Non-Domestic Rating (Public Lavatories) Bill
Lord Greaves ExcerptsWednesday 24th February 2021
(3 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Non-Domestic Rating (Public Lavatories) Bill 2019-21 View all Non-Domestic Rating (Public Lavatories) Bill 2019-21 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 131-I Marshalled list for Committee - (19 Feb 2021)
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)
My Lords, as this is my first contribution today, I draw the attention of the House to my relevant registered interest as a vice-president of the Local Government Association. Amendment 1 in my name and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, seeks to amend Clause 1(3) of the Bill. The purpose of the amendment is to bring into the scope of the Bill those toilet facilities that are in community centres, libraries and other local authority buildings and are free of charge for use by members of the public.
There are clear and undeniable public health benefits to having toilets that are available for the public to use. This amendment seeks to increase that provision. I recognise that in some cases, libraries and other public buildings already make their toilet facilities available to the public. This amendment supports them for doing that, but goes further, as it provides a welcome encouragement for those facilities that do not have the same access provision to be made available to the public. There has been a noticeable decline in public facilities over recent years, and this amendment seeks to reverse that trend by providing rate relief as an encouragement either to continue with the access presently provided or to extend access to the public to take advantage of this rate relief.
The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, has tabled Amendment 9, which I am very happy to support, and the noble Lord will explain the effect of his amendment when he speaks shortly. I beg to move.
Lord Greaves (LD)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, for his support for my Amendment 9 in this group. I will speak to both my amendment and Amendment 1, which the noble Lord has just moved. I declare my interest as a member of Pendle Borough Council, which no longer has public lavatories but is the rating authority for those that exist. I thank the Government for scheduling this Committee fairly quickly after Second Reading so that we can progress this Bill; it gives us real hope that the Bill will manage to pass in this Session.
The amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, would follow up amendments moved in the Commons and comments made quite widely by people at Second Reading in your Lordships’ House. They pointed out that very many lavatories that people consider to be public lavatories and that operate as public lavatories are ancillary to other facilities provided by local authorities and other voluntary bodies, and so on. The problem is that, from a rating point of view, they are part of the same hereditament as the facility to which they are basically ancillary and therefore would not come under the provisions of this Bill as it stands. The Minister has kindly written to interested Members of the House putting forward the view that the Government put forward in the Commons that, to exempt these genuine public lavatories from business rates would be onerous—particularly on the Valuation Office Agency, which is responsible for doing all this— and that it would therefore not be practical to go ahead with it.
My Amendment 9 tackles some of the affected lavatories, which would probably not be a very large number. I believe that this could be done without any onerous burden being placed upon the VOA or anybody else. It reads that, for the purposes of subsection 4(I), which is what this is all about,
“a self-contained public lavatories facility which forms part of a larger hereditament and which may be accessed independently from outside that hereditament forms a separate hereditament.”
It is possible that it would have to be done technically in some other way: it might be that it could be done via secondary legislation. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, has amendments later on, to which I am not going to speak, but at this stage I will just say that I strongly support them; they provide an opportunity for the Government to tackle the technical details, and there are huge technical details in all this, because it is about rating. They would allow the Government to pick up a lot of the points that we are making in these probing amendments at this stage.
It seems to me that, when a lavatory is part of a council-owned building in the middle of a small town or village—it might be a library, market hall or any other council-owned building—and has an outside door so that, even if there is also an inside door that could be locked when the main building is not open, people would be able to access that from outside, sorting out the separate valuation for a limited number of instances like this would not be a great burden, and it could, and should, be done. In practice, the VOA will have done it anyway when it assesses the rates on the whole building, because here is a separate use from the main building and it will have a look at it and say, “What is the amount that that contributes?” Somewhere in the depths of its records, it probably has the information anyway. Even if it does not have it, however, it is not an onerous task for it to do. The number is relatively small compared with the great majority of lavatories in libraries and so on. I hope the Government will accept the principle of this—I do not expect them to accept my amendment as it is today—and go away and have a look at it. I invite the Minister to say that he will do that.
Lord Lucas (Con) [V]
My Lords, as I said at Second Reading, I welcome the Bill. That the Government have chosen to encourage the provision of public lavatories is a great public good, because adequate lavatory provision is a liberation for many millions of people, for whom the thought of not finding one when they go out is a significant restriction on their participation in society as a whole. There are said to be some 14 million people in this country with bowel or bladder problems. That is a very large proportion of the population who are worried about being able to access a public lavatory when they go out.
I really encourage the Government, perhaps not immediately but during the progress of the legislation, to look at opportunities to extend its reach. An obvious example is lavatories in stations, which everyone regards as public lavatories. Victoria station is very well used. It is only in a very peripheral way a part of any other hereditament. The same applies to lavatories in other public buildings, and to push in the direction which is being opened by Amendment 1 is thoroughly worth while.
There is no obvious need for a public lavatory to be a separate building. It seems, given the attractiveness of public lavatories, that having them in a building encourages other uses of that building too, and that their integration into public buildings should be encouraged. If we can find a way round it over the next few years, we should not be privileging just those public lavatories which are free standing.
As has been said, I really hope that the Government look on this as an opportunity, over time, to encourage facilities that are needed for the general public enjoyment of public facilities by extending the rather narrow rating release in the Bill to the many other deserving facilities that are provided at public expense and otherwise, and without which we will find ourselves rather too often caught short.
2: Clause 1, page 1, line 6, leave out “or mainly”
Member’s explanatory statement
This is a probing amendment to explore the meaning of “mainly”.
Lord Greaves (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his detailed response to my previous amendment. I thought that commenting here would be more convenient than making a separate intervention after the Minister in the previous group. That amendment—and others in this and other groups—will give rise to the need for further discussions with the Minister about some of the technical details, if he is agreeable. With the exception, perhaps, of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, none of us is an expert lawyer. We are trying to understand how it works.
That is the purpose of Amendment 2. I am not trying to persuade the Government to remove “mainly”; that would make the Bill even worse. This is a typical House of Lords Committee probing amendment. I am sure that during the noble Lord’s long career as a local government Minister in this House, he will have a lot of fun with a lot of similar amendments to much bigger and longer Bills. This is what we do. It is a way of asking questions. What does “or mainly” mean? It is not clear, and it is not defined.
The National Association of Local Councils’ briefing says that the cost to councils of paying rates on public lavatories is £8 million. The Minister said that the cost of the Bill as it stands is £6 million. Either in his reply to this, or at some other time during today’s discussion, could he explain the difference between those numbers and where it comes from? Perhaps he can give us figures for the extra costs which he thinks would be incurred by some of the proposals being put forward.
I have one other amendment in this group—Amendment 7. I had another, similar probing amendment, but there was a technical problem with it. It was my fault for submitting it on the last day. The Public Bill Office kindly offered to have the Marshalled List reprinted, but I said I could cope with what we have here.
Amendment 7 suggests that “mainly”
“is to be construed according to an assessment by the rating authority of the balance of use by the public of the public lavatories compared with the remainder of the hereditament, disregarding the proportion of the area occupied by the public lavatories.”
I have been trying to get my mind round the relationship between a public lavatory—which might be free standing —and the land on which it stands. This might be a garden area or amenity area in a town or village: a mini-park—or a pocket park, as they are called nowadays; we all know the kind of thing—or it might be a full park. If it is within a park, and basically for the people using that park, it will not be paying rates anyway, because parks are zero-rated. I think it is regarded as part of the hereditament that consists of the park.
If the public lavatory is free-standing in a park or elsewhere and the land around it is a separate hereditament, it will benefit from the Bill. However, somewhere, there must be a dividing line between a lavatory in a park and one that is mainly in an amenity area that forms part of the same hereditament as the lavatory, which is therefore all rated. That is the purpose of this amendment. Alternatively, there may well be a public lavatory that is part of a wider hereditament, the rest of which has fallen into disuse, but it is all part and parcel of the same rate.
If the public use of a public lavatory is greater than that of the rest of the hereditament of which it is a part, and is thus mainly what happens there—this might be a building that contains other council facilities: a storage shed or office, for example—I do not know how this would be worked out under the Government’s own proposal that everything should rely on “mainly”, where this word applies to use by the public.
The other amendment I was going to put down was about the financial valuation. It may be that a hereditament contains a public lavatory and, to all intents and purposes, is a public lavatory but contains another use: it is a mixed hereditament. I am not talking about a public library—where the lavatory is just a small part of it, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, said—or a community centre, where the public lavatory probably would not be there if it did not exist. How do you decide if a council-owned building that consists partly of a public lavatory and partly of something else is “mainly” a public lavatory? Even if the assumed assessment or valuation of the rest of the building for rating purposes is greater than that of the public lavatory, the latter should nevertheless trump—that may not be quite the right word—or prevail over the rest.
I hope the Minister understands what I am saying. First, how does he define “mainly”? Secondly, even if the public lavatory is a smaller part of the area, can it prevail as the main use? Thirdly, if it is not as valuable as the thing it is attached to, whatever that is—a tiny parish council office or something like that—can it nevertheless be the prevailing use? I ask those questions to find out how the provision will actually work in practice: what is the workability of this, as regards public lavatories? Having said that, I beg to move Amendment 2.
Baroness Pinnock (LD) [V]
My noble friend Lord Greaves has rightly questioned the meaning of “mainly” and its purpose: is it, as he asks, about the extent of public use? He is an experienced user of such probing amendments in seeking to get to the detailed consequences of Bills, and this one is no exception. I am sure the Minister will be able to give a detailed explanation in reply, and I look forward to hearing it.
The other query that my noble friend Lord Greaves rightly raised concerns his information that the cost of paying rates on public toilets is £8 million a year, which is rather different from the £6 million cited by the Minister. It would be good to know the reason for the difference in those figures, and why. Having said that, I am looking forward to the Minister’s response to my noble friend’s probing question.
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My Lords, I am beginning to learn how the House works, and I appreciate the education; I am sure I will get used to this way of drawing out important information. These amendments probe the current definition of a public lavatory that would qualify for this relief, and seek to amend this definition to capture some of the facilities that the Bill does not currently cover.
The Government have carefully drafted the scope of the Bill, and I am pleased to have the opportunity to set out for the House the rationale behind this decision. Subject to Royal Assent, the relief within this Bill will apply to all hereditaments that
“consist wholly or mainly of public lavatories”.
Amendment 2, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, probes the meaning of “mainly” in this provision. The phrase “wholly or mainly” can be found across government legislation and, in particular, exists within that legislation which provides for an 80% business rate discount to properties used
“wholly or mainly for charitable purposes”,
as the noble Lord mentioned. Local authorities are responsible for deciding which properties are eligible for business rate relief, and the use of “mainly” provides for some discretion on their part.
However, I will directly respond to the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, on how this would work in practice. Councils should reflect on all relevant matters, including any relevant case law and guidance, when making these decisions. The use of “mainly” means that an authority may, for example, look at the floor area of a building and see that less than 50% is being used directly as a public lavatory, but it may still feel that it meets the criteria for this relief because the remaining area is used as storage or for other matters of little consequence. That is very similar to the example that the noble Lord gave. The Government consider it right that the Bill provides local authorities with this level of discretion because these are decisions best taken on the ground and on the basis of local knowledge.
The second amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, follows on from the first and would act to define “mainly” within the Bill in reference to the extent to which a property is used as a public lavatory, rather than for other purposes. I appreciate that the intention of this amendment is to provide for the relief to be available to buildings that do not constitute separately assessed public toilets but that serve that purpose to a large extent. As I set out earlier, an expansion of the relief beyond those toilets that are separately assessed and have already been identified and separately rated would bring with it significant administrative burdens and costs.
In the case of this amendment, local authorities would be required to not just identify qualifying facilities but assess the extent to which the public are using them for different functions. The public use test would be particularly cumbersome because it would go beyond an assessment of a property’s physical elements and would require an analysis of the extent to which these elements are used by the public. The results of such a test could change relatively frequently, and local authorities may need to make the required assessment on a regular basis.
As currently designed, the measure in the Bill does not carry implementation costs disproportionate to the benefits to ratepayers, nor any significant implementation difficulties for local government. As such, we are not in favour of any amendment to this relief which would increase the complexity of its implementation, create unnecessary burdens for local authorities, or indeed create administrative costs disproportionate to the total benefit to ratepayers. However, I would be keen to engage with noble Lords on some of the technical reasons for not expanding the scope of the Bill.
I again thank the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, for his amendments, which probe the design of the relief before the Committee. However, for the reasons that I have set out, I do not consider that the potential benefits of the amendments would outweigh their substantial costs and I hope that the noble Lord will not press them.
Lord Greaves (LD)
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Pinnock and the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, for their support in this little group, and I thank the Minister for agreeing that we will have some discussions about it. He said that this would be to explain to us what we did not understand, and that we would then understand it. That is fine; I am totally in favour of understanding things.
I hope that the Government understand that some of us, at least, are trying to help them with this, to produce a slightly better Bill. We are not trying to wreck it and certainly not trying to place lots of extra administrative burdens on local authorities. We are looking for ways in which common-sense solutions can be found to problems which are going to occur. Inevitably, a town council will say, “Why are we paying rates on this and not that?” They are not experts, and it will cause all sorts of grumpiness. Also, it will not do, in some instances, what the Government are trying to do, which is relieve the burden on councils, particularly town and parish councils which are increasingly taking on public conveniences. So I hope the discussion we have will be two-way
The Minister said two things. First, he said that, in deciding what “mainly” means, councils should reflect on all the “relevant case law”. He then said that he did not want to put administrative and other burdens on councils. It sounds to me as if the Government are already admitting that there are going to be problems. If you have got to go to all the relevant case law and goodness knows what, it inevitably results in the creation of new case law, because it will get to the courts.
The second thing the Minister said was that the rationale was similar to that for charitable 80% relief, and that that is for “wholly or mainly” charitable use. The word “use” is crucial there, because the Bill does not say “use”, but
“consists wholly or mainly of public lavatories.”
One of my amendments talks about use. Can we look at that, and give the rating authorities a steer that it is the use which is important, rather than the other things, as the legislation does for charitable relief? That might just be a way forward.
I hope that the Government will not be stubborn and say that they are not going to change this under any circumstances, if there are ways through some of these problems. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw at this stage and look forward to discussions with the Minister.
Amendment 2 withdrawn.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, Amendment 3 in my name seeks to add the words
“which are free of charge for anyone to use”
to Clause 1(3). The Bill provides a financial benefit and the effect of my amendment would be to restrict that benefit to public lavatories that are free to use—a very reasonable aspiration and objective. I do not see why those public lavatories that you must pay to use should be a beneficiary of this relief. The purpose of the Bill is to provide encouragement in this area, and I think that this amendment strengthens the Bill in this regard and provides a clear focus on the free use of public lavatories.
Amendment 10 from the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, is very sensible and I fully support it. Why should we provide financial benefit when the lavatory is not open for extended parts of the day? But I will let the noble Lord explain his amendment to the Committee.
On a more general point, in resisting amendments in previous groups, the noble Lord, Lord Greenhalgh, has relied on the argument that the Government do not want to place additional burdens on local authorities and that any savings would be outweighed by the cost of identifying these lavatories. When he replies to the debate, it would be useful if the Minister could evidence that. I have heard nothing from any local authority—the National Association of Local Councils, the District Councils’ Network, London Councils or the Local Government Association—to suggest that the argument that the Minister is relying on has any basis in fact. So it would be useful if he could explain that to the Committee. Or is it just the assertion of the department? I look forward to his response to the debate.
Lord Greaves (LD)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 10 in my name and Amendment 3, proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, which is fairly basic. I am old enough to remember one of the great hue and cry campaigns by women; it would be called a gender campaign nowadays. Not only did they have to spend an old penny—one of those great big things which people under 40 or 50 have never seen—but they had to go through a turnstile, which caused problems for pregnant women. That was a huge hue and cry at the time and was, I think, sorted out—but there are still plenty of supposedly public lavatories where you have to pay. The most disgraceful ones in my view were at mainline railway stations, which started charging considerably more than a penny, but that seems to be being changed now.
Amendment 10 would prevent bodies benefiting from free rates when the lavatories are not open for a reasonable amount of time and at reasonable times. I am always told by lawyers and Governments that the word “reasonable” should never be put in legislation because all legislation has to be reasonable before you start. Nevertheless, this seems to me to be a reasonable thing to discuss in this Committee.
There may well be some public lavatories in tourist areas which are not needed, or not in such quantity, at some times of the year. There may be ones which are needed at some times of the week and not others. It may be perfectly reasonable to lock public lavatories overnight to prevent them being used for undesirable purposes. That was certainly done in my part of the world. There may, indeed, be public lavatories which are open only on special occasions because of where they are and what takes place there. We used to have one which was opened at various times of the year, particularly on Remembrance Day, because it was next to the cenotaph. What is reasonable ought to be up to local decision-making by the owners of the lavatories, but they ought to be stopped from keeping them shut when they ought to be open. That decision ought to be made by the rating authority.
I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, who referred earlier to some confusion in the Bill about what a public lavatory is, in terms of ownership. Does this Bill apply only to facilities owned by councils or by other public bodies, or to other voluntary bodies and charities as well? Does it apply to commercial enterprises that might provide a public lavatory at the entrance of their commercial facility—there might be a park, or whatever—which is open all the time for public use? Could the Minister clarify that? Is it use as a public lavatory, under the Minister’s terms, that matters, or, is it who owns it that matters? That would be a helpful clarification.
My amendment is about how the Government are going to stop people freeloading and getting rate relief when they are not providing the facility they ought to be.
Baroness Pinnock (LD) [V]
My Lords, there are important and relevant issues to explore in Amendments 3 and 10, proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, and my noble friend Lord Greaves, respectively. When a financial benefit is to be gained, as there is in this Bill, it inevitably becomes an issue of dispute at some time in the future when some realise that they are not getting rate relief on their provision of public toilets while others are. That is why it is important to explore what the Government are proposing here.
As we have heard from the noble Lords, Lord Greaves and Lord Kennedy, there is a considerable range of public toilet facilities. Some are open only during the day and some not at the weekend; some require payment, and some do not. We need to understand the implications of this variety of provision for the purposes of the Bill. Is it acceptable to make a small charge for a public toilet facility and get the rate relief proposed in this Bill? What will happen if that small charge becomes ever larger? Is it still right, then, that that facility is zero-rated? These two amendments indicate that what may appear to be simple, straightforward changes can have inconsistent consequences once the detail of the implementation is exposed, as it has been so expertly this afternoon. I look forward to hearing the reply from the Minister.
8: Clause 1, page 1, line 13, at end insert—
“(8E) Subsection (4I) does not provide any relief from non-domestic rates under the Rating (Empty Properties) Act 2007.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment ensures that rates continue to be charged on public lavatories that are permanently locked up and out of use.
Lord Greaves (LD)
My Lords, the Deputy Chairman really ought not to continue tempting me to call a Division but, never mind, I am not going to.
I tried to do some research. In May this year, it will be 50 years since I was first elected to a local authority and I thought that I knew about things such as business rates and so on. I have discovered in the past week or two that I do not know much at all. They are complicated and technical. I thought that I would ring up the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, and have a conversation with him but I have been advised by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, not to do that because I might get too far into this subject.
As part and parcel of this matter, I have been looking at the Government’s rating manual, the Local Government Finance Act 1988 and the regulations that are referred to in Clause 2, and discovered why no amendments have been tabled to that clause because I doubt any noble Lords who might want to table amendments to it would understand a word of it. However, I thought it necessary to table an amendment on empty properties.
The amendment is technically totally hopeless—I am certain about that—but it contains the words “empty properties”. All I want to do is use it to ask the Government: can they give a guarantee that the Bill will not allow people to pay no rates on public lavatories that they have closed? I am aware that local authorities all over the country nowadays charge rates on all kinds of empty properties, which used not to be possible. I do not want people to be able to close public lavatories and still have rate relief on them as a result of the Bill; in other words, I am asking that the Bill should not trump other legislation that allows local authorities to continue to rate empty property, and that people will not be able get away with that. I look forward to the Minister’s response. I beg to move.
Baroness Pinnock (LD) [V]
My Lords, my noble friend Lord Greaves’ Amendment 8 rightly explores the possibility of closed public toilets being eligible for the relief under the Bill. As those toilets provide no relief for the public, it is quite proper that no relief is provided for the authority paying the rates. It is clearly an issue that we need to explore, and be certain that the legislation ensures that authorities do not benefit from closing public toilets. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My Lords, I am happy to give that clarification. I understand the intention of the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, in his amendment and support what he is trying to achieve. However, let me set out why it is unnecessary. His aim is to ensure that the relief cannot be applied in circumstances where a public toilet is permanently closed and out of use. I can assure the noble Lord that this is the Government’s intention. The Bill is therefore structured to reflect that aim. The Bill will amend only Section 43 of the Local Government Finance Act 1988, which relates only to occupied hereditaments. The Bill would therefore ensure that the relief would apply only to eligible occupied hereditaments, not to unoccupied public lavatories. As usual, local authorities will be responsible for determining the award of relief, having regard to the legislation, as they do with other relief schemes.
I hope that that clarification on how the measure would apply will help the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Greaves (LD)
My Lords, I will read carefully the Minister’s reply—and go one more step towards being able to pass my GCSE in business rating. I accept his assurance that what he said will be the case. As on all these occasions, if it happens not to be the case, we will come back and harass him in the House. However, his reply was acceptable; I will read it carefully and attempt to understand it.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall)
Do I take it that the noble Lord wishes to withdraw his amendment?
Amendment 8 withdrawn.
I urge the Government to recognise that the Bill on its own solves nothing. They need to take this situation forward to a better place. In 2021, the availability of clean public toilets is a reasonable expectation for us all. As we recover as a country from Covid, we need to encourage our tourism industry. The state of our public conveniences is a source of national shame. For this reason, if for nothing else, the Government need to do more than just this Bill.
Lord Greaves (LD)
My Lords, I support these important amendments, and I ask the Government particularly to pay attention to the three powerful speeches we have just heard from my noble friends Lady Thomas of Winchester and Lady Randerson and the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews. Those three speeches sum up what the future really ought to be for public provision in this area. When the Government say they are carrying out a technical review, I am afraid that I am a bit cynical about the word “technical” in this respect. I am sure that their intentions are good, but it is more than just technical. It is about basic humanity and a basic provision of human-based services for all people. As I say, I hope that the Government will take this seriously.
To pick up on two or three particular points, parish and town councils are absolutely crucial in the future provision of public lavatories. Although they do not cover anything like a majority of electors in this country, they do cover a huge number of small and medium-sized communities. These are places that people go to, or through, and where people go for holidays and recreation. It is crucial that they are provided with the necessary resources to do what we all want to do, which is, in many places, to turn old inadequate Victorian and Edwardian public conveniences into modern provisions of the kind that people have been talking about which are suitable for everybody.
To do that, they need resources. I keep being told, and the National Association of Local Councils have been told, by the Government that they have no powers to provide funding for parish councils. That was almost the exact wording that I was given in a Written Answer from the Minister, not too long ago. I do not believe that; I think it is complete baloney. The Government can provide funding for projects on almost anything they want. They could certainly provide capital funding through some scheme or other for parish and town councils to renovate and modernise their existing public conveniences and provide new lavatories. I hope that the Government look seriously at that in their technical review because, if they are going to be provided, in many places the town and parish councils will have to do it.
Secondly, I asked a question earlier and the Minister did not reply, on whether the Bill applies to all kinds of ownership—public bodies including councils, voluntary groups including charities and commercial organisations, some of which may be charities. He said separately, in reply on another amendment, that the Bill applies specifically to lavatories that appear on business rate lists. Is that the definition? Does it therefore apply to any public lavatories that appear on business rate lists, whoever owns them, even if it does not apply to lots that are publicly provided?
My final point is on burdens to councils. As the Minister well knows, councils love to talk about, involve themselves in and do something about very local facilities. I understand the difficulties of providing extra burdens on the VOA, particularly at this stage, but I believe that, in a relatively small number of cases, public lavatories could be provided with the relief in this Bill by giving some discretion to local authorities, in some way. I do not believe that local authorities would regard that as a great burden, but as part of their ordinary job. We are not talking about a lot. I have a list of eight public lavatories that are on the business rates list in my own area of Pendle in Lancashire—only eight. The numbers that might benefit from the Bill, if it was extended a little, are not more than that. We are talking about single figures in most local authorities, certainly most ordinary districts. They could cope with that perfectly well and would not complain about the extra burden; they would welcome the ability to influence things a little for the better.
Having said that, I very much support these amendments and look forward to the Minister’s reply. I hope that we see a few improvements to the Bill from the Government, when we get to Report, to make it even better than it is now.
Baroness Pinnock (LD) [V]
My Lords, this is an important series of amendments. My noble friend Lady Thomas knows, at first hand, the challenges facing people with disabilities as they seek to do what the rest of us take for granted. Before people with disabilities venture out, questions have to be answered. Is there an accessible public toilet? Is its accessibility such that it meets the needs of, say, those using larger mobility aids? Is it open at the appropriate times? How easy is it to access? Negative answers to these questions may well mean that someone with a disability is unable to go on a trip or holiday, or simply shopping.
My noble friend’s Amendment 14 is hugely important and I am proud that it is also in my name. I urge the Minister to take these concerns seriously, as I feel sure he will, and to press his ministerial colleagues to make them a priority. During this lockdown, we have all had the experience of not being able just to go out, when we want to. For people with disabilities, this can happen all the time. Ensuring there are accessible and available public toilets goes some way to remove one of their barriers to freedom.
Fireworks: Damage
Lord Greaves Excerpts(4 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Greaves
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they plan to take to prevent damage being caused by fireworks set off other than at organised events.
The Senior Deputy Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
I call the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Old Trafford.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford)
Well, I am young Trafford, actually, compared to the noble Lord, Lord Lee of Trafford, but we often get the two mixed up. One is old and one is young.
The Government remain committed to promoting the safe and considerate use of fireworks through an effective legislative framework and through non-legislative measures. We launched a public awareness campaign this October with the aim of educating people on how to buy, use, store and dispose of fireworks safely and considerately, and ensuring that retailers know and understand their responsibilities when selling fireworks.
Lord Greaves (LD)
My Lords, I put this Question down because there seemed to be a spate of fireworks causing damage to buildings that they had hit, including one just down the valley from us at Brierfield, but is it not the case that the indiscriminate and uncontrolled use of fireworks is one of the major causes of anti-social behaviour now in this country? Is it not time that there was a ban on the purchase and use of fireworks except by appropriate bodies on special commemorative occasions and in a controlled and organised way?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, it is true to say that fireworks injuries have actually gone down since 2016. I cannot comment on the assertions made by the noble Lord in his questions, because I do not know whether that is the case or not. The Government are most certainly not thinking of a ban. It might help him to know that the Petitions Committee conducted an extensive inquiry into fireworks in 2019, and concluded that it could not support a ban on the sale or use of them. Funnily enough, the National Fire Chiefs Council agrees, as do the Government.
Life in the UK Test
Lord Greaves Excerpts(4 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
I thank my noble friend for pointing those things out. I suspect if we took a straw poll of all views in this House the handbook would be very long.
Lord Greaves (LD) [V]
My Lords, I had a look at a lot of it. It seemed to me that it was very good training for taking part in pub quizzes. There is an extraordinary emphasis on a lot of irrelevant history, mainly about people who were white, rich and powerful. I did not see a lot in it about food banks or the laws in relation to planning permission and how to apply for planning permission. The question about what happened to hereditary Peers in 1999 seems bizarre. It seems to me that a thorough revision is required. Does the Minister agree?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
No, I do not agree. The laws on planning applications could fill a tome by themselves—
Licensing: Closing Time
Lord Greaves Excerpts(4 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
I assure the noble Lord that this system is in place. The fines do go up, from £1,000 to £10,000. It would be an unusual licensee who wished to have several £10,000 fines.
Lord Greaves (LD)
My Lords, I declare my interests as in the register. The people who do the work covered by regulations in these premises, and not just at kicking-out time, are environmental staff on district councils in two-tier areas, yet the powers to enforce and, if necessary, to close down for a period, rest at county level with public health. Should the powers not be aligned with the people who do the work on the ground at district level?
Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill
Lord Greaves ExcerptsWednesday 16th September 2020
(4 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Act 2020 View all Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Act 2020 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 121-IV(Rev) Revised fourth marshalled list for Committee - (14 Sep 2020)
Baroness Primarolo (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I shall speak in support of Amendments 67 and 63. I support the comments made by my noble friends Lord Rosser and Lady Lister—she posed excellent questions—and I am pleased to follow the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Alton. Much has been said and I shall make only a few comments.
My first point concerns the crucial question of citizenship, which is of great importance to children. Significantly, it is a matter of identity, belonging and security, including, I regret to say, being free from the Home Office’s immigration powers and controls.
Many children born in the United Kingdom or with lengthy residence here have a right in law, under the British Nationality Act 1981, to register as British citizens—they are British citizens—but, as my noble friend Lord Rosser pointed out, the provisions in Clause 1 and Schedule 1 are in danger of undermining that right. These children include those born in the United Kingdom to European and Swiss citizens, stateless children born in the UK and looked-after children.
I looked at the debates on the British Nationality Bill to see what the clear intention of Parliament was. I would not recommend it as bedtime reading, but it clearly conveys the right to citizenship. It says that it is a right and that it should be given to individuals as specified, according to the intention of Parliament in debating that Bill.
Registering this right has become extremely important, particularly for children. Perhaps in the past much less emphasis was placed on the importance of registering, but, as the debates on this Bill have demonstrated, the hostile environment that has developed over the years means that thousands of children and young people are not being informed by the Government of their right to British citizenship. We know that citizenship means that a child or young adult obtains all the advantages that come with it, including the right to remain in Britain, freedom from immigration controls, and access to student loans, employment, health services and social security. Those are all rights that, tragically, we saw being denied to people in the Windrush scandal, and another generation could be at risk from the actions being taken here. Intentional or not, the outcome is the same.
Many children who were born in the United Kingdom or who have lived here from an early age do not have British citizenship or leave to remain. Currently, at worst, a child or young adult who is not registered is at risk of being removed. As many as 120,000 children, 65,000 of whom were born here, could be affected by this question of citizenship.
However, it is not just children who are not aware of their right. Similarly, parents, foster parents and corporate parents, such as social services, often do not know that these children are in fact entitled to British citizenship. That is not really surprising, given, I regret to say, that the Government do not systematically publicise the right to citizenship and encourage people to register.
As my noble friend Lord Rosser said, the Act does not give the Home Office the power to decide whether someone is entitled to citizenship. It is not a gift; it is a right in law. The role of the Home Office is simply to recognise the child’s legal right and register their citizenship. We do not need confusion around this matter. We do not need young people to be unaware of their rights. We need to ensure that the enormous danger of yet another generation being denied their right to British citizenship does not arise, and the amendment provides a way of doing that.
We cannot allow people to be denied their rights because of incompetent administration, a lack of knowledge of procedures or sometimes, I regret to say, callous responses from the Home Office. Amendments 63 and 67 seek to place a duty on the Secretary of State to raise awareness of people’s rights and ensure that they are able to achieve those rights, giving them security here as British citizens.
I know that the Minister is sympathetic to many of these arguments. I hope that when she responds she will answer the questions posed by my noble friends and that she will also explain to the Committee how, once and for all, this Government will make sure that those who are entitled can become British citizens without barriers or preventions deterring them from achieving those rights. I look forward to her response.
Lord Greaves (LD)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Primarolo, and particularly her last sentence. It should be written down and put on a banner strung from the balcony here—although, if we did that, we would probably be investigated for terrorism.
I think it was the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, who said that it is necessary to shift the mindset of the Home Office. If it was not her, she should have said it and we should all agree to it. She also thanked all the people who had put their names down to speak in support of the amendment. I always admonish people when they say that, as they should wait to hear what is said before doing so. However, in this case I completely support those who have introduced both amendments, particularly the noble Baroness, Lady Lister.
I am no expert in these areas. Every time I get involved in a citizenship or immigration case, as I do from time to time—either in the past as a councillor or, nowadays, as a Member of the House of Lords, or just as someone people know—I become ever more appalled by the hoops and obstacles that many people have to go through. Not everybody has to do that; some people sail through the system quite easily. That is not always because they are the sorts of people who can cope with systems, bureaucracies, organisations, administrations and so on. It seems random. Some people who seem to be in a similar position to others have enormous difficulty, but others less so.
One problem with the mindset in the Home Office is that, once it has said no or has raised serious obstacles, it does not like to admit that it was wrong. I have found that to be so throughout the culture of the organisation. It might apply to only a minority of people—I do not know—but once people are in difficulty, they just seem to get further and further into the morass.
The costs of achieving citizenship are ridiculous. We should encourage people, not try to rip them off. There is a high degree of bureaucracy involving the provision of documents. If something is slightly wrong with those documents, more obstacles are put forward, whereas very often common sense should dictate that they suffice. For people who want to be naturalised, there is also the utterly ludicrous testing of knowledge of British life, although it would not apply to people who are exercising a right.
Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill
Lord Greaves ExcerptsMonday 14th September 2020
(4 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Act 2020 View all Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Act 2020 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 121-IV(Rev) Revised fourth marshalled list for Committee - (14 Sep 2020)
Lord Greaves (LD)
My Lords, this is the first time that I have spoken in this Committee. I intended to speak last week but I was not feeling too well, so I did not and did not come. I apologise for that, although there may be members of the Committee who think an apology is not appropriate and who were quite pleased about it. I declare something of an interest. I have a close in-law who, I am pleased to say, has just achieved settled status, although it took him a long time to bring himself to even apply for it. I support the amendments in this group and all the speeches that have been made.
This group should be put in its context. Among a lot of European citizens living in this country, large numbers of whom now have settled or pre-settled status, there remains an acute sense of concern. A lot of people are still fearful and worried; some are still scared. They are worried particularly about family relationships. Jobs are a different thing, in a sense. People are worried about their jobs but somebody who has got a good job and skills can go and get another one. A lot of people are still wondering what to do. How long might they stay here; will they stay here for the rest of their lives as many intended to do? People keep saying to me: “Yes, we have got settled status and that is fine, but how do we know that they won’t change what it means?” This week, one person said: “Look, it’s part of the withdrawal agreement and an international treaty, but we have a Government who do not seem to care too much about that.” Whether or not that is true is a different matter; it is the impression that is being given, so they are asking what it means.
How long will it be before people come along and say, “Yes, but you are European citizens and we will change the basis on which you live in, work in, or have the right to return to this country”? It may be in small ways; it may be in the detail of complicated legislation. So much of what the Committee is talking about is exactly that. I do not think that this is something that the Government can give reassurance on. They have tried, but they cannot guarantee what a future sovereign Parliament may allow—or force—a Government to do. We talk about the hostile environment: a lot of people still believe that the way in which they are being treated and regarded by many British residents of this country is undesirably different from what it was before the referendum.
That is all history; we know what is happening. It would, however, help if the Government, instead of concentrating on what they are now calling the need to be compliant, and pursuing that kind of thing, came out with some positive spin: propaganda or publicity about the value of European citizens and how important they are to this country. The end of this year—the end of the transition period—would be a good opportunity to do that, because that still gives six months, and it could be tied to a renewed government campaign to pick up the people who have not yet applied for settled status.
My noble friend Lady Hamwee, in her brilliant introduction to this group, suggested that the number of people who might be caught at the end of June by not having applied and not fitting into whatever guidance the Government finally come up with—they have given some indications but they are not very comprehensive and the guidance will not come out before we have dealt with this Bill—might be huge. It does not matter whether it is a huge number or not; it might be a few hundred or a few thousand, although it is likely to be rather more than that. We do not know how many there will be, but for those individuals it is no more or less important if it is 10,000, 20,000 or 200,000. Many people think that it is going to be rather more than a few thousand, given the comparison between the number of people who have applied so far and estimates of how many European citizens there are in this country.
These amendments are very important. I will not repeat all the reasons why people may not have applied for settled status by June next year, or indeed why they have been given pre-settled status, except that it is fairly clear that in the majority, probably, of pre-settled status cases it is simply that people have not been living here long enough. That is fair enough: they can continue to live here and will then qualify. Anecdotal evidence—of which there is a lot—suggests, however, that much of it is error by the Home Office, or the inability or failure to provide some detail, often a quite trivial detail. The anecdotal evidence comes from two groups of people. The first group is those who have appealed; the rate of success among them is, I understand, quite high. That suggests that many other people have not appealed and have said, “Well, I am only going to live here another two, three or four years”, or, “Well, we will get it all sorted out in three or four years’ time”. They are the sort of people who will get caught by the system. We have no idea how many of them there are; we know, however, that in relation to the 40% or so who have status—the people the Government are so proud about—it is temporary status.
Why should the Government make an effort to tell people about the scheme? My noble friends went through a lot of reasons. One of them—a perfectly legitimate and acceptable reason—is that people change their minds. People who think that they will be here only another two or three years may experience a change in their circumstances. They might get married, have children, get a new job; they might do all sorts of things. When their circumstances change, they may just change their mind and decide that they would like to stay. They will then, however, have to reapply. Can the Minister give the House an absolute assurance that when, in due course, people who have been turned down for settled status but have pre-settled status apply for settled status, the Home Office will not revisit their original application, find errors in it and use that as an excuse for not giving them settled status? That is a fundamental point. Will the Minister give that assurance?
Lord Randall of Uxbridge (Con) [V]
My Lords, it is quite difficult to follow such eloquent speeches and I will not attempt to emulate them. However, I can give the House some examples of why I think that they are correct in what they say about public opinion. First, I must declare my interest, as in the register, as being a vice-chairman of the Human Trafficking Foundation.
Having been the local MP, I know that the London of Borough of Hillingdon received and looked after a large number of unaccompanied asylum-seeking children. My fellow MPs for the area, John McDonnell and Nick Hurd—that is, from all sides of the political spectrum—and we worked hard because we knew that we welcomed these children. However, we had to make the point, and we came together in doing so, that the then Labour had to provide ample resources so that the public—our constituents—did not feel that they were being disadvantaged in any way and that services would suffer from the long-term financial commitment of looking after these children. I have to say that we were very successful.
When it is explained that this is something that we should do for unaccompanied children, I think that public opinion is there. Without venturing into the right reverend Prelate’s area of expertise, I can give a personal example of where I found the most unlikely good Samaritan. A member of my Conservative association was—shall we say?—very forthright on the immigration policies at that time and was not a fan of lots of people coming in, as he saw it, illegally, legally or whatever, to the point where sometimes I really winced when I heard him speak. However, there was a knock at my window late one night—I lived, and still do live, in the heart of my constituency—and it was this gentleman, who said, “John, you’ve got to do something.” Apparently, he had had a bad road accident and the only person who had come to his aid as he was lying on the road was a young Kosovan, who was going to be deported. When somebody realises that these are real people, suddenly any antipathy disappears.
This country has a great tradition of looking after people, and I shall quote an example that I am aware of but which is probably little known. During the First World War, a lot of Serbian children were looked after in Scotland as they were escaping the horrors of the war. Many settled here; some went back to Serbia after the war. Not only was it right for us to do that but it gave them a great sense of the British way of life. I know from reading an excellent book how grateful they were for what happened at that time.
Therefore, I just say to my noble friend that I think we should be less cautious in worrying about what some of the perhaps more right-wing side of the media say about this. When children come to this country unaccompanied, they do not come for a pull factor; they do so because where they come from is such a hell. Nobody would willingly put themselves at such risk to come from those countries. I am not sure about some of the wording in the amendment—although I am not an expert on it—but I think that we should take this issue very seriously at this particular time.
A couple of years ago, I was at the main railway station in Serbia and saw the flow of migrants, although by that time it was not as large as it had been. Anyone who sees, close to, families who are desperate and leaving war-torn countries such as Syria and Iraq cannot be anything other than moved. I support the amendment.
Lord Greaves (LD)
My Lords, I added my name to this list to fulfil a promise to certain campaigners who had been lobbying me. I have listened to the noble Lords, Lord Dubs and Lord Kerr of Kinlochard, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham and I have nothing further to add except to say that I support everything they said with my heart and mind.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, I must admit that I originally found the Government’s arguments quite persuasive in the briefing the Minister provided for us, but I have changed my mind, having heard from the 3 million representatives about the many potential pitfalls and just how anxious many of those affected are at the prospect of not having physical proof. I have also seen evidence from the Roma community, the European Children’s Rights Unit and the Roma Support Group, the last arguing that this group experiences a combination of digital exclusion and a lack of digital skills. That is true of many marginalised groups. The noble Lord, Lord Alton, has spoken very movingly about this group already.
The noble Lord, Lord Oates, referred to a promised policy equality statement that still has not appeared. This is really important, because we know that digital-only policies are likely to have a differential impact on groups with protected characteristics, as the example of the Roma community indicates. We know from universal credit the problems that digital by default can create for those who lack digital access and digital skills.
I am puzzled because the Minister’s response to many other amendments has been to complain that they would create a two-tier system, but it seems that this is creating a two-tier system that the Government are very happy with. Perhaps the Minister could explain that contradiction. I hope that the Government will not oppose this amendment. Amendment 49, in particular, is extremely modest, and I just hope that the Government will acknowledge the contradiction and ensure that they are not creating their own two-tier system here.
Lord Greaves (LD)
My Lords, it is a privilege to follow so many very clear and excellent speeches, starting with my noble friend Lord Oates and including my old friends, the noble Lords, Lord Alton of Liverpool and Lord Hain. I listened to both of them and thought, “They got some good training when they were kids, didn’t they?”
It is interesting that, of all the things that people such as the3million group and lots of other European citizens who are concerned about settled status and so on do not like, this is the one thing that they are almost all united in thinking ought to be changed. A lot of them put it at the top of their list of priorities, partly because it is such a simple and obvious thing for the Government to do.
I have been in this place for 20 years—I have to pinch myself but it is true—and I have noticed over the years that sensible Governments do not just lie down and do everything that your Lordships’ House wants them to do, although we have the debate and they listen. Occasionally they say, “Yes. There’s sense in this. We’ll take it away and sort it, and will come back.” I think that this is one of those issues. The great advantage that Governments have of doing that here and not in the House of Commons is that the Opposition do not then start shouting “U-turn” and so on at them; they say, “We thank the Government for their sensible thoughts and actions on this. Good for them.” This is one issue where the Minister, who has a reasonable amount of clout in her department and in the Government—not as much as some people but a reasonable amount—
Lord Greaves (LD)
There are shadowy figures who get appointed and seem to run things but never appear in this or any other House, but I am sure that the Minister could do it if she wanted to. I think that this is a single thing that the Government could do.
Various people have talked about it being a two-tier system. My noble friend Lord Paddick said it would mean that people with settled status would be in a position different from that of other people. They would be, and they would sometimes be worse off in some respects compared with some citizens of the European Union. For example, those who come here to work after the end of June next year will need a work visa. As I understand it, they will have a passport and the work visa will be stamped in it. They will be okay. They will say, “Look, I can work”, whereas those with settled status will have to go through the long and complex system that has been described to us by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett.
My other question concerns transactions, whether relating to employment, housing or other things—odd jobs and so on, with people doing work for others. If the European Union person with settled status, who might be on either side of the transaction, is the provider of the facilities or services, will they have to show that they are entitled to be here and to provide those services to their customers or whoever they are providing them to? That is a question for the Minister.
It seems a bit ridiculous in some cases, such as odd-job men. Somebody comes around—they may be a traveller or just an ordinary odd-job man—and says they will mend your roof by putting the tiles back on or will set up a window-cleaning round. If you employ them to work for you, and pay them to do it, but they are not entitled to work in this country, will you be breaking the law in some way—or is it all on the side of the person providing the service?
I have been trying to get my mind around the worst-case scenarios. If you want to rent a new flat and you are leasing it from a big landlord, who is highly reputable and provides high-quality accommodation, you will be okay. They will have all the computer systems, will know how to do it and be used to it. It will just go through. But you may be renting an attic from an old lady who has lived in the house all her life but does not know what a computer looks like or how to operate that kind of system. She does not work through an agent or anybody like that; she just does it. You may be a lodger or a tenant. Under those circumstances, you need a physical document.
I can think of loads of others. Think of the gig economy. Lots of it is highly organised and computerised, and will easily be able to cope—driving for Uber, running webinars or whatever it is. But a lot of the gig economy is short-term jobs, such as working at a bar, doing delivery rounds, music gigs or all sorts of things, as we all know. We should not expect this system to work under circumstances where people do not have a physical document. It is simply not going to happen; it is not going to work.
Then there is the question of self-employed people—your classic Polish plumber, or whoever it is, whatever they are doing. As I suggested before, they may have come to mend your roof or sort out your heating. This is a self-employed person, a sole trader. They may or may not be operating properly within the tax system, but there are loads of such people. How will they cope with this? Some of them have devices with them, but lots will not want to worry about computers. If you are employing these people, as I said before, is it your responsibility to check that their settled status is bona fide?
The more I think about, the more circumstances there are where it will simply not work. It might work in 90% of cases, but there are lots where it will not. Simply having a physical document means that the system can work. It does not mean it will, but it means that it can, so that people on all sides of the transactions can cope. I return to what I said before: this is simple. I cannot understand why the Government will not do it. They should go away, design a scheme, come back and tell us what they are doing, and we will cheer them to the rooftops.
Baroness Bull (CB)
My Lords, I too speak in support of Amendment 49. Like other noble Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Oates, on his comprehensive introduction and on continuing to press this important issue. Equality of access and opportunity should be at the heart of every government policy, yet denying EU citizens this physical back-up to prove their status opens avenues for the exact opposite. It raises barriers that may unfairly hamper their ability to lead fulfilling lives and to carry out basic tasks, such as seeking job opportunities—as we have heard— finding a place to live, opening a bank account, getting medical treatment or safely returning home after travelling abroad.
Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill
Lord Greaves ExcerptsWednesday 22nd July 2020
(4 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Act 2020 View all Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Act 2020 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 30 June 2020 - (30 Jun 2020)
Lord Greaves (LD)
My Lords, I am one of the people who finds this Bill to end free movement a sad and shameful moment in your Lordships’ House. I was proud to sit on these Benches when I listened to the inspiring and outstanding speech that opened this debate, from my noble friend Lady Hamwee. I was encouraged by the speech by the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, from the Labour Front Bench; I thought it sensible and liberal with a small “l”, if I may say so. Like the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, I hope that the Labour Party can maintain that view as the Bill progresses.
It occurred to me that, over the last 50 years, a large number of families have become pan-European families. I was quite surprised when I worked it out to discover something I simply had not noticed: over half of my own family—a household of three—and our extended family, including cousins, aunties, grandchildren and so on, possess European Union passports. There is a large number of such families in Europe and here, including British families, all of whom will find life increasingly difficult as their families branch out and become more complex as time goes on.
I have four quick questions for the Minister. The first is one that I think the noble Baroness, Lady Falkner of Margravine, asked. What guarantees are the Government giving to people who did not achieve their settled status by the end of June? This is a serious matter.
Secondly, what will happen to people with pre-settled status if they do not convert? Will they simply continue their pre-settled status for ever, or do they have a guarantee that serious things will not start happening to them?
Thirdly, the Minister will know that 10% of the most recent applications were refused; there was a minor spike in refusals in the last lot. Can she tell us why that took place and what the reasons for refusal are?
Finally, the Law Commission suggested that the Immigration Rules need a thorough rewrite. In the spring, the Government issued a paper saying that they were preparing to do that in early 2021. Can the Minister tell us what progress is being made and whether that deadline will be met? If it will, will this House have a chance to discuss the Immigration Rules thoroughly at draft stage, because they are so important?
Calais: Refugees
Lord Greaves Excerpts(7 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Greaves (LD)
My Lords, I want simply to support everything that has been said, and will no doubt be said by further speakers. I do not have anything specific to add, other than to pay tribute to my noble friend Lord Roberts of Llandudno for his dedication and persistence in pursuing these matters. We happen to share an office and I more than anyone else know just how much he puts into this day after day when he comes to work in this House.
My noble friend mentioned one of the projects that he launched, the Citizens of the World Choir, which is a remarkable project. It consists of 30 to 40 refugees living in this country, from 16 different countries—from Afghanistan to Zimbabwe, alphabetically. It has a wonderful conductor, Becky Dell. It has sung, as my noble friend said, at the Llangollen Eisteddfod. It has sung in Llandudno. It has even sung at Ronnie Scott’s. This is just one example of the hundreds of projects there are around this country working with, supporting and looking after the refugees who are already here, whether they are unaccompanied young people or families, like the refugees we have in my own patch in Pendle.
When the Government announced their vulnerable persons resettlement scheme of people from Syria, the leader of the council and I—I declare my interest as deputy leader—immediately said, “Right, we will take as many as we reasonably can. We will act as the host authority for the district”. We now have 20 families, who came in two lots, who are now suffering the climatic conditions of the Lancashire Pennines—for their sins—and who are being looked after and supported in our part of the world. We are very pleased to do it. We will take more if the Government will only bring more people over.
We set up an official co-ordinating committee of all the agencies and official bodies, which is run and clerked by the council. That is very successful but it was clear that it was not enough and a group of volunteers, who all wanted to help and provide support, set up a group called Pendle New Neighbours, which has a weekly drop-in meeting and has resulted in individual people making friends with individual families and building up those kinds of relationships, which are so important if people are going to live successfully in our community. The point is that we cannot do more unless the Government pull their weight and allow more people to come.
Scrap Metal Dealers Act 2013
Lord Greaves Excerpts(7 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I am just turning to my noble friend Lord Henley, who was involved in the Act, as was my noble friend Lord Taylor of Holbeach. I understand that during the passage of the Bill and prior to that, the Gypsy and Traveller community made representations. However, there is an overriding point here, which is that the trade in scrap metal must be lawful, and therefore the full force of the law should come down on people who steal metal and attempt to sell it.
Lord Greaves (LD)
My Lords, noble Lords have spoken about the top level of illegal trade and theft. What tends to happen in towns in the north of England is that people drive up and down the backstreets in unregistered vans or trucks with no identification on them. They pick up and take away anything that is left on the street. They also look into backyards and if no one is living in the house, they might take material away. If there is someone in the house, they will offer them a couple of quid. But even if these people are not paying money for the scrap, they need waste carrier licences. Much of this is going on at a low level that is just below the radar. What will the police do to stop it?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, the noble Lord mentions a number of different events, which may or may not be theft. Some people might be quite grateful to have scrap metal that has been lying in their backyards for years picked up. Going back to the Scrap Metal Dealers Act, it is now unlawful for someone to buy scrap metal for cash, and therefore there is now a better audit trail of where scrap metal is going.
Hate Crime
Lord Greaves Excerpts(8 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Greaves
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what action they propose to take to reduce the incidence of hate crime.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)
The new cross-government hate crime action plan published in July sets out a comprehensive programme of action to reduce hate crime. This includes education programmes to prevent hate incidents, measures to improve the police response and recording of hate crime and stronger sentencing guidelines for the judiciary. As part of the action plan, we have committed £2.4 million of funding for security for places of worship which have been targeted by hate crime. We are also sharing £300,000 of funding across communities to tackle hate crime through innovative projects.
Lord Greaves (LD)
My Lords, the Home Secretary said in relation to the recent figures that the Government intended to stamp out hate crime. That and the actions referred to by the Minister are very welcome, but does she agree that, while it may be possible to stamp out behaviour, stamping out hatred in people’s hearts and minds is more difficult? What is required in addition to these actions is for the Government to take the lead in saying loud and clear that everyone who lives in this country is welcome, that we live in a multicultural, multiracial and increasingly diverse country, that this is not going to change and that it is a good thing.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I agree with the noble Lord to the extent that stamping out hatred in people’s hearts and minds is a bigger issue than just providing a hate crime action plan, but this country is tolerant and welcoming. We have seen that in the past 24 hours with some of those fleeing persecution in other countries coming across and being welcomed to this country. It involves more than just action plans—attitudes and the way that we approach our fellow man or woman in everyday life.