Asked by
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of
the work of legally qualified chairs in police misconduct cases.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office () (Con)
My Lords, the Government have launched a review into the process
of police officer dismissals to ensure that the system is fair
and effective and removes those who are not fit to serve. This
will include an assessment of the composition of misconduct
panels, including the impact of the role of legally qualified
chairs.
(Con)
My Lords, is it not astonishing and deeply disturbing that in
Cleveland, a legally qualified chair whose name is unknown to the
public is holding up a gross misconduct hearing, announced in
August 2021, at which Mike Veale, the discredited policeman who
besmirched the reputation of Sir Edward Heath, will finally be
called to account? When asked about this, Ministers say that an
anonymous chair may delay proceedings when it is in the interests
of justice to do so. They also say that it would be inappropriate
to comment further since proceedings are ongoing. Proceedings are
not ongoing—they have not even started. How can it possibly be in
the interests of justice to delay indefinitely this hearing while
giving no explanation at all as to the reasons? The Home Office
will surely have made full inquiries about this matter since I
have raised it several times. What does my noble friend have to
say about the extraordinary state of affairs in Cleveland?
(Con)
My Lords, I am afraid that I will have to go over old ground. The
arrangements for the misconduct hearing of the former chief
constable Mike Veale are a matter for the Cleveland police and
crime commissioner, and the management of the hearing itself is
the responsibility of the independent legally qualified chair
appointed to it. My noble friend is right that legally qualified
chairs must commence a hearing within 100 days of an officer
being provided with a notice referring them to proceedings, but
this period may be extended when a legally qualified chair
considers that it is in the interests of justice to do so. I am
afraid that I will have to repeat the old mantra that it would be
inappropriate to comment further while these proceedings remain
ongoing.
(Lab)
My Lords, given that the Leicestershire PCC, Mr Matthews, refused
the chair of the panel’s request for Mr Veale to be interviewed
by the panel, as the law demands he should be, what is HMG’s view
of Mr Veale’s resignation last week from his post as interim
chief executive officer of the OPCC?
(Con)
My Lords, the appointment of staff is a matter for police and
crime commissioners but, as the noble Lord is right to point out,
they are required by legislation to seek the views of their
police and crime panel when appointing to senior positions within
their office. I note Mr Veale’s resignation but the Home Office
has no role in such appointments and it would therefore be
inappropriate for me to comment on this matter directly.
(LD)
My Lords, in matters of police misconduct, there is a delicate
balance to be drawn between local accountability and local
flexibility on the one hand and consistency in dealing with these
cases on the other. Does the Minister agree with the inspectorate
that there is a need to standardise decision-making processes
when dealing with misconduct, and do the Government accept all
the recommendations contained in the An Inspection of Vetting,
Misconduct, and Misogyny in the Police Service report?
(Con)
My Lords, on the latter point, I think the police forces have
accepted all the recommendations. As regards the consistency of
decision-making, that is one of the things that the dismissal
review panel is going to consider. The first term of reference is
to:
“Understand the consistency of decision-making at both hearings
and accelerated hearings”,
so the answer is yes.
(Con)
My Lords, I declare an interest as a legal assessor for
regulatory panels. My noble friend will know that Parliament has
established an independent regulatory panel in respect of almost
every profession that exists. Those regulatory panels have the
power to make interim orders of conditions and suspension when
appropriate, and they can very often make their interim order
within a few days of the referral of the complaint. Should the
police not consider that model?
(Con)
My Lords, again, I refer my noble friend back to the fact that
the dismissal review is ongoing. It would be foolish of me to
pre-empt the outcome of the review’s findings.
(Lab)
My Lords, in the circumstances of the case raised by the noble
Lord, is the Minister saying, in effect, that there are
absolutely no circumstances under which the Home Office will
intervene, even though this case is continuing not to be dealt
with, month after month? He will know that under Section 40 of
the Police Act 1996, the Home Secretary can intervene if a PCC is
not being effective. Why will the Home Secretary not intervene?
(Con)
My Lords, as I say, I am unable to comment on ongoing cases. I
know that irritates the House and I apologise for doing so, but
there are specific circumstances which make me unable to comment.
(Con)
My Lords, it is now almost two and a half years since the
Independent Office for Police Conduct found sufficient evidence
for there to be a misconduct hearing. I see that the Government
cannot intervene in police conduct itself but will they encourage
the police to speed up the handling of these misconduct hearings,
which have now drifted on for so long and so inadequately?
(Con)
My noble friend makes an extremely good point. I certainly
encourage them to speed this up. Having said that, this is a
particular case. It is considered to be in the interests of
justice for the legally qualified chair to go beyond the normal
100 days. Beyond that, I cannot go.
(Lab)
My Lords, the noble Lord, , twice said that the legally
qualified chair in this case was anonymous. That is not
universally the case. In many other forces, legally qualified
chairs are named. Indeed, proceedings describe who is on the
panel. Why is Cleveland different?
(Con)
My Lords, I do not know.
(Con)
My Lords, can my noble friend find out and tell the House? Does
he not realise that every answer that he has given in this
stonewalling performance has been utterly unsatisfactory? He has
made the Home Office seem completely impotent. At the very least,
we need to know who this anonymous man or woman is.
(Con)
I thank my noble friend for not accusing me this week of being
incompetent, at least. I will do my very best to find out the
answer to that question.
(Lab)
My Lords, would the Minister like to address the question asked
by my noble friend Lord Hunt? It was not about an ongoing
investigation. It was a point of principle. Does he accept that
there are circumstances under which the Home Secretary can carry
out an investigation under the statutory powers already
available? As a matter of principle, does he accept that?
(Con)
As a matter of principle, yes, I do.
(Non-Afl)
Do the Government agree that the chairmen and members of police
misconduct panels should never be open to any suggestion of
conflict of interest arising from their previous careers?
(Con)
Yes, of course I accept that.
(LD)
My Lords, is it not possible for the Secretary of State to carry
out the implementation of what is being delayed? Why is it not
being done now?
(Con)
My Lords, I am unable to comment on ongoing cases.
(Con)
My Lords, I declare my interests as set out in the register,
particularly as past chairman of the Sir Edward Heath Charitable
Foundation. None of this would have happened if the disgraced
policeman, Mike Veale, had faced an independent inquiry into his
witch hunt against the late Sir Edward Heath, as this House has
repeatedly demanded. The Home Office keeps referring to all these
inquiries, but they were all carried out by the police
themselves, marking their own homework, and are no substitute for
a judge-led review of how the good name of a distinguished former
Prime Minister was deliberately besmirched—at great cost to the
taxpayer.
(Con)
I thank my noble friend. He makes some extremely good points,
which I will take back.
