 158, a development scheme must be subject to Periodic Review. If the disparity has been successfully closed, the legal justification for the targeted scheme may evaporate.
Forces should implement a Triennial Audit of all development schemes. This audit must re-examine the workforce data (the "Representation Gap") to confirm that the disadvantage still exists. If, for example, a force now has 20% female representation in its specialist units (matching the pool of qualified applicants), a "women-only" familiarisation day may no longer pass the Proportionality Test.
External Benchmarking
Relying solely on internal data is insufficient. Forces should benchmark their progression rates against the College of Policing national standards and other regional forces. This "comparative evidence" strengthens the defensibility of the scheme in the event of a Judicial Review.
Exit Interviews
Review cycles must include qualitative data. If officers from a development scheme are being promoted but then leaving the service shortly after, the scheme is addressing the "pipeline" but not the "culture." Regular qualitative audits ensure the scheme is fit for purpose.
A failure to review and retire redundant positive action schemes creates an unnecessary litigation surface. It provides grounds for non-minority officers to claim that the force is maintaining "institutional preference" rather than correcting disadvantage. The strongest positive action is that which targets a specific problem, solves it, and then steps back to allow merit-based competition to take over.
Institutional Lens: The goal of a development scheme is its own obsolescence. Every year of targeted support should bring the force closer to a state where such support is no longer required because the barriers have been structurally removed.
The Role of
the EIA
The Equality Impact Assessment (EIA) is the foundational governance tool for any targeted development scheme. It is not a bureaucratic box-ticking exercise; it is the force's primary shield against legal challenge.
A robust EIA for a development scheme will document the exact demographic disparity justifying Section 158 intervention. It will analyze the potential impact on excluded groups and outline the mitigation strategies used to ensure the scheme does not cross into unlawful positive discrimination. For example, if a mentoring scheme is limited to women, the EIA must explain why a general mentoring scheme for all wouldn't suffice to address the specific gender gap identified.
Internal Governance: All targeted development schemes mentioned in this guide should be cross-referenced with your force's Strategic Diversity Board and explicitly linked to the relevant EIA.
Workforce Progression & Ongoing Governance Analysis
Follow the
Governance Analysis
Development schemes sit at the intersection of merit, equality law and leadership sustainability. We publish independent, regulation-based analysis of promotion systems, representation data and workforce governance.
If you are a serving officer, promotion candidate, HR professional or policy analyst, follow Police Pay on LinkedIn for structured and neutral breakdowns of complex workforce issues.
Development
FAQS
? Are police development schemes legal?
Yes, police development schemes are lawful under Section 158 of the Equality Act 2010. They are designed to address evidenced disadvantage or underrepresentation. However, to remain lawful, they must be proportionate and must not guarantee promotion or bypass merit-based selection processes.
? Is positive action the same as positive discrimination?
No. Positive action (Section 158/159) involves providing support, encouragement, or using a tie-breaker between equally qualified candidates to improve representation. Positive discrimination, which is generally unlawful, involves hiring or promoting someone purely based on a protected characteristic regardless of merit.
? Can development schemes be targeted purely at minority officers?
Yes, schemes can be targeted where there is evidence of underrepresentation or disadvantage for that specific group. However, the selecting force must ensure the scheme is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim and does not cross the line into automatic preference at the point of promotion.
? Can minority-only mentoring programmes exist?
Yes, targeted mentoring programmes are a common form of lawful positive action under Section 158. They aim to bridge the 'informal network gap' by providing underrepresented officers with access to senior guidance and career mapping that they might otherwise lack.
? Do development schemes guarantee promotion?
No. A development scheme that guarantees a promotion outcome or an interview slot regardless of competency would likely be unlawful. Development schemes are 'pipeline' interventions intended to prepare candidates to compete more effectively on merit.
? Can disability adjustments apply to leadership schemes?
Yes, Section 20 of the Equality Act requires forces to make reasonable adjustments to ensure disabled officers can access development opportunities. This is a mandatory duty to remove disadvantage, distinct from optional positive action.
? Is an Equality Impact Assessment (EIA) required for development schemes?
Strongly recommended. An EIA provides the evidence base for why a scheme is necessary and proportionate. Without a robust EIA, a force may struggle to defend a legal challenge from an officer who feels excluded from the scheme.
? Can officers challenge a development scheme?
Yes, if an officer believes a scheme constitutes unlawful discrimination or a breach of the Public Sector Equality Duty, they can challenge it via internal grievance, Employment Tribunal, or Judicial Review.
? Does Section 158 allow targeting by age or length of service?
Section 158 applies to all protected characteristics. While targeting by age is theoretically possible, most police schemes focus on race, sex, and disability where the evidence of structural bottlenecking is most pronounced.
? What is the proportionality test for positive action?
The proportionality test requires that the intervention has a legitimate aim (e.g., increasing representation), is rationally connected to that aim, is necessary (no less intrusive way to achieve it), and balances the benefits against the impact on others.
? Are quotas legal in UK police development?
No, quotas are unlawful in UK law. Forces use 'aspirational targets' based on workforce data, but every selection decision must remain an individual assessment based on merit.
? Can pass marks be lowered for minority candidates on a course?
No. Lowering competency standards or pass marks based on a protected characteristic is unlawful positive discrimination. The standard for the rank or role must remain consistent for all candidates.
? Is simple 'encouragement' to apply considered positive action?
Yes, 'encouraging' underrepresented groups to apply is the mildest form of positive action and is almost always lawful, provided it doesn't exclude others from the application process entirely.
? Are open schemes safer legally than closed schemes?
Generally, yes. Schemes that are 'open to all' but 'actively marketed' to specific groups are less vulnerable to legal challenge than schemes that explicitly exclude specific demographics.
? Does underrepresentation alone justify a scheme?
Underrepresentation is a key trigger, but it must be combined with a proportionality assessment. A force must show that the scheme chosen is a reasonable response to the specific disparity identified.
? Can development schemes be time-limited?
Yes, and they should be. Section 158 interventions should be reviewed periodically. Once the underrepresentation or disadvantage is resolved, the justification for the targeted scheme may cease to exist.
? Can specialist units like Firearms run their own targeted programmes?
Yes, many specialist units run 'familiarisation days' or prep courses for underrepresented groups to address specific pipeline bottlenecks in units like ARV or CID.
? Are reverse mentoring programmes protected by law?
Reverse mentoring, where junior diverse officers mentor senior leaders, is a form of cultural development. It is rarely challenged legally as it is an educational tool rather than a selection event.
? Does the PSED (Section 149) require forces to run schemes?
The PSED requires forces to have 'due regard' to the need to advance equality of opportunity. While it doesn't strictly mandate a specific scheme, a force with severe imbalances that refuses to act may be in breach of its 'due regard' duties.
? Can a white male officer sue for being excluded from a scheme?
Yes, if the exclusion cannot be shown to be a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim under Section 158. This is why robust EIAs and evidence bases are critical for HR departments.