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.

My Lords, the law is not being flouted. Arrangements for the misconduct hearing of the former Cleveland chief constable Mike Veale are a matter for the Cleveland PCC and not the Government. Any questions regarding who has been appointed as the independent, legally qualified chair would need to be directed to the PCC accordingly. As noble Lords will expect me to say, I will not comment further on that particular case. However, in answer to the second part of my noble friend’s question, I can say that operational policing is, as he knows, not a Home Office matter—it is for chief constables—but he is correct that the Home Secretary has powers under the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011 to ensure an efficient and effective policing system that protects public safety. That includes the power under Sections 40 and 40A of the Police Act 1996. However, these are for use only when either the police force or the local policing body itself is failing or will fail to discharge its functions in an effective manner. They are very much a last resort, and we do not believe that the current situation in Cleveland requires these powers to be used, as the PCC has appointed an LQC to the panel for Mr Veale’s misconduct hearing.

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.

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.

There are no provisions in legislation which entitle legally qualified chairs of police misconduct hearings to remain anonymous. Identification of an individual Chair would be a matter for the relevant Office for Police and Crime Commissioner (OPCC), as the body which appoints Chairs to the panel

Since 2015, there has been a presumption that all misconduct hearings are held in public

On completion of the hearing, the legally qualified chair must, subject to the harm test, require the police force to publish the panel’s outcome report for that hearing, for a period of at least 28 days.

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.

My Lords, I am afraid that I will have to go over old ground. The arrangements for the misconduct hearing of the former chief constable Mike Veale are 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. My noble friend is right that legally qualified chairs must commence a hearing within 100 days of an officer being provided with a notice referring them to proceedings, but this period may be extended when a legally qualified chair considers that it is in the interests of justice to do so. I am afraid that I will have to repeat the old mantra that it would be inappropriate to comment further while these proceedings remain ongoing.

My Lords, the Government have launched a review into the process of police officer dismissals to ensure that the system is fair and effective and removes those who are not fit to serve. This will include an assessment of the composition of misconduct panels, including the impact of the role of legally qualified chairs.

The Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) is independent of government and publication of investigation reports is a matter for the IOPC in accordance with its policy on the subject,

Existing officers who apply to change roles or transfer to another force will be subject to relevant vetting checks. Police forces carry out their vetting in line with the statutory code of practice on vetting and vetting authorised professional practice (APP) guidance which are issued by the College of Policing.

The guidance states that professional standards checks, which includes complaint and misconduct history, should be carried out on applicants and transferees. It also states that where an individual is subject to a complaint or conduct investigation that is not yet complete, they should not be allowed to transfer without the permission of the appropriate authority of the parent force and Head of PSD of the receiving force. Decisions on appointment in the police service are made by chief officers.

Decisions on appointment in the offices of Police and Crime Commissioners (PCCs) are made by PCCs as the directly elected, local representatives for policing.”

My Lords, police and crime commissioners are required by legislation to seek the views of their police and crime panel when appointing to senior positions in their office. The ultimate decision on appointment lies with the PCC as the directly elected local representative for policing. Former police officers or police staff members who have been dismissed and placed on the barred list are prevented from being employed or appointed by a PCC.

My Lords, no, I do not believe that is the case. I will defend the system. On the second part of my noble friend’s question, arrangements concerning the establishment of a misconduct hearing are a matter for PCCs, and the management of the hearing itself is the responsibility of the independent legally qualified chairs. Legally qualified chairs 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 it in the interests of justice to do so. Decisions made within a hearing are done independently of PCCs as well as government. I think that answers the second part of my noble friend’s question.

The Home Office publishes these data as part of the Police Workforce Statistics. They show that, as of 31 March 2022, there were 7 officers suspended by the Metropolitan Police Service.

In addition, they show that there were also 2,718 Metropolitan Police Service officers on restricted or adjusted duties. This includes those officers for whom reasonable adjustments had been made under the Equality Act 2010.

There are three categories to limited duties – recuperative, adjusted or management restricted. Adjusted duties are those where workplace adjustment have been made to overcome barriers to working and depend on the officer discharging a substantive police role, which can be accommodated without unreasonable detriment to overall force effectiveness or resilience. Management restricted duties are those put in place where there is verifiable confidential or source sensitive information that questions the suitability of an officer to continue in their post and/or there are serious concerns which require management actions for the protection of individuals and the organisation, but where criminal or misconduct procedures are not warranted and the Chief Constable has lost confidence in the office continuing in their current role.

The Home Office does not hold the data cited by the Commissioner and cannot therefore make a comparison.