The
Committee consisted of the following
Members:
Ancram,
Mr. Michael
(Devizes)
(Con)
Battle,
John
(Leeds, West)
(Lab)
Blackman,
Liz
(Erewash) (Lab)
Blunt,
Mr. Crispin
(Reigate)
(Con)
Burden,
Richard
(Birmingham, Northfield)
(Lab)
Coaker,
Mr. Vernon
(Minister of State, Home
Department)
Cryer,
Mrs. Ann
(Keighley)
(Lab)
Engel,
Natascha
(North-East Derbyshire)
(Lab)
Fallon,
Mr. Michael
(Sevenoaks)
(Con)
Gwynne,
Andrew
(Denton and Reddish)
(Lab)
Huhne,
Chris
(Eastleigh)
(LD)
McCabe,
Steve
(Lord Commissioner of Her Majesty's
Treasury)Mates,
Mr. Michael
(East Hampshire)
(Con)
Ruffley,
Mr. David
(Bury St. Edmunds)
(Con)
Russell,
Bob
(Colchester)
(LD)
Wilson,
Phil
(Sedgefield) (Lab)
Mick
Hillyard, Committee Clerk
attended the Committee
First
Delegated Legislation
Committee
[John
Bercow in the
Chair]
Draft Police (Conduct) Regulations 2008
4.30
pm
The
Chairman: Is it the wish of the Committee that the
regulations and rules be taken together?
The
Chairman: For the information of the Committee, and
especially the hon. Member for Reigate, this matter is not subject to a
vote. It suffices for one member of the Committee to object to the
regulations and rules being taken together. In such circumstances, they
must be debated
separately.
The
Minister of State, Home Department (Mr. Vernon
Coaker): I beg to
move,
That
the Committee has considered the draft Police (Conduct) Regulations
2008.
I
look forward to the debate on the three statutory instruments before us
this afternoon. For the benefit of the Committee, I will make a few
introductory remarks laying out the thinking behind the three as they
are related to each other, but I will of course refer to each one
separately.
The
three statutory instruments establish new sets of procedures governing
police disciplinary matters in response to the recommendations of the
Taylor review. The Police (Conduct) Regulations 2008 establish
procedures for taking action on misconduct by police officers and
special constables. The Police (Performance) Regulations 2008 establish
procedures for dealing with issues of unsatisfactory performance and
attendance on the part of police officers, apart from senior officers
and special constables. The Police Appeals Tribunals Rules 2008 provide
for appeals to a police appeals tribunal against the findings and
specific outcomes from both those sets of regulations. The statutory
instruments have been prepared following the recent passing of the
Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 and enjoy the full support of
the Police Advisory Board for England and Wales and the Independent
Police Complaints Commission.
It might be
helpful if I set out the background to the making of the statutory
instruments, including the Police (Conduct) Regulations 2008. The
Taylor review was conducted by William Taylor CBE, QPMa former
Commissioner of the City of London police, and former Her
Majestys chief inspector of constabulary for
Scotlandand looked into the effectiveness of disciplinary
arrangement for police officers. The programme board that guided and
informed the review consisted of representatives of all the main police
stakeholders and other invited organisations, such as the Association
of Chief Police Officers, the Police Federation, the Police
Superintendents Association, the Chief Police Officers Staff
Association, the National Black Police Association, and representatives
of the special constabulary, the IPCC, Unison, Liberty and the
Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration
Service.
Bob
Russell (Colchester) (LD): The Minister said Unison was
consulted. Where do the police community support officers fit into the
regulations, and is that why Unison was
involved?
Mr.
Coaker: The police community support officers are subject
to alternative provisions, but we thought it appropriate in discussing
the regulations to involve all the various bodies that have some sort
of say on police staff in the broadest sense.
The Taylor
report made 19 recommendations in total. The ones that I would like to
highlight are: that the police officer disciplinary arrangements are
most appropriately determined by Parliament after extensive
consultation; that a new single code should be produced to be a
touchstone for individual behaviour and a clear indication of
organisational and peer expectations; that the new procedures, although
regulated, should be based on the ACAS code of practice on disciplinary
and grievance procedures; that conduct issues should be separated into
two distinct groups of misconduct and gross misconduct, in order to
promote proportionate handling, clarify available outcomes and provide
a better public understanding of the policing environment; that the
police service must manage the disciplinary arrangements dynamically in
order to drive through changes to the internal culture of the
organisation and promote acceptance of responsibility at all levels of
management; and that the procedures for dealing with the unsatisfactory
performance of a police officer should be reviewed. The reports
recommendations were accepted by the programme board and Ministers. The
PABEW was asked to take forward the process for implementing the
recommendations.
Let
me emphasise some points about the regulations. First, the Taylor
review found that the current system for dealing with police misconduct
can be slow and disproportionate. It gives little or no encouragement
to managers to deal swiftly and proportionately with low-level
misconduct matters. Disciplinary hearings were seen as more akin to
criminal court hearings and even low-level misconduct matters were
decided by three-person panels of senior police officers. The new
system ensures that police managers are given the responsibility and
ability to deal with misconduct in a fair and proportionate manner at a
local level. Time scales are built into the process to ensure
timeliness in all misconduct and gross misconduct cases. An independent
member appointed by the police authority will sit on gross misconduct
panels to bring a public perspective to the holding of police officers
to
account.
Secondly,
as hon. Members have heard, the Taylor report proposed a new single
code as the touchstone for individual behaviour and as a clear
indication of organisational and peer expectations. Together with all
stakeholders, we have produced the new standards of professional
behaviour for police offers, which form part of the conduct
regulations. The standards set out clear expectations of the behaviour
that the public and colleagues expect of all police
officers.
The
Taylor review also proposed that the misconduct procedures be based on
ACAS principles to modernise the system and make it easier for
individual officers and the police service generally to learn lessons
and improve the service to the public. A key point that emerged was the
need to shift the emphasis and culture in police
misconduct and unsatisfactory performance matters from blame and
punishment to development and improvement. The change in the
disciplinary procedures for police misconduct is seismic. The police
should be congratulated for the way that they have embraced the
changes. They have negotiated for a considerable period, so that this
House can discuss conduct regulations that have the full support of all
who were involved in their
drafting.
Mr.
Michael Ancram (Devizes) (Con): I am grateful to the
Minister for the helpful explanatory memorandum. Paragraph 8 on
Impact talks about
potentially
significant non cashable
savings.
Will
he tell me what those
are?
Mr.
Coaker: We could have a long debate about that. Let me
give an example of a non-cashable saving. Because of the timelines that
are being introduced, the system will operate in a more expedient
period. That will create savings, although no money will be received
back. Also, an officer will now know quickly whether they are subject
to misconduct or gross misconduct. The fact that they will be told
quickly will not necessarily result in a cash saving, but there will be
considerable savings in the officers time and in the emotional
upset caused to them. The proposals have the full support of the police
service at all ranks, without exception. It can therefore be expected
that morale will improve. As morale improves, output will improve. That
will not result in a cash bonus, but officers feel that this is a
better procedure and one that they themselves will be involved
in.
The
regulations are a huge step forward for the police service. When we
talk to police officers, they comment on the fact that to a certain
extent, the procedure has been like a court martial procedure. I am
sure that all of us, in our various guises and professions, know only
too well that good conduct regulations are about not only penalising
individual individuals for doing something wrong, but allowing people
to learn, develop and build on their experience. That forms part of any
good system. That does not mean that where there is gross misconduct of
the sort that we could all identify and give examples of, it should not
result in the most serious sanction, as it can do for gross misconduct.
For too long, however, good human resources and personnel procedures
and practice have not been in place within the police force. The Taylor
review identified that fact, as did all the people involved, and they
have come forward with the regulations. As such, the regulations mark a
significant step forward and will be of huge benefit to the police
force and the public whom it serves.
As I have
said, the new procedures are based on ACAS principles, and we are
grateful for the work of ACAS representatives in advising officials on
their development. The report stressed the importance of carrying out a
full assessment of the alleged conduct at an early stage, with a view
to implementing a proportionate response. The new procedures have
incorporated the requirement for that objective assessment to take
place at an early stage.
I have
identified the measures as a significant step forward. All the reports
link together and are supported by all the police organisations, both
senior and staff organisations. I congratulate them on the work that
they have
done.
4.42
pm
Mr.
David Ruffley (Bury St. Edmunds) (Con): Let me welcome
you, Mr. Bercow, and note that when we both entered this
place in 1997, I little realised that you would rise to the heady
heights of the position you occupy today and I would be but a humble
shadow police spokesman. Let me not forget to welcome the hon. Member
for Gedling to his new role as the Minister of State, Home Department.
It is a well-deserved promotion; I have always enjoyed debating with
him on previous occasions and I am sure that that spirit of honest
inquiry will continue.
The
regulations are not based wholly and exclusively on the Taylor review,
but they draw heavily on it. It would be helpful for the Committee and
members of the police service who are listening to the debate, or who
read it, to understand that the Opposition broadly welcome the
principles of the Taylor review and those enshrined in the regulations.
The Taylor review found that the current system for dealing with police
misconduct, and indeed, poor performance, is overly bureaucratic and
legalistic and provides little encouragement for line managers to deal
swiftly and proportionately with misconduct hearings, particularly
low-level misconduct hearings. Misconduct rather than performance is
the subject of the order.
The issues
were well exemplified in an article in the May edition of Police
magazine, which is absolutely required reading for any politician, or
indeed, member of the public, who wishes to get a handle on what
concerns the police service at any particular time. The article stated
that the cost of maintaining professional standards at the Metropolitan
Police Authority alone is a staggering £43 million per year
under the present regime. The Governments prediction, which I
hope comes to pass, is that such costs, which are replicated to a
slightly lower magnitude in other forces in the country, will fall if
the regulations are adequately implemented and have the desired
effect.
On the
specific issue of disciplining misconduct or gross misconduct, it is
worth reminding ourselves of the principles of the Taylor review and,
more important, the post-publication consultation and further work to
which the Minister referred, which resulted in the drafting of the
regulations. It is always good to go back to principles, and I am keen
to put that on the record. Police disciplinary matters are a sensitive
issue for police officers up and down the country who want to know what
Her Majestys Government and Opposition are doing regarding pay
and conditions.
I support the
principles in the regulation. Police officer discipline will remain
regulated by Parliament and will not be subject to the uncertainty of
what has been described as the free market of employment law. As a
result of the Taylor review and subsequent consultationwe must
read across to the excellent Morris inquiry into the Metropolitan
Police Authorityinternational experience was quarried to see
whether taking the oversight of police regulations away from Parliament
and leaving it to employment law, employers and employees was a good
idea. In other words, the issue was about putting the disciplinary
regime on a different footing. Australia was looked atwe always
look there for good police practicewhere the decision was that
it was better for Australian parliamentary bodies to continue to have
oversight. That has been the
result in the drafting in front of us. There was a big debate on the
matter, but I believe that it is correct for Parliament to have
ultimate oversight.
The second
principle is that the framework should be simple and, as the Minister
mentioned, the ACAS model has largely been adopted. The third principle
is that there should not be a big stick sanction punishment regime for
the small minority of officers who, from time to time, fall beneath the
standards that we expect, due to low-level misconduct orin an
even smaller proportion of casesgross misconduct. Typically,
although not necessarily, that would lead to criminal proceedings.
Rather than heavy-handed sanctions, the process should be about
learning and development and how we can learn from our
mistakes.
The fourth
principle is that the system will be much less quasi-judicial.
Investigations do not need to be centred on the crime model. Hearings
should be less adversarial and, where possible, those charged with
misconduct should have less of an incentive to getI borrow from
American TV serieslawyered up. Police officers
who are the subject of a complaint should not automatically believe
that they need legal advice, as that adds to the length and cost of
inquiries. The regulation seems to provide a better way, by using a
lighter touch regimenot always a fashionable phrase in these
dire economic times. However, I agree with the Minister about the
proposal and on the thrust of lighter-touch regulation in this matter,
although not necessarily in the context of economic policy.
The fifth
principle is that, as the Minister pointed out, conduct issues will be
assessed as misconduct or gross misconduct. That division will help us
to understand better, or remind us of the need for proportionality in
distinguishing different types of inappropriate behaviour in what, I
stress, is a tiny minority of cases concerning police
conduct.
The sixth
principle is that issues of misconduct should be dealt with at the
lowest level. The Taylor review makes it clear that, all things being
equal, such matters should not be decided above basic command unit
commander level. A pure misconduct issue should not automatically be
the subject of hearings by large numbers of the ACPO ranks and take up
a lot of timeit might be possible, but it should not be the
norm.
The seventh
principle is that investigations should be less formal and should be
proportionate to the allegation. The eighth principlean
important one on which I wish to return with specific questions to the
Ministeris that the system should have strict time limits with
consequences for unreasonable failure to comply. There are plenty of
time limits in the regulation, but I want to return to my concern with
that in a moment.
The
regulations contain a cultural shift: less blame and harsh punishment
and more emphasis on learning from mistakes. A full assessment of
alleged misconduct will be carried out at an early stage with line
managers who will be the officer immediately above the officer who is
the subject of a complaint.
The Opposition
support the broad thrust of the regulations, but how does the Minister
think the Government and senior members of the police service will
ensure that the time limits are stuck to rigorously?
The whole point of the regulation is to impose a bit more structure and
to get things moving a bit more quickly. What will happen if overworked
managements in different police forces miss the 30-day period within
which a final hearing must be held?
A second
question has been raised with me by sergeants and inspectors who will,
on average, be involved more often at an earlier stage as a result of
these regulations. The Police Federation has concerns about training.
In its view, forces seem only to be investing in training a handful of
senior managers who are then expected to cascade that training, or
their e-learning, down to the officers who have to invoke those
processes. How well will the line managers who will be doing more of
the earlier intervention be trained? I have been told that if training
is not sufficient there is a risk that there might be 43 different
levels of enforcement of the regulations. What steps are the Government
taking to ensure that training is carried out properly in delivering
the new police discipline regime? Are more resources being earmarked?
Is more guidance being sent out on what training should be done,
whether from the Home Office or more specifically the National Policing
Improvement Agency, or have instructions been given to the inspectorate
of constabulary? It would be interesting to know how that will be taken
forward.
My
next question relates to probably the most important point I have to
make. The Minister did not mention it, but it is described rather well
in recommendation 6 of the Taylor review, which
states:
Given
that the approach to, and the processes for, police discipline will
radically alter if the key proposals in this report are accepted, it is
important that the issues of taint and disclosure are
re-assessed.
One
of the reasons why poor behaviour or misconduct is not readily admitted
by police officers who are the subject of a complaint is the
consequence it will have for them when they are called to give evidence
in a court of law on any future unrelated case. They are obviously
worried that any defence counsel could seek to undermine their
credibility as a witness by drawing attention to a record of prior
misconduct which would be on their disciplinary
record.
Changes
to discipline procedures will have an effect on the nature of
investigations into misconduct. Has the Minister given any thought as
to whether the changes will have any impact on the taint and disclosure
problem? If because of a disciplinary problem an officer becomes less
credible when giving evidence in court in future, justice clearly is
not served. If it is lower level he might wish, under the new regime,
to accept a verbal warning. Is that still disclosable to defence
counsel? My suspicion is that it probably will be, but that does not
address the problem identified in the Taylor review. Whether it is the
old or new review, the taint and disclosure problem is one that Taylor
thought was worth looking at. Could the Minister share with us his and
the Departments latest thinking on
that?
The
Taylor review suggested that
perhaps
the
CPS should have a higher level of awareness of the background and
context
of
a misconduct charge against an
officer
but
what goes to the defence needs re-examination.
In other words, what
goes to the defence counsel about an officers prior
disciplinary conduct record needs re-examination. What re-examination
have the Minister and his officials conducted?
On those
specific questions, posed in a spirit of honest inquiry, I draw my
remarks to a conclusion. I shall not be voting against a set of
proposals that the Opposition support for the reasons I have given, but
answers to my questions, which were raised by officers who knew that I
would be debating the regulations with the Minister today, would be
greatly
welcome.
4.57
pm