Agenda item

The Committee received two deputations in relation to agenda Item 10, the Renaming of Black Boy Lane.

The first deputation was given by Anna Taylor and Ian Jackson Reeves both residents of Black Boy Lane. Below is a summary of the key points made as part of the deputation:

• Concerns were raised that the discussion to date on the subject seemed to be focused around ideology and insufficient consideration had been given to the practical realities involved and the huge impact that the change of name would have on local residents.
• A number of legal and important documents would have to be changed including pensions, passports, immigration documents, bank accounts and mortgage statements, for example. The cost of this would be significant and the suggested compensation figure of £300 would not be enough for many people. The change of address would also invalidate some insurance policies which could have a huge financial impact on individuals.
• Particular concerns were put forward about the additional cost on non-UK citizens and those with dual nationality who would have to resubmit immigration and visa documents to the Home Office, many of which would require lawyers to be present and would, as a result, be very expensive. In addition to the cost involved, many people were naturally wary of doing anything that may result in questions being asked about their visa/immigration status.
• Concerns were also put forward with the inadequacy of consultation until now on this proposal in general terms, as well as a specific failure to engage with residents, who were elderly or otherwise hard to reach.
• Ms Taylor advocated that common sense had to be used and that the impact and cost to residents had not been properly understood.
• Mr Jackson-Reeves commented that the proposal smacked of tokenism and that the amount of money being spent on changing a name could be far better put to use by supporting those most in need.
• It was reiterated that the number of places that a person’s address was officially registered had not seemingly been fully appreciated and that a cursory search online would show how important a person’s address was.  The cost to people of having to change all of these and the time and effort spent doing so was unrealistic for a lot of residents.

In response to the deputation, the Committee put forward a number of questions:

1. In response to a question around the consultation process, the deputation party advised that the consultation was very limited and that this had primarily consisted of one letter sent out to residents in June/July, which a number of residents did not receive due to some people’s addresses being missed off the list. The Committee was advised that the whole consultation process seemed to be very confused, particularly in terms of the order in which things had been done. Further concerns were outlined with this taking place during Covid-19 and an inability to meet with the Council in person to discuss the matter. Mr Jackson Reeves set out that his impression was that this was a done deal and that the consultation was effectively a box-ticking exercise. The deputation party also commented that the family of John La Rose’s family were seemingly against the proposals and advocated that the money could be better spent elsewhere.
2. The Committee noted the frustration felt by residents and sort assurance as to whether they would support it if the Council was able to put in place adequate support processes. In response, the deputation party commented that part of the problem was that each resident would have different needs and that non-UK residents could be hit with bills of thousands of Pounds. Further concerns were also raised about the impact on local businesses and the submitting of tax returns.
3. The Committee commented that the report set out that only 35 residents of Black Boy Lane had responded to the consultation and questioned whether a lack of internet access was part of the problem.
4. In relation to a question around whether it was felt that £300 was enough, residents advised that this was the first time that they had been made aware of the figure and that there was an anecdotal account of a friend who had gone through something similar and that the costs could amount to £2k-£3k.
5. In relation to a question around whether the residents would support the proposal if the Council covered all of the costs, the deputation party set out that it was also a question of the time and effort involved as most people worked long hours and did not have the time to undertake the various tasks involved.

The Committee also received a second deputation on behalf of Haringey Stand Up to Racism. The deputation was presented by Gary McFarlane and Vivek Lehal was also present as a member of the deputation party. Below is a summary of the key points made as part of the deputation:

• The deputation party welcomed the proposed name change and suggested that this issue went to the heart of what Britain is as a country and what Britain wants to be.
• The Black Lives Matter movement raised many questions about how to eradicate racism in society. One issue was the presentation of the history of racism in the UK and the use of monuments, statues, street names and the naming of public buildings. Many on these names were rooted in slavery and colonialism. This should be seen as being about righting historic wrongs.
• Haringey is a multi-ethnic and multicultural borough with a proud history of challenging racism.
• The deputation party acknowledged the concerns raised by the previous deputation about money but commented that if this was a problem then money should be sought from the government or perhaps the City of London, who profited greatly from slavery.
• It was commented that symbolism was important and that, in light of Black lives Matter, if this action was not taken now then when would it be.

In response to the deputation, the Committee put forward a number of questions:

1. In response to a question, the deputation party advised that Stand Up to Racism had put also forward a number of other representations on street names and locations in the borough that they would also like to see changed, including Rhodes Avenue.
2. In response to a question around why this mattered in contemporary Britain, it was suggested that this was about remembering the dead generations that went before and trying to right the wrongs of the country’s past.
3. In response to a question, the importance of positive change was emphasised and that as broad a conversation as possible was needed on this topic.

The Chair thanked both deputation parties for their contributions, after summarising the key messages and concerns raised to be taken into account by the committee and he stressed that this was an interim stage in the process, with no decisions having being taken at this stage, and that if any final decisions were to be eventually made, they would be taken at a future meeting of the committee following a full statutory consultation.