EU Nationals: Legal Status
Lord Collins of Highbury Excerpts(7 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for repeating the Statement. I declare an interest in that my husband is Spanish and I have just returned from a brief weekend to visit our family in Spain.
In the debate on your Lordships’ EU Committee report, I asked the Minister what plan B was if the UK voted to leave. The committee highlighted the acquired rights of the 2 million or so UK citizens living in other members states and, equally, those of EU citizens living in the UK. Bearing in mind the importance to our economy, as the noble Lord said, and to our health service, I am shocked that no contingency plans appear to have been made.
The Minister, and of course the Minister in the other place, say that the Government’s position must be seen in the round and that their interest is to protect all citizens. Well, I fear that by putting in doubt the rights of EU citizens here, it will have the complete opposite effect from protecting UK citizens in the EU. As I say, I have just come back from Spain; Rajoy’s recent statement and those of the Spanish Foreign Minister are not giving people much comfort either; they repeat the same sort of statement the Government are making. Rajoy says, “Don’t worry, nothing will happen, at least for the next two years”. Two years is an incredibly short period when people have made their lives, bought homes, got jobs, and contributed to the economy. Earlier the Minister explained—as did the Minister in the other place—that there are existing rights, such as the right to remain after five years. But how are people made aware of this? They have never needed to exercise it. So how will the Minister explain that that right exists and people need not worry as they have that protection? How are people going to follow through? Would it not be better, both in terms of protecting our own citizens abroad and our economy, if we removed the uncertainty now?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his remarks. The Government, of course, are listening carefully. As I have done on a couple of occasions from this Dispatch Box, let me reassure noble Lords that it is the Government’s intent to provide reassurance to all our citizens. It is right that we protect the rights of EU citizens in the United Kingdom and provide them with the security of knowing that they can continue to practise, work, live and study in the UK. The issue now arising is one of great uncertainty. As I said earlier this afternoon, we are going through unprecedented circumstances. As we reflect on the situation in which the country has now voted—in the referendum the country voted by a majority to proceed to leave the European Union—it is important that in the discussions we are taking forward with our European partners we protect the interests of British citizens who are working and living, and have done so for many years, in the European Union, and at the same time, put at the forefront the very valid discussion and concern that the noble Lord has just raised again about EU citizens who have made their lives in the UK and who contribute to the UK and its progress.
I can give the reassurance that exactly those sentiments, thoughts and principles are very much in our minds. It is not for me to speak about the future Prime Minister specifically, but I am sure that all those candidates putting themselves forward for Prime Minister, and indeed the new Government, will reflect very strongly about this, because it is central to our future relationship. We may choose to leave the European Union—the people have elected to leave it—but we have not left Europe. Our relationship with Europe will continue.
Queen’s Speech
Lord Collins of Highbury Excerpts(11 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Collins of Highbury
My Lords, this year marks the Diamond Jubilee of Her Majesty's reign. Over these 60 years, we have witnessed incredible progress in science, medicine, technology, working conditions, healthcare, education and equal opportunities. However, it is a sad reflection on our society that progress on living longer becomes something to fear. My noble friend Lord Warner was absolutely right when he wrote in yesterday's Times:
“Living longer should be a matter for celebration, not concern. We are a civilised society with enough wealth and assets collectively to fund a decent social care system. Let’s get on with it”.
The coalition agreement committed the Government to an independent commission on social care to report by July 2011, enabling legislation in this new parliamentary Session. Dilnot delivered but the coalition has not. We have a commitment to publish draft legislation on reform of social care law, with no commitment to introduce a Bill on reform of care funding in this Session. As we have heard today, our care system has reached breaking point, yet we appear to be even further away from addressing the fair and sustainable solutions offered by Dilnot. This will cause terrible hardship and distress for older and disabled people.
It will also affect the economy. More than £1 billion has been cut from local council budgets for older people’s social care since the Government came to power and the system has now reached breaking point. At a time when government Ministers are asking people to go out and grow the economy, 1 million unpaid carers have had to give up work, or reduce their hours, because the support that they need to look after family members is not available or is too expensive. That is what Governments can deal with to produce growth. The cost to the economy of carers being forced to give up work or reduce their hours is £1.3 billion every year through lost tax and pension contributions, and the increased costs of unemployment, income or care-related benefits. There is nothing to stop the Government, if they are serious about social care reform, committing to legislation in this Session that will include funding reform as well as wider policy and legal reform.
Another area where we have witnessed incredible progress over the past 60 years is in the field of equal opportunities. I was therefore disappointed that the modest proposal for equality in marriage between straight and gay couples was not included in the gracious Speech. As I said before in the House, I am proud that across all political parties there is a consensus that respects the right of lesbian and gay people to celebrate their relationships. It reflects an understanding of the inherent worth of a loving relationship between two people of the same sex.
My husband and I have taken every opportunity given to us to celebrate our 16-year relationship on an equal footing in our civic society. The first came in 2004, with a civil partnership ceremony conducted under the auspices of the GLA when Ken Livingstone was mayor. We had to do that because, unfortunately, this House had delayed civil partnership legislation. On 21 December 2005, the first day possible, we legally tied the knot in Islington Town Hall—and I will say, for the benefit of some noble Lords, that council staff not only understood their statutory duty to carry out the law of the land but made our day really special.
Rafael and I therefore welcomed the Prime Minister’s personal commitment to equality in marriage—but he must not backtrack now. The attempt by some Conservatives to blame the equal right to marry for their election results is wrong, and for the Prime Minister to give in to them would be a betrayal of all those who oppose discrimination.
The Secretary of State for Defence, Mr Phillip Hammond, said at the weekend:
“But I think the government has got to show over the next couple of years that it is focused on the things that matter to the people in this country—not just the short-term things but the long-term things as well”.
Well, Mr Hammond, my marriage is not a short-term thing. My commitment to my partner is not a short-term thing. Legislation on equal marriage does not prevent the Government prioritising jobs, growth or family finances. It is the coalition’s economic policy that is preventing that.
Protection of Freedoms Bill
Lord Collins of Highbury Excerpts(12 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Lucas
I quite agree that this is something we need to watch. We have similar problems in the health Bill where, for reasons I entirely approve of, activities that used to be done by state bodies may in future be done by private ones. We need to make sure that that does not mess up our objectives on freedom of information, which are, I believe, and certainly should be, towards greater access to information rather than less.
Lord Collins of Highbury
My Lords, I support my noble friend’s amendments, which would make common-sense improvements to the operation of the Freedom of Information Act. I will not repeat the arguments he has made so eloquently, but I would like to raise a few points.
These amendments strengthen the individual’s right to freely access public information and the presumption in favour of openness and accountability in public bodies. The democratisation of knowledge and communication through the internet is the most important revolution of our age. People simply do not accept bureaucratic barriers to information any more, and we must have legislation that is alive to responding to new realities. It is therefore essential that the processes for accessing information do not work against the principle that the burden should be on the body providing the information, not on the individual seeking it. This includes the cost of seeking such information and I urge the Government to think again if they are planning to increase charges.
The 40-day maximum cap on complying with freedom of information requests is both simple and workable. As my noble friend pointed out, it comes from the recommendations of the Information Commissioner, who said:
“In cases where the public interest considerations are exceptionally complex it may be reasonable to take longer but, in our view, in no case should the total time exceed 40 working days”.
The House has learnt first hand the frustration of delays that can be caused by decisions and successive appeals on the basis of public interest, which no doubt we shall return to when we resume consideration of the Health and Social Care Bill.
We must seize every opportunity to ensure that the process itself never becomes the reason why individuals are denied access to public information. We must also ensure that the principle of public accountability at the heart of the Freedom of Information Act established by the Labour Government is not diluted by changes in the nature of delivery of public services, as noble Lords have pointed out. As my noble friend has said, the public have a right to access information about how their money is spent and I hope the Minister will seize this opportunity to restore the levels of public sector transparency enjoyed before the Localism Bill was enacted.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
My Lords, I start by making it clear that this Government very much support freedom of information and increasing openness and transparency—there is absolutely no doubt about that. Indeed, I am sympathetic to Amendment 55ZA, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Wills, in relation to the timeliness of public interest deliberations, and his proposal to make the Information Commissioner’s recommended best practice a statutory requirement.
Public authorities must answer freedom of information requests promptly. They must not be unnecessarily slow in responding, and any extension to the time limit for responding to such requests should only be claimed where absolutely necessary. As I mentioned to the noble Lord when we debated similar amendments tabled by him in Committee, I have some experience—although not in government—of being on the receiving end of FOI requests that are complex and invoke public interest tests.
As I said then, it is certainly the case that, in general, timeliness in responding to freedom of information requests is good. In 2010, 86 per cent of requests were answered by bodies monitored by the Ministry of Justice within 20 working days. It is also worth noting that in central government time extensions for the consideration of the public interest test remain relatively rare and the proportion of requests which have resulted in such an extension fell to 4.5 per cent in 2010.
Marriages and Civil Partnerships (Approved Premises) (Amendment) Regulations 2011
Lord Collins of Highbury Excerpts(12 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Butler-Sloss
My Lords, I spoke in favour of the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Alli, and in principle I continue to support him. I also agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, that this is a question of legal interpretation and not an issue of conscience. I am a member of the Merits Committee. I read the two opinions that were sent to us that gave me some concern at the time. I was disposed initially to support the Motion of the noble Baroness, Lady O’Cathain, but since then I have read a considerable number of contradictory opinions. I am reminded of a quotation from The Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam, which goes something like this:
“Myself when young did eagerly frequent
Doctor and Saint, and heard great argument
About it and about; but evermore
Came out by the same door where in I went”.
I can well understand why this Motion is being debated and why so many people are anxious about the effect of this legislation, and in the light of the legal disagreements about the effect of the regulations and the statutes. I have considerable sympathy with those concerns. I have now worked my way through all the opinions, the seven or eight that I have read, from distinguished lawyers, mainly Queen’s Counsel, and I have come to my own firm conclusions.
First, I do not think that this statutory instrument is well expressed. It has been described to me as sloppy, but it reproduces the protection given in the Equality Act, which puts of course into the Civil Partnership Act, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, said. It has been suggested to me that including in Regulation 2B the words “nothing in this regulation or any other statutory enactment” would give adequate protection, but the enactment that might raise risk to religious premises is the Equality Act, not the regulation. As has already been said, this regulation cannot bind primary legislation, and an attempt to do so would be, as lawyers call it, ultra vires.
I am therefore satisfied that a better drafted statutory instrument would not deal with the problem that lies, if it lies at all, in the Equality Act, so my second point is that Sections 29 and 149 of the Equality Act are identified as potentially giving rise to litigation, but that the same Equality Act makes changes that give protection to those who choose to opt out. It gives protection in the Civil Partnership Act, but, my goodness me, it is actually in the Equality Act. Noble Lords have heard the words in Section 202(4) of the Equality Act that are inserted after Section 6(3) of the Civil Partnership Act.
It seems improbable to me that one part of this legislation, Section 202, gives protection to religious establishments and another part creates justiciable issues of discrimination and takes away that protection. Where there appears to be an inconsistency in different parts of the same Act, a court would seek to resolve them or construe the Act to prevent a result that would be absurd, irrational or illogical. One would also expect that a specific section in an Act would take precedence over a general section, particularly if the specific section comes later in the same Act.
The specific protection given in Section 202 of the Equality Act would, in my view, be relied upon in preference to the general anti-discriminatory provisions in Section 29, if they apply. Equally, looking at Section 149 and the duties of public authorities, the specific protection of Section 202 would, in my view, also apply if it can be shown that Section 149 applies in any event. I would therefore expect that each part of the Equality Act would be construed by a court in such a way as to make it compatible with another part of the same Act and that Section 202 would be accepted by a court so as to implement the important protection that it provides.
As we have already been told, the Church of England is satisfied with the proposed change in the law and the protection that it is given. Having listened with interest to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Blackburn, I would expect a Church of England priest to rely upon the decision, or the failure to give a decision, in favour of religious establishments and say that he or she cannot allow the church to be used.
The Equality and Human Rights Commission, which, as we all know, has a duty under the Equality Act to be an advocate for equality and human rights, is also satisfied that there is protection for religious establishments. I do not consider there to be a real doubt and prefer the speeches by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, and the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, to those by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Blackburn and the noble Lord, Lord Anderson.
I have now seen the helpful letter from the Minister saying that there would be a review if a problem arose as a result of some legal action. It would be even more helpful if the Minister were to say that there should in any event be a review, perhaps at the end of 12 months, to see what difficulties there are or may be, but I see no reason to annul this regulation, which is only carrying into effect the primary legislation put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Alli, and others, and I shall therefore support this regulation and vote against the Motion to Annul.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill
No respectable member of the Bar, properly informed and reading the statute as a whole, if asked whether there was a reasonable chance of success, would be likely to say that there were. Anyone who brought such a challenge would have to find public funds or their own funds to do so and they would fail at first instance, in the Court of Appeal and in the Supreme Court.
Baroness Verma
My Lords, we will hear from the noble Lord, Lord Collins, and then from the noble Lord, Lord Dannatt.
Lord Collins of Highbury
My Lords, in my maiden speech to this House, my first thanks went to the officials and staff for their warm introduction. Not only did they make me feel extremely welcome, they made my husband Rafael feel extremely welcome, too. My second thanks went to your Lordships, not least for the fact that I was able to say “my husband”. These Benches have helped transform my life and the lives of countless lesbian and gay people in this country. I am immensely pleased that it is no longer just noble friends on one side of this House who applaud progress in this area but Peers on every side of the Chamber. That consensus is a sign of this House at its best.
I am therefore very sad that, despite this strong consensus, we have this Motion before us today—sad because it reflects neither the view of the majority of noble Lords nor the intent of the regulations arising from Section 202 of the Equality Act 2010. It is because I strongly support the principle of religious freedom that I welcomed the adoption of this section in the Act—that is, the freedom that would allow a church to say no to civil partnership ceremonies conducted in their premises or by their priests. Equally, if a religious institution or church does wish to celebrate a civil partnership, it should be able to do so. The unconditional right for lesbian and gay marriage through civil partnership can only be a civil one. That is a responsibility the state must ensure is provided without discrimination, fear or retribution. But just as I believe the Church should not interfere with the rights and responsibilities of civic society, I equally believe that the state should not interfere with the conduct of religion or ceremonies in places of worship.
As we have heard today, Section 202 is, as was always intended by those who supported it across the House, entirely permissive. We have heard clear legal opinion from the Church of England and the Government, and many prominent legal counsel have supported this view. The points made by Professor Hill, on which the noble Baroness relies, have also been considered, as we have heard, by Paul Goulding QC in a detailed written opinion, which I know many noble Lords will have seen. It is clear from Mr Goulding’s opinion that neither the regulations nor any part of the law would compel religious organisations to host civil partnerships against their wishes. In particular, he points to the provisions of the Equality Act which expressly state that. My noble and learned friend Lord Falconer argued this case so well in agreement with Mr Goulding’s opinion.