Draft Elected Local Policing Bodies (Complaints and Misconduct) Regulations 2011
Draft Local Policing Bodies (Consequential Amendments) Regulations 2011
The Committee consisted of the following Members:
† Buckland, Mr Robert (South Swindon) (Con)
† Carmichael, Neil (Stroud) (Con)
† Crockart, Mike (Edinburgh West) (LD)
† Drax, Richard (South Dorset) (Con)
† Duddridge, James (Lord Commissioner of Her Majesty's Treasury)
† Ellison, Jane (Battersea) (Con)
† Field, Mark (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)
† Hanson, Mr David (Delyn) (Lab)
† Herbert, Nick (Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice)
Lammy, Mr David (Tottenham) (Lab)
† McCartney, Karl (Lincoln) (Con)
Paisley, Ian (North Antrim) (DUP)
† Robinson, Mr Geoffrey (Coventry North West) (Lab)
Sharma, Mr Virendra (Ealing, Southall) (Lab)
Sheerman, Mr Barry (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
† Ward, Mr David (Bradford East) (LD)
† Wilson, Phil (Sedgefield) (Lab)
Mark Etherton, Committee Clerk
† attended the Committee
The following also attended ( Standing Order No. 118(2) ) :
Huppert, Dr Julian (Cambridge) (LD)
Second Delegated Legislation Committee
Monday 12 December 2011
[Miss Anne McIntosh in the Chair]
Draft Elected Local Policing Bodies (Complaints and Misconduct) Regulations 2011
4.30 pm
The Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice (Nick Herbert): I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Elected Local Policing Bodies (Complaints and Misconduct) Regulations 2011.
The Chair: With this it will be convenient to consider the draft Local Policing Bodies (Consequential Amendments) Regulations 2011.
Nick Herbert: Welcome to the Chair, Miss McIntosh. The first set of regulations sets out the way in which complaints against police and crime commissioners, the Mayor’s office for policing and crime, and their deputies will be handled. The second set makes consequential amendments to various existing statutory instruments arising from the replacement of police authorities by PCCs and MOPC, and from the fact that chief officers of police will employ police staff in the future.
I am afraid that I will have to detain the Committee briefly with an explanation of how the new system will work. The context is that 41 PCCs will be elected in England and Wales on 15 November 2012 and they will take office on 22 November. It is expected that PCCs and their deputies will uphold the highest standards of public office. However, in the event that there is a complaint or an allegation against one of them, it is important that it is handled effectively, to ensure that public confidence in policing is maintained. The Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011 therefore provides for regulations to set out the way in which complaints or conduct matters about elected local policing bodies will be handled.
The Act requires the regulations to provide for allegations of criminal behaviour to be referred to the Independent Police Complaints Commission, and allegations of non-criminal behaviour to be resolved informally by the police and crime panel. The reason for requiring criminal allegations to be referred to the IPCC is that, otherwise, the office holder may or may be perceived to be at an advantage in relation to the police investigation, because of his or her responsibilities for holding their force to account. The IPCC has extensive experience of handling sensitive, complex and high-profile cases and will provide independent scrutiny to the handling and investigation of allegations of criminal behaviour in this context.
The regulations set out that criminal allegations will have to be passed to the IPCC quickly, and give it a call-in power to require that allegations against the office holder are referred to it. The regulations give the IPCC strong powers to investigate criminal allegations,
similar to those that it has for investigating police forces, and require the IPCC to publish a report following its investigation.Where a complaint is not serious enough to require investigation by or under the management of the IPCC, the regulation provide for it to be resolved informally by the PCP. The arrangements for PCP resolutions of non-criminal allegations are intended to be light-touch and locally determined, although it is intended that the Home Secretary will give some guidance in this area. Panels will be able to delegate the initial handling, but not the resolution of complaints to the PCC’s monitoring officer. We expect that they may wish to keep abreast of the handling of complaints through regular reports.
In London, the Government have already announced that the MOPC will come into effect this January, because the elected office of the Mayor already exists. The regulations allow non-criminal complaints against the Mayor, as the MOPC, or the deputy mayor for policing and crime, if he or she is a member of the London Assembly, to be dealt with in the same way as complaints about the Mayor of London or the London Assembly. That is intended to avoid any potential confusion arising from the MOPC being subject to two different standards procedures.
The regulations have been developed by the Home Office with some of the main delivery partners who will be affected by their proposals. There has also been a public consultation process, which received 31 responses. The Government have considered the responses very carefully and have made some important changes as a result. The main changes are designed to improve the co-ordination of the handling of complaints at local level and keep any bureaucracy associated with administering the system to an absolute minimum.
The intention is that the regulations will come into force in January and will have effect in the Metropolitan Police Service area of London from January. They will have effect in the rest of England and Wales from 22 November 2012, when the first police and crime commissioners take office.
The Local Policing Bodies (Consequential Amendments) Regulations 2011 make consequential amendments to various existing statutory instruments, arising from the replacement of police authorities with police and crime commissioners and the MOPC and from the fact that chief officers of police will employ police staff in the future.
The Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011 makes significant changes to the governance arrangements for policing in England and Wales, with the exception of the City of London police area. In the City of London, the common council retains its role as the police authority, and the status of the Commissioner of the City of London police remains unchanged. The Act refers to police and crime commissioners, the MOPC and the common council collectively as “local policing bodies”.
The consequential regulations in question are not intended to change the substantive effect of the various instruments being amended, except for the purposes of reflecting the changes made by the 2011 Act. Specifically, the regulations will amend the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (Drug Testing of Persons in Police Detention) (Prescribed Persons) Regulations 2001 to
ensure that members of police staff continue to be prescribed as persons permitted to take samples from suspects in police detention for the purposes of drug testing. The amendments to the Docking of Working Dogs’ Tails (England) Regulations 2007 allow members of police staff to continue to present police dogs for certification as working dogs for the purposes of the working dogs exemption to the prohibition on the docking of dogs’ tails. The changes to the Local Authorities (Alcohol Disorder Zones) Regulations 2008 allow for costs in relation to members of police staff designated as community support officers to continue to be included in charges levied in relation to alcohol disorder zones. Costs incurred in relation to those staff and police officers, which are currently payable to the police authority, will be payable to the local policing body.Section 6(15) of the Animal Welfare Act 2006 requires the Secretary of State to have consulted those persons appearing to her to represent interests with which these regulations are concerned as she considers appropriate. As the amendments to the Docking of Working Dogs’ Tails (England) Regulations 2007, to which that requirement relates, concern only police dogs, and the only amendments are for the purpose of replacing references to police authorities, the Secretary of State considered it appropriate to consult only the Association of Police Authorities and the Association of Chief Police Officers. Those bodies had no comments on the instrument.
Sections 15 to 20 of the Violent Crime Reduction Act 2006, under which the Local Authorities (Alcohol Disorder Zones) Regulations 2008 were made, are repealed by section 140 of the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011. However, the Government do not intend to bring section 140 into force until later in 2012.
As the amendments to existing instruments are limited, the Home Secretary does not intend to issue guidance or review the impact of these changes. The intention is that these regulations will come into effect in January 2012 in the MPS area of London and in November 2012 in the rest of the country.
In conclusion, the regulations will facilitate effective complaints procedures in the new policing landscape, and I commend them to the Committee.
4.38 pm
Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab): I, too, welcome you to the Chair, Miss McIntosh. I thank the Minister for the two documents and assure him straight away that on the second one, the Local Policing Bodies (Consequential Amendments) Regulations 2011, I am satisfied and have no queries. As the Minister said, they simply update legislation to reflect the move to police and crime commissioners.
You will know, Miss McIntosh, that the Opposition have taken an interest, particularly under the previous policing spokesman, my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker), in the issue of police and crime commissioners and, indeed, we have opposed them throughout. However, now that the legislation has been enacted, we want to play a constructive role over the coming months in ensuring that the framework and legislation for police and crime commissioners is in place in a positive way. That is why I have a number of questions on the first set of regulations. The Minister helpfully circulated the consultation responses on the
Home Office website from a range of bodies in relation to the document before the Committee. I want to pick up on some of those points, so that the Minister can elaborate on his thinking on these matters.There were concerns that no definitive timeline has been set for the completion of IPCC investigations. I recognise that such investigations can be quick, but they can also be complex and very difficult to examine. I would welcome the Minister indicating whether there is ever a potential end date when the IPCC should report, even on progress on how such matters are being dealt with. Significant cases that could take time might come before the IPCC and leave police commissioners or other senior staff at the whim of public speculation about the outcome of the deliberations. Although no time scale is set, it would be helpful if the Minister considered setting a time when there should at least be an interim report or interim discussion if no deliberation has been completed.
I say that because at paragraph 4.3 to the explanatory notes the Minister helpfully sets out the legislative background to the establishment of police and crime commissioners: “The Act gives” police and crime panels
“who is charged with a criminal offence punishable with more than two years’ imprisonment.”
If a person is charged with a criminal offence that carries a sentence of, or is sentenced to, more than two years’ imprisonment, the police and crime panel can suspend them. That is helpful. A police and crime commissioner convicted of any imprisonable criminal offence will be disqualified from continuing to hold office, which, again, is helpful. However, if the IPCC is able to draw its conclusions over any time period, as it seems to be able to under the regulation, I worry that there will be potential difficulties for whomever holds whichever police and crime commissioner post to which they have been elected.
I hope that it will help the Committee if I give some current statistics on criminal offences. The disqualification or suspension period is a sentence of up to two years’ imprisonment, but it might surprise Committee members to know that, for example, 51 individuals were imprisoned for up to two years for causing death by reckless driving. I accept that most people elected to the post of police and crime commissioner will not be people who have a criminal background, but driving recklessly, for example, could happen to any individual through the use of a mobile phone, by sending a text or doing a whole range of things. At the moment, the IPCC would examine the matter, and there would be no deliberation until the IPCC had come to a conclusion or, as the regulation says, until the criminal proceedings had concluded in a court case.
Without resolution under the time scale that I suggested for consideration, is the timeline feasible for an elected commissioner, who may have three and a half years left in office when the alleged offence occurs, given the potential delay in bringing an offence such as death by reckless driving to court and the fact that the IPCC may discuss the matter for six, seven, eight or nine months? The Minister needs to think that through, because it is not only about death by reckless driving; in the last year that we are able to consider, there were 17 cases of
sentences of up to two years for manslaughter. Causing death by driving under the influence of drink or drugs has also led to sentences of under two years. He needs to reflect on whether safeguards are in place.Will the Minister clarify what he is saying in the Government’s response regarding concerns expressed in the consultation about driving offences? The legislation currently says that anybody convicted of any criminal offence should be disqualified from office. I would be interested to know his view on driving offences because, in the discussion document he has introduced and the consultation we have had, in response to the question about driving offences, he has said:
“The IPCC will be able to put in place light-touch handling arrangements”
to examine the issue. I would welcome the Minister’s clarification of what he means by “light-touch handling arrangements.” Will those “light-touch handling arrangements,” which he has quoted in his own response to the document before us today, be in place for 16 January? If they are going to be produced, will those “light-touch handling arrangements”—I quote from the Minister’s consultation response—be published or made public?
Again, there will be people who will take offence at any action by a particular police commissioner once elected. There will be malicious litigants and, unless that point is clarified even as early as 16 January when the measure applies to London, there is scope for potential difficulties, which need to be examined by the Minister. He says in his response that it would not be appropriate for the IPCC’s ability to investigate any alleged criminal activity to be fettered and that
“It is anticipated that the IPCC will be able to put in place light-touch handling arrangements for such offences in order to keep bureaucracy associated with investigating such cases to a minimum.”
As the measure comes into effect on 16 January for London and is in place next year for the rest of the country, it is important that we know what those “light-touch handling arrangements” will be.
In passing, I would also be interested to know, in the event of the PCC being convicted under the measures set out in the Act, what the status is of the deputy of the PCC when that occurs because it states in the explanatory notes that a deputy can be appointed by the police and crime commissioner. If the PCC is convicted, does the deputy, who I remind the Committee will not have been elected to the post, take up that post and serve out that term? Does the deputy have the powers to exercise the police commissioner’s authority if the police commissioner is ultimately found guilty by the IPCC or, indeed, in a criminal court and loses office? Does the deputy have the power to act on behalf of the police complaints commissioner while serious allegations are being undertaken by the police complaints authority, because those are serious points? Those matters may have been dealt with in Committee, but sadly I was elsewhere on Treasury matters at that time. I would be grateful if the Minister could at least give some indication of what will happen in relation to that.
The regulations deal with serious allegations that are referred to the independent police complaints authority about a police commissioner. The police commissioner is directly elected by the people of each police authority
and appoints a deputy who is accountable to the police commissioner. If the police commissioner is under prolonged investigation by the IPCC, which is what the order is about, and if they receive a criminal conviction and are disqualified, which is what the order refers to, who ultimately has responsibility for the policing of a particular authority or, indeed, of Greater London? That could happen and the Minister needs to reflect on that point in his consideration today.I would also welcome the Minister’s comments on the budget for the IPCC. He will know that in 2010-11 the IPCC’s budget was £36.365 million, that this year it is £33.290 million, and that for next year it is £31.45 million. Anybody can see that that is a £5 million cut over the previous two years, with inflation being at 4 to 5% in the future. Again, I accept—I will not make a big deal out of this—that the bulk of the IPCC’s work is in relation to other matters. However, I would welcome some confirmation from the Minister about how many complaints the IPCC has investigated under the current regulations in relation to misconduct. In addition, in terms of budget planning, what is his assessment of the likelihood of complaints going forward? Is it likely to be one a year? Is it none a year? What is his estimate of the workload that might be undertaken by the IPCC at a time when it is losing £5 million of its budget and inflation is at 5%?
Will the Minister give me some guarantees about the involvement of the police panel in the publication of any report by the IPCC? The consultation document says that the IPCC would have the power to act without reference to the police panel in any way, shape or form. It would seem to be good practice for the Minister to talk to the IPCC so that at the very least its report was shared with the panel prior to publication, even if not to allow the panel to make any points on that report. Again, these reports will be dealing with serious matters relating to the conduct of senior people in the police force. The PCP is there to scrutinise that senior individual. It should not just find about the IPCC report from the front pages of the local paper on the morning the report is published. At the moment the Government’s own response says that that is not really their thinking and that reports should not be shared beforehand. I would welcome the Minister’s views on that.
In the Minister’s helpful consultation response he said that he would issue guidance and a number of issues are still outstanding. We are committing today this final document through parliamentary scrutiny. It comes into effect on 16 January 2012, yet there are serious issues that still require some clarification from the Minister. I quote from the responses to the consultation document:
“Respondents said they would welcome guidance on a number of issues. The main issues were as follows;
What are operational issues complaints, which should lie with the chief constable, compared to those that more naturally rest with the PCP.
How a situation whereby the complaints system is being used to fulfil a personal or political agenda will be managed.”
We all know of constituents with very strong views on issues who will pursue those issues and continue to e-mail us as Members of Parliament. Where is the guidance in relation to a complaints system being used for a personal or political agenda? Who is the relevant office holder and when should they be informed about
the complaint being made? That seems to be a basic human right. If a complaint is being dealt with by the IPCC there is no guidance as to when the office holder should be informed, or by whom, that a complaint or allegation is being made. That seems to me a basic tenet of any court of law: the first thing one should know is what the charges are against an individual, yet at the moment we have no final guidance on that.What is the relevant office holder’s position during the investigation? That is a serious matter. A police and crime commissioner will have been accused of a serious offence by an individual or an organisation or have had those allegations made against them and may have an IPCC investigation ongoing and possibly a criminal trial. Yet no guidance has been given as yet by the Minister with regard to the point I made earlier: are they expected to seesaw functions? Do they hand them over to the deputy? What are the avenues of redress which the PCP can use if the relevant office holder has been found to have acted improperly?
What do we do about items of a non-criminal nature in which the PCP and the IPCC might have an interest? They could be issues of a non-criminal nature to do with improper relationships between individuals in the force or outside the force and the police and crime commissioner. They could be issues that are perfectly legal but are of a personal and sexual nature or a personal and financial nature and so could form the basis of a proper complaint. Yet no guidance has been issued by the Minister on those issues.
As the Government response helpfully states—I am trying to help the Minister—in their consultation response:
“The Government is grateful for these suggestions. Some of these issues are covered in legislation…but these suggestions will be considered in due course when developing guidance. Draft guidance will be shared with partners for further comments.”
The legislation comes into effect for London on 16 January; will the draft guidance be published before that? The orders will have an impact on any allegations that might—and I am not impugning the current post holder in any way—in theory, be applicable to the existing post holder of the Mayor of London between 16 January and the election, as well as for any subsequent Mayor, before such guidance comes forward.
That guidance needs to be looked at in the context of these regulations, because it is key to important issues that have been raised, not by me, but by respondents to the consultation: that includes the Association of Police Authorities, the Association of Police Authority Chief Executives, the London assembly, the Mayor of London, Avon and Somerset police authority, and a range of other police authorities, as well as Avon and Somerset, Derbyshire, Kent, Northampton, North Yorkshire, Sussex, and West Mercia constabularies. Those are not individuals or political parties, but police authorities, police bodies or the Mayor’s office in London. Therefore, where is the guidance? When will it be published, and will it be consulted on?
Mark Field (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con): I can appreciate the right hon. Gentleman’s concerns, but it is surely straightforward in relation to London. Any complaints for the Mayor of London, in his role as head of the police authority, would be treated on a similar basis to that of his role as a mayor in the period between 16 January and 3 May. There should not necessarily
be any breakneck speed; surely the emphasis should be on getting this right rather than rushing it through, particularly as in the specific area of London, an individual has been in place, and the safeguards that the right hon. Gentleman has in mind have been there, in the 12 years that the mayoralty has run, for these sorts of misconduct allegations.Mr Hanson: I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman raised that very important point. That may well be a satisfactory answer, but the Minister has not said it as yet. The response to the consultation says that guidance will be produced in due course. I have used the examples from the consultation document to make the case for such guidance to be produced, and I ask the Minister when that will happen. It is still of material interest to the other 41 authorities that will, in November next year, elect police commissioners, and the Minister should respond to that point.
I have two more questions. First, the consultation period was extremely short. It was about four weeks, from mid-September to mid-October, which is not the normal length of time. The Minister received 31 responses under that consultation. I simply ask whether further responses were received after the consultation period finished, so that we can be aware of any other points that are not reflected in the document.
Finally, under regulation 3(1)(d)—
“General functions of the Commission”—
it states that the commission should
“secure that public confidence is established”.
I am grateful for that, because public confidence is important. How does the Minister intend to know whether public confidence is established? What mechanisms does he have? It is a very bland statement. “Public confidence is established”—that is great. I am very pleased, but how will he judge it? The Minister has written that with support from officials, so he must have some clarity on the matter, and I hope he will indicate how he will judge public confidence in the process. I welcome his response.
5 pm
Mike Crockart (Edinburgh West) (LD): I will not detain the Committee for long. I share some of the concerns expressed by the right hon. Member for Delyn, especially regarding the time scales for investigations into PCCs charged with offences. The Minister and I covered the subject in great depth when the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill was in Committee. As a sideline, I would like to say, perhaps churlishly, that if the right hon. Gentleman had accepted the amendments I proposed at that stage, this would be of lesser importance, as the PCC would have been suspended for many more offences of this type pending the outcome of these investigations. However, we are where we are.
The greatest delay in investigations would be caused by the lack of a permanent chair of the IPCC. Given the key role that the IPCC will play in investigating complaints against the new police and crime commissioners, will the Minister confirm that a permanent chair of that body will be appointed as soon as possible, and will certainly be in place in good time before the first PCC elections in November next year?
5.1 pm
Nick Herbert: The right hon. Member for Delyn raised a number of issues. I welcome his constructive stance on the implementation of this legislation; he did not take such as stance during the passage of the Bill. He is right to say that Parliament has spoken; elections will take place in November next year, so it is important that we make the new system work, both to ensure the effective governance of the police and for the public’s sake. Police authorities are working constructively in that respect and I pay tribute to them for doing so. I know that the Labour party has called for candidates to the elections. I want to record that we are grateful that the sinner repenteth, and we look forward to seeing the Labour candidates.
Mr Hanson: I have opposed the House of Lords for my entire 37 years in the Labour party, but I will still ensure that Labour Members go there until it is abolished. That is the same principle.
Nick Herbert: I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman means that he opposes the House of the Lords as currently constituted. He may find that I have some sympathy with that. I could not help a little jibe at his expense.
The right hon. Gentleman asked whether a deadline would be set by the IPCC in relation to its investigations. That is a matter for the IPCC; we do not set deadlines and I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will understand why. It would not be right to set any kind of artificial deadline, and I do not think he was proposing that. The force of what he said, which is right, is that it is important that investigations are pursued in a timely way, particularly where the issues may be serious or controversial and, therefore, disabling either to a chief constable or to an elected police and crime commissioner while they are under way. I am sure the IPCC will be mindful of that. Equally, it must conduct the investigations properly. A number of issues are currently before the IPCC, and individuals, including right hon. and hon. Members, have urged that inquiries are conducted swiftly, but it is important that the IPCC does its work properly. That is the balance it needs to strike, but I am sure it will have heard the right hon. Gentleman’s words.
The right hon. Gentleman said—I think I am quoting him accurately—that police and crime commissioners were not going to be people from criminal backgrounds. Of course, he is right that it is not possible for someone to become an elected police and crime commissioner if they have been convicted of any imprisonable offence. My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh West was with me when the Bill was in Committee, and we had a long debate about these matters. The Government acted to amend the Bill at that stage to ensure that the bar for the disqualification or suspension of police and crime commissioners was lower than for any other public office, and that reflects concern that there should be the highest standards of integrity. It is not appropriate for people with convictions for serious criminal offences to hold an office through which a police force is held to account, so we have built in the safeguards that the right hon. Member for Delyn sought.
The right hon. Gentleman referred to allegations of non-criminal behaviour and to what I said about their being resolved informally by the police and crime panel, and he picked up on my point that guidance might be
produced by the Home Secretary. I also said that it is important that such arrangements are agreed locally. We will provide guidance where it is helpful to do so, but I am not going to set a deadline. It is possible to have sensible discussions with those involved in London, and if they need assistance with putting the arrangements in place we will provide it, then draw on that experience for any guidance we might need to issue about the procedures for the wider police and crime commissioner elections in November. Having met senior Metropolitan police officers and the chief executive of the Metropolitan Police Authority today during a meeting of our national transition board, I am satisfied that the arrangements to ensure the effective transition to the Mayor’s office for policing and crime next month are going according to plan, and that all necessary steps are being taken to address issues such as this. I will certainly keep the matter under review, and I am happy to note the right hon. Gentleman’s constructive comment.The right hon. Gentleman asked about deputisation if a police and crime commissioner is suspended. According to subsection 62(1) of the 2011 Act, a police and crime panel outside London can appoint an acting commissioner who may or may not be the police and crime commissioner deputy but must be a member of the commissioner’s staff. There are slightly different arrangements for London, where under the Greater London Authority Act 1999, the deputy becomes the Mayor if the Mayor is removed.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about the IPCC budget, and I noted in response to an Adjournment debate two weeks ago that the IPCC’s budget and staff numbers have expanded considerably over recent years. We are asking the IPCC, along with many other bodies, to make savings, but we are confident that they have the resources to take on those responsibilities. They always had responsibility for investigating serious matters regarding ACPO officers, and the police and crime commissioners will absorb much of that responsibility in the first instance for non-criminal matters in relation to the chief officer team.
The right hon. Gentleman asked what estimate we had made of the work load. It is impossible to assess the extent to which complaints will be made against elected police and crime commissioners, but the very fact that we are talking about it is an indication of a change in the landscape, in that police and crime commissioners will be in the public eye. They will be susceptible to complaints—people will want to ensure that they meet high standards of office—precisely because they will be visible in a way that police authorities were not. That visibility and accountability are good, and they are intrinsic to the reforms.
Mr Hanson: That is the very point I was making. With the advent of the mechanism for complaints about the behaviour of Members of Parliament, the work load has increased significantly in recent years, and I expect that the visibility of the police and crime commissioners to lead to more complaints than there have been about police authorities in the past. What assessment have the Minister and his officials made of the IPCC’s likely greater work load, given the undoubtedly higher profile of the PCCs?
Nick Herbert: I understand the force of the right hon. Gentleman’s question, but it is difficult to assess the extent to which the work load will increase. There is no
doubt that the PCCs’ greater visibility and the fact that they will be in the public eye will attract criticism and comment, but we must guard against malicious or vexatious complaints, which is why we sought to put in place a clear set of procedures for dealing with such matters.The right hon. Gentleman asked whether we received further responses after the closing date of the consultation. I am not aware that we did, but if we did, I will certainly write to him and let him know. He also asked about public confidence, and regulation 3(1)(d). I am advised that the duty on the IPCC to secure public confidence in the complaints system is the same as the duty on the IPCC in relation to the police complaints system. That is what that provision means, and I am grateful to him for raising that vital point of detail.
Finally, my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh West referred to the chair of the IPCC. We advertised for a permanent chair, and we have decided to re-advertise the position. We want to ensure that the right person is appointed to the position, because it is an immensely important office, and increasingly so given all the issues confronting policing. It is important to find the right person, and we will get that right. We will make that
appointment as soon as possible next year, and the current interim chair, Len Jackson, has agreed to an extension to his term while we make the appointment. The Government have the fullest confidence in him. He is highly regarded and has done an excellent job as commissioner and interim chair of the commission. We have full confidence in him until a permanent chair is appointed.That the Committee has considered the draft Elected Local Policing Bodies (Complaints and Misconduct) Regulations 2011.
DRAFT LOCAL POLICING BODIES (CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS) REGULATIONS 2011
That the Committee has considered the draft Local Policing Bodies (Consequential Amendments) Regulations 2011.—(Nick Herbert.)