Asked by
To ask His Majesty’s Government what plans they have to revise
the (1) employment contracts, and (2) disciplinary regulations,
for police officers.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office () (Con)
My Lords, police officers hold a unique position in society and
are therefore protected by a unique set of terms and conditions,
which are enshrined in legislation. Regulations are updated
regularly following consultation with policing stakeholders, and
the Government have no current plans to revise that approach. In
October, the Government announced a review into police officer
dismissals, ensuring that the system is fair and effective at
removing those who are not fit to serve.
The Deputy Speaker () (Con)
My Lords, we have a virtual contribution from the noble Lord,
.
(Lab) [V]
My Lords, following Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Mark
Rowley’s powerful expression of concerns over the handling of
police misconduct allegations and the need to sack the worst
offenders—as well as similar comments from the formidable noble
Baroness, Lady Casey, on the need for early dismissals, and, more
recently, the shocking revelations from the noble Baroness, Lady
Burt, about the six-stage, year-long police officer dismissal
process—can the Minister explain why the whole police
disciplinary procedure cannot be reviewed in line with those of
other professions? With the worst cases, dismissal should come
first. More widely, there should be a speedier appeal
procedure.
(Con)
My Lords, as I have just said, we announced a review into that in
October. The terms of reference are under active discussion and
will be published in the near future. I will just correct the
noble Lord: there are not six stages to the dismissals process;
there are actually only three in the performance regulations, but
officers can appeal against the outcome of those stages.
Accelerated hearings are often missed, but if there is sufficient
evidence of gross misconduct and it is in the public interest for
the individual to cease to be an officer without delay, the chief
constable can hold or chair accelerated misconduct
proceedings.
(Con)
My Lords, is it not imperative to enable the Metropolitan Police
Commissioner to sort out the terrible problems, about which he
has spoken so fully, as soon as possible? No review—action,
please.
(Con)
As I have said, we will be publishing the terms of reference in
that review very shortly. The current system provides routes for
chief constables to dismiss officers through accelerated
hearings, as I have just outlined.
(LD)
My Lords, His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary’s report,
published last November, said that
“it is too easy for the wrong people both to join and to stay in
the police.”
One of the recommendations was that any candidate for the police
should have a face-to-face interview with existing police
officers. When that was put to the Minister in the other House,
it was said that there was an expectation that that would happen.
Does the Minister agree that the inspectorate has put forward a
requirement, not a recommendation, for some action to take
place?
(Con)
From memory, there is a face-to-face aspect to the vetting and
interviewing process—if I am wrong on that, I will come back and
correct myself. On the report to which the noble Lord referred,
he will be aware that there is a requirement for policing bodies
to provide a response to the recommendations in that report
within 56 days of its publication. Those responses will be
imminent, in that case.
(Lab)
My Lords, the Met’s own figures show that the number of officers
suspended from duties on full pay has risen by almost 600% over
the last three years. This excludes a growing number of others
subject to management or restricted duties owing to concerns
about their performance or conduct. This is not a statistical
quirk but a consequence of systemic issues with the disciplinary
procedures. This needs to be addressed urgently, because it
affects forces across the country and compromises the safety of
the people whom these police officers serve. We do not have time
to wait for a review; it needs to be dealt with now.
(Con)
My Lords, I respectfully disagree. I think that the appropriate
process is to review this and, as I say, the review was announced
in October. The terms of reference are under active discussion
and will be published very soon.
(GP)
My Lords, in view of all the legislation that we keep passing
here, giving the police greater and greater powers, I would have
assumed that there would be some urgency to this sort of
revision. We need higher standards of discipline, self-control
and integrity within our police forces if we are going to give
them all these extra powers.
(Con)
I completely agree with the noble Baroness; we absolutely need
all those things.
(Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for outlining that
there is an expedited procedure in certain circumstances.
However, can he please outline whether or not an officer is
suspended, as is common in most professional situations, while
that expedited procedure is undertaken?
(Con)
I am afraid that I do not know the answer to that; I will have to
write to my noble friend.
(Lab)
My Lords, the Minister will know that the majority of our police
officers do a great job, often in the most difficult
circumstances. However, we have seen a number of high-profile
cases that have undermined the public’s trust and confidence in
our police—cases such as that of Sarah Everard or even of the
head of the police watchdog himself having to resign over
historic allegations. Is not the question for the Government:
what are they going to do to work with the police to restore the
necessary public trust and confidence in our police?
(Con)
I join the noble Lord in agreeing that we owe our police
officers—the vast majority of whom do an excellent job—our thanks
and praise. He will also be aware that there have been a number
of reports published on these subjects. The police forces will be
coming back imminently with their responses to the HMICFRS
report, to which I referred earlier. As I said, I think the
report specified that it will be within 56 days. It is absolutely
incumbent on the Government to work with all police forces to
ensure that they deliver the highest possible standards.
(Lab)
My Lords, is it not the case that there are three stages, but
there are three appeals, so there are six stages, which is why
the process takes so long? Can the Minister confirm that the
terms of reference will include the time it takes to go through
the procedures, so that they are speeded up, and that that will
be an important part of the review?
(Con)
I said earlier that this is under active discussion. I am not
part of those active discussions, but I cannot imagine a set of
circumstances where they would not be considering the speed of
the process.
(Lab)
My Lords, why has it taken from October to January just to come
up with basic terms of reference? How long will it be before this
review, whenever it actually begins, concludes, given the concern
throughout the country and certainly across your Lordships’
House?
(Con)
I am afraid I do not know why it has taken a couple of months to
get to this stage, and I do not know how long the review will
take, but I imagine that will be dealt with in the terms of
reference.
(Lab)
My Lords, significant concerns have been expressed in your
Lordships’ House today about the fact that this has taken since
October, so will the Minister undertake to write, and place a
copy of the letter in the Library, to tell us how long he
imagines this will now take?
(Con)
I will go back to the Policing Minister, have a discussion with
him and then write, based on that discussion.
