Asked by
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of
the progress of reform within the Metropolitan Police.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office () (Con)
My Lords, reform of the Metropolitan Police Service is vital and
the Government fully support the commissioner’s plan, A New Met
for London. It is the responsibility of His Majesty’s
Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services to
assess force performance improvement and for the Mayor of London
to hold the commissioner to account for the progress being
made.
(Con)
My Lords, I called on the Government exactly a year ago to give
Sir Mark Rowley the stronger disciplinary powers for which he was
asking in order to root out crime and serious abuse in the Met,
which so shocks our country. Instead of taking action, the
Government instituted a review. When will Sir Mark finally get
the powers he seeks? Must not a thorough clean-up of the Met
include calling to account the police officers who failed so
grievously during Operation Midland, that infamous investigation
that unforgivably hounded two great public servants, and ? Finally, is it not
astonishing that, after several years, the Independent Office for
Police Conduct has only now got round to just one serious
investigation arising from Operation Midland? That is into the
conduct of Mr Steve Rodhouse, the man in charge of the
disgraceful operation. On past form, this could drag on for years
while Mr Rodhouse enjoys a full salary. Do not those who have
suffered deserve better than this?
(Con)
My Lords, my noble friend is right to point out that we launched
a review. That review was concluded and the results were
published in September. Noble Lords will be aware of the contents
of the review. As regards introducing the powers that Sir Mark
clearly needs and has asked for, some of that will require
primary legislation; it will form part of the Criminal Justice
Bill, which is due to reach Committee stage in the Commons and be
debated in January. Some of it will require secondary
legislation. We expect that the first tranche of changes will see
amendments to the Police (Conduct) Regulations 2020, which should
be implemented around April; the second tranche, which covers
wider misconduct, vetting and performance measures, is expected
to be introduced around June.
(Lab)
My Lords, resignations are now overtaking retirement as the
biggest reason for officers leaving the Met. This year, every
month but May has seen more resignations, and the equivalent of
100 full-time officers leaving. Given the importance of
institutional memory to policing, what assessment have the
Government made of the reasons for this ongoing exodus?
Consequent on that assessment, what discussions has the new Home
Secretary had with the Mayor of London and the Met’s commissioner
about the challenges inherent in retaining Met personnel?
(Con)
My Lords, the first thing to say is that officer strength at the
moment is 34,899—at least it was in March 2023—which is up from
33,367 in March 2010; that is the highest number of officers the
Metropolitan Police Service has had to date. As regards the
conversations of the Home Secretary, the Home Secretary and the
Policing Minister have met with the commissioner in the past two
weeks. We fully support HMICFRS in identifying areas of poor
performance and have seen the commissioner act swiftly to set out
his planned improvements, which are necessary, through the plan
that I just mentioned, A New Met for London. The Home Office is
also a member of the HMICFRS police performance oversight group.
We monitor progress and ensure that the Metropolitan Police gets
the support it needs from across the policing sector to improve
as quickly as possible.
(CB)
My Lords, having heard the Minister’s dates for secondary and not
primary legislation, why on earth is it taking so long?
(Con)
The noble and learned Baroness asks me a very good question; I am
afraid that I do not understand the inner workings of the
secondary legislation and SI process, but I will find out.
(LD)
My Lords, last month, the police watchdog published an urgent
report warning of the serious risks posed to London’s most
vulnerable children by the Met’s ongoing failures in child
protection. This issue was first highlighted in a damning report
by HMICFRS six years ago. It cannot be allowed to continue. Have
the Government met the commissioner and the Mayor of London to
demand action now—that is, not in a month’s time or a year’s
time? This is serious and it must be sorted out now.
(Con)
The noble Baroness is quite right that this problem dates back.
As she pointed out, in October, HMICFRS issued two accelerated
causes of concern due to significant failures in how the
Metropolitan Police responds to children reported missing and
also to those at risk of child and sexual criminal exploitation.
As I mentioned in a previous answer, the Home Secretary and the
commissioner have met a couple of times over the past week, as
has the Policing Minister. HMICFRS publishes quarterly reports on
the progress that the Met is making with regard to child
protection. In regard to the two recommendations that have
recently been mentioned, HMICFRS has provided two recommendations
encouraging swift and tangible progress on those issues to the
Metropolitan Police with timelines for delivery by the end of
this year.
(Lab)
My Lords, the recent increase in the number of massive
demonstrations in central London is a positive sign of a
politically engaged population. However, they place huge extra
pressure on our police, with many officers—perhaps hundreds if
not thousands—being drafted in from right across the country to
help. What assessment has the Minister made of the impact on
police capacity, effectiveness and morale?
(Con)
The noble Lord makes a good point. I thank all the officers from
around the country who have been drafted in to assist with the
policing of these protests. I was very pleased to see that, at
the weekend, the protest passed largely without too much trouble.
As regards morale, that would be for the commissioner to share
with us but, as I said, conversations are current, topical and
ongoing.
(Con)
My Lords, I revert to a point made by my noble friend Lord Lexdon
in his admirable Question. Two Members of your Lordships’ House
who are now sadly no longer with us, and , were traduced in an almost
unimaginable way as a result of Operation Midland. I know that
noble Lords throughout the House feel very strongly on this. Why
can there not be, even at this stage, a proper investigation into
Operation Midland, including precisely what went wrong and
why?
(Con)
My noble friend raises an interesting subject. It has been raised
with me at this Dispatch Box 14 times over the past two years. I
am afraid that my answer is not going to change. It will remain
consistent across those 14, now 15, answers: the Government have
no plans to interfere in this.
(Lab)
My Lords, the noble Lord, , made an important point about
serious misconduct, as did the noble and learned Baroness, Lady
Butler-Sloss. The Minister said that he was going to take it
back. This is of extreme urgency. If the Metropolitan Police is
to command confidence and trust, it will take two years to deal
with the approximately 1,000 police officers who are suspended or
on restricted duties. The public have to know that those 1,000
officers and however many are uncovered by the commissioner will
be dealt with quickly and speedily according to new misconduct
regulations because the current ones seriously do not work. Can
the Minister tackle this as a matter of urgency?
(Con)
I agree with the noble Lord that it is a matter of urgency—of
course it is—but it is also urgent that we get it right and make
sure that all the possible unintended consequences are dealt with
well in advance of implementing what are in some cases new,
pretty draconian regulations, particularly with regard to how
police officers might lose their careers. It deserves careful
thought rather than coming back to the Dispatch Box and unpicking
mistakes that might be made because we acted in haste.
(Lab)
Can I ask Minister about his answer to the noble and learned
Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss? My understanding is that primary
legislation is drafted by parliamentary counsel and that
statutory instruments are drafted by the department’s lawyers. So
what is the problem inside the Home Office? It is in charge of
the lawyers there; it is not parliamentary counsel. It ought to
be quicker than it is at the moment.
(Con)
That is perhaps the case but, of course, we still have to find
parliamentary time for these things.
(Lab)
My Lords, why do we have to wait for the Criminal Justice Bill
before the statutory instruments can be produced in this
particular case? Could we not move to a statutory instrument
straightaway so that this long delay, which seems to be
all-pervasive here, can at least be shortened to an extent?
(Con)
I would very much like to see it shortened. I do not know the
answer to that but I will come back.
