Licensing Act 2003 (2020 UEFA European Championship Licensing Hours) Order 2021

Lord Rosser Excerpts

Thursday 8th July 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rosser (Lab) [V]]

I declare my football interests as set out in the register and, not surprisingly, congratulate the England team on their truly magnificent achievements and the pleasure they have given to so many millions of our fellow citizens.

The Government justify this order on the grounds that Sunday’s final is an occasion of exceptional national significance for the purposes of Section 172 of the Licensing Act 2003, given the achievements of the England football team and the United Kingdom’s successful hosting of the tournament in exception circumstances. Licensed premises will be able to remain open until 11.15 pm on Sunday for the sale of alcohol and the provision of regulated entertainment. Does the extension until 11.15 pm mean that premises have to close by 11.15 pm, or that they can remain open later but are not able to sell alcohol or have regulated entertainment after 11.15pm?

Consultation took place on Tuesday this week with “selected partners”. Who did that include beyond the police and local government representative bodies, including public health and the hospitality industry mentioned in the Explanatory Memorandum? Apart from the police, did any other consultees have any reservations or caveats, or perhaps have no firm view one way or the other?

The National Police Chiefs’ Council’s lead on football opposed the changes on the grounds of risk of increased public disorder and resulting demands on policing. However, on balance, notwithstanding that feedback, the Government considered the extension of hours appropriate, limited in duration to one day only and the importance of marking this event of exceptional national significance. The Government felt that this event could be marked by an extension of licensing hours but were other options for marking Sunday’s event considered and, if so, what were they?

Earlier today, as the Minister will know, and as the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, said, the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson of Tredegar, speaking for the Government, reminded the House that domestic abuse violence increases after big matches and that to many people the words “coming home” represent not a footballing hope but a threat—and a violent threat at that. Have the Government increased support for domestic violence services and the police while the tournament has been taking place?

It appears to have been left a little late in the day to proceed with this order, which was presumably not dependent on the welcome result of the match last night, given that the consultation, such as it was, took place on Tuesday. Were the Government always anticipating extending the licensing hours for the final, in which case could this order have not been tabled sooner to give those affected more notice and to avoid a parliamentary rush?

What assessment have the Government made of the impact of the terms of this order on the number of cases of the latest variant, which have been rising? Can we take it that the medical and scientific advice that the Government presumably sought and received is not expressing any real concern about the impact of extending licensing hours on Sunday?

We support the terms of the order, and hope that the Government have thought it through properly and have credible reasons, which have not been spelt out in the Explanatory Memorandum, for being satisfied that any adverse impacts will be minimal and far outweighed by the benefits. We wish England every success on Sunday night and look forward to a night for us all to remember, irrespective of whether we will be taking advantage of the extension of licensing hours.

EU Settlement Scheme

Lord Rosser Excerpts

Thursday 1st July 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rosser (Lab) [V]]

Some 30,000 people in receipt of benefits have yet to apply for settled status. Applications have not been made for more than 2,000 children in care or care leavers. The Government have no clear idea of the total number of EU citizens still to apply and said in the Commons on Tuesday that “literally thousands” of applications

“are still coming in every day”.—[Official Report, Commons, 29/6/21; col. 163.]

To keep the rights they had, those still to apply have to hope that the Government of Windrush and the hostile environment deem that they have reasonable grounds for a late application being made.

First, we have called for an extension of the European Union settlement scheme for three months to the end of September. Why will the Government not agree to it? Secondly, will they commit to providing updates to Parliament, at least every month, of the number of late applications received and the number of such applications accepted, the number rejected and the number still outstanding of decision?

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)]

I thank the noble Lord for his questions. On a September extension, the scheme has been open now for over two years, which is a reasonable time, in our estimation. The noble Lord talked about children in particular, and I agree that they may be a particularly vulnerable cohort. Of course, with children or children in care, whatever their circumstances, if there are reasonable excuses beyond midnight of last night, they will be able to apply and that scheme will be open indefinitely so as not to disadvantage them. On benefits, we are working very hard with the DWP to ensure that all those who are entitled to benefits will keep them.

Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 (Juxtaposed Controls) (Amendment) (No. 2) Order 2021

Lord Rosser Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd June 2021 Grand Committee

[Lord Rosser (Lab) [V]]

This order corrects errors in the earlier 2021 order of the same name, which we discussed in the House on 2 March. That earlier order extended the current immigration enactments, relating principally to detention at ports powers, including the power to use reasonable force, applicable already to the Channel Tunnel route, to the juxtaposed controls at the ports of Calais and Dunkirk. However, the earlier order set out the required modifications to the UK Borders Act 2007 as a stand-alone article rather than a provision to be inserted in a previous order from 2003, which is needed to modify relevant immigration enactments to ensure that the juxtaposed controls in Calais and Dunkirk operate correctly.

This order we are now debating rectifies the situation and incorporates two additional minor changes. I thank the Minister for her letter of 20 May 2021 explaining the background to, and necessity for, this further order. Can the Minister spell out the actual consequences to date of the earlier order being defective in its drafting? Have powers been used for which it now turns out there has been no proper statutory authority, or has it meant simply that the introduction of the powers in the original order has been delayed? If the new powers on reasonable force have been available at Calais and Dunkirk, on how many occasions have they been used since they came in?

In her letter, the Minister said that

“the department has reviewed its internal processes and has taken proactive steps to prevent such errors from occurring in future”.

Does that mean that the error that did occur was as a result of a deficient process or failure to adhere to a process, rather than being a straightforward mistake or oversight?

In our debate on the earlier order on 2 March, the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, said that she found herself

“perplexed that the legislation governing borders and border control is spread across such a great many statutory instruments … It is just the sort of legislation that frustrates parliamentarians—and others, presumably—because it relies on so many statutory instruments, orders and regulations, rather than the primary piece of legislation, to introduce the rules.”—[Official Report, 2/3/21; col. 1101.]

I doubt that the noble Baroness would have imagined that her point would be substantiated so powerfully and so quickly by the very fact of our being back just three and a half months later to debate yet another order rectifying an error in the original order of March.

The Explanatory Memorandum to the original order, which this order amends, said:

“Impacts will be monitored through regular collection and analysis of … force data as well as the existing internal review system.”


What exactly are the impacts that will be monitored, and how will the Government assess the impact of this change, in respect of the use of reasonable force, on national security? How many people have been refused entry to the UK coming through French northern Channel ports in the first three months of this year compared with the first three months of last year? Is it expected that this further order, amending the original order, will have any impact on the number of people entering the UK without authority through the northern French ports and any impact on the quantity of goods entering this country that should not be doing so?

What does a power to use “reasonable force” mean in practice? Where Border Force officers on Channel crossing routes already have the powers, on how many occasions per week or per month on average do they have to use these powers? Are Border Force officers who can use reasonable force also armed officers or are they ever armed officers?

Will enabling Border Force officers to use “reasonable force” at the northern French ports mean that fewer officers will need to be deployed or will the change provided for in this order have no impact on staffing levels? Have concerns been raised by the French authorities that our Border Force officers at the northern French ports not having sufficient powers in relation to “reasonable force” increases the workload and the responsibilities of the French authorities?

There are a number of issues affecting our borders and Border Force personnel that the Government have yet to get a grip on, a couple of which I want to raise briefly. Kent County Council has been warning the Home Secretary for some time of its inability to cope with the number of unaccompanied children arriving into its care. Where are the safe routes to replace both Dubs and Dublin III? The removal of safe routes, without replacement, will simply encourage more vulnerable people to seek to enter the UK by irregular routes. While the Government are correcting mistakes today, could they also give us an update on safe routes for unaccompanied children in Europe?

The Government have gone back on an election commitment by cutting their international aid provision. That will do nothing to solve the refugee crisis which leads to people being forced to leave their own homes and seek refuge elsewhere, including by arriving at our own borders. While the Government are looking again at the powers needed at our own borders, will they also take heed of the warnings, including from many Members on their own Benches, of the impact that our aid policy has around the world?

I trust the Government will address the points and questions that I and other noble Lords have raised in their response. One would like to think that this order and the original order will improve national security in a meaningful, necessary and measurable way, and that the orders are not just about either ensuring uniformity across juxtaposed control locations for the sake of it or the Government pursuing other policies which are likely to make the need to used “reasonable force” more likely than ever.

Daniel Morgan Independent Panel Report

Lord Rosser Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd June 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rosser (Lab) [V]]

First, I wish to pay tribute to the family of Daniel Morgan. It is only as a result of their utter determination to see justice done that the independent panel was finally set up, 26 years after Daniel’s horrific murder. Now, 34 years after his murder, we have its report, revealing appalling truths relating to the various police investigations that would never otherwise have been so comprehensively and forensically exposed; truths which make clear why still nobody has been brought to justice for Daniel’s murder, and probably never will be. The delay of eight years in completing and publishing the panel’s report only made matters even harder for the family, but it is to be hoped that its findings, justifying their determined stance, will provide some solace.

I wish to express our appreciation as well for the hard work done by the panel and for its report, and not least for the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan. It does not seem that the work it did, with the barriers it faced, involved an exactly smooth and stress-free process. The report is devastating in what it reveals about the conduct, role, approach and competence of the Metropolitan Police Service, which was found by the panel to have concealed or denied failings for the sake of its public image. It was found that this was dishonesty on the part of an organisation for reputational benefit and constituted a form of institutional corruption.

It is a conclusion that has already been abruptly rejected by the MPS as continuing to still apply, even though it has still to meet the Home Secretary’s requirement for the commissioner to submit a report setting out the Metropolitan Police Service’s response to the findings and recommendations of the independent panel. Would the Government say, first, when that MPS response has to be with the Home Secretary, and, secondly, if that written response from the MPS will be placed before Parliament, unamended and unredacted?

The overwhelming majority of MPS officers and staff will be gutted by the findings of the report. Certainly, my involvement with the MPS, as a participant in the parliamentary police scheme, left me with nothing but admiration for the way MPS officers and staff under- take their work on our behalf.

When the panel was set up by the then Home Secretary in 2013, it was expected to complete its work within 12 months of relevant documentation being made available. Instead, it took eight years, with the last relevant material not being forthcoming from the Metropolitan Police until March this year. The panel was not set up under the Inquiries Act, which would have given it statutory powers in relation to its investigation—not least over non co-operation—including powers over timely disclosure of documents and compelling people to appear before it to give evidence. The report is very blunt about the attitude of the Metropolitan Police Service towards the panel, saying that, at times, the force treated panel members as though they were litigants in a case against them. Can the Government say why the panel was left to carry out its work with one arm tied behind its back, as far as its powers were concerned? Would the Government also say if the Home Office was aware of the difficulties the panel was having in carrying out its work with the Metropolitan Police Service, and, if so, when did it become aware and what action did any Home Secretary then take, bearing in mind that the Home Secretary is accountable to Parliament for the police service?

That brings me on to a further statement in the panel report, on page 1138, which says:

“The relationship with the different officials who have been Senior Sponsor … since 2013 has been positive, but the relationship with the Home Office as a department has been more challenging.”


Would the Government say in their response whether the Home Office was aware of the specific issues of concern in relation to the Home Office, referred to on page 1138 of the report, and, if so, what action was taken to resolve them and then to ensure that no similar situation could arise again? One would have thought, bearing in mind that the panel was established in 2013 by the then Home Secretary, that the Home Office would have given its full backing and support to the panel. Clearly, that was not the case.

The Home Secretary told the Commons that she was asking the Inspectorate of Constabulary to look into the issues raised by the independent panel’s report. What are the exact terms of reference that have been given on this to the inspectorate?

The Home Secretary also said that she would return to update Parliament on progress made on the recommendations in the report, which include a duty of candour, greater protection for whistleblowers, more effective vetting procedures and adequate provision of resources to deal with corruption, once she had

“received responses from the Metropolitan Police and others.”—[Official Report, Commons, 15/6/21; col.128]

Would the Government spell out exactly who “and others” covers, and whether that means the Home Secretary does not intend to return to the Commons with an update until she has received a response from all those, however many they may be, covered by “and others”?

Will oral updates to Parliament be given at regular intervals on progress being made in the light of the panel recommendations and other responses? One of the panel recommendations is a statutory duty of candour. Will the Government confirm that that recommendation, along with others about a requirement for co-operation from public bodies, will be implemented in time for the inquiry into the Covid pandemic?

Finally, would the Government say what further action they intend to take to provide justice for Daniel Morgan and his family? They are the ones who have been denied justice for 34 years. Public trust and confidence in our police are crucial, not least for policing by consent. The Government need to ensure that this kind of appalling episode can never happen again. Will the Government confirm that that is their objective in considering the findings and recommendations of the panel report, and that regular oral updates will be given to Parliament on how and to what timescale that objective is being delivered?

[Lord Paddick (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I commend the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, on her report and her patience. I apologise to the Morgan family for the way an organisation I was part of for over 30 years has conducted itself. The only points I wish to make are that this report chimes exactly with my professional and personal experience, that this report needs to be taken seriously, and that urgent action needs to be taken as a result. The Metropolitan Police puts its own reputation before openness, honesty and the pursuit of justice, and those who are telling the truth are ostracised and forced out.

Let me give noble Lords another example. In 2005, as a police officer holding the fourth highest rank in the Metropolitan Police, I gave evidence to the Independent Police Complaints Commission inquiry into whether the Metropolitan Police has misled the family of Jean Charles de Menezes after he was mistakenly shot and killed by the police following the London bombings. The then commissioner had told the media that both he and all those advising him believed for 24 hours after the shooting that Jean Charles de Menezes was a suicide bomber, when, in fact, five hours after the shooting, his closest advisers had told me that Jean Charles de Menezes was innocent. Noble Lords will recall the trial of the Metropolitan Police for health and safety breaches, where the Met digitally altered the image of the suspect it was pursuing to make it look more like de Menezes and claimed mistaken identity.

After an uneasy truce of about 18 months, I was side- lined from being in day-to-day charge of 20,000 officers to overseeing a project with 20 officers because the commissioner had lost confidence in me. He had done so because I told the truth. As a police inspector, I was told that I was too honest to be a senior police officer, and 20 years later I found out that that was true. That was the culture of the Metropolitan Police then, and this report tells us that it is the culture of the Metropolitan Police now. It highlights various types of corruption, including what it describes as “incontrovertibly corrupt behaviour”, such as selling stories to press contacts and planting false evidence.

Research that I saw when I was a serving police officer showed that when there were surges in recruitment, as there was 30 years after the end of the Second World War and again 30 years later, there were significant increases in misconduct in those cohorts of recruits, increasing in seriousness as they secured important investigative positions within the organisation. The usual peak for misconduct was between 10 to 15 years’ service. In the early 2000s the peak was between nought and two years’ service. The report is right to highlight vetting systems, but this is nothing new. Why have the Government not taken action to address this recurring problem in the police service?

The report also highlights what it describes as a form of institutional corruption, failings in police investigations, unjustified reassurances rather than candour and a culture of obfuscation. The panel describes hurdles placed in its path, such as a refusal to recognise the necessity to have access to the HOLMES computer database, limiting access to the most sensitive information and even failing to provide a copy of the London homicide manual. It set out how murder investigations should have been conducted at the time of Daniel Morgan’s murder, and its existence was not even revealed to the panel until December 2020.

The Metropolitan Police were able to claim repeatedly that the initial Daniel Morgan murder investigation was in accordance with the standards of investigation at the time by concealing the manual that proved that it was not investigated in accordance with the standards of investigation at that time. This is how the Metropolitan Police acts now, under its current leadership. This is not just about a few corrupt police officers who thwarted a murder investigation in 1987 or even the further corruption identified after a subsequent investigation; this is about a culture that enables corruption to thrive. The kind of institutional corruption identified in this report is not some kind of academic construct, an isolated incident of a few corrupt officers. It is the tip of an iceberg that threatens to undermine policing by consent in this country. That is a matter for the Government and the Home Secretary, and it must be urgently addressed.

Napier Barracks Asylum Accommodation

Lord Rosser Excerpts

Monday 14th June 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rosser (Lab) [V]]

The judgment found that the Napier Covid arrangements were

“contrary to the advice of PHE”,

with precautions being

“completely inadequate to prevent the spread of Covid-19”,

with people in dormitory blocks having shared facilities for up to 28 people. PHE advice was that

“dormitories are not suitable”

but that, if the Home Office proceeded, the number of beds should be limited to six with people kept in bubbles. Even that did not apply at Napier, where 200 people got Covid.

The Home Secretary told the Commons Home Affairs Committee in February that

“the use of the accommodation was all based on Public Health England advice”

and that

“we have been following guidance in every single way.”

That claim was demolished by the judgment and by the Commons Minister last Thursday, who said that

“Where possible we have followed”—[Official Report, Commons, 10/6/21; col. 1118.]


PHE guidelines, with “where possible” determined by the Home Secretary. Why did the Home Secretary tell the Home Affairs Committee that PHE guidance had been followed “in every single way”, when that was not the case?

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)]

My Lords, we believed we were taking reasonable steps to give effect to the PHE advice on the steps to be taken to make dormitory accommodation as safe as possible. It was on that basis that the Home Secretary and the Permanent Secretary appeared before the committee. We acknowledge the court’s findings that the measures were not adequate and are considering our next steps. Throughout the set-up and operation of the site, the Home Office has engaged with health officials in various organisations to ensure that it is aware of up-to-date advice. While the advice to officials from PHE was that dormitory-style accommodation was not suitable, it also set out how congregate residential settings should be used if other accommodation was not available. We have been working very constructively with PHE for more than a year now.

E-scooters

Lord Rosser Excerpts

Wednesday 26th May 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

I do think that 300 injuries is too many—one injury is too many—and, to that end, I know that the Metropolitan Police have impounded nearly 1,000 e-scooters in the two years to April this year.

[Lord Rosser (Lab) [V]]

Reference has been made to the e-scooter trials taking place around the country. What will be the Home Office objectives in respect of the content of any new laws and regulations on the use of e-scooters following those trials? Secondly, will the Home Office give a commitment today that, whatever laws and regulations on the future use of e-scooters are agreed and passed, they will be properly enforced by the police, who will have the staffing resources to enable them to do that?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

On the noble Lord’s latter point, the Government are making good headway with recruiting 20,000 more police officers, who are operationally independent of the Government. As for the number one objective, of course it will be safety. The elements that rental scooters have that privately owned scooters do not have are unique IDs, rear lights and signalling ability, and I am sure that those factors will be taken into consideration.

Daniel Morgan: Independent Panel Report

Lord Rosser Excerpts

Tuesday 25th May 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rosser (Lab) [V]]

The expected publication date of the independent panel’s report was over a week ago. The Home Office has said that it has asked the chair of the independent panel to agree a process for “sharing” the report with the department in order to proceed with its publication, because the Home Secretary has national security and Human Rights Act responsibilities. Yet the Government said in the Commons yesterday that

“redaction, editing and so on”—[Official Report, Commons, 24/5/21; col. 52.]

of the independent report “will not happen.” The panel itself, whose chair will speak on this Urgent Question, has said that

“a senior specialist Metropolitan Police team”

has already carried out a security check, and that the intervention of the Home Secretary is

“unnecessary and is not consistent with the panel’s independence”,

whose terms of reference make it clear that the Home Secretary’s role is limited to receiving the report, laying it before Parliament and responding to the findings. How are the Home Secretary’s intervention and supposed checks, which will not lead to any

“redaction, editing and so on”,—[Official Report, Commons, 24/5/21; col. 52.]

consistent with the independent—I stress the word—panel’s terms of reference?

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)]

My Lords, a publication date cannot be arranged until the report is actually received. The Home Office is working with the panel for that to happen. My honourable friend did say yesterday that there would be no redactions, but there were caveats in two areas: national security and human rights considerations. Security checks have already been carried out; I bow completely to the knowledge and experience of the people who may have carried them out, but my right honourable friend the Home Secretary has a personal obligation, by dint of her post, to assure herself that those security checks are carried out to her satisfaction.

Net Migration

Lord Rosser Excerpts

Tuesday 25th May 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

I can certainly assure the noble Lord of that.

[Lord Rosser (Lab) [V]]

We supported the Government’s decision to enable up to 5 million people from Hong Kong to come to this country if they so wish. What is the Government’s current estimate of the number of people in Hong Kong likely to take up the offer, and what is the basis of the calculation of that estimate?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

My Lords, I have up-to-date figures for the noble Lord. I apologise for fiddling with my mask. Between 31 January and 19 March this year, approximately 27,000 BNO status holders and their family members applied for a visa. That number reflects applications rather than visa holders. The first official statistics on this route will be released as part of the next quarterly migration stats on 27 May.

Right-to-Work Checks for UK Nationals

Lord Rosser Excerpts

Tuesday 18th May 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

Well, I am glad my noble friend feels he got a positive Answer because, in fact, employers have been very positive about the temporary measures we have put in place. It is not about “junking it”; it is about the fact that it has been a temporary measure. Obviously, legislation has not been changed in this regard, and we made it clear that we would revert to the full checking regime in line with the lifting of social distancing measures. But I hope that my noble friend is encouraged by the moves we intend to make going forward.

[Lord Rosser (Lab) [V]]

If the temporary measure has been successful and there is no need for return to physical right-to-work checks, why not continue with the temporary measure? We do not really seem to have had an answer to that question.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

The answer is actually quite clear: we need to check the security of what might go forward. We are undertaking a review of the value of using specialist technology, including identity document validation, in supporting the system of digital right-to-work checks to include UK and Irish citizens, as they are not in scope of the Home Office online checking services.

Domestic Abuse Bill

Lord Rosser Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments
Tuesday 27th April 2021 Lords Chamber

I thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Gloucester for her continued commitment to the cause of migrant victims of domestic abuse. It truly is a cause that I share. However, while we seek a similar outcome, we have different ways of getting there. I hope that noble Lords are mindful of the votes in the elected House, along with the reasons given for disagreeing with this amendment, and are content to agree Motion C. We must now ensure that the Bill is enacted and implemented. I assure noble Lords that this Government have not, and will not, forget about migrant victims of domestic abuse. I have no doubt that the right reverend Prelate will continue, rightly, to press us to act on the outcome of the support for migrant victims scheme in the months to come. I beg to move.

[Lord Rosser (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Gloucester, who moved the successful amendment on migrant women and recourse to public funds during the first stage of ping-pong in this House on the Domestic Abuse Bill last Wednesday, regrets that she cannot be here in person today. I pay tribute to the work that she has done—and will, I am sure, continue to do—on this issue. On her behalf, I have been asked to say the following, which also reflects my feelings:

“I would urge the Government to consider all victims of domestic abuse as victims first. It is therefore regrettable that recourse to public funds has not been made available to a small but extremely vulnerable group of migrant victims. That said, at this stage, we accept that it has not been possible to add this to the Bill. We hope that when the pilot scheme comes to an end, careful note will be taken of the results. The organisations providing support and hope to these migrant victims must be consulted, and we would do well to listen well to their experience.”

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, I too pay tribute to the right reverend Prelate for championing this issue.

Again, I will boil this down to its essence. The refusal of the Government to offer equal protection to all victims of domestic abuse, whatever their status, which is the effect of their rejection of the Lords amendment, is a clear breach of the Istanbul convention. As I said when we considered these matters last time, this Government cannot claim that this is a landmark Bill when they continue to treat those with irregular immigration status less favourably. These are some of the most vulnerable victims of domestic abuse.

We are unable to take this matter further today, but the Government cannot avoid ratifying the Istanbul convention much longer without serious reputational damage.