Asked by: Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Home Office:
To ask His Majesty's Government, further to the Written Answer by Lord Sharpe of Epsom on 17 November 2022 (HL3192), what assessment they have made of the reported involvement of the Police Federation in the transfer of police officers suspected of links to organised crime, or found guilty of sexual crimes to other police forces without vetting.
Answered by Lord Sharpe of Epsom - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Home Office)
The government expects police forces to carry out their vetting in line with the College of Policing’s vetting statutory code of practice and vetting authorised professional practice (APP) guidance.
With regards to transferees, the APP states that the receiving force must request the full complaint and misconduct history of the officer or staff member from the parent force and from any other forces where they have served. Other relevant information such as corruption intelligence and notifiable associations should also be collated. The APP does not provide for the Police Federation to have any influence over this process.
His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services’ (HMICFRS’) report of 2nd November into vetting, misconduct and misogyny in the police service recognised that the inspected forces were complying with the APP in respect of transferees but recommended inserting further safeguards into the vetting process. All of the relevant bodies have committed to addressing the recommendations from the report in full.
Asked by: Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Home Office:
To ask His Majesty's Government what assessment they have made of the report by the His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services An inspection of vetting, misconduct, and misogyny in the police service, published on 2 November, which found that some police officers suspected of links to organised crime, or found guilty of sexual crimes, were transferred to other police forces without vetting; whether the Police Federation was involved in the transfer of these officers; if so, on how many occasions; and whether the Federation were aware of the issues that these officers may have faced if a vetting process had been carried out.
Answered by Lord Sharpe of Epsom - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Home Office)
The report from the Inspectorate has raised some serious questions for policing about vetting and culture. We expect policing to address its forty recommendations in full, including those relating to transferees.
The Home Office has no involvement in individual vetting decisions – this is an operational matter for forces – and does not collect this data.
The College of Policing, who set and maintain training standards for policing, published the Code of Ethics in 2014 which sets out clear standards of professional behaviour. The College of Policing’s foundation training for all those entering the service includes substantial coverage the Code of Ethics. In addition, we have funded the College to develop a National Police Leadership Centre to create a strong professional framework and standards across policing at all levels.
Asked by: Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Home Office:
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the judgment of the European Court of Justice in <i>Rottmann v Freistaat Bayern </i>(Case C-135/08) that a decision by an EU member state to deprive a person of national citizenship cannot result automatically from the fact that the person in question acquired that status by deception, in particular in the light of Section A of the Decision of the Heads of State or Government, meeting within the European Council, concerning issues raised by Denmark regarding the Treaty on European Union (<i>Official Journal</i> C348/1, 31/12/92).
Answered by Lord Bates
The European Court of Justice confirmed in the case of Rottmann that it was required to take into account the Edinburgh Decision of 1992 when interpreting the EU Treaties. On the facts of the case, the Court found that the decision to deprive the applicant of German nationality had to comply with the EU principle of proportionality. The Court considered that this conclusion was consistent with the Edinburgh Decision.
In its application of this judgment, the UK Court of Appeal confirmed in the case of G1 that Member States retain competence over the acquisition and loss of citizenship and the principle in Rottmann only applies if EU law is engaged on the particular facts of each case.
Asked by: Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Home Office:
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether EU citizens can enter the UK for the purposes of seeking employment.
Answered by Lord Bates
All European Union citizens may enter the UK on production of a valid passport or identity card and have an initial right to reside for three months. Those who wish to stay longer can do so as a jobseeker for a further three months, providing they have a genuine prospect of work. After that period, they must be exercising a Treaty right as a worker, a student, or a self-employed or self-sufficient person, or be liable for removal.
The new EU settlement negotiated by the Prime Minster also confirms that we do not have to pay Universal Credit to EU nationals who come to the UK as jobseekers.
In line with the transitional controls imposed through the Accession of Croatia (Immigration and Worker Authorisation) Regulations, Croatian nationals, who are subject to worker authorisation, have no right to reside in the UK as jobseekers.