Asked by: Lord Lexden (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Cabinet Office:
To ask His Majesty's Government what was the size of the Privy Council on (1) 1 December 1992, and (2) 1 December 2022.
Answered by Baroness Neville-Rolfe - Minister of State (Cabinet Office)
The size of the Privy Council on 1 December 1992 was about 275.
The size of the Privy Council on 1 December 2022 was 743.
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.
Asked by: Lord Lexden (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Home Office:
To ask His Majesty's Government whether there are any legal mechanisms to compel the Police and Crime Commissioner for Cleveland to begin the gross misconduct hearing against Mike Veale, former Chief Constable for Cleveland which, when it was announced on 2 August 2021, was described as beginning “shortly”.
Answered by Lord Sharpe of Epsom - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Home Office)
The Government takes the accountability of the police very seriously and has delivered a number of reforms to strengthen the police disciplinary system. This included additional independence through the introduction of independent Legally Qualified Chairs (LQCs) in 2016. The Government has also recently announced an internal review in the process of police officer dismissals, which it expects to look at the existing model and composition of panels, including the impact of the role of LQCs.
But whilst arrangements concerning the establishment of a misconduct hearing are a matter for Police and Crime Commissioners (PCCs), the management of the hearing itself is the responsibility of the independent LQCs. LQCs must commence a hearing within 100 days of an officer being provided a notice referring them to proceedings, but may extend this period where an LQC considers it is in the interests of justice to do so. Decisions made within a hearing are done so independently of PCCs as well as Government.
Asked by: Lord Lexden (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Ministry of Defence:
To ask His Majesty's Government, further to the Written Answer by Baroness Goldie on 25 October (HL2691), what steps they are taking to provide compensation for pension losses caused to members of the armed forces who were discharged or dismissed solely on grounds of sexual orientation before 2000, and who would otherwise have been able to serve until reaching their immediate pension point or to the point of full career retirement.
Answered by Baroness Goldie
As defined within primary legislation, Armed Forces pension awards reflect the actual time served. In 2000, a member would have served 16 years as an Officer or 22 years as an Other Rank to qualify for the immediate payment of a pension on discharge, and those who served at least two years would be entitled to receive a deferred pension, payable at age 60 for service between 1975 and April 2006. Circumstances of dismissal relate to terms and conditions of employment and not the provisions of the Armed Forces Pension Schemes, meaning that Service personnel dismissed or discharged in respect of their sexuality retained their accrued pension rights.
In the early 2000's, the Ministry of Defence settled a number of claims from former members of the Armed Forces who had been dismissed for being LGBTQ. The compensation awarded to claimants consisted of damages for loss of earnings, loss of pension and injury to feelings. These claims were reported in the national press at the time of settlement. However, upon completion of the Lord Etherton PC Kt QC independent review into the impact of Defence's historic policy on homosexuality, the Government will carefully consider the recommendations and decide what action to take.
Asked by: Lord Lexden (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Ministry of Defence:
To ask His Majesty's Government, further to the remarks by Baroness Goldie on 17 October (HL Deb col 952), how many service personnel discharged or dismissed before 2000 for homosexual conduct that was legal in civilian life forfeited their full pension rights; and what plans they have to restore their full rights.
Answered by Baroness Goldie
Defence recognises and accepts that the policy that homosexuality was incompatible with Service life was unacceptable and that its LGBT+ veteran community suffered as a consequence. As part of the Veterans’ Strategy Action Plan 2022-2024, the Ministry of Defence (MOD) and the Office for Veterans’ Affairs (part of the Cabinet Office) co-commissioned Lord Etherton PC Kt QC to chair an independent review into the impact of this policy. Once completed, Lord Etherton will send a report containing his recommendations to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and The Secretary of State for Defence. The Government will then decide what action to take.
The MOD is not aware of any instances in which the accrued right to a pension has been forfeited because of the member’s sexual orientation; Service personnel dismissed or discharged in respect of their sexuality retained their accrued pension rights. There are no provisions of the Armed Forces Pension Scheme which are discriminatory on the basis of a member’s sexuality. Accordingly, it is not possible in law to amend the scheme rules so that they have retrospective effect. As there is no existing discretion in the Armed Forces pension rules to retrospectively deem pensionable service to have been given in order to provide for additional pension entitlement, they are not an appropriate vehicle for financial compensation.
Asked by: Lord Lexden (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Home Office:
To ask Her Majesty's Government who is the legally qualified chair in charge of the misconduct hearing that is to be convened for Mike Veale, former Chief Constable of Cleveland Police.
Answered by Lord Sharpe of Epsom - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Home Office)
Arrangements concerning the misconduct hearing for Mike Veale, former Chief Constable of Cleveland Police, are a matter for the Police & Crime Commissioner (PCC) for Cleveland.
Asked by: Lord Lexden (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Home Office:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether Police and Crime Commissioners are obligated to meet delegations of members of the House of Lords upon request.
Answered by Baroness Williams of Trafford - Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms (HM Household) (Chief Whip, House of Lords)
Police and Crime Commissioners (PCCs) have a crucial role to play in engaging with the public and partners in their force area to deliver on their priorities to cut crime, including statutory obligations to consult with them on key documents, such as their Police and Crime Plan.
The actions and decisions of PCCs are scrutinised by Police and Crime Panels (PCPs) and PCCs must provide information and answer questions raised by their PCP where reasonable and appropriate, in line with their duties in the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011. Where necessary, PCCs must also respond to Freedom of Information (FOI) requests from the public, in accordance with the FOI Act 2000.
There are no legal obligations for PCCs to meet delegations of members of the House of Lords. However, PCCs should be expected to engage constructively with any such requests, in line with their position as directly elected local leaders.
Asked by: Lord Lexden (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Home Office:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what legal requirements exist to ensure that Police and Crime Commissioners answer enquiries made to them.
Answered by Baroness Williams of Trafford - Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms (HM Household) (Chief Whip, House of Lords)
Police and Crime Commissioners (PCCs) have a crucial role to play in engaging with the public and partners in their force area to deliver on their priorities to cut crime, including statutory obligations to consult with them on key documents, such as their Police and Crime Plan.
The actions and decisions of PCCs are scrutinised by Police and Crime Panels (PCPs) and PCCs must provide information and answer questions raised by their PCP where reasonable and appropriate, in line with their duties in the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011. Where necessary, PCCs must also respond to Freedom of Information (FOI) requests from the public, in accordance with the FOI Act 2000.
There are no legal obligations for PCCs to meet delegations of members of the House of Lords. However, PCCs should be expected to engage constructively with any such requests, in line with their position as directly elected local leaders.
Asked by: Lord Lexden (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Home Office:
To ask Her Majesty's Government who is the legally qualified chair in charge of the misconduct hearing that is to be convened for Mike Veale, former Chief Constable of Cleveland Police.
Answered by Baroness Williams of Trafford - Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms (HM Household) (Chief Whip, House of Lords)
The Chair of a misconduct hearing must ensure that the hearing commences within 100 working days from the date the officer is served with a notice that they are being referred to a misconduct hearing. The Chair may, in the interests of justice, extend that period. There is no maximum period defined.
Arrangements concerning the misconduct hearing for Mike Veale, former Chief Constable of Cleveland Police, are a matter for the Police & Crime Commissioner (PCC) for Cleveland. It is for the PCC to manage any actions arising from it.
Asked by: Lord Lexden (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Home Office:
To ask Her Majesty's Government, further to the reply by Baroness Williams of Trafford on 18 July (HL Deb col 1756), what is the maximum period beyond which the start of a misconduct hearing cannot be postponed.
Answered by Baroness Williams of Trafford - Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms (HM Household) (Chief Whip, House of Lords)
The Chair of a misconduct hearing must ensure that the hearing commences within 100 working days from the date the officer is served with a notice that they are being referred to a misconduct hearing. The Chair may, in the interests of justice, extend that period. There is no maximum period defined.
Arrangements concerning the misconduct hearing for Mike Veale, former Chief Constable of Cleveland Police, are a matter for the Police & Crime Commissioner (PCC) for Cleveland. It is for the PCC to manage any actions arising from it.