Asked by
To ask His Majesty’s Government what plans they have to introduce
legislation to prevent police officers facing serious misconduct
proceedings being appointed to senior posts in the offices of
Police and Crime Commissioners.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office () (Con)
My Lords, police and crime commissioners are required by
legislation to seek the views of their police and crime panel
when appointing to senior positions in their office. The ultimate
decision on appointment lies with the PCC as the directly elected
local representative for policing. Former police officers or
police staff members who have been dismissed and placed on the
barred list are prevented from being employed or appointed by a
PCC.
(Con)
My Lords, what kind of system is it that permits a disgraced
policeman awaiting a serious misconduct hearing to oversee the
work of a police chief constable with an unspotted record? What
kind of system is it that permits a police and crime commissioner
to announce a serious misconduct hearing and then delay it
indefinitely, even though the law requires it to start within 100
days, saying recently, and utterly bizarrely:
“It is complicated, it is interwoven with other things and there
is order of things I cannot supersede”?
Is not a system that permits all this a gravely defective system?
Is it not scandalous that the Government have done nothing to fix
the defects, despite repeated calls from across the House, with
the Home Secretary even refusing to discuss these matters with a
small cross-party group?
(Con)
My Lords, no, I do not believe that is the case. I will defend
the system. On the second part of my noble friend’s question,
arrangements concerning the establishment of a misconduct hearing
are a matter for PCCs, and the management of the hearing itself
is the responsibility of the independent legally qualified
chairs. Legally qualified chairs must commence a hearing within
100 days of an officer being provided a notice referring them to
proceedings, but may extend this period where they consider it in
the interests of justice to do so. Decisions made within a
hearing are done independently of PCCs as well as government. I
think that answers the second part of my noble friend’s question.
(Lab)
My Lords, while I sympathise with the noble Lord, , would not the best course be
to revisit the Nolan principles—which I, with others, was charged
by Prime Minister John Major with drawing up proposals to
implement—so that anyone who falls below those more comprehensive
standards would be barred from any public office?
(Con)
My Lords, I take the noble and learned Lord’s point, and I agree:
the Nolan principles should always be observed.
(LD)
My Lords, this Chamber has already decided that policemen facing
charges should not escape those charges by resignation. Yet here
we have a case of a new PCC appointing someone who is under
investigation, and that investigation, as we have heard, has been
delayed, in order to hold to account the chief constable. This
just cannot stand. If you are appointed as a person to hold a
chief constable to account and you yourself are under a sanction
of gross misconduct to be heard, surely the Minister must agree
that there should be regulations to avoid that circumstance. So,
can he tell us what regulations are now going to be put in place
in order to make sure this circumstance does not arise?
(Con)
My Lords, the regulations already exist. In line with the
provisions set out in Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act
2011, PCCs must follow the process set out: namely, they must
notify the Police and Crime Panel of their proposed senior
appointment. The panel must then hold a confirmation hearing and
produce a report and recommendation regarding whether it supports
the proposed senior appointment. The PCP must do so within three
weeks of receiving notification from the PCC of the proposed
appointment. This is all set out in statute, so the regulations
already exist.
The Lord Speaker ()
My Lords, the noble Lord, , is participating
remotely.
(Lab) [V]
My Lords, in light of the recent speech of the noble Baroness,
Lady Burt, when she revealed the six-stage process governing
disciplinary actions against police officers—I was shocked—should
not the process be revisited in the way she and others are now
suggesting? How can there be confidence in systems that protect
rogue police officers, and their pensions, delay justice with
prolonged processes, offer extended leave and
rewards—[Inaudible]—Mike Veale, with further appointments? The
Daily Mail should be thanked for its excellent reporting of these
matters.
(Con)
My Lords, it might help if I go into detail on the barred and
advisory lists. Since December 2017, any officer, special
constable or member of police staff dismissed is placed on the
police barred list, preventing them rejoining policing in the
future, and that includes PCC offices. Any officer who retires or
resigns during a gross misconduct investigation, or before an
allegation comes to light, is placed on the police advisory list.
PCCs must consult the advisory list before appointing an
individual, although inclusion on the list does not necessarily
preclude employment. It will be for the PCC to assess.
(CB)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that the issues raised by the
noble Lord, , illustrate starkly the
dysfunctionality of a police service that still consists of 43
territorial police forces, and that it is high time the service
be restructured—for example, along the lines of the much more
limited number of counterterrorism police services, which work
very well across the existing boundaries?
(Con)
The noble Lord makes some very good points, but they are slightly
above my pay grade, as I am sure he will appreciate. There are 39
PCCs across England and Wales, with three mayors exercising
similar functions; the City of London Police has separate set of
rules and regs. In the main and for the most part, most of those
people are doing a superb job and are held accountable by the
public who elect them.
(Con)
I advise my noble friend that I was the Minister who put police
and crime commissioners on to the statute book in this House,
opposed by all the Benches opposite at the time. I ask a question
that has been asked previously in courts around the country: is
this what Parliament intended? I do not think that Parliament
ever did intend the current problem, clearly identified by my
noble friend , to occur, and I advise my
noble friend the Minister to do all he can to ensure that a
cross-party meeting takes place as soon as possible.
(Con)
I thank my noble friend for her perspective. Of course, I will
take those points back, but I will again robustly defend the
process that she put in place: I think it is working.
(Lab)
My Lords, the Government cannot continue to sit on the sidelines
on this issue. The noble Lord, , has repeatedly raised his
concerns and the Government have chosen to sit on their hands.
The Minister said that the regulations exist and are being
followed, but is he satisfied with them? The current situation
undermines the police in Leicestershire and the position of PCCs
in general. Does he think the regulations need to be changed?
(Con)
I certainly agree with the noble Lord that the current set of
circumstances surrounding this individual case are absolutely
disturbing. However, the regulations are still being followed and
it would be entirely inappropriate of me to comment on an
individual case.
(CB)
My Lords, if the regulations are in place, how on earth has this
individual been appointed?
(Con)
My Lords, that is a very good question indeed. As I have said,
confirmation hearings must be held in public and then, as the
directly elected local representative for policing, it is for the
PCCs to make decisions about senior appointments to their
offices. As I have said many times at this Dispatch Box,
ultimately PCCs are directly elected by the communities they
serve and it is the public who will ultimately hold them to
account for the decisions they take.
(Lab)
My Lords, I refer to my interests in the register regarding
policing. This is one of the very rare situations where we have
created someone who has a singular series of powers—on their
own—and there is no mechanism, apart from one election every four
years, to hold them to account during their term of office. Are
the Government going to address that?
(Con)
I imagine that the intent behind the noble Lord’s question is to
ask whether we have any plans for a recall mechanism, for
example. The honest answer to that is no. However, part two of
the PCC review assessed the benefits and disbenefits of
introducing such a mechanism, and the estimated average cost of a
recall for PCCs was very significant and would require the
creation of a bespoke national body. It remains for the electors
to make their decisions.
(Con)
My Lords, my noble friend made mention of misconduct and the
barred list. The Home Office holds a number of barred lists, so
can he reassure your Lordships’ House that the people on the list
in question are compared with those who are barred, for instance,
from working with vulnerable people or with children, so that
they are not going to slip into other professions? There should
be a cross-referencing look at people who are barred from certain
professions due to their misconduct.
(Con)
I am afraid I do not have that information to hand, but I will
happily write to my noble friend.
