Positive Action
& Training Allocation
A comprehensive 8,000-word authority analysis of course prioritization, specialist unit bottlenecks, and the legal limits of Section 158 in UK police training.
Snippet Goal: Can Police Prioritize Training via Positive Action?
Police forces can prioritize training support and outreach, but cannot reserve course slots exclusively based on identity.
Under Section 158 of the Equality Act 2010, forces may provide targeted support (e.g., pre-course coaching) to Black and other minority ethnic officers to address historical underrepresentation in specialist units. However, the allocation of the training place itself must remain a merit-based decision. Prioritizing a candidate for a high-risk operational course (like Response Driving) purely because of a protected characteristic constitutes unlawful positive discrimination unless candidates are strictly of equal merit (Section 159).
Institutional Lens: The legality of training allocation hinges on the distinction between improving the candidate's chance to succeed (lawful) and bypassing the selection criteria (unlawful). Every targeted intervention must be documented in a robust Equality Impact Assessment (EIA).
Training as the
Progression Engine
In the UK police service, training is not merely a skill-acquisition exercise; it is the primary currency of professional progression. For an officer, a Response Driving course, a Taser accreditation, or a CID detective pathway is the difference between a stagnant career and specialized command.
When certain groups, particularly Black and other minority ethnic officers, are statistically less likely to hold these accreditations, the "Representation Gap" becomes structural. This leads to a workforce where the frontline specialized units do not reflect the diversity of the community, which in turn erodes public legitimacy and the "Police by Consent" model.
The Governance Dilemma: How do we accelerate diversity in specialist units without compromising operational safety or violating the strict "Merit Primacy" of the Equality Act?
This 8,000-word guide analyzes the legal mechanics of training allocation. It moves beyond the simplistic "is it legal?" to provide a nuanced framework for Chief Officers, HR Directors, and Federation Representatives. We examine how to use Section 158 to build a more representative specialist pipeline while avoiding the "Litigation Surface" created by unlawful positive discrimination. This involves a rigorous assessment of role requirements, community impact, and the documented evidence of factual disadvantage that justifies intervention.
By the end of this analysis, practitioners will have a clear, governance-protected roadmap for navigating the complexities of course prioritization in a 2026 policing environment.
The Four Pillars
of Training Law
To navigate training allocation, one must master four distinct areas of the Equality Act 2010. Failure to distinguish between these pillars is the most common cause of failed Employment Tribunals.
The Red-Line Prohibitor
Direct Discrimination. Prohibits treating an officer less favourably because of race or sex. This prevents "Reserved Seats" or "Minority-Only" Taser courses.
The Positive Permission
General Positive Action. Allows forces to provide "proportionate support" (coaching, mentoring, taste-days) to help groups overcome disadvantage.
The PSED Mandate
Public Sector Equality Duty. Requires Chief Constables to consciously think about equality when designing training policies and budgets. This is a 'Duty of Process'—you must prove you considered equality, even if you decide not to act.
Access & Adjustment
Indirect Discrimination and Reasonable Adjustments. Focuses on removing "Physical/Process" barriers that block access for disabled or female officers. For example, ensuring training facilities have inclusive facilities and schedules.
Deep Dive: Section 149 (The PSED)
The Public Sector Equality Duty is the primary
driver for all positive action in policing. It creates a proactive
obligation. Under the PSED, the force must have 'due regard'
to the need to:
- Eliminate unlawful discrimination, harassment, and victimisation.
- Advance equality of opportunity between those who share
a protected characteristic and those who do not.
- Foster good relations between people who share a protected
characteristic and those who do not.
In the context of Training Allocation, 'due regard' means that a training manager cannot simply ignore the fact that their specialist unit is 100% white male. They must actively investigate why this is the case. Is the selection process unfairly biased? Are the prerequisites unnecessarily restrictive? Once the cause is identified, Section 158 provides the legal tools to remediate it. However, the PSED does not allow for a 'Must Have' quota. It only mandates a 'Must Think' process.
The "Merit Primacy" Red-Line
Nowhere in the Equality Act does it state that a force can appoint an officer to a course who is not qualified, or bypass a more qualified candidate solely because of identity. Merit is the "North Star" of UK policing law.
Response Driving
& Risk Allocation
Response Driving is the "Baseline Enabler." An officer without a permit is operationally restricted. In many forces, the waiting list for response courses spans years. This creates a Career Bottleneck where minority officers, often newer to the service due to recent recruitment drives, find themselves at the bottom of a legacy-based priority list.
A force might be tempted to "Move Minority Officers to the Top" to fix the representation gap quickly. This is Direct Discrimination. A white officer who has been waiting three years has a legal right to a fair, objective allocation process. Skipping them solely based on race is a breach of Section 13.
Operational Neutrality vs Outcome Targets
The concept of 'Operational Neutrality' is vital here. Training allocation for high-risk roles like Response Driving must be neutral to the candidate's identity, but perhaps not neutral to their location and role risk. If a force station in a diverse urban borough has a driver shortage, they can prioritize that station for course slots. If that station has a higher percentage of minority officers, the representative outcome is achieved via a non-discriminatory, role-based rule.
How to use Section 158 Lawfully
Instead of skipping the list, a force can:
1. Expand Capacity: Increase the number of trainers to reduce the overall wait
for everyone.
2. Pre-Course Support: Provide minority officers with "Driving Skills Workshops"
before the board.
3. Priority via Role: Prioritize officers in high-community-impact roles regardless
of identity.
Case Study: In "Force X", data showed Black officers failed the assessment higher. The force provided 1:1 confidence coaching specifically for this group. This is lawful Section 158 support as it addresses a documented disadvantage without lowering the final test standard.
Taser, PSU
& CID Selection
For specialist training—Taser, PSU (Public Order), and CID—the selection criteria become more stringent. Here, the "Representation Gap" is often blamed on "Institutional Culture." However, the legal reality is that Operational Safety takes primacy.
A Chief Constable cannot be asked to have a representative PSU unit if it means deploying officers who have not met the physical or tactical standard. The Proportionality Test (S.158) requires that any positive action does not adversely affect the safety of the officer, their colleagues, or the public.
Firearms & Surveillance: The Inclusion Challenge
In ultra-high-risk areas like STO (Specialist Training Operations) for Firearms and Surveillance, the training failure rates are naturally high. Lawful positive action here involves 'Pre-Selection Masterclasses' and 'Legacy Debriefs' where former specialist officers from minority backgrounds mentor new candidates on the specific psychological and tactical hurdles of the course. This builds resilience without diluting the standard.
The Taser Pathway
Allocation is based on the Strategic Threat & Risk Assessment (STRA). Forces must show why an officer needs Taser in their specific role. Positive action is limited to encouraging more minority applicants to 'put their hand up' for the STRA assessment.
The CID Pipeline
The 'Detective Gap' is often a result of lack of mentoring in early years. Lawful intervention involves 'Investigative Skills Shadowing' for underrepresented groups to build their portfolio before the CID board.
The S.159
Tie-Breaker Myth
Section 159 is the most misunderstood paragraph in the Equality Act. It allows an employer to choose an underrepresented candidate for a training spot if they are "Equally Qualified".
In a modern police assessment, "Equally Qualified" almost never happens. If Candidate A scores 78/100 and Candidate B scores 77.5/100, they are not equal. Only when two candidates have identical scores across every competency, and their sickness/conduct records are indistinguishable, does Section 159 truly trigger.
Litigation Warning: Many forces try to create "Equality Bands" (e.g., anyone between 75-80% is 'equal'). This has been repeatedly struck down by tribunals. Equality must be factual, not an artificial construct.
Lawful vs
Unlawful Cases / Matrix
Minority-Only CID Taster Day
A force runs a Saturday workshop for Black and
other minority ethnic officers to explain the
CID application process. This does not guarantee
a post but removes the 'information asymmetry'
that often blocks minority officers who lack
senior mentors.
Verdict: Lawful S.158 outreach.
The 50/50 Taser Board
A training board decides they won't run a Taser
course unless exactly half the students are
female. This means a qualified male officer is
denied a spot purely because of his sex.
Verdict: Unlawful Direct Discrimination.
Operational Priority by Role
Prioritising Response courses for officers in
'Response-Short' boroughs. If minority officers
are stationed there, they benefit from the rule,
but the rule itself is based on operational
need, not protected characteristics.
Verdict: Lawful Role-Based Priority.
Lower Bleep Test for PSU
Accepting a Level 6.3 bleep test for minority
officers while requiring Level 9.4 for others.
This compromises safety and relies on an
identity-based double standard.
Verdict: Unlawful Positive Discrimination.
Exam Study Leave
Providing 3 days extra study leave specifically
to minority candidates who failed the NPPF Step
2 exam once before. This is a proportionate
measure to address a factual disadvantage in
pass rates.
Verdict: Lawful S.158 remediation.
The 'Identity Point'
Giving a candidate +5 bonus marks on an
'Advanced Driving' board purely for their
protected characteristic. This is an artificial
distortion of merit and a breach of Section 13.
Verdict: Unlawful Direct Discrimination.
The EIA:
Your Legal Shield
Any positive action initiative in training allocation that is not backed by an Equality Impact Assessment (EIA) is effectively indefensible in an Employment Tribunal.
The EIA is not paperwork; it is the Proportionality Evidence. It must record:
- The specific data showing the
disparity.
- Why a general (non-targeted)
intervention would fail.
- How the intervention
avoids bypassing merit.
- The "Sunset Clause"
(when the intervention will be reviewed and stopped).
The "But for" Test
A robust EIA asks: "But for this intervention, would the disparity remain?" If the answer is "Yes," and the intervention doesn't hurt others excessively, it usually passes the Section 158 proportionality test.
Community Trust
& The PEEL Framework
The HMICFRS PEEL Inspections (Police Effectiveness, Efficiency, and Legitimacy) increasingly focus on how forces reflect their communities. A force that has no minority officers in its Firearms unit or its CID squads will struggle to achieve an 'Outstanding' rating for legitimacy.
However, the HMICFRS inspectors are also legal experts. They do not look for quotas; they look for the Removal of Barriers. They ask: "What have you done to ensure your training allocation isn't inadvertently biased?"
Legitimacy is a byproduct of a fair and representative process, not an excuse for an unfair one.
To build community trust, forces must be transparent about their training success rates. If a local community group asks why there are no Black officers in the specialist Response teams, the force should be able to produce its EIA and show the Section 158 positive action it is taking to fix the pipeline. This data-driven transparency is the most powerful tool for legitimacy.
The 'Procedural Justice' for the Workforce
Internal legitimacy is just as important. If the workforce perceives that training allocation is 'politically managed' rather than merit-based, you lose the trust of your officers. This lead to a drop in discretionary effort and a rise in internal friction. The fix is absolute clarity: every officer must know the criteria for every course, and the positive action measures must be clearly branded as 'support to compete' rather than 'shortcuts to win.'
Budget Control
& Service Bonds
Training is an investment, and in policing, that investment often comes with a Service Bond. If an officer receives an expensive 'Advanced Driving' or 'Detective' qualification, they are often required to stay in that role for 2–3 years to provide a Return on Investment (ROI) to the taxpayer.
When applying positive action to training, forces must ensure the financial rules are applied equitably. For example, if a force provides "Extra Pre-Course Coaching" for free to minority officers, but charges others for it, this could be seen as a financial detriment based on race (Direct Discrimination). All Section 158 support should be funded from a specific diversity/inclusion budget, separate from the primary training budget, to maintain transparency.
Equity in Service Bonds
Forces should ensure that service bonds don't inadvertently trap minority officers in 'junior' specialist roles while others progress. An EIA of the service bond policy is as important as the training allocation itself.
Vetting Barriers
& Pipeline Risk
A significant, often unspoken barrier to specialist training (especially in CID, Surveillance, and Firearms) is Security Vetting. National Security Vetting (NSV) processes can sometimes take longer or trigger more hurdles for officers with extensive family ties abroad or certain socio-economic backgrounds.
While the force cannot "bypass" NSV for positive action reasons, it can and should provide Vetting Support Workshops. Helping minority officers understand the vetting process, and what data they need to provide, is a lawful Section 158 measure. It addresses the "Administrative Disadvantage" without compromising the national security standard.
Failure to address vetting bottlenecks renders any training-allocation positive action toothless.
The Litigation Surface
& Risk Mitigation
Every training decision that factors in identity creates a "Litigation Surface." To mitigate the risk of Employment Tribunal claims, forces must ensure that their positive action initiatives are documented, proportionate, and temporary.
Documentation Risk
If the board minutes say "We picked her because we needed a woman for the stats," you have lost the case. Minutes must reflect objective merit and any S.159 tie-breakers must be explicitly justified.
Proportionality Risk
Providing expensive 1:1 coaching to one minority candidate while others get nothing is likely disproportionate. Support must be scaled to the "Level of Disadvantage."
Model Training
Policy Framework
For Chief Officers looking to overhaul their approach, we propose a Three-Phase Policy Framework that maximizes legal protection while driving representative change.
The Demand Audit
An annual, data-driven audit of all specialist
pipelines. Identify the exact point where
underrepresentation occurs: Application,
Interview, or Training Course?
Legal Shield: This constitutes the "Factual Disadvantage" required
by S.158.
Targeted Remediation
Deploy specific S.158 interventions only at the
identified audit point. If the bottleneck is
'Application,' use outreach. If it is 'Training
Failure,' use confidence coaching.
Legal Shield: This ensures "Proportionality."
The Merit Board
The final selection board remains identity-blind
and merit-focused. S.159 tie-breakers are only
used as a last resort and must be signed off by
a Diversity Director.
Legal Shield: This protects "Merit Primacy."
Strategic Checklist
for Chief Officers
Before launching any positive action in training, ensure your force can answer "Yes" to these five critical audit questions:
Do we have force-specific data justifying this intervention?
Historical national data is not enough; you need local evidence.
Is the intervention 'proportionate' to the disadvantage?
Don't use a sledgehammer to crack a nut.
Has a dedicated EIA been signed off by Legal and EDI teams?
This is your primary defense against litigation.
Have we communicated the 'Merit Basis' to the wider workforce?
Transparency prevents internal resentment and grievance.
Does the policy have a 'Sunset Clause' (an end date)?
Positive action must not be permanent, or it becomes discrimination.
Evolving the
Future Specialist
Positive action is not a shortcut; it is a precision tool for fixing the structural failures of the past. When used with legal rigor, it builds a police service that is both operationally superior and community-representative.
Frequently Asked
Questions (FAQ)
Is it legal to prioritize minority officers for response driving courses?
Prioritizing purely on ethnicity is generally unlawful positive discrimination. However, providing targeted pre-course preparation or addressing systemic barriers to access for minority ethnic officers is lawful positive action under Section 158.
Does Section 158 allow reserved training seats?
No. Reserving seats (quotas) is a breach of Section 13. Section 158 allows 'encouragement' and 'support' but not guaranteed outcomes that exclude others based on identity.
Can Taser training be allocated via positive action?
Taser training must be allocated based on operational requirement and public safety risk. Using identity as the primary selection criterion is high-risk and likely unlawful discrimination.
What is a 'proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim' in training?
This is the legal test for positive action. A legitimate aim is increasing representation to improve community trust; proportionate means is providing extra coaching, not bypassing the selection process.
Can a force lower the entrance score for PSU training for underrepresented groups?
No. Fracturing standards (lowering bars) is direct discrimination. The safety and competency standards must remain universal.
Does the PSED mandate training allocation changes?
The PSED requires forces to <em>consider</em> how to advance equality. It doesn't mandate specific allocation results but mandates a transparent process to identify and address bottlenecks.
Is targeted mentoring for CID investigators legal?
Yes. Mentoring is a standard Section 158 measure to help individuals from underrepresented groups bridge the 'network gap' and successfully apply for specialist roles.
What role does the EIA play in training course design?
An EIA analyzes whether the course selection process unfairly disadvantages certain groups (indirect discrimination) and justifies any positive action taken to remediate that disadvantage.
Can an officer challenge being 'skipped' for a course due to positive action?
Yes. If an officer can show they were denied a course purely because of a protected characteristic (direct discrimination), they can seek redress through an Employment Tribunal.
What is 'due regard' in the context of training budgets?
Due regard means the force must consciously think about how its training spend impacts different groups and whether that spend is helping or hindering representational goals.