Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Lord Cashman Excerpts

Report stage
Thursday 13th July 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Cashman (Lab)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Burt of Solihull. I will not repeat the arguments that she has laid out before your Lordships.

I have not spoken before, so I apologise to your Lordships, but I have been motivated to do so by what I believe is potentially an unfair subsidy to one of the wealthiest landowners in the country, the Church of England, with, as the noble Baroness, Lady Burt, outlined, assets that are currently valued at £23 billion. I also believe it is discriminatory. If we are going to do this for churches, can we equally support mosques, the rather beautiful Buddhist temples around the country, the amazing synagogues and, equally, the Quaker meeting rooms? What applies to one should apply throughout.

If, as we have heard and has been accounted through the recent census, church attendance has diminished severely and churches are not being used, the parishes should be conserved as local hubs and the churches handed over to local authorities. There is a really good model that I know personally: St Matthias, the oldest church in Poplar, east London. It was deconsecrated and handed over to the local community. I am a trustee. Neighbours in Poplar and others have turned it into a thriving hub that serves those of all religions and none. That is a really good model, and it is why I am speaking against government Amendment 60. This is a potentially unfair subsidy that discriminates, and there should be no place for that in a Bill that is about levelling up.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, Amendment 59, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Needham Market, and introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, seeks to allow parish councils to pay allowances for dependants’ care costs to their councillors. I am grateful to the noble Baroness for raising this important issue again, and I recognise the admirable aim of her amendment.

It is important that local communities are properly represented by their local authorities at all levels, including parish councils. Giving parish councils the option of paying these allowances, though, would create an expectation that they would be available to all their members, and that would place an unknown, unfunded and potentially significant burden on the modest finances of parish councils. It is not the policy of the Government to place such burdens on local authorities at any level, and we believe it would be irresponsible to do so.

We do not have, and have not been provided with, any evidence of the scale of the demand for care allowances by parish councillors, nor of the likely costs to their councils, and we cannot be confident that the benefits here would outweigh the costs to the local taxpayer. We have a responsibility to ensure that we take action that could increase council tax further, and put extra pressures on residents, only where absolutely necessary. But I am happy to have further discussions with any noble Lords or noble Baronesses and to consider any evidence that they may have at a later date. However, until we understand this issue better, the Government cannot support the amendment.

Weymouth was brought up. Weymouth council came to the Government, as was said, but there was insufficient information for Ministers to make an informed and substantive decision at the time. Our concerns about the impact on parish councils’ finances remain, and we will respond shortly to Weymouth town council’s proposal.

Moving to government Amendments 60 and 308, we have listened carefully to the concerns that were expressed in Committee that some parish councils believe that they are prohibited from providing funding to churches —to answer the noble Lord, Lord Cashman—and other religious buildings. I pay tribute to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bristol, my noble friend Lord Cormack and the noble Lord, Lord Best, for bringing this issue to the House’s attention. I am pleased to say that the Government wish to move this amendment to clarify that there is no such prohibition.

We have heard that stakeholders’ confusion comes from the Local Government Act 1894. That Act set out a clear separation of powers between the newly created civil parishes, which exercised secular functions, and what are now parochial church councils, which exercise ecclesiastical functions. In setting out the scope of the powers conferred on civil parishes, the Act gave parish councils powers over

“parish property, not being property related to the affairs of the church or being held for an ecclesiastical charity”.

Some stakeholders appear to see this wording as a general prohibition which prevents parish councils doing anything in relation to church or religious property, even under their powers in other legislation. The Government did not agree with this interpretation. Their view was that this wording simply sets out what is and is not a parish property for the purposes of the powers of the 1894 Act. This is supported by the Hansard record for 1 February 1894, when the then right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London explained why he had proposed including this wording by way of amendment.

The Government do not think that there is any general or specific provision in the 1894 Act which prohibits parish councils funding the maintenance and upkeep of churches and other religious buildings. Therefore, this amendment does not seek to make any substantive changes to the existing legal provision. Instead, it clarifies that the 1894 Act does not affect the powers, duties or liabilities of parish councils in England under any other legislation. This will give councils the comfort that, even if they disagree with the Government’s interpretation of the 1894 Act, it cannot prohibit them using their other powers to fund repairs or improvements to local places of worship, if they choose to do so. Government Amendment 308 makes provision for this new clause to come into force two months after Royal Assent.

I listened very carefully to the noble Baroness, Lady Burt of Solihull, and the noble Lord, Lord Cashman. In reality, this is going to allow something that in many areas is happening already, and we have heard examples of that. In churches and other religious buildings across this country many community activities are taking place, from coffee mornings to luncheon clubs, knitting circles and toddler groups. I think it is correct that we make it very clear as a Government that parish and town councils are legally able to support those sorts of activities and can help such facilities along a bit—often the only community facility is the church or another religious building—if the parish council or the town council agrees that it is the right thing to do on behalf of that community.

International Holocaust Memorial Day

Lord Cashman Excerpts

Thursday 19th January 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Cashman (Lab)]

My Lords, it is a privilege to speak in this debate. It is a rare privilege that I will remember for a long time to listen to the way the noble Lord, Lord Pickles, introduced this Motion.

The overture to horror is mundane, ordinary. It begins as a whisper. In 1933, approximately 9.5 million Jews lived in Europe, and that number represented more than 60% of the world’s Jewish population at that time. By 1945, most European Jews, two out of every three, had been killed—murdered. Others murdered by the Nazis were millions of Soviets, 250,000 disabled people, up to 400,000 Gypsy and Romani, approximately 200,000 intellectuals, communists and freemasons, and more than 55,000 homosexuals. It happened a stone’s throw away in time, and it could happen again.

Just when we think we have passed an inhumanity too far, memories and fears fade, complacency sets in and evil triumphs in the silence of ordinary people who say nothing and walk away. There have been echoes in other parts of the world: Darfur, Cambodia, Bosnia and Rwanda. I still remember the photographs in the Rwandan genocide memorial; photos taken by family or friends of ordinary women, men and children who were cut down and killed. They were ordinary women, men and children who, looking out from their photographs, had hopes, dreams and fears, but who never imagined the end they would face.

I also vividly remember the exhibition that toured the world of the piles of shoes from those who entered the Nazi camps, where they would be further dehumanised, worked to death, starved and murdered. I think of the women, men and children who wore them. I think of them as they removed their shoes for what would be the last time—women, men and children who were casually defamed, misrepresented, stereotyped and dehumanised—and I ask myself, “Have we learned the lessons? Does history have enough horrors to shake us from complacency and indifference?”

The answer, I have to tell your Lordships, is no. We have not learned the lessons. Hatred is still with us. Since 2016 and year on year, hate crime has been on the rise. Anti-Semitism, racism, Islamophobia, misogyny, homophobia, biphobia, transphobia, rampant xenophobia, anti-migrants and anti-Roma—hatred that connects. Prejudices that were silently housed are now spoken aloud. Culture wars are promoted by government Ministers, printed media and broadcasters.

Such casual dehumanisation affects every single one of us. If we stand back in silence or look away, we are complicit, so Holocaust Memorial Day is a time to remember. Think of the millions of lives and then think of each one of them and how they could have changed this world for the better. Remember them not as numbers but as one would remember one’s own loved ones. Remember them and recall how minorities are still today misrepresented as a threat when all they want to do is live their lives according to the same laws as everyone else.

History demands that we stand with the most defamed, the most misrepresented and the most unfavoured. It equally demands that we speak against those who portray people in need as a swarm, a threat and an invasion.

Building Regulations: Sanitary Provision

Lord Cashman Excerpts

Wednesday 5th January 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

My Lords, there is no doubt that the pandemic has reduced the number of visitors in the last couple of years, as we know from the contraction of our airline industry, but we are looking forward to a deluge of people coming to his great country. Of course, we want them to have a wonderful experience and access to toilets—both accessible and ordinary toilets—and I am sure we will work hard to meet that.

[Lord Cashman (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, joking aside, at the heart of the Question of the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, is the fact that people with disabilities, often unseen disabilities, are overlooked. We recognise that work and research has been undertaken, so I ask the Minister to reflect on bringing together disability NGOs and others with expertise in this field so that we can reassure people with disabilities that their needs will be provided for.

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

My Lords, as part of my ministerial duties, I am the Building Regulations Minister, and we are reviewing, in response to the Hackitt review, all our building regulations, including Part M. We commissioned an interesting bit of research that has not yet been fully published, which provides further insight. This is something that needs to happen cross-government, and the noble Lord makes a very useful suggestion.

Queen’s Speech

Lord Cashman Excerpts

Monday 17th May 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Cashman (Non-Afl) [V]]

My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Brooke. I refer to my entry in the register of interests, particularly as a trustee of Neighbours in Poplar and as an officer of the APPG on Global LGBT+ Rights.

We have all been shocked by the levels of loneliness, deprivation, inadequate social housing and mental health needs, and the varying quality of adult social care that the pandemic has revealed. Sadly, many of these issues have been ignored by this gracious Speech. I could go on at length, but it is late, so I will instead recommend a report by the small charity Neighbours in Poplar, commissioned by Sister Christine Frost. She has inspired generations in Poplar, east London, and, during the Covid crisis, she has gathered an army of volunteers to provide support, food banks, befriending and hot meal deliveries to hundreds of people who would otherwise have been forgotten, isolated or ignored. As others have said, the gaps created by the state should not be filled by charities. It is clear, therefore, that the Government now need a far greater focus on the social care economy, recognising that it is broken and simply does not work for care workers, employers, local government and—most of all—users.

I turn to the announcement that the Government will bring forward measures to ban so-called conversion therapies. The announcement is welcome, but what detail there is is deeply flawed. We do not need more consultation. It is nearly three years since the Government first committed to banning conversion therapy; further delay would put more people at risk from these inhumane and degrading practices. We urgently need a draft Bill and a clear timeline for its implementation.

It is stated that the ban will focus on coercive practices. This is entirely unacceptable: it will create loopholes or exemptions, and would be a tacit endorsement of conversion therapy. LGBTI+ people and our allies need a comprehensive ban on all conversion practices in all settings. Let us be clear: banning conversion practices does not undermine religious freedom. Holding, teaching and preaching religious belief will always be protected, but trying to change or cancel a person’s sexual orientation or gender identity through religious practices is unacceptable and a form of abuse. Indeed, the Government’s own research—the LGBT survey of 2018—found that a majority of conversion practices happen in faith-based settings. Therefore, such an exemption for these practices would render the ban meaningless and inoperable. Sadly—and I do not wish to seem ungracious—this half-hearted approach reflects the widely held view that the Government are not fully committed to delivering equality.

Concerning ministerial commitment on equality, I refer to the letter of 28 April from the chair of the Women and Equalities Committee, the right honourable Caroline Nokes, to the Secretary of State, Liz Truss, where she says:

“I have become concerned in recent months about the approach being taken by the GEO and its Ministers to my Committee and its essential scrutiny work. We have become increasingly frustrated by a lack of positive engagement from Ministers and note that a growing public perception of Government intransigence on equalities issues is being reflected in our own relationship.”


In conclusion, sadly—deeply sadly—I remain concerned about the continuous defamation and misrepresentation of trans people, particularly trans women, from within your Lordships’ ranks and elsewhere. This misrepresentation of trans people, and particularly trans women, as a threat is reckless, dangerous and diminishes us as a civilised society. This vilification of trans people is wrong, and it must end.