Question to the Home Office:

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what recent assessment she has made of the effectiveness of mechanisms for sharing police misconduct data between forces.

Answered by Sarah Jones - Minister of State (Home Office)

The British tradition of policing by consent relies on mutual bonds of trust between the public and the police, and where police officers fall below the high standards the public rightly expects of them, it is crucial they are held to account.

Since 2015, there has been a presumption that all police misconduct hearings are made public, bar in exceptional circumstances. There is a statutory requirement for forces to publish the outcomes of misconduct hearings, unless preventing disclosure is considered necessary (e.g. in the interests of national security), for a period of at least 28 days. Members of the public can access published police misconduct outcomes via the website of the relevant police force.

There are processes in place for the collection and publication of police misconduct data. The Home Office publishes data on the number of police officers subject to misconduct investigations, including breakdowns by outcome and misconduct finding level, as part of the annual Police Misconduct, England and Wales statistical series, which can be accessed here: https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/police-misconduct-statistics

Officers and staff moving from one force to another must obtain a new vetting clearance from the force they are transferring to before they are confirmed. In accordance with the College of Policing’s vetting authorised professional practice (APP), the parent force’s professional standards department (PSD) must provide a full complaint and misconduct history and any counter corruption intelligence relating to the officer concerned to the receiving force.

In addition, the Police Barred List prevents those dismissed for gross misconduct and gross incompetence from re-joining policing. Forces must check whether a proposed employee or appointee is on the barred list before hiring them.

Question to the Home Office:

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, if she will make an assessment of the potential merits of establishing an independent National Police Misconduct Body to (a) collect and (b) publish data on police misconduct findings.

Answered by Sarah Jones - Minister of State (Home Office)

The British tradition of policing by consent relies on mutual bonds of trust between the public and the police, and where police officers fall below the high standards the public rightly expects of them, it is crucial they are held to account.

Since 2015, there has been a presumption that all police misconduct hearings are made public, bar in exceptional circumstances. There is a statutory requirement for forces to publish the outcomes of misconduct hearings, unless preventing disclosure is considered necessary (e.g. in the interests of national security), for a period of at least 28 days. Members of the public can access published police misconduct outcomes via the website of the relevant police force.

There are processes in place for the collection and publication of police misconduct data. The Home Office publishes data on the number of police officers subject to misconduct investigations, including breakdowns by outcome and misconduct finding level, as part of the annual Police Misconduct, England and Wales statistical series, which can be accessed here: https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/police-misconduct-statistics

Officers and staff moving from one force to another must obtain a new vetting clearance from the force they are transferring to before they are confirmed. In accordance with the College of Policing’s vetting authorised professional practice (APP), the parent force’s professional standards department (PSD) must provide a full complaint and misconduct history and any counter corruption intelligence relating to the officer concerned to the receiving force.

In addition, the Police Barred List prevents those dismissed for gross misconduct and gross incompetence from re-joining policing. Forces must check whether a proposed employee or appointee is on the barred list before hiring them.

Question to the Home Office:

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether she plans to introduce a statutory right for members of the public to access substantiated police misconduct findings.

Answered by Sarah Jones - Minister of State (Home Office)

The British tradition of policing by consent relies on mutual bonds of trust between the public and the police, and where police officers fall below the high standards the public rightly expects of them, it is crucial they are held to account.

Since 2015, there has been a presumption that all police misconduct hearings are made public, bar in exceptional circumstances. There is a statutory requirement for forces to publish the outcomes of misconduct hearings, unless preventing disclosure is considered necessary (e.g. in the interests of national security), for a period of at least 28 days. Members of the public can access published police misconduct outcomes via the website of the relevant police force.

There are processes in place for the collection and publication of police misconduct data. The Home Office publishes data on the number of police officers subject to misconduct investigations, including breakdowns by outcome and misconduct finding level, as part of the annual Police Misconduct, England and Wales statistical series, which can be accessed here: https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/police-misconduct-statistics

Officers and staff moving from one force to another must obtain a new vetting clearance from the force they are transferring to before they are confirmed. In accordance with the College of Policing’s vetting authorised professional practice (APP), the parent force’s professional standards department (PSD) must provide a full complaint and misconduct history and any counter corruption intelligence relating to the officer concerned to the receiving force.

In addition, the Police Barred List prevents those dismissed for gross misconduct and gross incompetence from re-joining policing. Forces must check whether a proposed employee or appointee is on the barred list before hiring them.

Question to the Home Office:

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what steps she is taking to improve transparency around police misconduct records.

Answered by Sarah Jones - Minister of State (Home Office)

The British tradition of policing by consent relies on mutual bonds of trust between the public and the police, and where police officers fall below the high standards the public rightly expects of them, it is crucial they are held to account.

Since 2015, there has been a presumption that all police misconduct hearings are made public, bar in exceptional circumstances. There is a statutory requirement for forces to publish the outcomes of misconduct hearings, unless preventing disclosure is considered necessary (e.g. in the interests of national security), for a period of at least 28 days. Members of the public can access published police misconduct outcomes via the website of the relevant police force.

There are processes in place for the collection and publication of police misconduct data. The Home Office publishes data on the number of police officers subject to misconduct investigations, including breakdowns by outcome and misconduct finding level, as part of the annual Police Misconduct, England and Wales statistical series, which can be accessed here: https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/police-misconduct-statistics

Officers and staff moving from one force to another must obtain a new vetting clearance from the force they are transferring to before they are confirmed. In accordance with the College of Policing’s vetting authorised professional practice (APP), the parent force’s professional standards department (PSD) must provide a full complaint and misconduct history and any counter corruption intelligence relating to the officer concerned to the receiving force.

In addition, the Police Barred List prevents those dismissed for gross misconduct and gross incompetence from re-joining policing. Forces must check whether a proposed employee or appointee is on the barred list before hiring them.

Question to the Home Office:

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, how many police (a) officers and (b) staff have (i) resigned and (ii) retired while under investigation for (A) misconduct and (B) gross misconduct in each of the last five years.

Answered by Sarah Jones - Minister of State (Home Office)

It’s crucial that police officers are held to the high standards rightly expected of them, and we’re committed to ensuring that the right mechanisms are in place to create an open and transparent police discipline system which delivers fair results for all.

There are provisions in place that enable disciplinary proceedings to proceed if an officer resigns or retires, In addition, where the former officers and those who resign or retire whilst under investigation are taken through formal misconduct proceedings and it is determined they would have been dismissed, they are placed on the Barred List, which prevents those dismissed from re-joining policing.

In May, we strengthened the system for holding former officers to account by introducing a statutory presumption of fast-track hearings for former officers, ensuring swifter proceedings for those who resign or retire before misconduct proceedings. Former officers who would have been dismissed had they still been serving will continue to be barred from future service.

The Home Office publishes data on the number of allegations of misconduct involving police staff officers and staff, including breakdowns by outcome and misconduct finding level, as a part of its annual Police Misconduct, England and Wales statistical series, available at:

https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/police-misconduct-statistics

Information is not currently available on the total number of officers who resign or retire whilst under investigation for misconduct.

Where an officer leaves the service during the course of an investigation of gross misconduct, it is in the public interest that investigations and proceedings that would have led to dismissal are taken to their conclusion. Data on the number of former officers who received an outcome of “would have been dismissed” at a misconduct hearing or accelerated hearing can be found in table MP4 of the data tables accompanying the latest statistical release:

https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/police-misconduct-england-and-wales-year-ending-31-march-2024

This data is designated ‘Official Statistics in Development’ to acknowledge ongoing work to develop both the scope and data quality of these statistics. The Home Office is working with data providers to explore the availability of further data on officers who leave the service whilst under investigation.

Question to the Home Office:

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, if she will take steps to prevent police officers under investigation from (a) resigning and (b) retiring before disciplinary proceedings are completed.

Answered by Sarah Jones - Minister of State (Home Office)

It’s crucial that police officers are held to the high standards rightly expected of them, and we’re committed to ensuring that the right mechanisms are in place to create an open and transparent police discipline system which delivers fair results for all.

There are provisions in place that enable disciplinary proceedings to proceed if an officer resigns or retires, In addition, where the former officers and those who resign or retire whilst under investigation are taken through formal misconduct proceedings and it is determined they would have been dismissed, they are placed on the Barred List, which prevents those dismissed from re-joining policing.

In May, we strengthened the system for holding former officers to account by introducing a statutory presumption of fast-track hearings for former officers, ensuring swifter proceedings for those who resign or retire before misconduct proceedings. Former officers who would have been dismissed had they still been serving will continue to be barred from future service.

The Home Office publishes data on the number of allegations of misconduct involving police staff officers and staff, including breakdowns by outcome and misconduct finding level, as a part of its annual Police Misconduct, England and Wales statistical series, available at:

https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/police-misconduct-statistics

Information is not currently available on the total number of officers who resign or retire whilst under investigation for misconduct.

Where an officer leaves the service during the course of an investigation of gross misconduct, it is in the public interest that investigations and proceedings that would have led to dismissal are taken to their conclusion. Data on the number of former officers who received an outcome of “would have been dismissed” at a misconduct hearing or accelerated hearing can be found in table MP4 of the data tables accompanying the latest statistical release:

https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/police-misconduct-england-and-wales-year-ending-31-march-2024

This data is designated ‘Official Statistics in Development’ to acknowledge ongoing work to develop both the scope and data quality of these statistics. The Home Office is working with data providers to explore the availability of further data on officers who leave the service whilst under investigation.

Question to the Cabinet Office:

To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office, if he will publish a breakdown of the performance of Allied Universal (G4S) against the key performance indicators at the most recent performance review on their integrated security and technology services contracts with the Government Property Agency.

Answered by Anna Turley - Minister without Portfolio (Cabinet Office)

The Government Property Agency (GPA) is currently investigating clarifying consistent performance metrics of all of its supply chain partners with a view to publishing on agreement.

Question to the Home Office:

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what protections are currently in place for police whistle-blowers reporting misconduct within their own force.

Answered by Sarah Jones - Minister of State (Home Office)

Police officers and staff have protections under ‘whistleblowing’ law, meaning they are protected from being unfairly dismissed or from suffering any detriment due to having made a protected disclosure. The Police (Conduct) Regulations 2020 expressly reflect this.

Further, the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC), which is a prescribed body to whom police whistleblowers can make protected disclosures, runs a dedicated reporting line for police officers and staff.

The College of Policing’s Code of Practice for Ethical Policing puts a duty on Chief Officers to facilitate and protect whistleblowers. Many police forces provide a confidential, internal reporting system to encourage reporting of concerns.

Part 2 of the Angiolini Inquiry is considering a range of cultural issues in policing, including whistleblowing processes, and the Government will consider any recommendations it makes carefully.

Question to the Home Office:

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what recent assessment she has made of trends in the level of public confidence in police handling of complaints; and whether she plans to strengthen accountability mechanisms to improve that trust.

Answered by Sarah Jones - Minister of State (Home Office)

The Government is committed to strengthening the public’s confidence in the police. This includes ensuring that when officers fall seriously short of the high standards expected of them, they are swiftly identified and robustly dealt with.

The Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) has a statutory duty to secure and maintain public confidence in the police complaints system, and as part of this role carries out regular surveys on public confidence. This data is published on the IOPC’s website: www.policeconduct.gov.uk/our-work/research-and-statistics/public-confidence. The most recent survey (2024/25) showed that the majority of the public say that they would complain if unhappy about an officer’s behaviour towards them. The percentage of respondents reporting they feel confident that police deal fairly with complaints is increasing; from 36% last year to 41% this year.

The Government is taking action to improve public confidence. This includes introducing measures via the Crime and Policing Bill to put the victims’ right to review on a statutory footing for complainants who want to challenge a decision by the IOPC not to refer a case to the Crown Prosecution Service, and committing to an independent review into timeliness in the police misconduct system looking at what changes can be made to improve timeliness and effectiveness.

Question to the Home Office:

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what discussions her Department has had with the Metropolitan Police Service on the level of its compliance with its statutory obligations (a) under the Data Protection Act 2018 and (b) with GDPR in relation to Subject Access Requests from members of the public.

Answered by Sarah Jones - Minister of State (Home Office)

Compliance with data protection obligations, including the handling of Subject Access Requests (SARs), is the responsibility of individual police forces. The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) produces guidance for organisations on how to comply with data protection law.

The Data (Use and Access) Act received Royal Assent in June 2025 and includes some changes to data protection obligations while maintaining high standards of protection for personal data.

Safe and legal routes for Sudanese people to the UK

New private capital in the NHS in the Autumn Budget

Border Force industrial dispute

Buying community energy locally

Media Plurality and Press Freedom in Parliament

50 years of service to the RMT by John Stewart, Leeds RMT Branch Secretary

Two-child limit

Cumulative disruption proposals and the right to protest

Kashmir Black Day and self-determination

Freezing of Local Housing Allowance

Detention of British journalist Sami Hamdi in the United States

Tower Hamlets counter-demonstration on 25 October 2025

Transition to animal-free research and testing

Found: Lewis Atkinson; Mr Paul Kohler; Robbie Moore; Margaret Mullane; Chris Murray; Peter Prinsley; Bell Ribeiro- Addy