Asked by: Lord Lexden (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Home Office:
To ask His Majesty's Government, further to the remarks by Lord Sharpe of Epsom on 20 March (HL Deb col 1532) where he stated "I am delighted to say that Cleveland is starting to make serious progress on the engagement front", how that progress is being made; and what have been the results in relation to the gross misconduct hearing at which Mr Mike Veale is due to appear.
Answered by Lord Sharpe of Epsom - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Home Office)
The Home Office collects and publishes data on police misconduct cases finalised during a financial year period in the ‘Police misconduct, England and Wales’ statistical bulletin. It does not therefore include cases which have been referred to misconduct proceedings, where those proceedings have not yet concluded.
The Government is unable to comment on on-going misconduct proceedings, which are rightly conducted independently of government. There are therefore no plans to provide briefing on this or any specific misconduct hearing, nor is the Government able to provide any details relating to legally qualified chairs (LQC), who are appointed to both their role and individual panels by Police and Crime Commissioners (PCCs). Any decision concerning publication of an LQC’s name is a matter for the relevant PCC
Cleveland’s most recent Police Efficiency, Effectiveness and Legitimacy report, published by His Majesty’s Inspectorate for Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services (HMICFRS), showed positive improvement in a number of key areas, including its crime recording and treatment of the public. However, it still has further to go to meet acceptable performance standards in respect of preventing crime and understanding and addressing its demand. As such HMICFRS have confirmed it will continue to be engaged. It remains PCC Turner’s responsibility to ensure that Chief Constable Webster takes effective action to address the inspectorate’s recommendations. We will continue to take a close interest in the force’s progress as a member of the HMICFRS-chaired Police Performance Oversight Group.
Asked by: Lord Lexden (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Home Office:
To ask His Majesty's Government, what plans they have to provide a briefing to Privy Counsellors in respect of the police gross misconduct hearing pending in Cleveland.
Answered by Lord Sharpe of Epsom - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Home Office)
The Home Office collects and publishes data on police misconduct cases finalised during a financial year period in the ‘Police misconduct, England and Wales’ statistical bulletin. It does not therefore include cases which have been referred to misconduct proceedings, where those proceedings have not yet concluded.
The Government is unable to comment on on-going misconduct proceedings, which are rightly conducted independently of government. There are therefore no plans to provide briefing on this or any specific misconduct hearing, nor is the Government able to provide any details relating to legally qualified chairs (LQC), who are appointed to both their role and individual panels by Police and Crime Commissioners (PCCs). Any decision concerning publication of an LQC’s name is a matter for the relevant PCC
Cleveland’s most recent Police Efficiency, Effectiveness and Legitimacy report, published by His Majesty’s Inspectorate for Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services (HMICFRS), showed positive improvement in a number of key areas, including its crime recording and treatment of the public. However, it still has further to go to meet acceptable performance standards in respect of preventing crime and understanding and addressing its demand. As such HMICFRS have confirmed it will continue to be engaged. It remains PCC Turner’s responsibility to ensure that Chief Constable Webster takes effective action to address the inspectorate’s recommendations. We will continue to take a close interest in the force’s progress as a member of the HMICFRS-chaired Police Performance Oversight Group.
Asked by: Lord Lexden (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Home Office:
To ask His Majesty's Government how many police misconduct proceedings in England and Wales have not been started 18 months after their announcement.
Answered by Lord Sharpe of Epsom - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Home Office)
The Home Office collects and publishes data on police misconduct cases finalised during a financial year period in the ‘Police misconduct, England and Wales’ statistical bulletin. It does not therefore include cases which have been referred to misconduct proceedings, where those proceedings have not yet concluded.
The Government is unable to comment on on-going misconduct proceedings, which are rightly conducted independently of government. There are therefore no plans to provide briefing on this or any specific misconduct hearing, nor is the Government able to provide any details relating to legally qualified chairs (LQC), who are appointed to both their role and individual panels by Police and Crime Commissioners (PCCs). Any decision concerning publication of an LQC’s name is a matter for the relevant PCC
Cleveland’s most recent Police Efficiency, Effectiveness and Legitimacy report, published by His Majesty’s Inspectorate for Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services (HMICFRS), showed positive improvement in a number of key areas, including its crime recording and treatment of the public. However, it still has further to go to meet acceptable performance standards in respect of preventing crime and understanding and addressing its demand. As such HMICFRS have confirmed it will continue to be engaged. It remains PCC Turner’s responsibility to ensure that Chief Constable Webster takes effective action to address the inspectorate’s recommendations. We will continue to take a close interest in the force’s progress as a member of the HMICFRS-chaired Police Performance Oversight Group.
Asked by: Lord Lexden (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Home Office:
To ask His Majesty's Government, further to the remarks by Lord Sharpe of Epsom on 6 February (HL Deb col 961), what representations they have made to the Cleveland Police and Crime Commissioner, if any, regarding expediting the gross misconduct hearing proceedings for Mr Mike Veale through the use of statutory powers possessed by the Home Secretary.
Answered by Lord Sharpe of Epsom - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Home Office)
Arrangements concerning the establishment of misconduct hearings are a matter for Police and Crime Commissioners (PCC), and the management of the hearing itself is the responsibility of the independent Legally Qualified Chair (LQC) in charge of it. Decisions made concerning a hearing are done so independently of PCCs as well as Government and the Home Secretary has no powers to make directions in relation to those hearings. Given the independence of PCCs and LQCs, it would be inappropriate for the Government to seek to influence those decisions.
Asked by: Lord Lexden (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Home Office:
To ask His Majesty's Government, further to the remarks by Lord Sharpe of Epsom on 6 February (HL Deb col 961), in what circumstances legally qualified chairs in police misconduct cases are entitled to remain anonymous.
Answered by Lord Sharpe of Epsom - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Home Office)
There are no provisions in legislation which entitle legally qualified chairs of police misconduct hearings to remain anonymous. Identification of an individual Chair would be a matter for the relevant Office for Police and Crime Commissioner (OPCC), as the body which appoints Chairs to the panel
Since 2015, there has been a presumption that all misconduct hearings are held in public
On completion of the hearing, the legally qualified chair must, subject to the harm test, require the police force to publish the panel’s outcome report for that hearing, for a period of at least 28 days.
Asked by: Lord Lexden (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Home Office:
To ask His Majesty's Government why Home Office statistics on corruption in the Metropolitan Police are lower than those disclosed by the Metropolitan Police Commissioner; and what steps they are taking to bring them into line.
Answered by Lord Sharpe of Epsom - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Home Office)
The Home Office collects and publishes data on public complaints and conduct matters. Data is published on an annual basis and the latest publication, which can be found on GOV.UK covered cases finalised in the year ending 31 March 2022.
A user guide accompanying these statistics can be found on GOV.UK, explaining the scope of these statistics, how this information has been gathered and differences to other published sources of information about the police discipline system.
These statistics are designated as ‘experimental statistics’ to acknowledge that they should be interpreted with caution and that further development is currently taking place. The Home Office will continue to work with Professional Standards Departments within police forces and users of the statistics to improve the quality of these data, increase transparency and provide more detailed published statistics in the future.
Asked by: Lord Lexden (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Home Office:
To ask His Majesty's Government what discussions they have had with the Independent Office for Police Conduct about the timing for the publication of the report on Mr Mike Veale, which was completed in February 2021; and whether they received any indication on when it will be published.
Answered by Lord Sharpe of Epsom - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Home Office)
The Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) is independent of government and publication of investigation reports is a matter for the IOPC in accordance with its policy on the subject,
Asked by: Lord Lexden (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Home Office:
To ask His Majesty's Government whether individuals awaiting the outcome of gross misconduct hearings conducted by the Independent Office for Police Conduct are eligible for appointment to roles (1) in the police service, or (2) in the offices of Police and Crime Commissioners.
Answered by Lord Sharpe of Epsom - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Home Office)
Existing officers who apply to change roles or transfer to another force will be subject to relevant vetting checks. Police forces carry out their vetting in line with the statutory code of practice on vetting and vetting authorised professional practice (APP) guidance which are issued by the College of Policing.
The guidance states that professional standards checks, which includes complaint and misconduct history, should be carried out on applicants and transferees. It also states that where an individual is subject to a complaint or conduct investigation that is not yet complete, they should not be allowed to transfer without the permission of the appropriate authority of the parent force and Head of PSD of the receiving force. Decisions on appointment in the police service are made by chief officers.
Decisions on appointment in the offices of Police and Crime Commissioners (PCCs) are made by PCCs as the directly elected, local representatives for policing.”
Asked by: Lord Lexden (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Home Office:
To ask His Majesty's Government what discussions they have had with the Police and Crime Commissioner for Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland about appointments made by him; whether any such discussions included (1) disqualifying factors for prospective employees, and (2) the need to seek employment references prior to appointment; and if so, what were the results of those discussions.
Answered by Lord Sharpe of Epsom - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Home Office)
As the directly elected, local representative for policing, it is for PCCs to make decisions about the appointment of their staff and the size, composition, and resourcing of their office.
PCCs are required by legislation to seek the views of their Police and Crime Panel (PCP) when appointing senior positions within their office. The PCP must hold a confirmation hearing in public with the proposed candidate, and subsequently produce and publish a report and recommendation for the PCC on whether the PCP supports the proposed senior appointment. The ultimate decision on appointment lies with the PCC, and they may accept or reject the recommendation made by the PCP.
Asked by: Lord Lexden (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Home Office:
To ask His Majesty's Government, further to the reply by Lord Sharpe of Epsom on 19 October (HL Deb, col 1087) that seven officers were suspended from the Metropolitan Police Service on 31 March, how that figure relates to the statement by the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police on 18 November that “of the 3,500 officers who cannot be fully deployed, about 500 are suspended or on limited duties because they are under investigation for serious misconduct”; and if the two figures relate to comparable data, what are the reasons why seven officers were suspended on 31 March but 500 were suspended or on limited duties on 19 November.
Answered by Lord Sharpe of Epsom - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Home Office)
The Home Office publishes these data as part of the Police Workforce Statistics. They show that, as of 31 March 2022, there were 7 officers suspended by the Metropolitan Police Service.
In addition, they show that there were also 2,718 Metropolitan Police Service officers on restricted or adjusted duties. This includes those officers for whom reasonable adjustments had been made under the Equality Act 2010.
There are three categories to limited duties – recuperative, adjusted or management restricted. Adjusted duties are those where workplace adjustment have been made to overcome barriers to working and depend on the officer discharging a substantive police role, which can be accommodated without unreasonable detriment to overall force effectiveness or resilience. Management restricted duties are those put in place where there is verifiable confidential or source sensitive information that questions the suitability of an officer to continue in their post and/or there are serious concerns which require management actions for the protection of individuals and the organisation, but where criminal or misconduct procedures are not warranted and the Chief Constable has lost confidence in the office continuing in their current role.
The Home Office does not hold the data cited by the Commissioner and cannot therefore make a comparison.