Police watchdog criticised by MPs

http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/rss/-/1/hi/uk/7973120.stm

Version 0 of 1.

MPs have criticised the effectiveness of the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) over how it monitors its own recommendations.

The Commons Public Accounts Committee (PAC) said the IPCC's systems for checking the quality of its work were "conspicuously absent".

The PAC also called on the Home Office to ensure there was a "clear and well-established line of accountability".

The IPCC oversees complaints about the police in England and Wales.

It also has a statutory duty to investigate cases involving death or serious injury at the hands of the police.

In its latest report, the PAC called on the police complaints watchdog to tighten up procedures.

It should introduce a "robust" quality framework, also bring in external scrutiny of a sample of its cases, to give the public assurance about how it handles investigations and appeals.

Increased workload

Among the issues pointed out by the committee, was the fact that the IPCC did not routinely seek the views of complainants or police officers about its investigations or the appeals process.

It also had no mechanism in place for monitoring whether its recommendations had been implemented by the police, the PAC said.

The Conservative chairman of the committee, Edward Leigh, said IPCC staff were "hard pressed" after the watchdog's workload had sharply increased since it had been set up in 2004.

You would think that any organisation that makes recommendations would have a mechanism in place to monitor if they have been implemented Edward Leigh, PAC chairman

He said: "Public confidence in the police complaints system looks to have improved.

"But when it comes to how effective the IPCC actually is, that's where the questions start to be asked. Systems for checking the quality of its work are conspicuously absent.

"There is no external independent scrutiny and the IPCC has no formal internal processes to monitor its work, exposing it to potential allegations of incompetence or bias.

"There has also been little attempt until recently to find out what those who experience the IPCC's services really think of them. The views of complainants, police officers and appellants have not been routinely sought."

Mr Leigh said the IPCC's external advisory board is "heavily weighted towards the interests of government, police and staff and under-represents the views of complainant groups".

He added: "You would think that any organisation that makes recommendations would have a mechanism in place to monitor if they have been implemented.

"Not only does the IPCC have no such mechanism, no one else seems to have the responsibility for such monitoring.

"Our committee would like this matter to be clarified by the Home Office."