Police and Crime Commissioners (PCCs) have a crucial role to play in engaging with the public and partners in their force area to deliver on their priorities to cut crime, including statutory obligations to consult with them on key documents, such as their Police and Crime Plan.

The actions and decisions of PCCs are scrutinised by Police and Crime Panels (PCPs) and PCCs must provide information and answer questions raised by their PCP where reasonable and appropriate, in line with their duties in the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011. Where necessary, PCCs must also respond to Freedom of Information (FOI) requests from the public, in accordance with the FOI Act 2000.

There are no legal obligations for PCCs to meet delegations of members of the House of Lords. However, PCCs should be expected to engage constructively with any such requests, in line with their position as directly elected local leaders.

Police and Crime Commissioners (PCCs) have a crucial role to play in engaging with the public and partners in their force area to deliver on their priorities to cut crime, including statutory obligations to consult with them on key documents, such as their Police and Crime Plan.

The actions and decisions of PCCs are scrutinised by Police and Crime Panels (PCPs) and PCCs must provide information and answer questions raised by their PCP where reasonable and appropriate, in line with their duties in the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011. Where necessary, PCCs must also respond to Freedom of Information (FOI) requests from the public, in accordance with the FOI Act 2000.

There are no legal obligations for PCCs to meet delegations of members of the House of Lords. However, PCCs should be expected to engage constructively with any such requests, in line with their position as directly elected local leaders.

The Chair of a misconduct hearing must ensure that the hearing commences within 100 working days from the date the officer is served with a notice that they are being referred to a misconduct hearing. The Chair may, in the interests of justice, extend that period. There is no maximum period defined.

Arrangements concerning the misconduct hearing for Mike Veale, former Chief Constable of Cleveland Police, are a matter for the Police & Crime Commissioner (PCC) for Cleveland. It is for the PCC to manage any actions arising from it.

The Chair of a misconduct hearing must ensure that the hearing commences within 100 working days from the date the officer is served with a notice that they are being referred to a misconduct hearing. The Chair may, in the interests of justice, extend that period. There is no maximum period defined.

Arrangements concerning the misconduct hearing for Mike Veale, former Chief Constable of Cleveland Police, are a matter for the Police & Crime Commissioner (PCC) for Cleveland. It is for the PCC to manage any actions arising from it.

My Lords, arrangements for the misconduct hearing of former chief constable Mike Veale are a matter for the Cleveland police and crime commissioner and it would be inappropriate to comment further while those proceedings remain ongoing.

Independent Legally Qualified Chairs of police misconduct hearings have the discretion to extend the period of time in which the respective case is heard where they decide it is in the interests of justice to do so.

The misconduct hearing arising from the Independent Office for Police Conduct’s investigation into alleged misconduct by former Chief Constable Mike Veale is a matter for the Police & Crime Commissioner for Cleveland (PCC). It is for the PCC to manage any actions arising from it.

Independent Legally Qualified Chairs of police misconduct hearings have the discretion to extend the period of time in which the respective case is heard where they decide it is in the interests of justice to do so.

The misconduct hearing arising from the Independent Office for Police Conduct’s investigation into alleged misconduct by former Chief Constable Mike Veale is a matter for the Police & Crime Commissioner for Cleveland (PCC). It is for the PCC to manage any actions arising from it.

Independent Legally Qualified Chairs of police misconduct hearings have the discretion to extend the period of time in which the respective case is heard where they decide it is in the interests of justice to do so.

The misconduct hearing arising from the Independent Office for Police Conduct’s investigation into alleged misconduct by former Chief Constable Mike Veale is a matter for the Police & Crime Commissioner for Cleveland (PCC). It is for the PCC to manage any actions arising from it.

The Home Office does not currently hold misconduct data concerning the last 12 months, however we are currently developing a new stand-alone publication on police misconduct statistics. An initial statistical publication is due to be published in May 2022 and will include high level analysis of allegations of police misconduct recorded under the reformed disciplinary system and subsequent outcomes in the financial year 2020/21. A further publication containing 2021/2022 data is scheduled for later in the year. Exact publication dates will be preannounced in the Home Office Statistical release calender.

Police Misconduct data from previous years can be found in the Police Workforce Statistics, which are available on gov.uk.

My Lords, arrangements for the misconduct hearing of former Chief Constable Mike Veale are a matter for the Cleveland police and crime commissioner, and it would be inappropriate to comment further while those proceedings remain ongoing.

Police misconduct hearings are dealt with under The Police (Conduct) Regulations 2020

This sets out that the Chair of the hearing must ensure that the hearing commences within 100 working days of the date an officer is served with a notice informing them their case is being referred to disciplinary proceedings

This period can be extended at the discretion of the independent Legally Qualified Chair (LQC), where it decides it is in the interests of justice to do so.

My Lords, following an investigation by the Independent Office for Police Conduct, the then acting police and crime commissioner for Cleveland determined that former Chief Constable Mike Veale had a case to answer for gross misconduct. The matter is now subject to a misconduct hearing and it would therefore be inappropriate to comment further while those proceedings remain ongoing.

Following an independent investigation conducted by the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC), the then-Acting Police and Crime Commissioner (PCC) for Cleveland carefully considered their report and determined that former Chief Constable Mike Veale had a case to answer for gross misconduct. This matter has been referred to an independent panel - with a Legally Qualified Chair - to hold a misconduct hearing in which relevant evidence will be considered and findings made as to Mr Veale’s conduct and any appropriate outcome. It would therefore be inappropriate to comment further whilst legal proceedings remain ongoing.

A previous IOPC investigation into allegations of misconduct by Mr Veale found that he had a case to answer for alleged misconduct while Chief Constable of Wiltshire Police. As Mr Veale was by then serving as Chief Constable of Cleveland, at the conclusion of the investigation, the IOPC report was sent to the then PCC for Cleveland (Barry Coppinger) following which it was agreed that he would be subject to a management action plan put in place by the PCC, including an ongoing programme of professional development.

The IOPC’s Director General set out its own response to criticisms of its handling of the investigation into Operation Midland in his letter to Sir Richard Henriques of 31 March 2021. The letter is available on the gov.uk website. The IOPC publishes further information on its performance and plans on its website. As noted in the debate on 2 February (HL Deb col 898), a review of the IOPC by an independent reviewer (as announced by the Home Secretary on 15 June 2021) is due to start this year. This will consider the organisation’s effectiveness and efficiency, including its decision-making processes.

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.

The Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) is currently considering whether to re-open its investigation in light of the evidence provided to the Coroner during the course of the inquests into the deaths of Anthony Walgate, Gabriel Kovari, Daniel Whitworth and Jack Taylor.

The IOPC will not publish the investigation report whilst consideration whether to re-open the investigation is ongoing so as not to prejudice any potential future proceedings.

The requirement for Student sponsors, including independent sixth-form colleges which hold a sponsor license, to maintain Educational Oversight (EO) is a core principle of the sponsorship system for the Student and Child Student routes. This requirement ensures the quality of education offered to international students is of sufficiently high standard.

Institutions which do not meet the required rating following an inspection by the relevant Educational Oversight body will lose the ability to assign Confirmation of Acceptance of Studies (CAS) to prospective students.

To facilitate sponsors regaining the ability to sponsor new students as soon as they have rectified the issues which led to them losing EO, a sponsor can regain EO following a partial reinspection, or monitoring review, which confirms those issues have been resolved satisfactorily rather than having to wait for a full reinspection. Sponsors which regain Educational Oversight will have the ability to assign CAS reinstated.

The Home Office does not set inspection schedules for independent EO bodies, beyond requiring those for private providers must take place at least once every 4 years.

The Independent Office for Police Conduct’s investigation into the alleged misconduct by former Chief Constable Mike Veale was completed in February this year and their report has been shared with the Police & Crime Commissioner (PCC) for Cleveland. It is now for the PCC to take forward any actions arising – after which the investigation report will be published.

Following the receipt of responses by the Metropolitan Police Service and Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) to the Home Secretary’s letter of 16 March, the Government is considering whether further steps are necessary to address concerns raised about Operation Midland, and the subsequent IOPC investigation.

My Lords, the IOPC’s annual report, signed off by the Home Office, provides an assessment of its work, including details of performance against targets. The 2020-21 report will be published very shortly. On 15 June, the Home Secretary announced that she is bringing forward the next periodic review of the IOPC, which will consider the organisation’s effectiveness and efficiency.