Asked by Lord Coaker To ask His Majesty’s Government how they plan
to respond to the report of His Majesty’s Inspectorate of
Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services on vetting, misconduct,
and misogyny in the police service. The Parliamentary
Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Sharpe of Epsom) (Con)
I thank the noble Lord for his Question. This report contains
extremely concerning findings about policing culture and vetting
processes, which are...Request free
trial
Asked by
To ask His Majesty’s Government how they plan to respond to the
report of His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire
& Rescue Services on vetting, misconduct, and misogyny in the
police service.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office () (Con)
I thank the noble Lord for his Question. This report contains
extremely concerning findings about policing culture and vetting
processes, which are falling short of the standards expected and
damaging public confidence in the process. Forty of the
recommendations in the report are for policing itself to adopt,
for chief officers and the College of Policing respectively.
Chiefs have committed to addressing the recommendations in full
and the Home Office will consider and respond to its three
recommendations in due course.
(Lab)
I thank the Minister for the reply, but today we learned from the
police inspectorate’s report of extraordinary failures in the
vetting of applicants to join the force. Is it true that at a
time when confidence in the police is being undermined, hundreds,
indeed thousands of officers are on our streets who are guilty of
serious offences? How has that happened and when was the Home
Office aware of it? Is it acceptable that officers with
convictions for robbery, indecent exposure and domestic abuse,
and links with serious and organised crime, have been accepted?
How is it possible that we read of unwarranted stops of women by
officers as a result of the so-called booty patrols? This is
happening now. It is not historic—it is not “Z Cars” or “Dixon of
Dock Green”—so the need for action is urgent. What are the
Government, with the police, going to do in practice? The time
for reviews is over. It is action that is needed, is it not?
(Con)
It is, and I agree with the noble Lord entirely that it is
completely unacceptable to have those people in our police
forces. The fact is that the chiefs need to take immediate action
to ensure that vetting is prioritised in their forces and the
public can therefore have confidence in them. It is the
responsibility of the individual police forces; they are
responsible for their own vetting decisions, which they should
take in accordance with guidance from the College of Policing.
Frankly, I agree with the noble Lord: it is incredibly
disappointing—worse than disappointing —that, despite some
progress, previous warnings about vetting have not been acted
upon. Chiefs must make clear to the vetting units the high
standards they expect from them. There is no excuse for poorly
recording the rationale in the vetting decisions.
(LD)
My Lords, this is yet another devastating report on the police
service—devastating particularly for female victims, who will be
wondering whether they can trust the officer who arrives when
they call the police, and devastating for the majority of decent
hard-working police officers, who have again been let down by
successive Conservative Governments and their own senior
officers. Every single time there is mass recruitment in the
police service, more of the wrong people slip through the vetting
net, and police misconduct, corruption and criminality increase.
It happened in the mid-1970s and in the mid-2000s, and it is
happening again now. Will the Government tell the police that
quality is more important than quantity, and will they give
police chiefs the legislation they need to enable them to deal
effectively with corrupt officers?
(Con)
I am not entirely sure I share the noble Lord’s analysis of the
quality problem. The fact is that a new online application
process has been introduced, replacing an old assessment centre
system called SEARCH. The new process operates according to
national guidelines and it has been reasonably successful so far.
Some 83,500 candidates were invited to complete the assessment;
58,000 have had their results marked and 42,500 have been
successful—that is 73.55%. It is not just online; all the
candidates have to pass each stage of the recruitment process,
which includes assessment centres, vetting, medical assessments
and fitness tests—there are lots of face-to-face aspects of the
process. I am not convinced that an uplift in numbers affects
quality.
(Lab)
My Lords, when asked about these matters the noble Lord says
repeatedly that police vetting, discipline and recruitment must
be left to chief constables themselves, but should there not be a
legislative framework for this? The Government are very ready
repeatedly to legislate for extra police powers but not for what
the public deserve, which is a rigorous legislative scheme for
recruitment, vetting and discipline.
(Con)
That is the way the system is currently set up. As I say, the
Home Office is not trying to absolve itself in this regard, but
the fact remains that the vetting processes, which vary to some
extent across forces, are the responsibility of chief
constables.
(CB)
My Lords, I remind Members of the House of my previous service in
senior positions in a number of police forces in this country.
The report in the newspapers this morning will fill all of us
with concern—indeed, dismay. The findings of the inspectorate
report are horrific. There will be many factors behind this, but
I ask a question on one factor only: the need for staff training
to develop leadership. The Home Office disbanded the Staff
College—and this is nothing to do with the College of
Policing—some 12 years ago. It was not re-established, and it
badly needs to be so. Do His Majesty’s Government have any plans
to re-establish the Staff College?
(Con)
Not as far as I am aware, but I defer to the noble Lord’s
specialist knowledge on this subject and I will take the question
back to the Home Office.
(Lab)
My Lords, in his first Prime Minister’s Questions last week,
chose to close the session by
bragging and baiting the leader of the Opposition—to braying from
the Tory Benches—saying that there are 15,000 new police officers
on our streets. When he did so, how much did he know about the
scale and nature of this—that hundreds, perhaps thousands of
those people may have passed through flawed vetting
processes?
(Con)
I have no idea what the Prime Minister knew or did not know.
(Con)
What is the role of the Police and Crime
Commissioners in dealing with a matter such as this?
(Con)
As my noble friend will be aware, and as we debated extensively
earlier this week, Police and Crime
Commissioners along with chief constables, are responsible
for setting out individual forces’ ways of dealing with and
performing on these matters.
(Lab)
I ask the Minister gently about the decision to get rid of police
officers during the first eight years or so, from 2010 onwards.
Now that the Government have changed their policy, there is a
need to get a lot of police officers in as quickly as possible in
order to tackle crime. Does the Minister not think that those
early decisions, in Budget after Budget, to take money away from
police recruitment were terrible mistakes?
(Con)
I obviously cannot answer that. I do not know if it was a good
idea or not. The fact remains that the recruitment drive, as part
of the police uplift programme, is delivering a large number of
police officers. To reassure the House, there is no evidence to
suggest that this is responsible for any adverse decision-making
in vetting.
(LD)
My Lords, is not the essence of this report contained in the
third paragraph of the foreword, which says:
“Some police officers have used their unique position to commit
appalling crimes, especially against women. Some forces have
repeatedly failed to implement recommendations – from us and
other bodies – that were designed to prevent and detect such
behaviour”?
Who is responsible for ensuring that the police implement these
recommendations?
(Con)
My Lords, it is a matter for individual forces. I am pleased that
the HMICFRS report and its recommendations have been accepted in
full. The National Police Chiefs’ Council chair made the point in
the report that chief constables, supported by national bodies,
will act on these recommendations and put the problems right. We
cannot risk predatory or discriminatory individuals slipping
through the net because of flawed processes and decision-making.
The noble Lord’s question is completely right; this is shocking,
and I hope they do something about it with extreme speed.
(Lab)
My Lords, clearly, there is a significant problem here. There is
a system-wide failure if, as the report says today, officers were
satisfactorily transferred between forces
“despite a history of attracting complaints”.
Moving a problem from one force to another does not solve it.
Will the Government take urgent steps now to deal with these
matters systematically and coherently?
(Con)
Again, the noble Baroness is right: it is not right that these
people get transferred across forces. I think I have outlined in
previous questions the large number of people who are currently
on barred lists. The forces are working on this, and it is a
matter for chief constables to enforce. As I just said in my
previous answer, they have accepted the need to do so
speedily.
(Con)
Following the noble Baroness’s comment about transfers to other
police forces, can my noble friend tell us whether the Police
Federation has had anything to do with this?
(Con)
I am afraid I do not know; I cannot answer my noble friend.
(CB)
My Lords, the subject of this Question takes us back to many of
the areas we covered in both the Domestic Abuse Act and the
Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act, so there is a strong
sense of déjà vu all over again. The Minister has made much about
it being up to individual police forces to take what action they
consider appropriate. I suggest to him, on the basis of this
report and others, that they are not assuming their individual
responsibility with any degree of similarity or with great
efficiency. I listened to BBC Radio 4’s “Woman’s Hour” this
morning, which is very informative. Is the Minister aware that an
ex-head of the Greater Manchester police force, when asked what
advice he would give to the young female members of his own
family regarding interactions with the police, was unable to
answer the question, saying, “I’m not quite sure”?
(Con)
I did not hear the programme to which the noble Lord refers, but
that is obviously very shocking indeed. The body responsible for
vetting guidance is the College of Policing, which will consider
any areas where vetting can be strengthened and respond
accordingly. This is done within a national application
framework, so it is hoped that this will be corrected, as I say,
with extreme speed.
(Lab)
My Lords, listening to the Minister’s answers, one could be
forgiven for coming to the conclusion that he is saying that the
Government have no responsibility for this. I find that quite
extraordinary. Why can the Government not bring forward a
legislative framework to ensure that these sorts of police abuses
cannot occur?
(Con)
My Lords, I think I have outlined the current system; that is all
I am doing. I am not saying that the Government are not very
concerned by this report, but the simple fact of the matter is
that the Government do not have responsibility for operational
policing.
(LD)
My Lords, the Minister just said that that is the current system.
Are the Government satisfied with the current system, and if not,
what are they are going to do about it?
(Con)
It is not in my gift to do anything about it, but I will take the
noble and learned Lord’s suggestion back to the Home Office and
make sure that there are further discussions on the outcome of
this report, and indeed this discussion.
(Con)
My Lords, it is frequently said, “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix
it”, but on this occasion it is broke and it does need fixing.
Will my noble friend take that message, from all sides of this
House? In particular, will he reflect upon the very sensible
suggestion of the noble Lord, , who really does know what he is
talking about?
(Con)
I reassure my noble friend that I did say I would reflect on the
suggestion of the noble Lord, , and I intend to do so.
(Lab)
The Minister is very well regarded in the House. He is on a
difficult one today, but would he express a personal view on what
he believes should be done in regard to the question from my
noble friend Lady Chakrabarti?
(Con)
No.
(CB)
Does the Minister feel that the time has come for a royal
commission? Every day in this House we have a new fundamental
problem—police and crime commissioners, police reporting, police
culture or the question of whether there are too many differing
police forces. Is it not time for a fundamental look at the
relationship between government, the police and any other related
body, to try to re-establish the reputation, which we have long
gloried in, of our police forces in this country?
(Con)
What I would say—and this is a personal opinion—is that it is
very clear that the nature of policing is changing dramatically
and has done over the past 20 years. We have just heard about the
technological changes that have taken us all by storm over the
last decade, and about the vast number of reviews, reports and so
on. It seems to me that there is a case to be made to bring many
of these strands together and do some new thinking.
(CB)
What, if anything, is being done to see whether there are serving
officers in the police today who may be in the category of those
regarded by the whole House, and indeed the nation, as a complete
insult to police officers?
(Con)
The noble and learned Lord asks a very good question. Nine forces
were—this is appalling English—deep-dived into by the HMICFRS.
All nine chief constables have been alerted to the specific case
studies that were raised and they are expected to act on this
with extreme speed.
(CB)
There are 43 forces; the others are not immune from this
problem.
(Con)
No, they are not. Indeed, there was considerable data sampling
across the rest of the forces, so a very similar process will be
undertaken with the rest.
|
