Bob
Russell: I join the hon. Member for Bury St.
Edmunds in his opening fawning comments, Mr. Bercow. I
notice that the numbers on the Opposition Benches have depleted
somewhat since the proceedings started, and I shall do my best to
ensure that they do not deplete any further. I declare an interest in
that my son-in-law is a police officer. He has yet to discuss with me
the Police (Conduct) Regulations 2008, but I am sure that it is a
subject of hot debate throughout the police forces of the United
Kingdom.
I do not think
that anyone will oppose the general thrust of the regulations, but I
should like to put one specific question to the Minister. In part 2 on
page 7 under the heading “Police Friend”, regulation 6(c)
reads:
“where the
officer concerned is a member of a police
force”. What
other officer would be involved who was not a member of a police force?
I intervened earlier to ask what the purpose was of Unison being
consulted. It was my understanding that the Police Federation
represented police officers, but could the Minister explain the
involvement of a trade union? I am not criticising that; I am just
puzzled as to why it has been involved.
I turn to a
point that I have made in the past. The hon. Member for Keighley and I
are both members of the Home Affairs Committee. This is another lost
opportunity for the wider police family to come together, because
police community support officers are clearly part of the wider police
family. However, as I understand it from my earlier intervention, PCSOs
are dealt with under different arrangements. Two people wearing uniform
might be joined together in a misdemeanour: one a PCSO, the other a
police officer of whatever rank. He might be a special constable or a
full-time officer. As I understand it, they would then have to go
through two separate disciplinary paths. Will the Minister confirm
that? I
raise that point because the Minister made comparisons with a court
martial. I think that I am the only hon. Member present who served on
the Committee that considered the Bill that became the Armed Forces
Act 2006, which was designed to bring together all sectors
of Her Majesty’s armed forces in a common disciplinary code. In
the spirit of joined-up Government, members of the armed forces were
brought together in a single disciplinary code. However, as I
understand it from the regulations, the Home Office feels that there
should be two separate disciplinary paths depending on where people are
in the police family. I think that this is a lost opportunity. I will
not oppose the regulations, but I invite the Minister to seek a remedy
at an early stage in the interests of the future of policing in this
country. As I understand it, the Police Federation is at best reluctant
and at worst totally opposed to embracing police community support
officers into their family.
5.1
pm
Mr.
Coaker: I thank the hon. Members for Bury St.
Edmunds and for Colchester; I appreciate their warm remarks and hope
that my answers do not disappoint them. Both hon. Gentlemen are very
anxious for people to recognise their support for the regulations. As
the Minister responsible for the regulations, I put it on the record
that I fully accept their endorsements. I hope that that is of help to
them. I
agree with virtually all that the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds said
about the importance of these changes and of the principles that we
have adopted. Without rehashing or repeating the points from my
introductory remarks, there is a significant change. Most change that
is worth its weight brings about a cultural shift. It is easy to change
regulations and rules. What makes a difference in an organisation is
when the rules support and reflect a cultural shift. Following on from
the Taylor review, this debate is about a cultural shift. It is
difficult to ensure that the details in the regulations suit all
particular circumstances. That is why it is so important that we have
involved the various staff associations and
bodies. I
will try to answer a couple of the specific points that were made. It
is important that there is no time limit for the investigation of
misconduct or gross misconduct. It would be wrong to say that an
investigation into an officer’s alleged misconduct or gross
misconduct should last for x number of days or months. The reason for
that is obvious. Some investigations must take longer to be fair to the
individual. It would be difficult to predict what the time limit for an
investigation should be in every circumstance. Therefore, it is only
right and proper to say that the investigator should take the time
necessary for a proper
investigation. The
time limit starts when an officer is given written notice that the case
is being referred to a hearing or meeting following the completion of
the investigator’s report. Following the investigator’s
report, the written notice goes to the individual officer. If it is a
misconduct hearing, 20 days would obviously be the time limit, and if
it is a gross misconduct hearing, 30 days is the time limit. I hope
that that is of help to the hon. Gentleman. If there is a failure to
meet the 20 or 30-day deadline, which is only relevant because we have
not time-limited the original investigation, an officer could raise
that as an argument at the hearing or meeting that would take place to
consider the allegations made against them. Should they be found guilty
of misconduct or gross misconduct, that might be grounds for part of
the appeal, should they decide to take the case to the police appeals
tribunal.
The hon.
Gentleman made an extremely good point about training. There is no
doubt that training is crucial, particularly with regard to misconduct
hearings and in cases where we—without wishing to be
disrespectful—want middle managers or immediate managers, rather
than senior managers, to look at misconduct hearings. We therefore
expect training to be available. We have asked the National Policing
Improvement Agency to look at how it ensures that appropriate training
packages are put out to individual officers. Training is also being
delivered by approved external providers. I understand that all forces
have run training for managers and panel members. Indeed, police
authorities are already training some of the independent members who
will be involved.
That is an important issue and it is being taken forward. We will need
to accelerate that process, but training is clearly a crucial part of
it. On taint and
disclosure, further work is needed. That important point is the subject
of ongoing discussions between the Home Office, the Crown Prosecution
Service and the Police Advisory Board working party, which aim to
produce further guidance in due
course.
Mr.
Ruffley: It would be useful if the Minister gave some hint
as to what options the CPS and the other agencies are looking at. I
raise that point because I hit upon it while reading the Taylor review
at midnight last night. Logically, it should be termed,
“disclosure and taint”, because that is what happens:
there is disclosure and then someone is tainted. That is not referred
to in either the regulations or the explanatory notes, but it is a
problem whether we approve the regulations or stay with the existing
regime. I am not at all clear what the way forward might be, and I
cannot find that information laid out anywhere. If there is disclosure,
whether under the old or the new regime, it seems to me that there will
be
taint.
Mr.
Coaker: The only thing that I can say is that the hon.
Gentleman has identified an issue that is not yet fully resolved, which
is why ongoing discussions are taking place. It might help—I
always to try to be helpful on such matters—if I keep you,
Mr. Bercow, and the hon. Members for Bury St. Edmunds and
for Colchester informed of those discussions as they progress, as I
cannot yet give a definitive answer to that question. I reinforce the
point that there is an awareness of that issue, and that discussions
are ongoing to try to resolve
it. The
hon. Member for Colchester asked about regulation 6(1)(c). Special
constables are not part of a force, and the provision is phrased in
that way because special constables are covered by these regulations.
We have involved Unison because police community support officers,
although not covered by the regulations, could act as an
officer’s friend and because it represents HR staff members who
might be involved in dealing with such issues. Frankly, we also thought
that it was good practice to involve Unison, because we wanted the
broadest possible consultation and involvement. I understand the hon.
Gentleman’s point about there being two parallel sets of
procedures. However, this is the appropriate way forward and it has the
support of all the staff associations. For that reason, I commend the
regulations to the
Committee. Question
put and agreed
to. Resolved, That
the Committee has considered the draft Police (Conduct) Regulations
2008.
Bob
Russell: On a point of order, Mr. Bercow. An
hon. Member requested that the regulations and rules be taken
separately. What is the position when the hon. Member who made that
request has left the
Committee?
The
Chairman: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that
point of order, and the answer is that that does
not impact in any way on the decision that has been made. The hon.
Gentleman is right that the Member who made the request has left the
Committee, but that is immaterial to our procedures. The decision has
been made that the matters will be debated
separately. Police
Appeals Tribunals Rules
20085.11
pm
Mr.
Coaker: I beg to
move, That
the Committee has considered the Police Appeals Tribunals Rules
2008. I
thank the hon. Member for Colchester for his comments and I will be
brief in discussing police appeals. The Police Appeals Tribunals Rules
2008 provide for appeals against findings or certain outcomes of cases
considered under the new conduct or performance regulations. Appeals
should be dealt with in a timely and proportionate manner; time scales
are built into the rules to ensure that they are. The police appeals
tribunal chair will have the power to dismiss an appeal at an early
stage when there is no prospect of success and no other compelling
reason why the appeal should proceed. The tribunal will have the power
to overturn the finding of the original panel that considered the
conduct or performance case and amend the sanction
imposed. The
police appeals tribunal is a three-person panel for senior officers and
a four-person panel for non-senior officers. For senior officers, the
chair is selected through the Judicial Appointments Commission and must
have five years’ legal standing. The second member is the chief
inspector of constabulary or another inspector nominated by him. The
third member is the Home Office permanent secretary or another Home
Office director. For non-senior officers, the chair is selected through
the Judicial Appointments Commission and must have five years’
legal standing. The second member is a member of the force’s
police authority. The third member must be a chief officer from the
officer’s force or another force, especially if greater
independence is thought necessary. The fourth member is a retired staff
association
representative. The
chair will have the casting vote, and may also decide the case on
papers and dismiss it without convening the panel if he or she
considers there to be insufficient grounds and there is no other
compelling reason why the appeal should proceed. I say again that there
is no appeal against the decision of the tribunal or the chair. The
only challenge, as in all such situations, is through judicial
review. With
those brief remarks, I hope that the Committee will accept the
rules. 5.13
pm
Mr.
Ruffley: I, too, will be commensurately brief. Paragraph
4.2.36 of the Taylor review
states: “Any
appeal body would require a clear mechanism for feeding back learning
into the
service.” The
idea that officers should be encouraged to learn from their mistakes
also bears on this issue. I am not sure how the new appeals system
demonstrates a clear mechanism for feeding back learning into the
service. Will the Minister enlighten us on that
matter?
5.14
pm
Mr.
Coaker: Our expectation is that a tribunal decision will
be clearly laid out in front of the panel. That information, report,
judgment and decision should be communicated to other officers. The
panel might also decide to give guidance to the individual officer
concerned. Appeals panels produce reports and guidance that can be
disseminated and distributed in the appropriate way to ensure that the
necessary learning is gleaned. Hopefully, whatever led to the appeal
and judgment might, in future, lead to better practice.
Question
put and agreed to.
Draft
Police (Performance) Regulations 2008
5.16
pm
Mr.
Coaker: I beg to
move, That
the Committee has considered the draft Police (Performance) Regulations
2008. The
Taylor report recommended a review of the existing unsatisfactory
performance procedures that deal with individual poor performance or
attendance of police officers. That recommendation has been implemented
through the new performance regulations, which set out the procedures
for dealing with such matters.
The new
procedures provide a fair, open and proportionate method of dealing
with unsatisfactory performance, and will hold police officers to
account for such behaviour. They are also intended—this is the
cultural shift that we are talking about—to encourage a culture
of personal responsibility among individual police officers, and
support learning and development for both individuals and the
organisation. When circumstances require it, there must be appropriate
sanctions for poor performance. However, we must also ensure that
improvement is an integral part of any outcome. Even where an
individual must be dismissed, there will be learning opportunities for
the police
service. We
believe that the performance regulations will create a performance
environment for police officers that more closely reflects that which
exists in more “normal” employment practice. I do not
want to go through the various timelines and stages involved—the
three-stage process—but I think that the regulations are
appropriate, will lead to improved performance and will be generally
welcomed by the police service.
5.18
pm
Mr.
Ruffley: It is worth putting on the record the view of Her
Majesty’s Opposition regarding the performance regulations as
they relate to the conduct of individual officers. Performance
management is slightly different and is a term normally applied at
force level. I hope that all members of the Committee agree with the
principles enshrined in the regulations. They set out the standards of
professional behaviour expected of police officers and special
constables, and include an expectation that officers act with honesty,
integrity, self-control and tolerance, and that they treat members of
the public with respect and courtesy. We agree on all those
things.
The codes also
address the importance of minimum standards of behaviour for officers
when they are off duty. That recognises that police officers are
servants of
the Crown and not employees. Politicians who support the
police—most of us do—should flag up the fact that the
police have special regimes governing their pay and conditions. They
are subject to restrictions on their off-duty behaviour that most other
members of the public services, magnificent though they are, are not
subject to. For example, there are restrictions on what outside
business interests officers, and members of their families, can
undertake. When most of us may be swanning around in our jeans and
pullovers on a Sunday afternoon, minding our own business as private
citizens, that is not a luxury that most members of the police force
have. In effect, they are on duty all the time, and we must recognise
the special nature of the work—rather, service—that they
perform for the Crown. The procedures
relate to the small minority of officers who fall below the standards
of performance that their line managers and the public would expect.
The regulations go into some detail as to how line managers will have
to exercise a different assessment of the performance of officers under
their command. There was a problem—the procedures are not just
there for reasons of spin or to clog up the legislative timetable.
Paragraph 4.2.52 of the Taylor review highlighted the lack of use of
capability procedures in dealing with poor officer performance, and
that needed addressing. Part of the problem was that sometimes, poor
performance was confused with misconduct. Conceptually, we understand
the difference between poor performance and misconduct, but quite often
the two can merge and be a grey area.
I have some
questions with which I wish to draw my remarks to a conclusion. The
first is a point of clarification. Recommendation 4 of the Taylor
review
said: “An
early review of the Unsatisfactory Performance Procedures should be
instigated as they are a key part of the holistic management of public
concerns about policing and the effective internal management of
performance.” Is
the provision the result of the early review that the Taylor review
refers to—on unsatisfactory performance procedures—and is
it fair to deduce that what is before us is pretty much the last word
from the Government on reform of the poor performance regime? Is more
work under way, or should we expect further work and reviews?
My second
question, which is about training, is one I that have raised before in
the context of misconduct, but it applies with equal force to the
management of poor performance. Just as line managers will have better
to understand the assessment of misconduct or gross misconduct at an
early level, they must also have a better understanding of what
constitutes poor performance, and how to handle it when they pull in an
officer at the first stage and make them aware that their performance
is inadequate. What resources, if any, will be devoted to this? My
guess is that chief constables will be required to find any training
moneys from within existing budgets, but if so, what dissemination of
best practice is afoot? Will it again be through the National Policing
Improvement Agency? When will such guidance be issued and what form
will it take? It is all very well talking about new regimes, and I have
no problem with how the regulations are set out, but they will not bite
and operate as effectively as they should unless we have both a clear
understanding of the training for line managers and an ongoing
assessment of how the new regime operates. We, and the police service,
will certainly want to return to this issue six or 12 months after the
new regime for misconduct and
poor performance has been put in place to see how line managers feel.
Are they getting the support, training and guidance to make a very good
set of proposals work in the real world rather than just look logical
and acceptable in
theory? My
third question relates to regulation 58 of the Police (Conduct)
Regulations. It places a responsibility on the chief officer of a
police force to store a record of poor performance proceedings and
special case proceedings brought against every officer concerned,
together with the finding and decision. Will that information be
collected centrally by the Home Office and compiled in such a way that
comparisons can be made both over time and between forces? If
Parliament is to continue to be responsible for overseeing the
regulation of police force discipline and performance, it could be
argued that we need the facts available on a national basis fully to
understand how the current regulations will operate in
practice.
My final
question is about central data collection. Is the Minister
contemplating making comparisons across forces and over time? I am not
necessarily saying that that is a good thing because, by and large, if
the opportunity arises, one should resist the temptation to centralise
data. Is that in the Minister’s mind and could he share his
thoughts with us? With that last question on the thorny issue of
centralisation of data, I shall resume my seat. I await the
Minister’s replies with great
interest. 5.27
pm
| 
