Asked by Lord Lexden To ask His Majesty’s Government what recent
discussions they have held with the Police and Crime Commissioners
for Cleveland, and for Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland. The
Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Sharpe of
Epsom) (Con) My Lords, the Government engage regularly with PCCs
and chief constables across all force areas. There have been no
recent specific discussions between the Government and the PCC for
Cleveland...Request free trial
Asked by
To ask His Majesty’s Government what recent discussions they have
held with the Police and Crime Commissioners for Cleveland, and
for Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office () (Con)
My Lords, the Government engage regularly with PCCs and chief
constables across all force areas. There have been no recent
specific discussions between the Government and the PCC for
Cleveland or the PCC for Leicestershire. However, there have been
official-level discussions that I am happy to advise the House
about separately as required. The Government recently responded
to written correspondence received from the PCC for Cleveland on
9 February. The correspondence sought clarification on the
management and extension of misconduct hearings, which are
matters for legally qualified chairs.
(Con)
My Lords, I remind the House that for many months, through many
questions, I have been trying to find out why a police gross
misconduct hearing in Cleveland, announced in August 2021, has
still not started. A former chief constable, Mike Veale—a man
dogged by controversy, to put it politely, since he vilified Sir
Edward Heath several years ago—is due to appear at this hearing.
A detailed report on the complaints against Mr Veale, still
unpublished by the Independent Office for Police Conduct
following a two-year inquiry, preceded the announcement of this
hearing 18 months ago. Things often proceed far too slowly where
police misconduct is concerned, but this must surely be a record.
Are the Government absolutely content for this hearing to be
indefinitely delayed, perhaps never to take place? Are the
Government absolutely content that the legally qualified chair,
who has sole charge of this hearing, should remain anonymous,
even though, in the words of a Written Answer that I received on
22 February:
“There are no provisions in legislation which entitle legally
qualified chairs of police misconduct hearings to remain
anonymous”?
Are the Government absolutely content that an autonomous,
anonymous chair should deny the public any reason why this
hearing has not started?
(Con)
My Lords, I refer my noble friend to an answer I gave in Grand
Committee on 23 February, when I said that
“the Cleveland PCC has no power over the legally qualified
chair”—
except inasmuch as he appoints him or her—
“who 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 that it is in the interests of
justice to do so.”—[Official Report, 23/2/23; col. GC 494.]
That is the case here and, as I have said many times from the
Dispatch Box, I am afraid I really cannot go beyond that.
(Lab)
My Lords, following on from the noble Lord’s Question, are the
Government aware that the office of the Cleveland police and
crime commissioner has delayed answering a series of relevant
freedom of information questions on two separate occasions,
claiming that it needs more time? Last Friday, on the last
possible date allowed by the law, it refused point-blank to
answer any of them. Does this course of action sound like it
comes from an open, public-facing organisation or one perhaps
covering its tracks?
(Con)
My Lords, I am not familiar with the FoI requests that were put
in, so I cannot really speak to them. I was very pleased to see
that Cleveland’s most recent PEEL report, which was also
published on Friday 17 March, indicates that very good
progress has been made under the leadership of the chief
constable, Mark Webster. The noble Lord will also be aware that
the PCC, , attends the PPOGs. I commend
them both on doing a decent job.
The Lord Speaker ()
My Lords, we have a virtual contribution from the noble Baroness,
Lady Harris of Richmond.
(LD) [V]
My Lords, I declare an interest as a former chair of a police
authority. If police and crime commissioners have been so
successful, as the Minister and the Government claim, why have so
many of them let their police forces fall into special
measures?
(Con)
My Lords, I think I have partially answered that. I am delighted
to say that Cleveland is starting to make serious progress on the
engagement front. I have also answered a number of questions from
the noble Baroness about police authorities before. For
reference, they consisted of 17 members, nine of whom were
elected, drawn from a local authority and reflecting its
political make-up. The remaining eight were called independent
members and were appointed from the local community for fixed
terms. The implication in this House was that they were in some
ways more democratic than the police and crime panels and police
and crime commissioners. I do not think that is the case.
(Con)
Does my noble friend accept that, despite his answers, there is
considerable unhappiness about this whole story? I understand how
difficult it is for him but, frankly, it will no longer wash that
an individual who has behaved in a wholly unsatisfactory way, as
far as one can see, is just not taken to task. Will he agree to
look at this again and find an answer for those of us who have
been pressing for many years to try to get one?
(Con)
I completely accept the noble Lord’s unhappiness—and possibly
share it, because I have to answer this question on a regular
basis. Unfortunately, the Government have no powers to intervene,
as he will be aware, in the misconduct process. There are reasons
why it has been held up, but I cannot say them.
(GP)
My Lords, the Government have promised to make police and crime
commissioners more accountable, because getting held to account
only once every four years is not really enough. What exact
measures will the Government put in place to make sure that they
respond to the people for whom they are responsible?
(Con)
The noble Baroness asks a good question. As she will be aware, we
have passed secondary legislation to enact changes to the PCC
voting system. This reform will clarify and simplify it and make
it easier for the public to hold their PCCs accountable at the
ballot box. We are increasing the transparency of PCCs by
amending the specified information order so that PCCs are now
required to publish additional information to allow the public to
hold them to account, including their progress against the
Government’s national priorities for policing, recent HMICFRS
reports and additional complaints information. There are also
recommendations to improve scrutiny, which I can go into. A lot
has been done.
(Con)
My Lords, month after month and year after year, Ministers stand
at that Dispatch Box and give wholly unsatisfactory answers.
There is deep concern, as my noble friend made plain a few moments ago,
and as my noble friend has made plain time after time.
If the rules prevent my noble friend the Minister giving a
satisfactory answer, one is tempted to quote Mr Bumble: if the
law says that, the law is an ass. Will my noble friend try to do
something so that, when he comes to the Dispatch Box next time,
he can give a sensible and meaningful answer?
(Con)
My Lords, I am sorry that my noble friend finds it
unsatisfactory. I think it would be unsatisfactory for me to
stand here and make a comment that might prejudice a judicial
inquiry. I am not going to do that.
(Con)
My Lords, I pay tribute to the noble Lord, , and his persistence in trying
to learn the lessons from this hugely unfortunate episode. Law
and order go to the very heart of what a civilised society stands
for. I understand that the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, will
tomorrow deliver a report on the Metropolitan Police that will
give the police force yet another good kicking. Does the Minister
not agree that it is not enough to leave all these things up to
police and crime commissioners, let alone the Mayor of London?
The Government have to take a central role in dealing with what
is an ongoing and deeply serious problem.
(Con)
My Lords, I agree up to a point. The Government are taking a
central role, not least through the review into the dismissal
process that I have talked about before. I have little doubt that
that will become a topical subject within the next 24 hours. That
will look into the composition of misconduct panels, including
the impact of the role of legally qualified chairs; more broadly,
it will look at things such as the appeals mechanism and the
effectiveness of the performance system, including for officers
who have failed vetting. That review was launched on 17 January
and was said to take about four months to conclude. We are
getting towards the end of that process, so there will be more to
be said.
(Lab)
My Lords, the Minister said he has no powers to intervene. He
also said there is a judicial process in which he does not want
to intervene. Can he give the House a date by which that judicial
process will start?
(Con)
I am afraid I cannot.
(CB)
My Lords, I will make what I hope is a helpful suggestion. Could
the Minister not give a briefing to the noble Lord, , and perhaps to the Leader of
the Opposition on a privy counsellor basis? If there is some good
reason, they could then reassure those who are understandably
indignant about this delay.
(Con)
I am happy to reassure the House on that point. I am seeing my
noble friend this Wednesday. He chose not to
mention it, but I will.
(Con)
My Lords, I declare an interest having, together with the late
of Braintree, presented the
seven Nolan principles of conduct in public life to Parliament.
Does my noble friend the Minister recognise that two of those
principles, accountability and openness, are not evident in the
responses he has been able to deliver so far? Can he please
ensure that all holders of public office know that they have to
be
“accountable to the public for their decisions and actions and
must submit themselves to scrutiny necessary to ensure this”?
On openness, they must
“act and take decisions in an open and transparent manner.
Information should not be withheld from the public unless there
are clear and lawful reasons for so doing.”
(Con)
I accept the question from my noble friend. Yes, they are
expected to adhere to the Seven Principles of Public Life, as
determined and published by the Nolan committee. The office of
the PCC is also expected to ensure that the PCC is adhering to
the Nolan principles. In each force area, the actions and
decisions of PCCs are scrutinised by their police and crime
panels. On the case of Leicestershire—which I suspect is at least
partly informing my noble friend’s question—I am happy that the
standards are now being met there. They should have been met
before, but the Government—as we have said before from the
Dispatch Box in the strongest possible terms—expect that PCCs
appointing to senior positions in their offices follow the
process clearly set out in legislation. I am very pleased to say
that Leicestershire is now doing that.
|
