Asked by Lord Bach To ask His Majesty’s Government whether they
have any plans to change the accountability arrangements for Police
and Crime Commissioners. The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of
State, Home Office (Lord Sharpe of Epsom) (Con) My Lords, the
Government undertook a two-part review of police and crime
commissioners, to strengthen their accountability and expand their
role. Delivering these recommendations will sharpen their
transparency and...Request free trial
Asked by
To ask His Majesty’s Government whether they have any plans to
change the accountability arrangements for Police and Crime
Commissioners.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office () (Con)
My Lords, the Government undertook a two-part review of police
and crime commissioners, to strengthen their accountability and
expand their role. Delivering these recommendations will sharpen
their transparency and accountability and ensure they have the
necessary tools and levers to be strong local leaders in the
fight against crime and anti-social behaviour. PCCs continue to
be directly held to account by the public at the ballot box.
(Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his Answer and for his written
reply I received this morning on the vexed question of whether
the accountability of police and crime commissioners includes, by
law, the need to inform the police and crime panel of senior
appointments so that the panel can interview and form a view,
even when the senior appointment is interim. The Government’s
view is that an interim senior appointment is in exactly the same
position as a full appointment for these purposes. So I ask the
Minister: is he aware that, in my county of Leicestershire, there
have been six—yes, six—chief executive appointments in 19 months,
four of them interim? The interim chief financial officer has
been in place for 14 months. Not one of the interim appointees
has been before the police and crime panel. Does this not show a
complete contempt for accountability?
(Con)
My Lords, the noble Lord is completely right. Paragraph 7 of
Schedule 1 to the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act
provides that any reference to the chief executive or chief
finance officer of a PCC, in any legislation,
“includes a reference to a person acting as chief executive, or
chief finance officer”.
In other words, there is no distinction, in our view, between
acting or permanent appointments. My officials have spoken with
the chair of the Leicestershire police and crime panel; it is the
department’s understanding that representations have been made by
the Leicestershire panel to the PCC insisting that formal notice
of the interim CEO appointment be given to the panel as soon as
possible, to enable the proper scrutiny to take place.
(Con)
My Lords, a disgraced policeman, Mike Veale, has featured quite
often in Oral Questions in your Lordships’ House. A few years ago
he deliberately smeared the reputation of Sir Edward Heath. Asked
recently why this notorious man’s gross misconduct hearing,
announced in 2021, has been indefinitely postponed, the PCC for
Cleveland said:
“It is complicated, it is interwoven with other things and there
is an order of things that I cannot supercede.”
How can this impenetrable goobledegook possibly be reconciled
with proper public accountability? When a member of the public
asked the same question last August, he was told that a review
was taking place. After two attempts to find out about the
progress of the review, he was told just yesterday that “Once
information about a hearing is published, we will notify you.”
How can these curt, dismissive comments possibly be acceptable?
Why has the Home Office done nothing to make this PCC properly
accountable?
(Con)
My Lords, I have to say—and it will not please my noble
friend—that the misconduct hearing of Mike Veale, who is, as
noted, the former chief constable of Cleveland, is 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. It would be
inappropriate to comment further while those proceedings are
ongoing. As to why this has lasted longer than the normal 100
days of an officer being provided with a notice, it can be
extended when the legally qualified chair considers it is in the
interest of justice to do so, and I believe that is the case
here.
(Lab)
My Lords, on 21 December in response to an earlier question by
the noble Lord, , the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe,
described the situation as very concerning. That was in respect
of the issue which the noble Lord, , has just reminded the House
about. Since then in the press it has become evident that the
Leicestershire PCC has paid out £56,000 in compensation after an
ethics group claimed it had been dismissed unfairly, so does the
Minister believe that recall legislation should be considered for
PCCs?
(Con)
My Lords, the potential benefits and disbenefits of a recall
mechanism were considered by the two-part review that I
referenced in my Answer. It was decided that that would be to
create a whole new body of bureaucracy and unnecessarily
expensive. Ultimately, the public have the right of the ballot
box, if you will, to determine the outcome of the PCC.
(LD)
My Lords, given the concern there has been about the vetting of
candidates for the police forces and the uneven procedure of
granting face- to-face interview after assessment for candidates,
does the Minister believe that there is now a need for a tighter
role and concern for making sure that the best practice in the
appointment of police officers is now part of this scheme which
rests either with police and crime commissioners or the central
Minister concerned?
(Con)
As the noble Lord will be aware, after referencing a number of
conversations that have been had in the House over the past few
days, all of those things are happening with regard to vetting,
police officer recruitment and so on.
(Con)
My Lords, will my noble friend not accept that our noble friend
has made an extremely important
point and made it very well indeed? The Minister in response
really gives the impression of an incompetent and impotent Home
Office. We really must have a proper inquiry into this man Veale,
and he must be properly dealt with expeditiously.
(Con)
I think I thank my noble friend for that. I am afraid I rather
impotently have to go back to the comment I made earlier: it
would be inappropriate to comment further while these proceedings
are ongoing. However, of course I understand, and I accept that
my noble friend has made an extremely valid
point and continues to do so.
(Non-Afl)
My Lords, as I recall, the original reason for setting up police
and crime commissioners was to create more accountability,
because the police and crime commissioner would be more visible
in the community and very well-known. In fact, the opposite has
been proved true because the turnout at votes shows apathy and
ignorance. Then there is the question of the cost of setting up
the offices of police and crime commissioners and their deputies
and the salaries and everything else that goes with it. Can the
Minister tell the House what this has added to the policing bill
annually?
(Con)
I am afraid I cannot answer that specific question, but I can and
will say that the public profile of PCCs means they are
scrutinised in a way that anonymous police authorities were not.
I think the fact that we have this conversation on a relatively
regular basis is proof of that. Ultimately, PCCs are directly
elected by the communities they serve, and the public will have
their say in due course. The noble Lord raised a point on
turnout. In 2021, the turnout figure was 33.9%, a 6.5% increase
from 2016 and a significant increase on 2012.
(Con)
My Lords, on 21 December, in answer to the noble Lord, Lord
Ponsonby, my noble friend was willing to describe the current
circumstances as “disturbing”—this was previously indicated. We
have now seen a further month and four days pass, so could my
noble friend please indicate when “disturbing” becomes
“unacceptable”?
(Con)
My Lords, they are disturbing; they are concerning; they are all
of those things. I cannot say they are unacceptable at the moment
because, unfortunately, the responsibility for this particular
misconduct hearing lies with the Cleveland police and crime
commissioner.
(GP)
My Lords, the Minister was quite dismissive about police
authorities, but I have some experience of them. They were in
fact not anonymous; they were mostly councillors, who were
elected directly by their constituents and known extremely well,
and they actually did talk to people. PCCs do not; they are quite
remote, and the Minister has also pointed out that they are held
to account at the ballot box every four years. I can quote an
example in Dorset where the PCC and the local MP have generated a
lot of public dismay about their relationship, and yet the voters
cannot do anything about it until next year, can they?
(Con)
My Lords, I would have thought that councillors are also elected
once every four years as a rule, so I am not sure what the
difference is there. The fact is that police authorities were
anonymous, notwithstanding the noble Baroness’s evident fame on
the police authority where she was. I would also say that,
through part 2 of the review, we are undertaking a fundamental
assessment of the whole panel system, and there is a considerable
degree of transparency that has been introduced into the way the
police and crime commissioners communicate with their
constituents.
(Lab)
I make it eight questions that the Minister has fielded so far
today, all of them pretty hostile to what he has had to say,
including a number from his own side. These include those of two
Members, the noble Lords, and , who have persistently raised
the issue that I will not repeat, which seems to have general
support from the House. Can I give him some friendly advice?
Unless he sorts out some of these questions from the noble Lords,
and , he is going to go on and on
having to suffer this pain on a relentless basis.
(Con)
I reassure the noble Lord that I actually enjoy it enormously,
but I am going to have to go back to my earlier comment that it
would be inappropriate to comment further while the proceedings
are ongoing. The noble Lord knows that I will continue to say
that until the proceedings are no longer ongoing.
|
