Asked by: Lord Lexden (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Home Office:
To ask His Majesty's Government, further to the Written Answer by Lord Sharpe of Epsom on 26 March (HL3210), when they anticipate that officials will complete their work and that a decision will be taken by ministers.
Answered by Lord Sharpe of Epsom - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Home Office)
As per my response on 26th March, I will return to the House in due course after receiving advice from officials on the considerations of whether the type of review of Operation Conifer the noble Lord and colleagues call for is necessary.
Asked by: Lord Lexden (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Home Office:
To ask His Majesty's Government, further to the remarks of Lord Sharpe of Epsom on 11 March (HL Deb col 1806) when, and in what form, he will “report back” to the House about inquiries that are to be made by Home Office officials.
Answered by Lord Sharpe of Epsom - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Home Office)
I will return to the House in due course after receiving advice from officials on the considerations of whether the type of review of Operation Conifer the noble Lord calls for is necessary, possible and/or viable.
Asked by: Lord Lexden (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Home Office:
To ask His Majesty's Government whether all police forces in England, including the Metropolitan Police, work with independent schools in implementing Operation Encompass, through which schools and police work together in safeguarding children at risk from domestic abuse.
Answered by Lord Sharpe of Epsom - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Home Office)
Operation Encompass is currently active in all 43 police forces across England and Wales. Implemented on a voluntary basis by police forces, the scheme works by directly connecting the police with schools. When officers have attended a domestic abuse incident, police share the information with a school’s trained Designated Safeguarding Lead (DSL) before the start of the next school day, so that appropriate support can be given at the earliest possible opportunity.
Aligned with police forces’ operational independence, each police force operates the scheme differently, in terms of the notification pathway and which institutions receive notifications. Importantly, the scheme does not discriminate on what type of schools these notifications should be sent to.
Asked by: Lord Lexden (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Home Office:
To ask His Majesty's Government, further to the remarks of Lord Sharpe of Epsom on 17 January (HL Deb col 466), whether the Home Secretary has had the opportunity to read the relevant section of Hansard for that date; and what was his response.
Answered by Lord Sharpe of Epsom - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Home Office)
Having considered the Hansard record of the debate of 17 January 2024 titled Sir Edward Heath: Operation Conifer, the Government has no plans to commission a review of either the conduct of the investigation into allegations made against Sir Edward Heath or the findings of that investigation.
The Operation Conifer investigation has already been subject to considerable external scrutiny, and its Summary Closure Report emphasises that no inference of guilt should be drawn from the fact that, had he been alive, Sir Edward Heath would have been interviewed under caution concerning seven allegations to obtain his account of events.
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 17 January (HL Deb col 463), when and in what circumstances Mr Mike Veale, former chief constable for Wiltshire, agreed that the manner in which he publicised allegations against Sir Edward Heath was “inappropriate”.
Answered by Lord Sharpe of Epsom - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Home Office)
The reference to Mr Veale agreeing that the manner in which he publicised allegations against Sir Edward Heath was “inappropriate” was paraphrased from articles in The Guardian newspaper on 5 October 2017.
The Guardian reported that ‘, the chief constable, Mike Veale, finally acknowledged it a mistake that tainted the investigation by implying the presumption of guilt’ and ‘Veale apologised for an appeal for complainants to come forward being made outside Heath’s house in August 2015, which critics said would encourage false claims.’
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 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.