Police and Crime
Panels
Asked by
To ask His Majesty’s Government what plans they have to change
the (1) structure, (2) purpose, and (3) powers, of Police and
Crime Panels.
(Lab)
My Lords, I begin by thanking other speakers in this short
debate. I also thank the House of Lords Library for its useful
and well-written background paper and for its extra help to me
with the regulations since 2011.
I should remind the Committee that I was the elected police and
crime commissioner for Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland
between 2016 and 2021, the only Member of your Lordships’ House
so far to serve in that capacity. Whether I am gamekeeper turned
poacher or vice versa I shall leave to noble Lords to decide.
No one can have been present in the Chamber during the past few
months who does not understand that there is genuine concern
about the accountability of Police and Crime
Commissioners in general. Of course, they face the ultimate
accountability, which is to go before the electorate every four
years—actually, five between 2016 and 2021 because of Covid and
three between 2021 and 2024. However, given the continuous lack
of public knowledge—or is it interest?—about Police and
Crime Commissioners in spite of increasing turnouts in each
of the three elections so far, is that sufficient
accountability?
The Government have turned down the notion of recall, although it
exists of course for Members of Parliament. I can see why. Small
turnouts at elections do not bode well for interest in any recall
petition.
The other means of scrutiny, and a very important one, is police
and crime panels, which were set up by the Police Reform and
Social Responsibility Act 2011 and exist in all police force
areas except the Met. Their structure, purpose and powers are set
out in some detail in Sections 28 to 30 of the Act, and
particularly in Schedule 6. There have also been statutory
instruments since. His Majesty’s Government have recently
reviewed the role of police and crime panels and say that any
necessary legislation will have to await parliamentary time.
In general, the Home Office review has given police and crime
panels a clean bill of health. This debate gives the Minister an
opportunity to set out what happens next and perhaps when.
Speaking from my own experience in Leicestershire, there were 15
members of the panel, which is a typical number: a chair,
effectively chosen by the county council, and 12 members from the
other local authorities—two from unitary authorities, four from
Leicester City Council, one from Rutland County Council, and one
each from the remaining six districts. Very importantly, there
were two independent members, making 15 members in all. Of those
with political affiliations, eight and then seven were
Conservatives, four were Labour, and one then two were Liberal
Democrats. I cannot say hand on heart that I looked forward with
pleasure to panel meetings—that would be rather spoiling the
purpose of the exercise—and I suspect that every police and crime
commissioner feels now as I used to. I have to say, however, that
I was treated at all times with critical respect by the chair,
who was of a different political persuasion from me, and the
panel. In my view, they fulfilled their statutory functions under
Section 28(2) of the Act—namely,
“supporting the effective exercise of the functions of the police
and crime commissioner for that police area”.
My officials and I were tested and questioned on many issues.
Although I was always relieved at the end, I really could not
complain.
With some reluctance, I have to say that in my personal opinion
the system has not worked so well with my successor, certainly
until recently. There may be many reasons for this, but one that
I believe has been influential is that the new chair of the
panel, a very senior and distinguished councillor in her own
right, seems on occasions to have gone too far in protecting my
successor from the legitimate questions and comments of the
panel. Of course, I realise that this is a difficult area of
judgment. It is as important not to let the police and crime
commissioner be unfairly treated as it is to allow him or her to
be challenged. In my view the balance has been wrong, sometimes
markedly so.
I am happy to say that very recently the chair has acted, in my
view, correctly and with considerable strength in insisting that
the latest interim chief executive—there were six in 19 months,
there is now a seventh, and there will perhaps soon be an
eighth—be brought before the panel, as the Act insists that it
should be, a request that the police and crime commissioner
declined. She was right to do so, and I commend her on it. She
will no doubt insist that both the new interim chief executive
and the interim chief financial officer, who has been in place
for 15 months, are brought before the panel urgently.
What changes do the Government intend to make to the structure,
purpose and powers of police and crime panels? Before I finish
what I have to say, I will suggest three areas in which reform is
perhaps called for.
First, it would be a sensible move to ensure that the chair of
the panel, a very significant and powerful role, should never be
from the same political party as the police and crime
commissioner. If one party dominates the panel because of control
of local authorities in the area, one of the independent members
should have that role. I dare say that this proposal may well be
unpopular with members of all political parties, including my
own, but I believe it a practical and proper step to ensure the
balance that is so vital. The Minister answered my Oral Question
on this matter on 31 October last year by saying that he would
happily take it back as part of the ongoing assessment. It is now
four months later and I ask him for His Majesty’s Government’s
response.
Secondly, and this fits in with the Government’s own view, there
needs to be more emphasis on the importance of the role of the
independent members, involving training, their role on the panel
and their selection. Panels should not be political bunfights—it
is too important for that—and powerful independents can help to
prevent that.
Thirdly and finally is the vexed issue of complaints/allegations
concerning Police and Crime
Commissioners Under Section 30 of the Act, a panel can
suspend—must suspend, really—a police and crime commissioner if
they face a serious criminal charge with a maximum of more than
two years’ imprisonment. But under Schedule 7, other complaints
should allow panels
“to engage in informal resolution of such complaints.”
An important statutory instrument of 2012, the next year, deals
in some detail with complaints. For me, and I think for a lot of
panels too, the overall effect is too vague and unsatisfactory
given that the Home Office certainly will not get involved in any
dispute of this kind.
What if—this is entirely hypothetical—there are many complaints
about a police and crime commissioner that do not allege criminal
activity but are important and widespread? What is the panel’s
role? Should its process be increased beyond informal resolution?
If so, to what extent? Do the present regulations and the Act
work in practice? After all, that is what matters. Have the
Government considered this issue in enough detail? I ask the
Minister to ask what their conclusions are. It seems to me that
this is an important, living issue that could touch on any police
and crime panel and on which they would welcome an answer.
1.10pm
(Con)
My Lords, the noble Lord, , has done us a great service in
bringing this subject forward for debate and introducing the
debate so thoroughly, drawing on his own, if I may say so,
impressive experience as a police and crime commissioner.
It would be hard to overestimate the importance of the place
occupied by police and crime panels in the new system—a system
that is still controversial and not much loved 11 years on—whose
success depends on the performance of elected Police and Crime
Commissioners all of whom are now party politicians. Are we
satisfied that we are sufficiently well served by having party
politicians rather than distinguished independent figures at the
helm of the new system? The advantages are not exactly
overwhelming, as the long-running crises in Leicester and
Cleveland—along with the noble Lord, , I have drawn your Lordships’
attention to them many times—plainly show.
It falls to the police and crime panels to try to deal with these
crisis-ridden party politicians on behalf of their communities
between elections, in which, sadly, too few people take part. In
order to exercise their crucial role, the panels have been given
in statute the power to require commissioners to provide
information and answer questions. Alas, not all commissioners
understand that the information that they provide and the answers
to questions that they give need to be accurate, intelligible and
free from any form of censorship so that the panels can fulfil
their duties and serve their communities fully.
The Leicester and Cleveland commissioners seem incapable of
coming up to the standards that are required. I have no idea
whether those two individuals are typical of Police and
Crime Commissioners as a whole. It does not really matter.
Every single commissioner should provide their panel with full,
clear and truthful information as the legal obligations to which
they are subject require. To do otherwise is to obstruct the
panel in the performance of its duties—an offence that surely
ought to merit removal from office.
The Cleveland police and crime panel is being obstructed through
the denial of full, frank and clear information. Its members have
rightly been seeking an explanation from its commissioners as to
why Mike Veale, one of the most notorious discredited ex-police
chiefs in the country, has not yet been brought to answer the
charges against him at the gross misconduct hearing that the
Cleveland commissioner announced in August 2021. In November last
year, the commissioner was asked by members of the panel about
the cause of the extraordinary delay. He replied:
“I cannot share that with you. If I told you and that is then in
the public domain, that then compromises something else, which
potentially compromises something else.”
Earlier this month, the panel tried again. It found the
commissioner in an indignant mood, following comments made in
your Lordships’ House. He said:
“Someone in the Lords also said I should just hurry up and I have
asked him for some clarity on how he believes I should be
hurrying up, given the legal complexity. I can’t say any
more.”
It was, I think, my noble friend the Minister who urged him to
move a little faster after a delay of some 18 months. No doubt
the Minister will tell us when he comes to reply how he has
assisted the commissioner in his quest for clarity, but how
ridiculous and insulting it is for the commissioner to tell the
Cleveland panel that legal complexity justifies endless
delay.
The Independent Office for Police Conduct set out the case
against the notorious Veale in a report following a two-year
inquiry. The report, which has never been published, went to the
Cleveland commissioner two years ago, so four years have passed
without this case of gross misconduct being brought to even the
start of the legal process that is required. What exactly is
legally complex about the contents of the IOPC report? The panel
is entitled to an answer; it is being withheld. Without an
answer, the panel would be forgiven for thinking that there is no
complexity and that it is being given fake information by a
commissioner who wants to shield and suppress the evidence
against Veale.
Someone called a legally qualified chair will preside over the
misconduct hearing if it ever takes place. That worries the
Cleveland panel, which this month expressed fears that the
hearing may run out of time, allowing Veale, a man dogged by
scandal since his vendetta against Sir Edward Heath a few years
ago, to escape justice. Has a chair even been appointed in
Cleveland? No one knows. If there is a chair, their name is being
kept a closely guarded secret.
When asked in the House earlier this month why the chair in this
case, if there is one, was allowed to remain anonymous, the
Minister said he did not know. Yesterday, in a Written Answer, he
told me:
“There are no provisions in legislation which entitle legally
qualified chairs of police misconduct hearings to remain
anonymous.”
Yet neither the Cleveland Police and Crime Panel nor anyone else
has been told the identity of the chair in this case. Perhaps at
the end of this debate the Minister will tell us why the Home
Office is content to see the law flouted in Cleveland by the very
person charged with upholding it. Or is the reality that there is
no chair—no chair has been appointed and there is no name to
reveal?
The Home Office might usefully reflect on the conclusions of a
recent report produced by the think tank Policy Exchange on the
role of these chairs. It found that:
“Having been introduced with the aim of increasing the public’s
confidence in the police misconduct process, the experiment is
having the opposite effect.”
It certainly is in Cleveland. The Home Office has reacted to
events in Cleveland with weary indifference. It does not seem to
care. It takes no action. It maintains that it has no powers
whatever, even to make representations, let alone intervene. That
is the most tragic aspect of this sorry saga. Is the Home Office
really so utterly powerless? It is a point on which independent
legal judgment could be usefully brought to bear, but if it needs
powers, it should seek them swiftly—urgently—through
regulations.
1.18pm
(LD) [V]
My Lords, the small number of Members taking part in this debate
probably shows the general lack of interest in this quite vital
role of scrutiny of our police service. That is very sad.
I too thank the noble Lord, , for initiating this debate. He
was an excellent police and crime commissioner for his area, and
I commend him. Would that I could say the same about lots of
other PCCs, which is, sadly, what I predicted when the Bill that
created them went through. To help the scrutiny of those PCCs, we
need much better governance from their panels.
I am most grateful for the help given to me in preparing for this
debate by the Library’s excellent briefing and by former
academics from Portsmouth University, notably Barry Loveday, the
prolific writer on so many policing matters, and Dr Roy Bailey,
who has written specifically on PCPs and who very generously sent
me his doctoral thesis on this subject to guide me.
Let me share some of those findings with your Lordships. First,
there was a general and almost unanimous call for urgent reform
of the current governance model. Some 92% overall of clerks, PCCs
and panel members agreed that some change was necessary. Why?
Because they felt there was little role clarity; they have
insufficient powers and inadequate resourcing. To illustrate
that, let me tell you what happened in North Yorkshire—and here I
refer to my interests in the register on policing matters. Our
first PCC was accused of serious bullying. The panel looked into
this and concluded that there was indeed good evidence to show
that this was the case. Unfortunately, as we have heard from the
noble Lord, , they could not do anything about
it. The general public got to hear of it, of course, and in
effect made their feelings known, so the PCC decided that she
really ought to resign. The second PCC—another Conservative
placeman without any experience of policing—had to resign because
of appalling remarks he made in public about how women should
behave, in the aftermath of Sarah Everard’s dreadful murder. We
are now on to our third PCC. She does her best, but thinks she
has direction and control of the chief constable—a mistake made
all too often, I fear.
I go back to the evidence gathered in the thesis. There was a
clear feeling that there was a big turnover of members,
especially councillors; they needed additional powers, training
and better management as well as political influence. What are
the Government doing to address that? Panels are unable to select
their councillor members. I recall this well in the old police
authority model, when it seemed that group leaders would send us
the councillors who caused them too much trouble. It appears that
panels have the same problem. Independent members, on the other
hand, are generally much more engaged and probably have better
skill sets, having been chosen through a rigorous selection
process. They are also, mainly, politically neutral.
When I chaired my police authority, over 20 years ago now, I
brought in specialist trainers to help us to understand what our
responsibilities were. They were invaluable—on the few occasions
we were able to use them, mainly because we had the Police
Federation breathing down our neck, telling us this was its money
that we were using. Will the Government undertake to help panels
to get the training that they need to fulfil their important
role?
So it is today that policing panels need the ability to
understand their role and proactive scrutiny programme. This is
almost impossible for them with their present funding
arrangements. Panels tend to meet only four times a year. How can
they undertake scrutiny of the PCC in the months when there is no
meeting? What is the PCC doing? Monitoring and assessment should
be ongoing for all panel members. I take what the noble Lord,
, said very much to heart: it is
not a very comfortable place to be when you are being
scrutinised, as I was when I was chair of my police authority.
Nevertheless, it is vital that it is done. Does the Minister
agree?
As the noble Lord, , referred to, in many areas there
is little or no political opposition on the panels, which is
entirely wrong. It is like policing oneself and there should be a
concerted effort to engage membership from opposition parties.
Again, the Government must address this area. Are there any plans
to do so?
PCCs and PCPs should collaborate better. At the moment they are
set up to be in conflict but, as we have heard, a good PCC should
enable a well-briefed and knowledgeable panel to scrutinise their
work and to work together for the benefit of their community.
In conclusion, I reiterate the belief that there must be radical
reform of the current governance model—a model, incidentally,
that the Liberal Democrats insisted be included in what became
the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act. Indeed, I may
even have done that personally; I did everything I possibly could
to scupper that Bill. Had we not insisted on this inclusion there
would have been absolutely no scrutiny of PCCs at all, and we all
know what problems have arisen from their introduction. At the
moment, there are six forces under special measures as it is.
There is a risk of panel members becoming disillusioned because
of their perceived impotence and low status. They have no power.
It is high time that we gave them some.
1.26pm
(Lab)
I thank my noble friend for bringing this important topic
of debate here today. The tripartite structure of police
accountability, whereby the governance of policing was until 2012
a responsibility shared between the Home Secretary, chief
constable and the relevant police authority, was disassembled by
the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011, following
widespread criticism. The deficiencies of the tripartite
structure were inflamed by the strong and persistent criticisms
directed at police authorities, widely considered the weakest
link.
It was noted at the time that one major reason why Police and Crime
Commissioners were established was to create greater
engagement with the public, and stronger accountability and
transparency within our local policing systems. So the Home
Secretary has retreated from day-to-day policing matters, leaving
responsibility for police governance and accountability between
the PCC, PCP and chief constable. Every PCC, PCP and chief
constable in each police area in Wales and England is required to
have an effective, constructive working relationship.
In carrying out their functions, PCCs are required to have regard
for the views of local people within their policing area. They
are also required to issue a police and crime plan and keep it
under review. In forming this plan, the PCC is also required to
take account of a number of issues, including consultation with
the chief constable, while taking regard of any report or
recommendation from the PCP. The PCC holds the chief constable to
account not only for the exercise of their functions but for
eight specified criteria.
Updated guidance was produced for police, fire and crime panels
in January this year. Within its focus was a commitment to
strengthen the accountability of Police and Crime
Commissioners and expand their role, together with the need
for better guidance and training for panels, which policing
stakeholders have regularly highlighted as an important area to
address and a weakness within the structure.
One always hopes that training will help by enabling panels to
perform their role more effectively, but also by providing
constructive support and that very important challenge to PCCs:
acting as the critical friend where needed. Panels have a pivotal
role in the current model of police accountability, as they are
solely responsible for supporting, scrutinising, providing and
maintaining a regular check and balance.
The critical friend role is increasingly important, and the
statutory role of panel members—to scrutinise decisions and
actions taken by the PCC, review the plan and annual report,
resolve non-criminal complaints about the conduct of the
commissioner, and make recommendations to the commissioner as
needed—is extremely important. I recognise that very many panel
members across the UK take their roles seriously, as indeed did
my former colleagues at Newport City Council who served
diligently as panel members for the Gwent PCP, working with the
Gwent commissioner, , and the excellent chief
constable, Pam Kelly. However, there are significant concerns
that the critical friend aspect and the holding to account need
to be strengthened.
Given the key role of PCPs, a number of reports and reviews have
questioned their effectiveness. The House of Commons Home Affairs
Committee in 2014 noted that there was no national standard as to
how PCPs work and warned that some members struggled to
understand their powers and role. Indeed, in my reading for
today’s debate, some were highlighted as powerless and compared
to a “crocodile with rubber teeth”.
PCPs are nothing more than a symbolic function if they do not
properly discharge their scrutiny role. If commissioners are not
benefiting from scrutiny by PCPs, there may be limited
accountability between elections, as current governance
arrangements make PCPs exclusively responsible for scrutinising
and providing checks and balances. That may cause unintended
consequences, such as in the exercise of accountability, with the
governance of policing reactive to the one-to-one accountability
relationship between commissioners and chief constables. That
one-to-one is problematic, possibly unpredictable and, in the
absence of panels being effective and credible, potentially
unproductive.
I turn to another issue already mentioned by noble Lords: the low
turnout in police and crime commissioner elections. It is a
concern and demonstrates that the remit is not being totally
fulfilled by commitment from and with the wider public. In 2012,
turnout was 15.1%; it went up in 2016 to 27.4%; and in 2021 it
was 33.9%. It is going in the right direction but is woefully
short of democratic engagement. What are the Government doing to
ensure that the system of Police and Crime
Commissioners and the panels which hold them to account have
the democratic endorsement of the public?
My noble friend has asked some searching and
probing questions today, but I will add to them a little. Will
the Minister address the ongoing concern about party politics
getting in the way of scrutiny? Can he answer on how many panel
chairs are of the same political party as the commissioners whom
they must hold to account? The Government brought in guidance
last spring to create better accountability for the panels. Can
the Government say yet whether this has had any impact on their
functioning, or whether the Government plan to report back on its
implementation?
1.33pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office () (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions, and I
particularly congratulate the noble Lord, , on securing this important
debate. I know that this topic has long been of interest to him,
and a wide range of views have been expressed on a variety of
issues related to the roles and responsibilities of police and
crime panels this afternoon.
I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Harris, for reminding
us that this was a coalition policy and that panels were a Lib
Dem idea because it gives me a rare opportunity to congratulate
the Lib Dems on a good idea.
I echo the comments of the noble Lord, , that it is vital that policing
remains transparent and accountable to the public. Since their
introduction in 2012, Police and Crime
Commissioners have brought real local accountability to how
chief constables and their forces perform, ensuring that the
public have a stronger voice in policing. In stark contrast to
the invisible and unaccountable police authorities that preceded
them, PCCs operate in the full gaze of the media and must justify
their record via the ballot box, as the noble Lord knows.
I will digress briefly to look into the old police authority
model because, to quote some of the remarks of the noble
Baroness, Lady Wilcox, I believe that they were short of
democratic accountability too. Police authorities consisted of 17
members, nine of whom were elected members drawn from the local
authority or authorities for the force area, and reflected the
political make-up of those authorities. The remaining eight
members were called independent members and were appointed from
the local community for fixed terms of four years by the police
authority itself. They were drawn from a long list of
applications submitted by the elected members and magistrates to
the Home Office and that committee then appointed the independent
members from a shortlist returned by the Home Office. At least
three of the members were magistrates and there was no difference
in power and responsibility between the different types of
members. The chair was appointed by the authorities themselves. I
am afraid that that is also very short of democratic engagement,
it certainly lacks accountability and there is not much
transparency.
Over their term of office, the decisions and actions of a PCC are
subject to a holistic system of checks and balances. The most
visible mechanism for scrutiny is the police area’s police and
crime panel. PCCs are also subject to investigation by the
Independent Office of Police Conduct in cases of serious
misconduct, the oversight of their monitoring officer in
preventing unlawful action or expenditure, and statutory
requirements on transparency imposed by the specified information
order. Panels are a vital part of that police governance model.
They ensure that PCCs are scrutinised effectively and remain
accountable for their decisions to those who elected them.
I will begin by explaining, for clarity, the existing structure,
purpose and powers of police and crime panels, which for ease I
will refer to simply as “panels”.
The noble Lord, , and the noble Baroness, Lady
Wilcox, asked about the chair and political neutrality. They can
be independent; they are not always, but they are expected to act
with neutrality. Unfortunately, I do not have the statistics
about political affiliations requested by the noble Baroness, so
will write.
In each force area outside of London, panels have a wide-ranging
remit to scrutinise the actions and decisions of their PCC,
providing support and challenge, and acting, again to quote the
noble Baroness, as a critical friend.
Panels have specific powers of veto over chief constable
appointments and precept setting. They also have oversight of the
PCC’s key documents, decisions and reports, requiring the PCC to
provide information and answer any questions which the panel
considers necessary. Additionally, panels have specific powers to
review the PCC’s proposed appointment of senior staff—a subject
to which I will return. They also play a direct role in handling
complaints made about the conduct of a PCC, including
responsibility for resolving complaints of a non-criminal
nature.
A key function of panels is also to provide transparency,
enabling the public to effectively hold PCCs to account. Panels
must make information available to the public by publishing all
reports and recommendations made to the relevant PCC. In most
cases, panels are required to conduct their meetings where
members of the public can attend or watch via webcast. Each panel
is also required to maintain rules of procedure, which will
usually make provisions about how questions or statements can be
submitted by members of the public. I note with interest the
comments of the noble Lord, , on the panel hearings that he
faced, which I think vindicate their effectiveness.
On the question asked by the noble Lord, , noble Lords will, I hope, be
aware of the Government’s two-part review to strengthen the
accountability and expand the role of PCCs, and to help PCCs to
deliver effective police forces that can cut crime and protect
their communities. Both parts of the review looked specifically
at sharpening the transparency and accountability of PCCs, as
well as ensuring that they have the necessary tools and levers to
be strong local leaders in the fight against crime and
anti-social behaviour. As part of this, the review examined
whether police and crime panels have the right skills, tools, and
powers to scrutinise PCCs and provide constructive support and
challenge.
The review concluded that panels have the appropriate powers at
their disposal, agreed by Parliament, to scrutinise PCCs
effectively and shine a light on progress against local police
and crime plans. However, the consistency and quality of scrutiny
can vary, and the review made several recommendations to improve
the scrutiny of PCCs, primarily by supporting panels to perform
their role more effectively and improving panels’ understanding
of their powers and responsibilities.
In line with those recommendations, and in consultation with both
the Local Government Association and the Welsh Local Government
Association, we have already taken steps to improve and
strengthen the scrutiny of PCCs by: issuing new guidance and best
practice guides in May 2022 to sharpen panels’ understanding of
their roles and responsibilities; hosting a series of webinars
with panel chairs, members and supporting officers to deliver
foundational learning on scrutiny best practice, which we have
published on the Home Office’s YouTube platform; and issuing
additional guidance to aid the recruitment and retention of
independent panel members, who provide valuable additional
skills, diversity and expertise for PCC scrutiny. That was issued
in January.
Furthermore, in line with one of the recommendations brought
forward through part 2 of the review, we have begun a fundamental
assessment of the panel support model to further improve the
professionalism, quality and consistency of support provided to
panels by local authorities. This work will seek to address what
we heard during the review’s call for evidence, which pointed
towards variation in the level of full-time, dedicated resource
given to panels by host local authorities.
The delivery of all these measures will help to ensure that PCCs
put the law-abiding majority who voted for them at the centre of
their decision-making. Noble Lords will see that we are already
taking a number of steps to improve the scrutiny of panels. For
that reason, the Government currently have no plans to change the
structure, purpose and powers of panels.
The noble Lord, , asked about the powers of police
and crime panels to scrutinise senior appointments made by the
PCC. Other noble Lords alluded to that. He will know that PCCs
are required by legislation to notify the panel when proposing
appointments to senior positions in their office, including those
of chief executive, chief finance officer, and deputy PCC. The
legislation provides that the same appointment procedures and
scrutiny processes also apply to the roles of acting chief
executive or acting chief finance officer.
To execute scrutiny duties, the panel must then hold a
confirmation hearing and produce a report and recommendation on
whether it supports the proposed senior appointment. The panel
must do so within three weeks of receiving notification from the
PCC of the proposed appointment. The confirmation hearing must be
held in public and the proposed candidate must be requested to
attend.
In the case of Leicestershire, to which the noble Lord, , referred, we are advised from
discussions between officials and supporting officers from the
Leicestershire panel that the PCC intends to notify the panel
that a new interim chief executive of the OPCC has been
installed, and that this interim appointment will undergo the
appropriate scrutiny process and confirmation hearing at the next
panel meeting, which is due to take place on 6 March. That is
therefore in accordance with the legislation, and I hope that
satisfies the noble Lord. I say on the record that the Government
expect, in the strongest possible terms, that PCCs appointing to
senior positions in their offices follow the process clearly set
out in legislation.
My noble friend referenced Mike Veale and that
hearing. The law is not being flouted. Arrangements concerning
the establishment of a misconduct hearing are a matter for PCCs.
My noble friend is quite right that I asked for speed in answer
to a previous question, but I meant it in very much a generic
sense. It is in everybody’s interest that these misconduct
hearings are concluded as quickly as possible. I should have said
that the Cleveland PCC has no power over the legally qualified
chair, 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. Decisions made within a hearing
are done so independently of PCCs as well as government. There is
no indifference on the part of the Home Office.
(Con)
Could my noble friend comment as to whether a chair has actually
been appointed in Cleveland? If an appointment has been made
then, as the Written Answer sent to me yesterday clearly states,
the name must be made public. The only way in which the Cleveland
police and crime commissioner can be within the law is if a chair
has not actually been appointed. If no chair has been appointed
then the situation is even worse.
(Con)
My Lords, I shall come on to the answer to that question in a
second. As I say, the Government take the accountability of the
police very seriously and will continue to do so. There is no
indifference on the Home Office’s part in this situation.
In recent months, I have been asked on a number of occasions
about the lack of apparent progress in this particular misconduct
hearing. I have variously been accused, largely by members of my
own party, of incompetence and impotence, among other things.
However, the legally qualified chair has the right to extend the
100-day period if it is in the interests of justice to do so. If
I were to comment further on this specific case and its delay—I
could but I will not—that would, I believe, be genuinely
incompetent because it could well prove prejudicial to the
interests of justice. I am sure that no noble Lords want to see
justice prejudiced, so I am afraid that my answer to any future
questions or continuing questions in this debate will remain the
same.
I happen to have a copy of the Written Answer that I sent to my
noble friend yesterday. Let me read it out
for the record:
“Arrangements concerning the establishment of misconduct hearings
are a matter for Police and Crime
Commissioners (PCC), and the management of the hearing
itself is the responsibility of the independent Legally Qualified
Chair (LQC) in charge of it. Decisions made concerning a hearing
are done so independently of PCCs as well as Government and the
Home Secretary has no powers to make directions in relation to
those hearings. Given the independence of PCCs and LQCs, it would
be inappropriate for the Government to seek to influence those
decisions.”
Anonymity is not a legal requirement. However, as I have just
explained, the Home Secretary has no power to intervene in these
circumstances. The legally qualified chair in Cleveland has taken
decisions for very good reasons; I will leave it there as there
is nothing more I can say.
I will move on to the PCC review recommendation to undertake an
assessment of the panel’s support model, which obviously formed
the basis of a number of good points that were made, in
particular by the noble Baronesses, Lady Wilcox and Lady Harris,
and the noble Lord, . Following a commitment arising
from part 2 of the PCC review, we have begun a fundamental
assessment of the panel support model to further improve the
professionalism, quality and consistency of support provided to
panels. I must stress that this work is tightly focused on the
role of democratic support officers, who sit within a host local
authority and provide policy, professional and administrative
support to ensure that panels effectively discharge their
statutory functions to scrutinise PCCs.
To progress this work, we are undertaking some analysis of a
regional model for panel support, along with consideration of
improvements to the current model and exploring other potential
ways to achieve our aims. A range of options will be designed and
assessed before further advice is sought from Ministers to agree
any next steps.
The recommendations on PCC complaints were referred to by the
noble Lord, , and my noble friend . I must say that I find it
disappointing that my noble friend has not investigated the
quality of other PCCs more generally; had he done so, he would
have found that they are consistently excellent across the
country.
Although our announcement of the PCC review recommendations did
not make specific recommendations on the PCC complaints system,
we are still committed to developing reforms in this area. This
includes ensuring clarity on what constitutes misconduct or a
breach of expected standards by PCCs; deciding which body is best
placed to handle certain types of complaints; ensuring that the
system does not give rise to vexatious complaints; and ensuring
the effective handling of criminal allegations against PCCs.
We need a system which is open, transparent and fair for all
parties when handling complaints. While we develop the reforms in
this area, we have taken interim steps to assist, which includes
publishing guidance to strengthen the quality and consistency of
scrutiny by panels and more clearly explaining their roles and
responsibilities. In handling complaints about PCCs, panels must
refer serious complaints and conduct matters to the IOPC.
Additionally, panels are responsible for resolving
non-serious—that is, non-criminal—complaints made about a PCC’s
conduct when in office. Ultimate responsibility for handling any
non-criminal complaints they have received remains with the
panel, and they retain the ability to seek an informal resolution
of a non-criminal complaint if they consider it necessary.
We consider the PCC model more democratic than the predecessor
model of police authorities, as I hope I have explained. PCCs are
directly elected by the communities they serve and are held to
account at the ballot box; this democratic power did not exist
before PCCs were introduced in 2012. The Government are committed
to strengthening and expanding their role. We have taken steps to
do so through the implementation of recommendations from the PCC
review, and we are continuing to work closely with sector
partners to implement all the recommendations.
I thank noble Lords for raising this debate. I am pleased that I
have had the opportunity to update the House on the progress that
we are making to strengthen and improve scrutiny arrangements.
The Government believe that panels have sufficient powers and the
right structure to carry out their vital role of scrutinising
PCCs, and the Government are committed to delivering the PCC
review recommendations in full to sharpen quality, consistency
and professionalisation of panels. PCCs play a vital role in
holding the chief constable to account and keeping our
communities safe. The public deserve visible and accountable
local policing leaders who are properly scrutinised and held
accountable on the issues that matter most to them.
As a final postscript, the consultation on LQCs and the dismissal
process remains open. If noble Lords have strong opinions on
this, I suggest that they submit them to the consultation.
Violence Against Women
and Girls: Stalking
Question
11.38am
Asked by
To ask His Majesty’s Government, further to the Written Statement
by on 20 February
(HLWS554), whether their package of measures to tackle violence
against women and girls includes provisions to address
perpetrators of serious and repeated stalking.
Column 1757is located here
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office () (Con)
My Lords, the announcements made on Monday do cover stalking. We
have added violence against women and girls to the strategic
policing requirement, meaning that it is set out as a national
threat for forces to respond to. Tackling stalking is included in
this. Stalking is already one of the offences specified in
multi-agency public protection arrangements. This week we
announced that the offence of controlling or coercive behaviour
will be added alongside it.
(LD)
I thank the Minister for his reply. Despite the drastic increase
in stalking cases in recent years, only 1% result in a court
conviction, and this does not deter the most serious stalkers.
Claire Waxman, the victims’ commissioner for London, has been
stalked for 19 years by an obsessive and terrifying stalker who
has been in court six times for breaching a lifetime ban on
contacting her. He was given a 16-month sentence in November.
The problems are with non-domestic stalking in particular. I
appreciate the point the Minister made about stalking being
included, but the tenor of the Statement referred to domestic
abuse only. Can he clearly confirm that non-domestic stalking is
also included in all the provisions of Monday’s Statement?
(Con)
My Lords, first, I commend the noble Baroness for her extensive
work on this over many years. As I said in my original Answer, we
do not need to add stalking because it is already there. Section
4A of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, on stalking
involving fear of violence or serious alarm or distress, is
already in category 2 of the multi-agency public protection
arrangements. This means that those sentenced to at least a year
for that crime are already subject to active management.
(DUP)
My Lords, I think it appropriate to bring to the attention of the
House another form of violence that was perpetrated in Northern
Ireland yesterday evening when an attempt was made to murder an
off-duty serving officer in the county town of Tyrone, Omagh. I
am sure the House will join me in wishing that police officer a
full and speedy recovery; we all trust that he makes just that. I
commend the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, for raising this issue
today. Are the Government doing enough to ensure the safety and
protection of women, who are very often in isolation in the
evenings, going about their daily duties? Surely it is time for a
campaign to be stepped up to stop this awful behaviour, which I
want to see the Government take a greater drive against.
Hopefully, we will live to see the day when it is totally
eliminated.
(Con)
I join the noble Lord in wishing the officer in Northern Ireland
a speedy and full recovery; it is an awful situation. It is clear
that the Government’s activity regarding violence against women
and girls—VAWG—is extensive. A number of other initiatives have
been taken on stalking: for example, the Ask for ANI scheme,
which is being piloted in jobcentres and so on. This is a
codeword scheme Column 1758is located here
[Toggle showing location of Column 1758](#)
developed by the Home Office during Covid-19 to provide a
discreet way for victims of domestic abuse to signal that they
need emergency help. Significant funding has been committed to
this issue, as noble Lords will be aware, and the Online Safety
Bill will also include various measures. Work is both ongoing and
dynamic.
(Con)
My Lords, my noble friend the Minister referred to putting
controlling and coercive behaviour on a par with physical
violence, meaning that offenders will be closely monitored. This
is a welcome proposal but it will need legislation, and this is a
busy time. Can my noble friend give any indication of a timeline
for this legislation? Women’s groups and campaigners against
violence against women and girls are very keen to know the
answer.
(Con)
My noble friend asks a good question. We will be changing the law
to ensure that dangerous offenders with a conviction for
controlling or coercive behaviour who are sentenced to 12 months
or more are automatically eligible to be managed under MAPPA. It
will require primary legislation, but I am afraid that I cannot
give an exact timeframe for that—I suppose the usual phrase is,
when parliamentary time allows.
(Lab)
My Lords, what are the Government doing about the continuing
downward spiral in charging, prosecutions and convictions for
domestic abuse in England and Wales? Police referrals to the CPS
are down again this year and are lower than they were before
Covid shut down the justice system.
(Con)
My Lords, I accept that there is some regional variation in, for
example, applications for stalking protection orders. Where those
variations exist, the Safeguarding Minister is planning to write
to the various chief constables whose forces applied for fewer
than might have been expected, in order to encourage them always
to consider these. Forces such as the Met and Kent have been
making excellent use of the new orders, applications for which
have risen by 31% in a year. So, as regards stalking, it is a
very good story; it needs still to improve, of course, but it is
getting better.
My Lords, according to the Office for National Statistics, only
18% of domestic abuse victims report to the police. Can the
Minister say whether the Government are taking a whole-system
approach to tackling and preventing abuse—through the health
system, education and better housing and welfare provision? A
whole-system approach is needed.
(Con)
Yes, I can. For example, a couple of new initiatives were
announced on Monday, one of which concerns the digital aspects of
this. As I am sure many noble Lords are aware, we are
strengthening the domestic violence disclosure scheme—sometimes
known as Clare’s law—which enables the police to disclose
information to an individual about their partner’s Column 1759is
located here
[Toggle showing location of Column 1759](#)
or ex-partner’s previous abusive or violent offending. So my
answer is yes: work on this is being strengthened and, as I said
in answer to an earlier question, is very much ongoing.
(LD)
My Lords, when seven of the eight measures in the Home
Secretary’s Statement on tackling violence against women and
girls are about domestic violence, what message does that send
about the Government’s prioritisation of non-domestic
stalking?
(Con)
My Lords, as I have said already, non-domestic stalking is
already covered under MAPPA. I would not say that it is not
necessary, but it is already there. To a large extent, and to be
more specific, it would not have been needed.
(GP)
My Lords, the problem with this sort of issue has always been
that the police are not very good at accepting the word of women
who come forward after repeated incidents of harassment or
violence. It is very good that a couple of police forces are
doing well, but what about the rest of them? What are the
Minister and his department going to do to make sure that all
police forces take this seriously?
(Con)
As I alluded to earlier, the Safeguarding Minister is planning to
write to all chief constables whose forces applied for fewer
orders than might have been expected. The previous Safeguarding
Minister also sent similar letters to chief constables, as has
been referenced publicly. Clearly, there is no denying that more
needs to be done in certain areas. However, as I have said, the
Government are also piloting a number of avenues for people to
report such offences, including the Ask for ANI scheme I
mentioned earlier. Over 5,000 UK pharmacies—both independents and
chains—are now enrolled in that scheme. There are a number of
avenues through which victims can report this sort of abuse.
(Con)
My Lords, given the low rates of referral mentioned by the noble
Baroness, Lady Thornton, is there not a need for additional
independent resource—perhaps from the CPS or other independent
barristers—for forces in special measures to make sure they are
processing the claims and passing them on to the CPS?
(Con)
My noble friend makes a good point and I will of course reflect
her concerns back to the department. However, forces under
special measures are obviously subject to significant scrutiny. I
cannot say for certain because I have not looked into this, but I
would imagine that it forms a key part of the scrutiny under
which they operate.
(Lab)
My Lords, will the Minister invite the Safeguarding Minister to
send the letter she is sending to chief constables
to Police and Crime
Commissioners as well?
(Con)
The noble Lord makes a very good suggestion—yes, I will.
Column 1760is located here
(CB)
My Lords, would it be wise to have some publicity about
non-domestic stalking? The Minister says that it comes under
harassment, but are the police altogether aware of it—and,
indeed, the public who suffer?
(Con)
I would hope that the police are already aware of it. As regards
the public, the noble and learned Baroness makes a sensible
point; it probably ought to be better known.
(Lab)
My Lords, as we approach International Women’s Day in a couple of
weeks’ time, can the Minister outline what work is being done
with the devolved Administrations and regions to counter the
stalking of women and young girls, which is prevalent throughout
the UK?
(Con)
The noble Baroness makes a good point. Of course, this does not
respect particular geographical boundaries. It is a devolved
matter and, as noble Lords know, operational matters are left to
the various police forces, but I will certainly make sure that my
colleagues in the devolved departments are aware of the noble
Baroness’s concerns.
