A police officer’s pension can only be forfeited by a local policing body in certain circumstances, where they have been convicted of a criminal offence committed in connection with their service. This is not unique to policing and exists in other public sector pension schemes.

The Government has no plans to amend this policy.

The Home Secretary has been clear that standards in policing must improve and, in January, launched a review into the process of police officer dismissals, ensuring that the system is fair and effective at removing those officers who are not fit to serve. The Terms of Reference for the review can be found here: Police officer dismissals review: terms of reference - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk)

The Government is considering the findings of the review carefully before determining next steps and announcements on any changes to the system will be made in due course.

Arrangements concerning the establishment of Mike Veale’s misconduct hearing are a matter for the Cleveland PCC, and the management of the hearing itself is the responsibility of the appointed independent Legally Qualified Chair (LQC).

Whilst the Government is aware that Mr Veale has been referred to a hearing, misconduct proceedings are rightfully conducted independently of Government, meaning we do not hold information including any determined timescales for holding or concluding a specific misconduct hearing.

To ask His Majesty’s Government how many former chief constables are awaiting police gross misconduct hearings.

My Lords, how can it possibly be right for former Chief Constable Mike Veale to have been able to dodge a gross misconduct inquiry in Cleveland for almost two years, while tarnished officers of lesser rank have been brought to account? May I remind the House that arrangements for the Veale hearing in Cleveland were the sole responsibility of a legally qualified chair, whose name is unknown, even though the law does not permit this individual to remain anonymous. What does that say about public accountability of the police in Cleveland? Finally, when I met my noble friend the Minister and Mr Chris Philp, the Policing Minister, recently—I thank them for that meeting—I made it clear that, unless the mysterious chair has now fixed a date for the start of the hearing, I would call on the Government today to use their reserve powers under Sections 79 and 91 of the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011 to end the impasse. Is it not time that this matter was finally resolved?

My Lords, I thank the Minister for the meeting he arranged, but will he please guarantee that the Home Office will never again stand idly by in a situation where a police and crime commissioner, in this case Leicestershire’s, employs as it chief adviser, and then as its chief executive, a twice-disgraced ex-chief constable facing an allegation of gross misconduct—all with substantial public money? Do the Government understand how offensive this is, both to the police force in question and to the general public?

My Lords, this House owes a debt of recognition to the noble Lord, Lord Lexden, for his perseverance in this matter. Of course, there are obviously serious matters relating to the relationship between police officers and the law. I wonder if the Minister would care to comment on the words of the chief constable of the BTP, the transport police, who says:

“If I was to commit a crime, get arrested and give my details, there is no obvious system check that would flag that I’m a police officer if I didn’t choose to tell them”.

Does the Minister think that is an issue? If it is a problem, what are the Government doing to solve it?

My Lords, if there were a gold medal for stonewalling, my noble friend would deserve to win it. The answers that he gives are obfuscatory and reveal nothing. Will he please consider again the questions asked by both my noble friend Lord Lexden and the noble Lord, Lord Bach? Will he also reflect on the point that came up during the debate we had in the Moses Room a week or two ago? I suggested to him, and he completely ignored the suggestion, that we should have a police ombudsman in this country: somebody who can exercise the sort of authority—dispassionate and impartial—exercised by the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, in Northern Ireland.

My Lords, why can we not have anonymity in accusations of sexual offences, particularly rape? They are a special category of criminal offence where the reputations of the innocent can be destroyed, even by chief constables like Mike Veale. The law is unfair, and I have raised this issue repeatedly over the years. I too congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Lexden, on his unrelenting campaigning on this issue; the House is deeply indebted to him.

I will follow on from the good idea of the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, about having a police ombudsman. In their original Answer to this, the Government rather washed their hands of the whole issue of police and crime commissioners, which did not seem appropriate, as this Government set them up and put in the rules, parameters and laws—rather poorly, I think, but they did so. It is therefore wrong to throw away all feelings of guilt after things have gone wrong.

My Lords, behind all this is the question of Operation Conifer, in which the reputation of a former Prime Minister and statesman was deeply and horribly smeared by the lies of a convicted paedophile, whose views were described by the police as “credible”. Given the obvious misdemeanours, mistakes and mishandling of the whole case, operations within the police seem to have been incredibly slow. The noble Lord, Lord Lexden, has asked endless questions over the years and this issue has never been brought to a head. Is it therefore not time for the Government, while not interfering with police operations in detail, to endorse and set up a completely independent inquiry to bring this appalling libelling and slandering of a now-deceased Prime Minister to an end? It is totally out of accord with the normal standards of justice and fairness in this country.

I join other noble Lords in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Lexden, and my noble friend Lord Bach, who have been campaigning on these issues for a considerable period of time. The

Minister’s answers are simply not satisfactory. The noble Lord, Lord Lexden, has raised time and again the misconduct of Mike Veale, the former chief constable. The Minister simply comes back with a list of regulations, sends up smoke and does not answer the question. This is a really serious matter that deserves the highest priority from the Government, but we are not getting it. When will the Minister give us the answers that the noble Lord, Lord Lexden, is demanding?

My Lords, since 2020-21, the Home Office has substantially increased the data that it collects and publishes on police misconduct as part of the police misconduct in England and Wales statistical bulletin. It is working closely with the sector to improve the overall quality and consistency of the data that it collects. This does not include cases which have been referred to misconduct proceedings where those proceedings have not concluded.

Since 1 June 2018 the Home Office has secured two convictions and two cautions of staff in connection with their official activities. All the officers were subject to appropriate disciplinary procedures.

The following table below shows the breakdown including the dates of those convictions.

Decisions concerning the publication of a Legally Qualified Chair’s (LQC) name are a matter for the relevant Police and Crime Commissioner (PCC). These decisions are made independently of Government.

The Government has not held any specific conversations with PCCs regarding these decisions.

The Home Office collects and publishes data on police misconduct cases finalised during a financial year period in the ‘Police misconduct, England and Wales’ statistical bulletin. It does not therefore include cases which have been referred to misconduct proceedings, where those proceedings have not yet concluded.

The Government is unable to comment on on-going misconduct proceedings, which are rightly conducted independently of government. There are therefore no plans to provide briefing on this or any specific misconduct hearing, nor is the Government able to provide any details relating to legally qualified chairs (LQC), who are appointed to both their role and individual panels by Police and Crime Commissioners (PCCs). Any decision concerning publication of an LQC’s name is a matter for the relevant PCC

Cleveland’s most recent Police Efficiency, Effectiveness and Legitimacy report, published by His Majesty’s Inspectorate for Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services (HMICFRS), showed positive improvement in a number of key areas, including its crime recording and treatment of the public. However, it still has further to go to meet acceptable performance standards in respect of preventing crime and understanding and addressing its demand. As such HMICFRS have confirmed it will continue to be engaged. It remains PCC Turner’s responsibility to ensure that Chief Constable Webster takes effective action to address the inspectorate’s recommendations. We will continue to take a close interest in the force’s progress as a member of the HMICFRS-chaired Police Performance Oversight Group.

The Home Office collects and publishes data on police misconduct cases finalised during a financial year period in the ‘Police misconduct, England and Wales’ statistical bulletin. It does not therefore include cases which have been referred to misconduct proceedings, where those proceedings have not yet concluded.

The Government is unable to comment on on-going misconduct proceedings, which are rightly conducted independently of government. There are therefore no plans to provide briefing on this or any specific misconduct hearing, nor is the Government able to provide any details relating to legally qualified chairs (LQC), who are appointed to both their role and individual panels by Police and Crime Commissioners (PCCs). Any decision concerning publication of an LQC’s name is a matter for the relevant PCC

Cleveland’s most recent Police Efficiency, Effectiveness and Legitimacy report, published by His Majesty’s Inspectorate for Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services (HMICFRS), showed positive improvement in a number of key areas, including its crime recording and treatment of the public. However, it still has further to go to meet acceptable performance standards in respect of preventing crime and understanding and addressing its demand. As such HMICFRS have confirmed it will continue to be engaged. It remains PCC Turner’s responsibility to ensure that Chief Constable Webster takes effective action to address the inspectorate’s recommendations. We will continue to take a close interest in the force’s progress as a member of the HMICFRS-chaired Police Performance Oversight Group.

The Home Office collects and publishes data on police misconduct cases finalised during a financial year period in the ‘Police misconduct, England and Wales’ statistical bulletin. It does not therefore include cases which have been referred to misconduct proceedings, where those proceedings have not yet concluded.

The Government is unable to comment on on-going misconduct proceedings, which are rightly conducted independently of government. There are therefore no plans to provide briefing on this or any specific misconduct hearing, nor is the Government able to provide any details relating to legally qualified chairs (LQC), who are appointed to both their role and individual panels by Police and Crime Commissioners (PCCs). Any decision concerning publication of an LQC’s name is a matter for the relevant PCC

Cleveland’s most recent Police Efficiency, Effectiveness and Legitimacy report, published by His Majesty’s Inspectorate for Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services (HMICFRS), showed positive improvement in a number of key areas, including its crime recording and treatment of the public. However, it still has further to go to meet acceptable performance standards in respect of preventing crime and understanding and addressing its demand. As such HMICFRS have confirmed it will continue to be engaged. It remains PCC Turner’s responsibility to ensure that Chief Constable Webster takes effective action to address the inspectorate’s recommendations. We will continue to take a close interest in the force’s progress as a member of the HMICFRS-chaired Police Performance Oversight Group.

The Home Office collects and publishes data on police misconduct cases finalised during a financial year period in the ‘Police misconduct, England and Wales’ statistical bulletin. It does not therefore include cases which have been referred to misconduct proceedings, where those proceedings have not yet concluded.

The Government is unable to comment on on-going misconduct proceedings, which are rightly conducted independently of government. There are therefore no plans to provide briefing on this or any specific misconduct hearing, nor is the Government able to provide any details relating to legally qualified chairs (LQC), who are appointed to both their role and individual panels by Police and Crime Commissioners (PCCs). Any decision concerning publication of an LQC’s name is a matter for the relevant PCC

Cleveland’s most recent Police Efficiency, Effectiveness and Legitimacy report, published by His Majesty’s Inspectorate for Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services (HMICFRS), showed positive improvement in a number of key areas, including its crime recording and treatment of the public. However, it still has further to go to meet acceptable performance standards in respect of preventing crime and understanding and addressing its demand. As such HMICFRS have confirmed it will continue to be engaged. It remains PCC Turner’s responsibility to ensure that Chief Constable Webster takes effective action to address the inspectorate’s recommendations. We will continue to take a close interest in the force’s progress as a member of the HMICFRS-chaired Police Performance Oversight Group.