Islamophobia

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton Excerpts

Tuesday 17th October 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth]

My Lords, the right reverend Prelate is right about the many good examples on the ground, brought about by the Christian church, in conjunction with the Muslim religion and, often, with the Jewish religion. I have seen very effective partnerships, such as Nisa-Nashim, as well as the effective partnerships through virtually all our 42 cathedrals in England, where massive good work is done. Considerable good work, probably more effective than anything, is also done by prominent British Muslims through example. I am thinking of people such as Nadiya Hussain, Mo Farah and so on, who probably do far more by example than many of these programmes.

[Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton (Lab)]

My Lords, will the Minister give the House an undertaking that, given some statements by police authorities that they are unable to cover the following-up of hate crimes because of cuts in their staffing levels and budgets, the Government will act immediately to ensure that police budgets are made up to the point where hate crimes can be followed through?

[Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth]

My Lords, we and the Home Office meet regularly with police forces to discuss these issues, and that issue has not been brought to my attention. If the noble Baroness has evidence of this, I would be very happy to look at it. Indeed, if any noble Lord has such evidence, please bring it forward, and I will certainly take a close look at it.

Northern Ireland Political Situation

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton Excerpts

Monday 3rd July 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth]

My Lords, as I said, the progress being made is considerable, and we hope that an agreement will be reached before the timescale the noble Lord talks about—it would indeed be extremely difficult if we had not got a power-sharing Executive in place by October. Ultimately, everybody knows that power-sharing may give way to direct rule. That is not what anybody wants but, ultimately, I suppose that it is a possibility. I must say that it is not in the Government’s thinking in any shape or form, any more than it is in that of opposition parties. At the moment, it is no more than a theoretical possibility. As I said, we are working hard to seek a power-sharing Executive. We are making some progress, and that is the position on which the Statement was presented in the Commons and repeated in the Lords.

[Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton (Lab)]

My Lords, having been on our Front Bench during the development of the Northern Ireland Assembly, I endorse my noble friend’s comments about the need for the direct involvement of the Prime Minister. That is important.

Can the Minister give me an assurance that the Government will produce a clear, unambiguous statement about proposals in their agreement for funding to Northern Ireland, in the interests of having a united front across the United Kingdom? I accept totally the needs of Northern Ireland—and it is extremely important that other parts of the UK accept, recognise and appreciate those needs—but only if there is equity in the allocation of funds for Wales, Scotland and the English regions, in the interests of transparency, to which the Minister referred. We need a national consensus. Can the Minister assure me that he will have regard in the discussions to our support for the convention of the Council of Europe on minority languages? I seek an agreement from the Minister that he will write to me answering my question on financial arrangements with Northern Ireland: given the needs of other parts and regions, why now?

House of Lords Reform Bill [HL]

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton Excerpts

Friday 21st October 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Trefgarne]

But no doubt with the support of others as well. This is in the context of a major government Lords reform proposition which is now before the Joint Select Committee and which is, I submit to your Lordships, the right way to proceed.

[Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton]

My Lords, I beg to move that the Question be now put.

[The Chairman of Committees (Lord Brabazon of Tara)]

I was going to put the Question in any case. The Question is that the House do now resolve itself into a Committee upon the Bill. As many as are of that opinion will say Content.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Earl of Erroll]

My Lords, I would like to make two, I hope, perfectly sensible points. In previous discussions, the main reason given for removing hereditary Peers at this point was that the public thought that it was an anachronism, that it looked silly and they did not understand what it was about, and all that sort of stuff. If it is about public image, I recommend that we should change the name of our upper House to senate, which is universally understood globally and is taught in politics lessons. That would be the perfectly logical thing to do to pair with getting rid of hereditary Peers. What amuses me is that those who are very keen to get rid of hereditary Peers because it taints this House are also very keen to hang on to the title. I really do not understand that; it is just not consistent and logical.

The other point that I would make is that in all my points that I am arguing, I am arguing against my continued presence in this House much more effectively than if we put this Bill through, whereby I would roll on until I died, with luck—whereas actually I am trying to force an earlier departure by getting a proper democratic assembly. When we go democratic, it will be easier to understand if it is called a senate. Whatever happens, renaming it as a senate would be much clearer and would give a much better image of the House to the public.

[Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton]

My Lords, I wish it to be on record that many of us who believe that there should be a change of name in future, at the appropriate stage, be it an all-appointed or all-elected House, cannot support the noble Earl’s amendment because it is inappropriate at this stage, as the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, said. So casting aspersions about people wanting to hang on to titles is out of place, with that explanation about the reasoning behind our choices.

[The Earl of Erroll]

Everyone would retain their title, because it is an honour given to them. The change of name affects the place—this House—and I think that it would be much clearer if we started just being a senate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Trefgarne]

I heard an interjection from behind me, but I am not sure who it was. It is not just up to us. As my noble friend pointed out, we have given a lot of thought and consideration to these matters. We do not know quite what will happen in future. I am very reluctant to agree to a fast-track procedure, if that is the right term, on Part 1. If I may say so, we are once more reaping the whirlwind of the precipitate action of my noble friend Lord Steel in altering the order of consideration of the Bill in the Motion which we agreed earlier today. I would prefer to go through, as quickly as we can, the remaining clauses of the Bill. That would be the right way to proceed.

[Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton]

My Lords, it may help the House to know that my noble friend Lord Dubs does not intend to move his amendments this afternoon and will come back to them on Report.

[Lord Cormack]

If we took the advice of my noble friend Lord Shutt and deferred everything remaining until Report, that would be the other way to do it. The least satisfactory way is to end untidily today, not having completed Committee and therefore having Report at some indeterminate time in the future, with another Committee day having to intervene. Either we go through with automatic not moving, as it were, or, if that is not considered appropriate by my noble friend Lord Trefgarne—I would fully understand it if that were his view—can we not do what was done with the Localism Bill: defer the other issues to Report, when at least it will all be done tidily?

--- Later in debate ---

[The Earl of Erroll]

My Lords, I intervene because I have had experience of this: it happened during wash-up. I am afraid that the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, does not understand that some of our procedures here, although they look the same, are slightly different from those in the other place. The rules for Committee and Report and what you can do at Third Reading matter. If you introduce an amendment for the first time on Report, as the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, said, you can speak to it only once. That does not cause too much trouble: you can get round it with clever interventions. The problem comes if there is something of fairly major consequence that you wish to approach in a different way, because you may not be able to introduce your amendment at Third Reading. There are rules about the similarity of amendments at Report stage. It is far more flexible in Committee and on Report. Our procedures are designed that way. Third Reading is supposed to be only a tidying up operation to address a few little drafting mistakes, although the Government have tended to extend the definition for their own purposes in the past. For us, certainly on a Private Member's Bill, I am quite sure that that latitude would not be permitted by the procedures of the House, so it is very dangerous to postpone to Report stage.

[Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton]

My Lords, it is my understanding that the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, moved without debate Amendment 2. Surely we could move to that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lady Saltoun of Abernethy]

My Lords, why can we not have another Committee day and finish the Committee that way?

[Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton]

My Lords, I beg to move that the Question on Amendment 2 be now put.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees]

Amendment 3.

[Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton]

Oh, Amendment 3. It says Amendment 2 on the annunciator.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees]

The Question is that Amendment 3 be agreed to.

[Lord Trefgarne]

I fear that the Deputy Chairman has got it wrong. The noble Baroness has moved that the Question be now put. That is a debatable Motion and there is a Standing Order that has to be read out first.

[Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton]

My Lords, I believe that the Motion that the Question be now put is not debatable.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees]

I am instructed by order of the House to say that the Motion that the Question be now put is considered to be the most exceptional procedure and the House will not accept it save in circumstances where it is felt to be the only means of ensuring the proper conduct of business in the House. Further, if a Lord who seeks to move it persists in his intention, the practice of the House is that the Question on the Motion is put without debate. The Question is that the Question be now put.

Localism Bill

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton Excerpts

Tuesday 5th July 2011 Lords Chamber

Our approach, while preserving a principal role for central government in these local matters, is more practical, much more coherent and less likely to cause undue delay and confusion. We think it is right that authorities themselves should determine whether they have set an excessive council tax—one that has breached the principles set down for the financial year by the Secretary of State and approved by the House of Commons. We also think it is right that if an authority has set an excessive council tax it should arrange a referendum to give its electorate the final say on whether the decision should stand.

[Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton]

Will the Minister indicate a preparedness to discuss between Committee and Report the implications of the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding? Having had discussions with the noble Lord when he was Secretary of State and I represented local authorities, I think the Government would find helpful such discussions on the practicalities of the issues, which appear to be the issues that the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, is relying on. The noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, is very knowledgeable about the history and the implications and he would be extremely helpful if the Government were minded to move to quell the fears of the noble Earl, Lord Attlee.

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the noble Baroness because I passed by my handwritten notes and did not read them out. My noble friend Lord Jenkin set some homework for Ministers during the Recess. We will carefully consider the Committee’s deliberations, and we are grateful for all noble Lords’ counsel, even if we do not agree with all of it.

The amendments in the name of my noble friend Lord Greaves would change the wording of new Section 52ZB so that an authority is no longer required to determine whether it has set an “excessive” increase in council tax. Instead it is required to determine whether the increase is,

“higher than the level recommended by the Secretary of State”.

We consider that it would not be appropriate to change the wording of the new section in that way. The question of whether an authority’s relevant basic amount of council tax for a financial year is excessive will be decided in accordance with a set of principles determined by the Secretary of State and approved by the House of Commons. If an increase in council tax is then set locally that exceeds the level anticipated by those principles, it is perfectly reasonable to call it excessive. The increase might be justified, but the authority will have to persuade the electorate of that. It would be excessive because it exceeded the norm adopted by most authorities. The Government’s policy on this must be set against the background that average council tax increases have been high over the years, and in many years higher than inflation. This Government have taken steps of their own to help move away from this position, notably by funding a council tax freeze for this year. Ultimately, however, the best way to control excessive local expenditure is to make sure the local electorate can put a stop to it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Greaves]

My Lords, we now move on to Chapter 3 of Part 4 of the Bill, excitingly titled “Community Right To Challenge”. I have seven more amendments in this group, along with my noble friend Lord Tope, and there are a couple from the Labour Party. These are the first of a series of amendments on this community right to challenge part of the Bill which I am moving on behalf of the Liberal Democrats on the basis of the criterion which the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, put forward at Second Reading—workability. This is a completely new idea and a completely new set of provisions. It is extremely important that, when they leave this House, they leave in a workable condition. They may already be in a workable condition, or they may not. Our job is to make sure they are, whether or not they require changes.

The basic principle—in rather obscure language, I have to say—is that,

“a relevant authority must consider an expression of interest”

if submitted by a relevant body that is interested in,

“providing or assisting in providing a relevant service”.

I have to say that back in Colne this is not the language people use and, no doubt, when the community right to challenge gets down to the grass roots, people will have a plainer English explanation of what it is all about. The relevant authority is, as set out, a principal local authority in England, or a body set out in Clause 68(2)(d), which reads,

“such other person or body carrying on functions of a public nature as the Secretary of State may specify by regulations”.

Here we have more mysterious regulations specifying mysterious people. Before the Bill leaves this House we need to know who these people are, at the very least.

A “relevant body” is defined as,

“a voluntary or community body … a body of persons or a trust which is established for charitable purposes only … a parish council … two or more employees of that authority”—

in other words, two or more employees of the council whose services are being challenged—

“or … such other person or body as may be specified by the Secretary of State by regulations”.

It is not a surprise to find that there, since it is what we find everywhere in the Bill, but, again, we need to know what it means.

A “relevant service” which is being challenged on the relevant authority by the relevant body is,

“a service provided by or on behalf of that authority in the exercise of any of its functions, other than” …

and “other than” is, effectively, a service that the Secretary of State makes regulations saying shall not be subject to the challenge. Yet again, we have a power to the Secretary of State that we need to understand.

This, in many ways, is the nub of the problem. This is framework legislation, skeletal legislation, and there is a huge amount down to regulations. It might seem boring to keep saying this, but in every part of the Bill this seems to be the fundamental problem. What we have here is a new idea—what I would describe as a spiffing wheeze—that has been dreamt up by the Government. It has actually been dreamt up by the Conservative part of the Government and I do not complain about that; a coalition is a coalition of two parties and each party has a right to bring its own spiffing wheezes to the table. We have to find out how this is to be done as I do not think that we are being told that at the moment. I would like all these specific powers for the Secretary of State to be removed, or at least a lot of them.

Is there any hope that we are going to see draft copies of the regulations before the Bill leaves this House? We do not have them for Committee stage. Will we have them by Report? If we do not have them by then, I can see that there might be a certain amount of bother in the House.

That is all I that I really want to say about this. I have some more notes but they just repeat what I have said, so I will not say it again. The noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, is going to express shock and surprise that I have not said it three times.

[Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton]

Most certainly not. The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, ceased to surprise me about 20 years ago. My point is that it is very helpful for other parts of your Lordships’ House to know when we are dealing with a government view or whether it is a jolly wheeze thought up by one party—on this occasion, according to the noble Lord, by the Conservative Party. I hope that members of the Conservative Party in your Lordships’ House will tell us when a jolly wheeze has their support but not that of the Liberal Democrats. It is a new form of coalition Government, and I am enjoying it.

[Lord Greaves]

The noble Baroness is, unusually, wrong. It is not a new form of coalition Government; it is how most coalitions work. Different parties bring different proposals to the table, compromises and trade-offs are reached and, one hopes, the best ideas from each of the parties come through. All I am saying is that it is no secret that the community right to challenge, as it is now called, and indeed the community assets that we will move on to discuss after this, came from the Conservative Party. I am not criticising that party for that or saying that I do not support it.

When I opened my remarks I said clearly that what we have to do with a new, untried, untested idea is ensure that it is going to work. If it does not, one of two things will happen. A lot of difficulties will be caused on the ground because the idea has not been thought through properly or, alternatively, it will be realised that it has not been thought through properly before these myriad regulations are produced and it will never happen, the regulations will never happen and perhaps the chapter will never be commenced. What I and the Liberal Democrats are trying to do is to be satisfied that the proposals are workable before they leave us so that they are actually a great success when they go out there.