Asked by
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of
the recent work of the Independent Office for Police Conduct.
The Minister of State, Home Office () (Con)
My Lords, the IOPC’s annual reports provide an assessment of its
work, including details of its performance against targets. Such
information is available on the IOPC’s website. We expect the
IOPC annual report for 2020-21 to be published shortly. A review
of the IOPC led by an independent reviewer, announced by the Home
Secretary last year, is due to start shortly. It will consider
the organisation’s effectiveness and efficiency.
(Con)
My Lords, I pay tribute to the IOPC for some valuable recent
work, but what action has it taken in response to the “profound
concerns” voiced by the Home Secretary on 15 June last year about
its investigation into Operation Midland, founded on the
fantasies of Carl Beech, from which senior Met officers were able
to walk away without reprimand because the IOPC could not be
bothered to interrogate them? Also, is it not against the public
interest to withhold from Parliament the IOPC report on the gross
misconduct of Mike Veale, a man discredited for ever by his
biased investigation, when he was chief constable of Wiltshire,
of allegations against Sir Edward Heath, at a time when the IOPC
itself found him guilty of lying?
(Con)
I agree with my noble friend: I also pay tribute to the recent
work of the IOPC, much of which has been in the headlines in the
last couple of days. We are not minded to initiate a public
inquiry into either Midland or Conifer. It is important that the
IOPC is an independent watchdog and essential for the public to
have confidence in our model of policing.
(Lab)
My Lords, the IOPC has just produced a damning report about
misconduct by some Met police officers and the culture that it
found. The IOPC says:
“We believe these incidents are not isolated or simply the
behaviour of a few ‘bad apples’”,
and that officers who challenged or reported unacceptable
behaviour were “harassed, humiliated and excluded.” There is
clearly a major problem. An inquiry chaired by Dame has been ordered in the
light of the kidnap and murder of Sarah Everard, and that has not
been the only appalling incident involving police officers that
has occurred. In the light of this latest damning IOPC report,
will the Government now put the Angiolini inquiry on a statutory
footing, with the ability to compel witnesses to attend and have
documents produced, in order to provide backing and support for
officers who want to blow the whistle on unacceptable behaviour
and should not have to face harassment, humiliation and exclusion
for doing so? Will the Government now also reconsider their
position on regarding misogyny as a hate crime?
(Con)
My Lords, I join the noble Lord in expressing my absolute disgust
at some of the IOPC’s reporting under Operation Hotton. It
provides for very painful reading that members of the police
could have said such offensive things in any environment. As I
have said before, the Home Secretary can decide, in conjunction
with the chairman, whether to put the Dame inquiry on a statutory
footing if it is not meeting its terms of reference. We brought
in the duty to co-operate last year, and police and organisations
can find themselves sanctioned if they do not.
Baroness O’Loan (CB)
My Lords, is the Minister aware that the Daniel Morgan
Independent Panel reported last June that the IOPC is not
properly resourced to do the work it is charged to do? We saw
cases going backwards and forwards between the MPS and the IOPC
because of lack of funds. Can the Minister assure the House that
the IOPC will be properly funded to do the important
anti-corruption work it does?
(Con)
The budget for 2021-22 is £69.6 million and will remain so for
2022-23. The IOPC employs about 1,000 staff, and nearly 30% of
them have a police background—so I think it is pretty well
resourced.
The Lord Privy Seal () (Con)
My Lords, it is the turn of the Liberal Democrats and the noble
Baroness, Lady Harris of Richmond, wishes to speak virtually. I
think this is a convenient point to call her.
(LD) [V]
My Lords, the IOPC does not work alone to deal with
investigations. We know that investigations can take time, but
can the Minister tell me where delays in the system are occurring
and what the Government are doing to help alleviate them?
(Con)
I think noble Lords would agree that we have seen good
improvement in the IOPC’s performance in the last couple of
years. We are still keen to see further improvements and greater
transparency, so back in February 2020 the Government introduced
reforms to the IOPC to streamline its decision-making further and
increase its effectiveness. There is absolutely no doubt that
there is so much more to do to improve trust in the police
complaints system and to raise awareness of the IOPC’s role.
(Con)
Does my noble friend the Minister agree with me that questions of
transparency and accountability in relation to the conduct of the
police have never felt more keenly vital to our well-being as a
society? In the light of all the information now available—and
going back to the Question originally asked by my noble friend
Lord Lexden—is it not disgraceful that the completely discredited
Operation Conifer has still not been examined by a fully
independent inquiry? Surely no one can have any confidence, in
this or any day and age, in the police simply marking their own
homework.
(Con)
I most certainly agree with my noble friend that trust in the
police has never been more fragile than it is at the moment.
Operation Conifer underwent several rounds of scrutiny, but there
is further to go. Today’s report certainly means that the police
have a way to go before they regain the public’s trust.
(Lab)
My Lords, whatever our differences, I have no doubt that the
Minister feels as disgusted as I do—I want to say that. This was
horrific hearing and reading for all of us. However, would she
like to have just one more go at my noble friend Lord Rosser’s
question? The question was not “can” the Home Secretary put these
inquiries on a statutory footing but “will” she. This is
important for trust in the independence of the inquiry. It should
be independent of both the Home Office and the Government, and
the police. Will we, please, now have a fully statutory
independent inquiry?
(Con)
My Lords, the noble Baroness is going to be disappointed because
I have said in the past and will repeat that if the Home
Secretary feels that the inquiry is not fulfilling its terms of
reference, she can put it on a statutory footing. Of course, it
is a decision for the Home Secretary.
(CB)
The noble Baroness is absolutely right to express disgust at the
findings of the IOPC against the Metropolitan Police, but why is
the Metropolitan Police not being held to account? Why is its
leadership not being held to account and why is there not a
thoroughgoing review of the structure and leadership of that
force?
(Con)
My right honourable friend the Home Secretary said today that
there are questions about leadership in this whole horrible
affair.
(Con)
My Lords, may I refer to the point made by the noble Lord, , on Operation Conifer? It
really is disgraceful that an honourable Prime Minister, known
for his integrity, has been impugned by somebody proven to be a
liar.
(Con)
I note my noble friend’s comment. I do not know what his question
was but I would say to noble Lords that it clearly is terrible
when someone is investigated for something for which there was no
case to answer. I also go back to a point I have made time and
time again: there have been well over 4,500 convictions for
non-recent child sexual abuse.
