Citizens’ Rights (Application Deadline and Temporary Protection) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020

Debate between Lord Rosser and Lord Faulkner of Worcester

Thursday 22nd October 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rosser (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, the terms of my amendment are that this House regrets that citizens’ rights applications in the Citizens’ Rights (Application Deadline and Temporary Protection) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020 do not provide clear statutory protection during the grace period for all EEA, Swiss nationals and their family members who are eligible for the EU settlement scheme. Unless the Government persuade me otherwise in their response, I will seek the opinion of the House on my amendment.

We will not support the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, because it is well established that this unelected House, except in the most exceptional circumstances, does not vote down statutory instruments. This instrument has already been through the elected House of Commons, where it was passed following a Division in which we voted against it. It is also the case that voting down this SI would mean that the unelected House had voted down a measure passed by the elected House and as a result, the rights and protections applicable very shortly, which this SI guarantees to a significant number of people, would no longer be there.

We are considering three draft regulations. In respect of the Citizens’ Rights (Frontier Workers) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020, we do not have any specific concerns. The regulations fulfil our obligations under agreements to allow those who are employed or self-employed in the UK but living elsewhere to continue to do so as long as they remain a frontier worker. This group of people will be required to obtain a permit as evidence of their right to enter the UK after 1 July 2021.

The Citizens’ Rights (Restrictions of Rights of Entry and Residence) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020 deliver our obligations under the withdrawal agreement to consider the conduct of a person before the end of the transition period in accordance with the current EU thresholds when relating to deportation decisions. These decisions will continue to be appealable.

I have a couple of questions. As with the grace period SI, which I will come on to, are there any EU citizens who are currently living in the UK to whom the current thresholds will not continue to apply for conduct committed before the end of the transition period and who will have the UK thresholds after 1 January 2021 retrospectively applied to them?

Crucially, there have been reports this morning that the Government intend to make homelessness grounds for deportation. The shadow Home Secretary has raised his concerns over these immoral plans, which are particularly shocking in the midst of a pandemic and a jobs crisis. This issue is not covered by the SI before us today, but it would be good to have further clarity on the changes we are paving the way for. Can the Minister tell us whether it is the Government’s view that a person falling into homelessness is grounds for deportation?

Our main concern today is with the draft regulation usually referred to as the grace period SI, to which our amendment to the Motion relates. The3million, representing EU nationals in the UK, and the Immigration Law Practitioners’ Association are concerned that the way in which this regulation is drafted could technically mean that a large number of people would have a question mark over their rights during the grace period and while their application under the settlement scheme was pending. The Immigration Law Practitioners’ Association did suggest that changing the text from “lawfully resident” to “resident or present” would align much more closely with the spirit of the EU settlement scheme and our obligations under the withdrawal agreement.

Currently there is no provision in relation to the resident’s status during the grace period for EEA and Swiss citizens, or their family members, who are not granted leave under the scheme by the implementation period completion date in some 10 weeks’ time and are not lawfully resident as defined by the SI. Such persons could therefore face difficulty in accessing services, such as healthcare or employment, during the grace period or during the time that an in-time application is decided or an appeal is pending.

Can the Minister confirm that the individuals not covered by this SI would include a person who is dependent on their spouse, so is self-sufficient but does not have comprehensive sickness insurance, and a person who is unable to enter the labour market due to a disability, and so is not working? If no further provision is made for these people, it would seem to diminish the meaning of the grace period and contradict the mechanisms made in what I understand to be other related regulations which do provide for protection for persons who are eligible under the EU settlement scheme but not lawfully resident under the EEA regulations.

As we understand it, the protected cohort under the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020 should include all those who are eligible for status via the settlement scheme, not just those exercising their rights within the EEA regulations. In Committee on the immigration Bill in the Commons, assurances were sought from the Government on this point. The Government gave an unequivocal assurance in Committee when the Minister said, during the sixth sitting, that

“section 7 of the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act provides powers to make regulations to provide temporary protection for this cohort during the grace period. That means that if someone has not applied under the EU settlement scheme by the end of the transition period, they will be able to continue to work and live their lives in the UK as they do now, provided that they apply by 30 June 2021 and are then granted status.”—[Official Report, Commons, Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill Committee, 16/6/20; col. 195.]

The draft regulation ought to reflect that position and protect the entire cohort of those who are eligible to apply for settled status. As it stands, the consequences of the wording of the draft regulation are potentially severe for those affected, who are eligible for status via the EU settlement scheme but will be left in legal limbo, entirely of the Government’s own making, if this is not resolved.

In addition, anyone who has submitted an application to the EU settlement scheme before the end of the transition period and is pending a decision after the transition period ends will have to demonstrate that they fall within the scope of the draft regulations to have the benefit of their protection. The Government’s answer so far on this issue appears to be that no one will be challenged on their rights during the grace period, but that is no way to make law. If the Government knew this was to be their position—if they planned this carefully—what extra work has gone into ensuring that those who will not be covered by this SI have been supported to apply for the EU settlement scheme before 31 December this year?

What statutory provision do those EU citizens not protected by the regulations but eligible for status via the EU settlement scheme rely on in relation to their rights to work or to rent, and rights to protection from removal from the UK during the grace period? What statutory provision do those EU citizens not protected by the regulations, who have an application pending with the EU settlement scheme past the grace period deadline, rely on in relation to their rights to work or to rent, and rights to protection from removal from the UK?

The terms of the regulations ought to make it clear beyond any doubt, but fail to do so, that they are giving statutory protection during the grace period for all EEA and Swiss nationals and their family members who are eligible for the EU settlement scheme—as the Minister said in the Commons was the Government’s position. I beg to move.

[The Deputy Speaker (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)]

For the convenience of the House, I remind your Lordships that the Question before it is the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, will have the opportunity to move his amendment if her amendment is defeated at the end of the debate.

Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill

Debate between Lord Rosser and Lord Faulkner of Worcester

Report stage & Report stage (Hansard): House of Lords & Report: 1st sitting & Report: 1st sitting: House of Lords
Wednesday 30th September 2020 Lords Chamber

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)]

I have received no requests from noble Lords wishing to speak after the Minister, so I call the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, to reply.

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

First, I share the views that the Minister expressed about the quality and value of this debate. I thank all noble Lords who have spoken and I thank the Minister for her response.

I think that there is a general acceptance that the social care sector is in crisis, with low-paid and undervalued skilled work, a very high staff turnover rate and a very high level of vacancies. On top of that, the crisis could well be exacerbated by abruptly closing down a significant source of labour from abroad in three months’ time. In response to my amendment, the Minister referred to the role of the Migration Advisory Committee. But the MAC is not a specialist committee on the social care sector, as, frankly, was indicated very clearly by its recent 650-page report, Review of the Shortage Occupation List: 2020, which simply indicates that it covers a wide breadth of sectors and occupations within those sectors and is looking at migration issues.

However, it is clear from the MAC’s recent report that it feels that the views it has expressed in the past have not had much impact, because it has made reference to “again” expressing concern about the social care sector, and to issues that it has been pressing “for some years”. I think this means that, while the work that has been done by the MAC over a number of years is to be welcomed, clearly it does not feel that that it has had much impact. Perhaps that is because it is not a specialist committee on the social care sector; it is a committee that looks at migration across the board.

I think that that makes the case that, in view of the crisis in the social care sector, which may well get worse at the end of this year in light of the changes to the immigration system, there is a clear-cut case for a stand -alone, in-depth, specialist report on the social care sector and the impact of the provisions of the Bill, as provided for in the amendment, and that it is needed now if the goals that have been set for the sector—goals relating to better pay, training, professionalism, a reduction in turnover and a reduction in vacancies—are to be achieved. We badly need this in-depth specialist assessment to be made, as called for in the amendment, and I do wish to test the opinion of the House.

[The Deputy Speaker (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)]

The Question is that Amendment 3 be agreed to. The Question will be decided by a remote Division. I instruct the clerk to start a remote Division.

Public Bodies (Abolition of BRB (Residuary) Limited) Order 2013

Debate between Lord Rosser and Lord Faulkner of Worcester

Wednesday 10th July 2013 Grand Committee

[Lord Faulkner of Worcester]

My Lords, I intend to speak very briefly about this order. I agree completely with the Minister in his tribute to the work of the board of BRBR and its staff over the 12 years or so of its existence. The Minister may remember that I spoke about the inclusion of BRBR in the Committee stage of the Public Bodies Bill on 14 December 2010. The Minister has referred to how the British Railways Board (Residuary) has gone about fulfilling its responsibilities since 2001, and I agree with him that its record has been excellent in many respects. I have been particularly impressed by how it has dealt with the 6,400 or so industrial injury and other health claims from former BR employees, to which the Minister referred in his speech. I hope that these will continue to be dealt with as expeditiously in future as they have been by BRBR until now.

BRBR has also done really well in discharging its railway heritage responsibilities, and I thank the Minister for his reference to this issue in his speech. I speak as a former chairman of the Railway Heritage Committee and the current chair of its successor body, the Railway Heritage Designation Advisory Board, which as part of the Science Museum Group has taken on the RHC’s statutory powers of designation. This is partly thanks to the efforts of the Minister, who supported us in resisting its abolition under the Public Bodies Act 2011.

Very many significant railway artefacts have found their way to BRBR stores. The Minister referred to the drawings, which are literally priceless, but there are also some wonderful paintings from the railways’ art collection. Many of those are now on public display in museums and galleries all over the country as a result of, first, the statutory designation, and then the disposal procedures of the RHC and the co-operation of BRBR.

The other great contribution that BRBR has made in this area is in supporting the Railway Heritage Trust which, under the chairmanship of Sir William McAlpine, plays a huge part in restoring and preserving historic railway buildings. BRBR has been instrumental in securing third-party funding for the Railway Heritage Trust, particularly from Network Rail. In this context —I hope that the Minister will allow me to do this—I should like to put on record my own tribute to one of the unsung heroes of Britain’s railways, Peter Trewin, who is the legal and secretariat director of BRBR. He was also the secretary of the British Railways Board. He is a lifetime career railwayman, whom I knew first when he worked with Sir Peter Parker more than 30 years ago. He has played a crucial role in ensuring that the railway takes its heritage responsibilities seriously. I should like to thank him on the record for that work.

There is one further matter that I wish to raise with the Minister. He talked about burdensome estate— the structures that were once part of the operational railway—and that in the main these will be transferred to the Highways Agency. Can he give an assurance that this will not lead to roads being built on these remaining railway track beds? He will know from reading my recently published book that once the infrastructure has been built on, the opportunity to reopen railways on it is lost for ever. There are a number of heritage railways—I declare an interest as president of the HRA—that are looking at long-disused lines as future potential routes. We may also wish one day to restore some lines to the national network, as the demand for rail travel grows. That will not be possible if the infrastructure is converted into a road and we must not close down those options. I hope that the Minister will agree.

[Lord Rosser]

My Lords, I add my appreciation to that expressed by the Minister and my noble friend Lord Faulkner of Worcester for the work done by BRBR, and for the staff of that organisation. I thank the Minister for explaining the background to the order and the reasons for abolishing BRB (Residuary) Ltd, and transferring its functions to the Secretary of State for Transport and Network Rail (Assets) Ltd. The property rights and liabilities of BRBR will then be transferred to successor bodies in the transfer scheme, so I understand that it will be laid before Parliament after being made.

BRB (Residuary) Ltd is wholly owned by the British Railways Board. Perhaps the Minister can say what will happen to the BRB following the abolition of BRB (Residuary) Ltd, what functions and responsibilities it will continue to have, and for how long. The Explanatory Memorandum says that liability for handling claims in respect of industrial injuries, employment and environment-related claims, resulting from BRB activities as an operator of trains, ships and hotels, will transfer to the Secretary of State. Can the Minister give an undertaking that this will not result in a harder or a more long-drawn-out approach being adopted to such claims as a result of this transfer? How many claims are still in the pipeline and how many individuals do they cover?

I also support the request of my noble friend Lord Faulkner of Worcester that the assurance given in the Explanatory Memorandum that the abolition of BRB (Residuary) Ltd will not result in any change in the current process for releasing land designated for rail use, disposal, or for alternative non-transport use should be repeated by the Minister and thus placed on the record, including in the very specific terms that the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, was seeking.

The order deals with the abolition of one body. How many other bodies for which the Department for Transport has overall responsibility are still awaiting the outcome of a review of whether they should remain in existence or be abolished? A few weeks after we questioned whether taxpayers were getting value for money with four separate publicly funded motoring bodies, the Government announced that they were reducing the number of agencies from four to three. Is the department now looking at other issues concerning the number of bodies for which it is responsible, including whether we need even three separate government agencies delivering services to motorists, and whether we need a separate company to deliver HS2 when we already have Network Rail, which is responsible for rail infrastructure? In view of the fact that some rights and liabilities of BRB (Residuary) are being transferred to LCR, do the Government see a long-term future for London and Continental Railways Ltd and, if so, is that in its current role or a changed role?

We are certainly not opposed to the order and I hope that the noble Earl will be able to provide the answers and assurances that have been sought by my noble friend Lord Faulkner of Worcester and me.

Protection of Freedoms Bill

Debate between Lord Rosser and Lord Faulkner of Worcester

Monday 6th February 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rosser]

My Lords, the purpose of this amendment is to provide for strengthened and new powers of entry for the police to enter and inspect known or suspected scrap metal dealer premises, and any metal and records kept on the premises, as well as powers to close down dealerships should those premises be suspected of being used for knowingly handling stolen material. At present the police are able to enter only registered premises but this amendment will give the right to enter premises irrespective of whether they are entered on the register, as well as the power to close dealerships.

Considerable concern has been expressed in the light of the increasing incidence of metal theft related to the rise in its value, with the price of copper having doubled to more than £5,000 a tonne since 2009, and the value of scrap metal at an all-time high. This has become a highly organised crime. Metal is stolen to sell on to dealers who will probably smelt it down before selling it on. The impact of such thefts on many people, buildings and organisations is considerable, not least on the railway network and railway passengers and on churches and indeed war memorials, with at least one war memorial a week being stripped in London.

The cost of metal theft is now estimated to be running at £1 billion a year and causing some 16,000 hours of train delays. In total, Network Rail says the cost of such thefts has amounted to some £43 million across the United Kingdom. It is also apparently resulting in the deaths of two thieves a month as they attempt to strip cabling from electricity substations or railways. That last point may not arouse much concern or sympathy, but it is still the loss of two human lives a month which could be avoided and is perhaps a consequence of the current spate of metal thefts that is not often raised.

It is important that action is taken as quickly as possible. At least one major recycling firm has moved to cashless payment, and on Thursday we shall be debating my noble friend Lord Faulkner of Worcester’s amendment to the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders of Bill, which provides for cashless transactions to be compulsory in the scrap metal trade. This would be an important action in the drive against metal thefts and I commend my noble friend for his robust campaign on this issue.

We know that police forces are stepping up their activities against this lucrative crime but they need to be given further powers to combat it with maximum effectiveness. One such power is provided for in this amendment, namely stronger and new powers of entry for the police to premises suspected of being used for handling stolen metal and the power to obtain a closure order against a dealership where there is a belief that such criminal activity is taking place. This amendment, providing new powers to the police to enter and close down unregulated scrap metal dealerships, is in line with the recommendations of the Association of Chief Police Officers’ metal theft working group.

Combined with the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, to the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders of Bill to ban cashless transactions, this amendment presents a robust package of measures to tackle this growing epidemic. I hope the Government will indicate their support for this amendment and ensure that the police are properly equipped to deal with the increasing incidence of metal thefts. I beg to move.

[Lord Faulkner of Worcester]

My Lords, I have added my name to Amendment 37A, tabled by my noble friends Lady Royall and Lord Rosser, because the new powers that it confers on authorities to enter and inspect scrap metal dealerships represent, as my noble friend Lord Rosser says, an important element in the comprehensive overhaul of the Scrap Metal Dealers Act 1964, which I have been calling for in your Lordships’ House since I asked my Oral Question on the subject on 3 October last year. It also fits perfectly with the move to cashless transactions, which the Home Secretary said in a Written Statement on 26 January that the Government now support. This is the subject of my own amendment to the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill, which the Committee will be considering on Thursday, possibly alongside the Government’s own amendments, the details of which we are awaiting.

This morning I met Deputy Chief Constable Paul Crowther of the British Transport Police to discuss this amendment. As the House will be aware, the BTP has been in the lead on the metal theft issue and I again commend it for what it is doing to tackle it. It has asked me to tell your Lordships—and I quote directly from a message it has given me—that:

“The power of closure is something that we would really want for a number of reasons, not least so that we can support legitimate businesses who will comply with the cashless system when it is introduced”.

Over the last four months I have been overwhelmed by the representations that have been made to me about the necessity for government action to tackle what is now a metal theft epidemic. The Transport Select Committee in another place says that the theft of signalling cable was responsible for the delay or cancellation of over 35,000 national rail services last year. There are eight actual or attempted thefts on the railway every day. My friends in the heritage rail sector—and I declare an interest as the president of the Heritage Railway Association—report weekly thefts of metal objects from their yards, depots and sheds, the value of which runs into thousands of pounds. Almost no aspect of our national life has escaped unscathed: manhole covers; war memorial plaques; even huge pieces of art like the Barbara Hepworth sculpture in Dulwich Park or the statue of Dr Alfred Salter in Cherry Gardens, Bermondsey; lead from church roofs and sacred objects from within churches; electricity and telecom cables—the list is endless.

Many of your Lordships will have seen the open letter published in the Times on 11 January that was signed by an impressive array of business leaders, including the chairmen or chief executives of BT, Network Rail, the Energy Networks Association and the Ecclesiastical Insurance company. They called for a complete update of the Scrap Metal Dealers Act 1964. Among the long list of changes they want to see were police powers to close unscrupulous scrap metal dealers, and police authority to search all premises owned and operated by scrap metal dealers—the measure proposed in this amendment. In my view, the police should be given powers to inspect any articles and records kept on site and to close down dealerships should there be reasonable suspicion that they are handling and dealing in stolen metal.

It is abundantly clear that the law needs to be completely rewritten. In the other place tomorrow there will be a debate initiated by officers of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Combating Metal Theft—I declare a very modest interest as one of its vice-chairs. In addition to the move towards cashless transactions they will call for a robust licensing scheme for scrap metal dealers to replace the present registration scheme, as well as all the measures that have been put forward by industry, the church and the police.

I shall be very interested to hear what the Minister has to say when he responds. I know that we will achieve a cashless regime either on Thursday or at Report stage of the LASPO Bill, but I hope that he will be able to give a commitment that there will at least be comprehensive legislation in the next Session which will rewrite the Scrap Metal Dealers Act 1964.

Public Bodies Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Rosser and Lord Faulkner of Worcester

Tuesday 14th December 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord Faulkner of Worcester]

My Lords, I move Amendment 25 because I want to give the Minister an opportunity to describe what the Government envisage will happen to the powers, duties and assets of BRB (Residuary) Ltd if, or rather when, that body is abolished. The Committee may be aware that this company is all that is left of the once mighty British Railways Board, which oversaw the running and ownership of the entire state-owned railway from 1962 until privatisation. BRB (Residuary) Ltd was formed in 2001 to manage most of the remaining property, rights and liabilities of the BRB. These included a diverse property portfolio and the settlement of industrial injury claims submitted by former British Railways employees. The residuary company looks after 148 non-operational sites, many of which were bought in the 19th century to facilitate railway construction. It would like to sell these when market conditions are right. Therefore, my first question to the Minister is: what organisation will be responsible for selling these sites if BRB (Residuary) Ltd is abolished? Secondly, does he feel that this is the right time to get rid of a body that has operated successfully and profitably, at least until there was a revaluation of its assets in 2009?

I should also like to ask the Minister about the property held at the discretion of the Department for Transport for future operational use, such as the platforms and other structures at Waterloo International station, the North Pole international depot in west London, the Old Dalby test track, the Temple Mills bus depot and Glasgow Eastfield depot. What does he envisage will happen to those?

Perhaps most significant and difficult are the 4,000 bridges, tunnels, viaducts and other structures throughout England, Scotland and Wales which no longer form part of the operational railway but still have to be maintained. This is called the “burdensome estate”. It includes structures such as the Thornton Viaduct in Bradford, which no longer carries a railway but is an important part of the Great Northern Trail cycle route. There has been speculation in the media about where these matters will reside once BRB (Residuary) Ltd has disappeared. It has been suggested that the Highways Agency might take over the burdensome estate, such as the redundant viaducts and stretches of land, and I should be grateful if the Minister could clarify that.

Finally, BRB (Residuary) Ltd is also responsible for handling compensation claims from former railway employees who suffered illnesses as a result of their working conditions. Many of these have been related to working with asbestos and other dangerous materials. At 31 March 2010 there were 459 disease and injury claims outstanding against the company. Who will take on the responsibility for the requirement to look after the industrial injury claims of these former railway employees? There are a number of issues here and I look forward to hearing the Minister’s answer. I beg to move.

[Lord Rosser]

My noble friend Lord Faulkner of Worcester has raised a number of important points about the role and responsibilities of BRB (Residuary) Ltd and what the Government’s intentions are in relation to those activities, not least its operational and non-operational property—its estate of some 4,000 bridges, tunnels, viaducts and other structures—and the management of industrial injury claims. I, too, look forward to the Minister’s reply to the points raised by my noble friend.

As he said, BRB (Residuary) Ltd is a residuary organisation staffed mainly by former employees of British Rail who have a detailed and specialist knowledge of the assets and liabilities now managed by the organisation. The company is committed, for so long as it exists, to ensuring that the knowledge held by the former BR staff is retained for use by those who might be responsible for the management of the long-term assets and liabilities in the future. In the light of that, can the Minister say what will happen to the staff of BRB (Residuary) Ltd if it is abolished? Can he give an assurance that any information currently accessible through a Freedom of Information Act request will still be accessible through such a request following any transfer of BRB (Residuary) Ltd’s duties and responsibilities elsewhere?

The criteria against which the Government said their review of public bodies would be carried out were: does the public body have a precise technical operation; is it necessary for impartial decisions to be made about the distribution of taxpayers’ money; and does it fulfil a need for facts to be transparently determined independent of political interference? A public body would stay if it was deemed to have passed one of the three tests.

In June this year, the Minister for the Cabinet Office said that the Government wanted to cut the number of public bodies to increase accountability and cut costs. Can the Minister explain why the Government have apparently decided that the BRB (Residuary) body does not carry out a technical operation, does not have to make impartial decisions and does not need to establish facts independent of political interference, when one of its roles is managing industrial injury claims supported by former BR employees and its staff have the detailed and specialist knowledge of the assets and liabilities that BRB (Residuary) Ltd manages?

Finally, since the Cabinet Office Minister has said that one declared objective of this exercise is to cut costs, can the noble Lord tell us what the contribution will be to the reduction in costs made by abolishing BRB (Residuary) Ltd?