1-20 of 97 results for subject:Police
Librarians' tools
- Search time
- 0.315 seconds
- Solr query time
- 0.015 seconds
- Search query
- subject:Police
- We searched for
- subject_t:Police OR subject_t:"Police officers" OR subject_ses:92476
Type
House
Session
Year
Department
Member
More
Primary member
More
Answering member
More
Legislative stage
Legislation
Subject
More
Publisher
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.
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.
Obviously that strays well outside the remit of this Question and the department, but I will make sure that the noble Lord’s reflections are taken back to the appropriate people.
To ask His Majesty’s Government what plans they have to revise the (1) employment contracts, and (2) disciplinary regulations, for police officers.
To ask His Majesty’s Government what plans they have to revise the (1) employment contracts, and (2) disciplinary regulations, for police officers.
My Lords, police officers hold a unique position in society and are therefore protected by a unique set of terms and conditions, which are enshrined in legislation. Regulations are updated regularly following consultation with policing stakeholders, and the Government have no current plans to revise that approach. In October, the Government announced a review into police officer dismissals, ensuring that the system is fair and effective at removing those who are not fit to serve.
My Lords, following Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Mark Rowley’s powerful expression of concerns over the handling of police misconduct allegations and the need to sack the worst offenders—as well as similar comments from the formidable noble Baroness, Lady Casey, on the need for early dismissals, and, more recently, the shocking revelations from the noble Baroness, Lady Burt, about the six-stage, year-long police officer dismissal process—can the Minister explain why the whole police disciplinary procedure cannot be reviewed in line with those of
other professions? With the worst cases, dismissal should come first. More widely, there should be a speedier appeal procedure.
My Lords, following Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Mark Rowley’s powerful expression of concerns over the handling of police misconduct allegations and the need to sack the worst offenders—as well as similar comments from the formidable noble Baroness, Lady Casey, on the need for early dismissals, and, more recently, the shocking revelations from the noble Baroness, Lady Burt, about the six-stage, year-long police officer dismissal process—can the Minister explain why the whole police disciplinary procedure cannot be reviewed in line with those of
other professions? With the worst cases, dismissal should come first. More widely, there should be a speedier appeal procedure.
My Lords, as I have just said, we announced a review into that in October. The terms of reference are under active discussion and will be published in the near future. I will just correct the noble Lord: there are not six stages to the dismissals process; there are actually only three in the performance regulations, but officers can appeal against the outcome of those stages. Accelerated hearings are often missed, but if there is sufficient evidence of gross misconduct and it is in the public interest for the individual to cease to be an officer without delay, the chief constable can hold or chair accelerated misconduct proceedings.
My Lords, in light of the recent speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Burt, when she revealed the six-stage process governing disciplinary actions against police officers—I was shocked—should not the process be revisited in the way she and others are now suggesting? How can there be confidence in systems that protect rogue police officers, and their pensions, delay justice with prolonged processes, offer extended leave and rewards—[Inaudible]—Mike Veale, with further appointments? The Daily Mail should be thanked for its excellent reporting of these matters.
My Lords, in light of the recent speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Burt, when she revealed the six-stage process governing disciplinary actions against police officers—I was shocked—should not the process be revisited in the way she and others are now suggesting? How can there be confidence in systems that protect rogue police officers, and their pensions, delay justice with prolonged processes, offer extended leave and rewards—[Inaudible]—Mike Veale, with further appointments? The Daily Mail should be thanked for its excellent reporting of these matters.
My Lords, it might help if I go into detail on the barred and advisory lists. Since December 2017, any officer, special constable or member of police staff dismissed is placed on the police barred list, preventing them rejoining policing in the future, and that includes PCC offices. Any officer who retires or resigns during a gross misconduct investigation, or before an allegation comes to light, is placed on the police advisory list. PCCs must consult the advisory list before appointing an individual, although inclusion on the list does not necessarily preclude employment. It will be for the PCC to assess.
Lords motion to take note of the remit of, and arrangements for the handling of evidence by, the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse. Agreed to on question.
Lords motion to take note of the remit of, and arrangements for the handling of evidence by, the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse. Agreed to on question.
My Lords, further to the correspondence that I drew to the Minister’s attention the other day, we now have access to 10 FoI responses by Macpherson to people in the Wiltshire area. Perhaps I may read one of them:
“Should the Inquiry prove unable or unwilling to take this task on”—
and it has said that it is not willing to take it on—
“I will reiterate my earlier call for the government to establish a judge-led review of the evidence”.
He makes it quite clear there what his position is. That was on 10 October last year, only five days after the publication of the Conifer report. Why do Ministers not bring this man into the department, have a word with him and tell him to get on with the job he was given when he was appointed as the police commissioner for Wiltshire?
My Lords, further to the correspondence that I drew to the Minister’s attention the other day, we now have access to 10 FoI responses by Macpherson to people in the Wiltshire area. Perhaps I may read one of them:
“Should the Inquiry prove unable or unwilling to take this task on”—
and it has said that it is not willing to take it on—
“I will reiterate my earlier call for the government to establish a judge-led review of the evidence”.
He makes it quite clear there what his position is. That was on 10 October last year, only five days after the publication of the Conifer report. Why do Ministers not bring this man into the department, have a word with him and tell him to get on with the job he was given when he was appointed as the police commissioner for Wiltshire?
I shall certainly take that suggestion forward, to stop myself getting beaten over the head every day over this matter. But more seriously, the noble Lord has very kindly brought to my attention the correspondence received and I have
written to the PCC. I have also written to noble Lords, as I said the other day, to make the position quite clear: that he can initiate such an inquiry.
My Lords, why are the people who make allegations that turn out subsequently to be untrue not required to pay back the compensation they receive from the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority, as has indeed happened in the Heath case?
My Lords, why are the people who make allegations that turn out subsequently to be untrue not required to pay back the compensation they receive from the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority, as has indeed happened in the Heath case?
My Lords, I think I have gone through the process for what happens with false allegations. It will be up to the determining bodies to decide whether compensation is payable.
My Lords, is the Minister aware that in 2003, when there was a Division in this House on this very matter, the whole of the Conservative Benches voted in favour of not only pre-charge anonymity but anonymity post-trial in the event that someone was found innocent, and up to conviction in the event that they were found guilty? If that is the case, how can the Minister possibly sustain the position that the Government are now taking on the Bill going through Parliament?
My Lords, is the Minister aware that in 2003, when there was a Division in this House on this very matter, the whole of the Conservative Benches voted in favour of not only pre-charge anonymity but anonymity post-trial in the event that someone was found innocent, and up to conviction in the event that they were found guilty? If that is the case, how can the Minister possibly sustain the position that the Government are now taking on the Bill going through Parliament?
My Lords, very strong feelings on pre-charge anonymity have been expressed, and I have not in any way sought to dismiss them. The law has changed and we have moved on. However, in the light of some of the allegations of historical sexual abuse—and, as I say, in the light of some of the allegations made this week and last in connection with football—it is important in certain circumstances, bearing in mind that presumption of anonymity, for those names to be released.
In so far as, in 2003, the Conservative Benches voted in the way they did, why do not Ministers arrange for a free vote on pre-charge anonymity on Monday, which is the lesser position?
In so far as, in 2003, the Conservative Benches voted in the way they did, why do not Ministers arrange for a free vote on pre-charge anonymity on Monday, which is the lesser position?
My Lords, as I say, over time views on this have changed, and views within parties have changed. The Labour Government had a clear view on pre-charge anonymity. I recognise that it is a very difficult issue. However, I stress that it is important to get the balance right between people’s personal liberty and the need to bring people who might be guilty of perpetrating such crimes to justice.
To ask the Chairman of Committees whether, in the light of added security requirements arising out of the House of Commons income generation programme, there will be a review of the percentage split between the House of Commons and House of Lords of the costs of the policing contract with...
To ask the Chairman of Committees whether, in the light of added security requirements arising out of the House of Commons income generation programme, there will be a review of the percentage split between the House of Commons and House of Lords of the costs of the policing contract with...
The cost of policing and security on the parliamentary estate is shared between the House of Lords and the House of Commons and is charged to each House directly by the Metropolitan Police Service using a 31:69 share ratio. This ratio was agreed in 1999 and reflects the respective security requirements of the two Houses. It is subject to periodic review and will be reviewed again prior to the commencement of new contractual arrangements in April 2015. The precise security requirements across the parliamentary estate are subject to frequent fluctuating demands dependent on such matters as the two Houses’ sittings times and recess dates, estate and accommodation changes, events, functions, tours and works projects. The overall security profile and the proportion of
police officers and staff required to secure each House has not altered significantly since the 31:69 split was agreed. The majority of costs incurred under the contract are therefore apportioned between the two Houses on this basis. Costs attributable to the additional security requirements arising out of the House of Commons income generation programme are separately identified and factored into pricing. They will be recharged to the House of Commons as appropriate.
To ask the Chairman of Committees, further to his Written Answer on 4 February (WA 15), what portion of the costs indicated in the answer is attributable to costs over and above the core cost of the policing contract with the Metropolitan Police. [HL923]
To ask the Chairman of Committees, further to his Written Answer on 4 February (WA 15), what portion of the costs indicated in the answer is attributable to costs over and above the core cost of the policing contract with the Metropolitan Police. [HL923]
The costs indicated in the Written Answer on 4 February (WA 14) are solely attributable to costs arising from two contracts with the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) (2005-2010 and 2010-2015). It is not possible to distinguish between core costs and non-core costs paid since invoices are not submitted on that basis. For the financial years 2009-10 to 2012-13 the costs charged to the House of Lords can be broken down as set out in the table below. The House of Lords Administration no longer holds the relevant detailed information for costs incurred prior to April 2009.
| 2012-13
(£k) | 2011-12
(£k) | 2010-11
(£k) | 2009-10
(£k) | 2008-09
(£k) | |
| Operational
HR (police and police staff pay and associated
costs) | 8,014 | 8,142 | 7,997 | 8,284 | |
| Operational
infrastructure (supplies and equipment, transport, IT and
communications) | 183 | 168 | 164 | 117 | |
| Corporate
overheads (see
below) | 519 | 522 | 553 | 484 | |
| Expenditure
outside the financial cap (expenditure on additional police and
security services requested by the two
Houses) | 153 | 144 | 168 | 0 | |
| Armed
guards | 829 | 829 | 823 | 808 | |
| Total: | 9,697 | 9,804 | 9,705 | 9,693 | 9,333 |
Corporate overheads constitute the contribution of the two Houses towards overhead costs incurred by the wider MPS. This is calculated as a set amount under the contract, based on the established numbers of police officers and police staff as a proportion of total numbers of MPS police officers and police staff or actual usage by MPS officers and staff based at the Palace of Westminster. The fixed corporate overheads towards which both Houses contribute are: Finance Services; Procurement Services; Diversity and Citizen Focus; Directorate of Legal Services; Training and Development; HR Personnel Services; Holding Branch (Police); Logistical Services; Commissioner’s Private Office/ ACPO; Strategy, Modernisation and Performance; Directorate of Information; Directorate of Public Affairs; Contract Management.
To ask the Chairman of Committees whether the Houses of Parliament policing contract is planned to become a single contract with House of Lords responsibility for management of the contract being transferred to the Director of Parliamentary Security; and, if so, when.[HL921]
To ask the Chairman of Committees whether the Houses of Parliament policing contract is planned to become a single contract with House of Lords responsibility for management of the contract being transferred to the Director of Parliamentary Security; and, if so, when.[HL921]
The Special Services Agreement with the Metropolitan Police Service for the provision of police and security officers on the parliamentary estate is a single contract, jointly signed by the two Corporate Officers on behalf of both Houses of Parliament. Responsibility for the management of the contract was transferred to the Parliamentary Security Director (PSD) on 1 April 2012 following the creation of the post on 1 January 2012. The PSD chairs the Security Contract Steering Group which agrees the annual budget, reviews performance data and exercises change control. Monthly invoices are jointly monitored and verified by officials from both Houses of Parliament. Separate invoices are issued to the Finance Departments of both Houses for payment of each House’s respective share of the contract charges. The budget holder for the House of Lords’ share of the contract costs is Black Rod. The budget holder for the House of Commons’ share of the contract costs is the PSD.
To ask the Chairman of Committees what market testing has taken place on the provision of policing and security services to the Palace of Westminster. [HL5351]
To ask the Chairman of Committees what market testing has taken place on the provision of policing and security services to the Palace of Westminster. [HL5351]
To date, the Metropolitan Police Service has been assessed as the only provider able to meet the established requirements for policing and security on the parliamentary estate. Market testing for the provision of security personnel will be considered as part of the review of our future requirement and of the contractual arrangements currently being undertaken by the Office of the Parliamentary Security Director.
To ask the Chairman of Committees to what extent members of the Joint Committee on Security were involved in the process of approving the terms of the most recent contract for the provision of policing and security services in the Palace of Westminster.[HL5352]
To ask the Chairman of Committees to what extent members of the Joint Committee on Security were involved in the process of approving the terms of the most recent contract for the provision of policing and security services in the Palace of Westminster.[HL5352]
The terms of the special services agreement (SSA) with the Metropolitan Police Service were subject to a two-year period of review and negotiation leading up to the commencement of the current SSA in April 2010. JCOS was regularly consulted on the security aspects of the review and recommended the renewal of the SSA on the terms proposed.
To ask the Chairman of Committees whether the contract for the provision of policing and security services to the Palace of Westminster involves the provision of services exclusively within the precincts of the Palace of Westminster or for areas outside the parliamentary estate.[HL5353]
To ask the Chairman of Committees whether the contract for the provision of policing and security services to the Palace of Westminster involves the provision of services exclusively within the precincts of the Palace of Westminster or for areas outside the parliamentary estate.[HL5353]
The special services agreement (SSA) between the parliamentary authorities and the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) provides for policing and security services across the parliamentary estate; this includes ensuring the security of the perimeter of the estate. The policing of areas outside the parliamentary estate is a matter for the MPS and not covered by the terms of the SSA.
To ask the Chairman of Committees whether the contract for the provision for police and security services to the Palace of Westminster includes measures of (1) man hour contribution, (2) numbers of personnel, (3) administrative contribution, (4) availability of equipment, and (5) other measures of contribution. [HL5354]
To ask the Chairman of Committees whether the contract for the provision for police and security services to the Palace of Westminster includes measures of (1) man hour contribution, (2) numbers of personnel, (3) administrative contribution, (4) availability of equipment, and (5) other measures of contribution. [HL5354]
Under the special services agreement between the parliamentary authorities and the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS), the MPS provides the parliamentary authorities with management information against which the performance of the MPS is measured. This information includes (1) hours worked by police officers and security staff, including hours worked on overtime; (2) numbers of personnel employed, vacancy rates and absence levels due to sickness; (3) a breakdown of charges for relevant administration costs incurred by the MPS; (4) availability of the critical equipment provided by Parliament; (5) MPS performance relating to specified security processes; (6) levels of police officer and security staff training; (7) supervisory ratios; and (8) achievement of MPS fitness standards.
To ask the Chairman of Committees on what basis the division of costs for policing the Palace of Westminster is divided between the House of Commons and the House of Lords; and what contract governs the division of costs between the two Houses. [HL5355]
To ask the Chairman of Committees on what basis the division of costs for policing the Palace of Westminster is divided between the House of Commons and the House of Lords; and what contract governs the division of costs between the two Houses. [HL5355]
The cost of policing and security on the parliamentary estate is shared between the House of Lords and the House of Commons and is charged to each House directly by the Metropolitan Police Service using a 31:69 share ratio. This ratio was agreed in 1999 and reflects the respective security requirements of the two Houses. It is subject to periodic review.
To ask the Chairman of Committees what contracts exist for the provision of security and policing services to the Palace of Westminster by contractors others than the Metropolitan Police.[HL5356]
To ask the Chairman of Committees what contracts exist for the provision of security and policing services to the Palace of Westminster by contractors others than the Metropolitan Police.[HL5356]
No contract, other than the special services agreement between the parliamentary authorities and the Metropolitan Police Service, provides for security and policing services on the parliamentary estate.
To ask the Chairman of Committees what was the annual cost of the House of Lords share of the parliamentary estate police contract in each year since 2008.[HL4880]
To ask the Chairman of Committees what was the annual cost of the House of Lords share of the parliamentary estate police contract in each year since 2008.[HL4880]
Costs are shared with the House of Commons on a 69:31 House of Commons:House of Lords basis. The annual cost to the House of Lords was as follows:
2008-09—£9,333,000;
2009-10—£9,693,000;
2010-11—£9,705,000; and
2011-12—£9,804,000.
To ask the Chairman of Committees what was the commencement date of the most recent contract for the provision of police services to the Palace of Westminster; and on what date the contract expires. [HL4881]
To ask the Chairman of Committees what was the commencement date of the most recent contract for the provision of police services to the Palace of Westminster; and on what date the contract expires. [HL4881]
The current special services agreement commenced on 1 April 2010 and expires on 31 March 2015.