Councillors: Publication of Addresses
Lord Reid of Cardowan Excerpts(5 months, 4 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
As far as families are concerned, my noble friend is absolutely right. That is why they are mentioned under the “sensitive interests” provision and protected in the same way as councillors. As far as the House of Lords and Peers are concerned, I will take that back to the relevant House officials.
Lord Reid of Cardowan (Lab)
My Lords, the Minister was kind enough to say that this was such an important issue that “Anything … we can do … we will do”. May I make a simple suggestion? At present, the protection afforded under law requires councillors to opt in. They have actively to seek out the right not to have their addresses shown. Could the Government make it an opt-out system by creating an obligation under statute that councillors’ home addresses will not be published unless they specifically request that this be done?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
This is exactly what the Government have said they will look to do as soon as they get legislative time. At the moment, it is better that we have an opt-in, or is it an opt-out? I cannot remember which way it is; noble Lords will know what I mean. It is important to have this while we are waiting for that further legislation.
Holocaust Memorial Day
Lord Reid of Cardowan Excerpts(9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Reid of Cardowan (Lab)
My Lords, with the indulgence of the House, I will make a brief contribution. I did not intend to speak today. I came along as a matter of respect and to listen, and I am glad that I did because I found some of the speeches quite incredible, not least that of the noble Lord, Lord Dubs. In my 40 years in Parliament, or thereabouts, I have rarely heard a more moving contribution. I am proud to call him a colleague and a friend.
I have only one point to make. The magnitude of the horror of the Holocaust is such that we, out of necessity, constrain it within certain limits of place and of time. The place? Germany under the Nazis. The time? The period between 1933 and 1945. I understand why we do this, but it is extremely misleading. In terms of time, we can go back 1,000 years in European history. The Jews were certainly excluded at stages; then, they were ghettoised; then, they were forcibly converted; then they were proscribed. And then, they were annihilated.
The Holocaust was the natural outcome of the seeds of a thousand years of European—dare I say it?—Christian conduct. The noble Baroness, Lady Smith, mentioned the Catholic Church; I do not think Martin Luther and the Protestants were very keen on the Jews, either. It was a Christian phenomenon, and one which we should face up to. Of course, at the end of the 19th century it culminated in the writings of Joseph Chamberlain, the Dreyfus affair, the caricature of “Jewish Bolshevism”—which enabled people to go for Communists and Jews at the same time—and the terrible outcome of the Holocaust. But there was a long period before 1933, or even before 1921, when the Nazis adopted the original programme.
Secondly, the Holocaust was also not confined to concentration camps and death camps. Fewer than half of the people who died, died in concentration camps and death camps. And it was not confined to Germany or Poland. It happened in Hungary, Ukraine, Latvia, Estonia, in western Europe and France; thank God, not in Britain. So, yes, the Nazis gave licence, but they did not order each and every execution. It sprung from the history of European civilisation and Christianity, and when it was unleashed by the Nazis, all sorts of people were involved in annihilating the Jews.
Why do I mention those two aspects? Because, if we truly want to learn the lessons, we should not confine it mentally to one nation, one area and one epoch, and recognise that even today it is ubiquitous. It is there: we see it in the politics of rabid right-wing nationalism, which will turn on the Jews because they are not of this country, and of the rabid left wing, which equates monopoly capitalism with the Jewish financiers. We have seen how insidiously that can creep into our own party on this side of the House.
We truly want to learn the lessons in order to combat it. It is uncomfortable, but we had better recognise the length of anti-Semitism and its ubiquitous nature. That is the task that faces us. It is widespread and long lasting, and I have no doubt that it will continue to be so—so all of us have a responsibility to counter it wherever and whenever it occurs.
Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill
Lord Reid of Cardowan ExcerptsThursday 13th July 2023
(1 year, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 View all Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 142-II(b) Amendments for Report (Supplementary to the Second Marshalled List) - (13 Jul 2023)
Lord Reid of Cardowan (Lab)
I am trying to follow the Minister’s logic, but I am afraid that my intellectual capacity prevents me doing so. I therefore ask a simple question. By all logic of his argument, there should be no hybrid Select Committee meetings in this House, yet there are. Does he think that that therefore devalues those Select Committee meetings?
Earl Howe (Con)
That point is very similar to one made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, and my noble friend about an option of virtual attendance in case of illness or disability—as we have in this Chamber—but that option is on an exceptional basis. With great respect, that is a far cry from the terms of the amendment that my noble friend has tabled. We know what effective debating looks like: it is when we can stand in this Chamber and look each other in the eye—as at present—as active participants.
No limits are placed on authorities broadcasting their meetings online, and I would encourage them to do so to reach as wide an audience as possible. However, I hope that my noble friend Lady McIntosh and other noble Lords who have aligned themselves with her position will understand why I am coming at this from the point of view of a principle: that it is our duty to safeguard democracy as fully as we can and not to short-change it. I hope therefore that my noble friend will not feel compelled to oppose that principle by dividing the House today.
Voter Authority Certificates
Lord Reid of Cardowan Excerpts(1 year, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
Yes, I am happy to repeat that: those who return with voter ID will be recorded.
Noble Lords
Lord Reid of Cardowan (Lab)
My Lords, the Minister is making a pretty bad fist of a very poor case. She mentioned 2003 in Northern Ireland, where there was manifest data on impersonation. If she does not know the difference between Northern Ireland and the British mainland over the past 40 years—before 2003—I cannot really help her. But 2003 was also the year when voluntary biometric ID cards were introduced, in an attempt to make sure that access to public services was not misused, to help in the control of immigration, to make sure that there could not be voter impersonation on the British mainland, and for a dozen other good reasons.
Lord Reid of Cardowan (Lab)
That scheme was unilaterally abolished by the Liberal Party when they were in the coalition. They are the very same people who are now crying out for some decent method of identification. It is the only way to make sure that there is no impersonation in voting.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I do understand what happened in Northern Ireland in 2003. Let us get it right. Personation in polling stations is very difficult to identify and prove. By definition, it is a crime of deception. If you listen to the people of Northern Ireland, you will hear that they are more satisfied with their voting system than people in this country. We should allow our residents to be as satisfied with ours. If you look at what comes from polling, you will see that two out of three people in this country would feel more confident in the voting system if there were photo ID.
Elections: Multiple Voting
Lord Reid of Cardowan Excerpts(2 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
I guess people can decide to vote where they want to if they are registered in two places, but in a general election they cannot vote twice. Whatever the system, I am sure that my noble friend could be elected if he stood again, even if in the past it was by a pretty narrow margin.
Lord Reid of Cardowan (Lab)
My Lords, with apologies to the noble Lord, Lord Razzall, and the noble Baroness, Lady Featherstone, will the Minister recognise that this problem would be easily solved—as would the problems of fraudulent voting, control of immigration, access to public services and counterterrorism —if the coalition Government had not in 2010, at the behest of the Liberal Democrats, abolished biometric ID cards?
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
This is something of a Groundhog Day Question, as we look back in time. As part of the Elections Act, we have introduced voter identification as a means of reducing electoral fraud.
Non-Domestic Rating (Lists) (No. 2) Bill
Lord Reid of Cardowan ExcerptsMonday 18th January 2021
(3 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Non-Domestic Rating (Lists) Act 2021 View all Non-Domestic Rating (Lists) Act 2021 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Reid of Cardowan (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his introductory remarks, and, like many others, I support these Bills. I will confine my remarks to the Non-Domestic Rating (Lists) (No. 2) Bill, not least because the other Bill—and the important subject it raises—has been dealt with comprehensively and succinctly by my noble friend Lady Andrews and a number of others, embellished by the hygiene history of Saltaire given by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace. It is always a pleasure to follow him.
Like other noble Lords, I fully understand the need for the measures contained in the Bill. In effect, in summary they will help ensure that future business rates will better reflect the potential effect of the Covid-19 pandemic on the commercial property market by postponing the date of the next business rates revaluation until April 2023. It seems to make sense—not least to the business community affected—to take into account the effects of changing market conditions, and that is why I will support the Bill. But perhaps the Minister could respond to one or two questions and queries that I have regarding the Bill.
First of all, it seems to me that the delay cuts both ways. Does it not mean, for instance, that some businesses badly affected by the pandemic will have to tolerate their existing burden of rates—assessed and set in perhaps much more benign circumstances some years ago—for potentially an additional two years, while their present commercial reality may be much changed for the worse precisely because of the pandemic? To address this, could not the new valuation and assessment, taking into account the effects of the pandemic, be carried out in a much shorter time than the additional two years outlined in the Bill? Perhaps the Minister could tell us.
Secondly, as we have heard on several occasions, the Government are presently undertaking a fundamental review of business rates and, as part of that exercise, they are considering the frequency of future revaluations. Can the Minister tell us what specific implications, if any, today’s Bill might have on that review? Can he assure us, for instance, that the review will not be unduly delayed because of the measures we are considering today, or are we to assume, as I did from his opening remarks, that there has already been a delay on this, partly—presumably—because of the attention being given to the pandemic, including those aspects which relate to the present Bill?
Thirdly, will the additional time being allowed by this Bill permit a consideration of wider changes in market conditions outside of those directly springing from the pandemic? Is it to be exclusively centred in its consideration on the pandemic itself, or, for instance, are the short-term effects of Brexit, which may well prove as deleterious as the pandemic itself for some businesses, to be taken into account?
Finally, in supporting these measures, I should say that, as others have stressed, while they are a common-sense response to a temporary and, I hope, unique challenge—the Covid-19 pandemic—they do not provide a long-term solution to the recurrent problems and criticisms associated with the present valuation process, with which all of us are very familiar. That will be provided only by the review and reform of the whole process mentioned by the Minister. I hope that the Minister can assure myself and all the other noble Lords who have raised this that it will be a thoroughgoing review, followed by the expeditious implementation of the necessary and appropriate reforms, and that that is the Government’s prime longer-term objective.