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 22 May (HL Deb cols 599–602), when the misconduct case against Mr Mike Veale is expected to conclude.
Answered by Lord Sharpe of Epsom - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Home Office)
Arrangements concerning the establishment of Mike Veale’s misconduct hearing are a matter for the Cleveland PCC, and the management of the hearing itself is the responsibility of the appointed independent Legally Qualified Chair (LQC).
Whilst the Government is aware that Mr Veale has been referred to a hearing, misconduct proceedings are rightfully conducted independently of Government, meaning we do not hold information including any determined timescales for holding or concluding a specific misconduct hearing.
Asked by: Lord Lexden (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Department for Levelling Up, Housing & Communities:
To ask His Majesty's Government when the provisions of Part 2 of the Elections Act 2022 relating to overseas electors will be brought into force.
Answered by Baroness Scott of Bybrook - Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities)
The secondary legislation to deliver the overseas electors change is expected to be made and come into force in January 2024.
Asked by: Lord Lexden (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Home Office:
To ask His Majesty's Government, further to the Written Answers by Lord Sharpe of Epsom on 22 February (HL5554) where he stated that “there are no provisions in legislation which entitle legally qualified chairs to remain anonymous” and 4 April (HL6681) where he stated that “Any decision concerning publication of an LQC’s name is a matter for the relevant PCC”, what discussions they have had with Police and Crime Commissioners about disclosing the names of legally qualified chairs.
Answered by Lord Sharpe of Epsom - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Home Office)
Decisions concerning the publication of a Legally Qualified Chair’s (LQC) name are a matter for the relevant Police and Crime Commissioner (PCC). These decisions are made independently of Government.
The Government has not held any specific conversations with PCCs regarding these decisions.
Asked by: Lord Lexden (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Home Office:
To ask His Majesty's Government, further to (1) the Written Answer by Lord Sharpe of Epsom on 22 February (HL5554) where he stated that "there are no provisions in legislation which entitle legally qualified chairs to remain anonymous”, and (2) the remarks by Lord Sharpe of Epsom on 20 March (HL Deb col 1531), when the name of the legally qualified chair appointed to hear a police gross misconduct case in Cleveland will be published.
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 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 Ministry of Defence:
To ask His Majesty's Government, further to the remarks by Baroness Goldie on 17 October 2022 (HL Deb col 953), what progress they have made in implementing the provisions in Part 12 of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 to enable those convicted of historical homosexual offences repealed by the Act to be pardoned.
Answered by Baroness Goldie
In addition to assisting with applications for a ‘disregard of Service convictions relating to sexuality’ from the Home Office under the current Disregards and Pardons scheme, Defence has been working proactively to establish new processes which will come into effect once the scheme is expanded; this is now expected in the coming spring months.
It will always remain deeply regrettable that historically, valued Defence personnel were treated less favourably due to their sexuality. Discrimination of any kind is unacceptable.
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.