argyrotsipi/train-dataset huggingface dataset:
Housing and Planning Bill — House of Lords, 2016-04-20
Topic: Domestic Commerce
Nicholas True (Conservative, Centre-right): My Lords, at this hour I will seek to be as brief as possible. It was very good to hear another concession from the Front Bench; the gracious way in which our Government have listened to Opposition representations has been striking in the course of the Bill’s proceedings, and I welcome it I made a speech in Committee, and there is a good rule in this House that we do not repeat at length arguments made there. I considered that speech to be clear and, without being arrogant, I thought that it was quite compelling. It was Conservative; it was, in my submission, common sense; and it spoke for itself. I am not certain that it has been read as widely in government as I would have liked, but I still have hopes that it might be. It was also, if I may say so, a compassionate speech in terms of conservatism The issue I wish to highlight, which does not affect the whole country, is what is happening to small businesses as a result of the order as it is operating. In my borough, we have recently seen a local estate agent ousted by landlords operating under a nominee company which wished to develop the property; the estate agent could not find a suitable high street replacement and is now renting in less suitable premises at more than double the cost. Asset and flood risk management consultants employing 10 in a town centre have been ousted, forced to move to a less favourable site, again with a far higher rent. The winner of our local Best Business award, employing six, has been ousted from premises that were found after three years of searching—it was an ideal site—by a £180 million West End property company which is pushing out a number of businesses in the mews concerned There is a problem and I cannot understand why a Government who believe in small business, endeavour and hard work cannot see that there needs to be a tweak at the edges of the current regime to make sure that we can safeguard these hard-working people. That is all I am hoping to achieve in the context of this debate I am grateful for the opportunity to speak, and I understand that there are difficulties with my amendment as it stands. There are understandable fears on the part of the Government that if the amendment were accepted it might apply halfway across the country where it was not justified as it is, I submit, in my area. I am very willing to find a compromise; if that takes time over the next few days, I would be willing to do that and withdraw the amendment. That would be the preferred course. With a will, it should be possible to find a way to preserve the policy which the Government rightly think has been a success in using disused and unwanted offices, and allow it to continue in areas where it is appropriate, while finding a way to stop active businesses being forced out on to the streets I have every hope that we can find a way forward. I will not prolong my remarks because, as I say, I spoke on this issue at some length in Committee. Circumstances have not improved since then; they have got worse. I beg to move.
Housing and Planning Bill — House of Lords, 2016-04-20
Topic: Housing
Jane Scott (Conservative, Centre-right): My Lords, I support in principle the Government’s view on this change of use from offices to housing and do so because over the last three years, more than 7,500 much-needed houses have been delivered for this country. However, I have sympathy for my noble friend Lord True’s amendment, not for the same reason as he and many other speakers gave, and certainly not from a London-centric view, because I come from a rural part of the country, but because there needs to be further guidance about this The change of use of large office blocks in business parks, which is an issue that is hitting many other local authorities, is unacceptable. To put housing in the middle of a business park does two things. First, it is not suitable for the people who live in those houses; and secondly, it does not help the businesses that are there at the time or help to market any further units for businesses in the future. It just does not work. Quite honestly, local communities, local authorities and anyone else who has anything to do with this think it is crazy that we would even think of people living in a business park or an economic development park So, although we have Article 4, it would be useful if the Government made stronger recommendations or produced guidance saying that these are areas where we would not accept a change of use. That would then stop all the bureaucracy and the cost of fighting these things, and it would make it clear to developers that there are places that we will talk to them about and consider a change of use, but there are certain places that are just not suitable and therefore they should not try to speculate on them. Therefore, I would welcome it if the Minister would look at this matter again and give local authorities stronger guidance so that they could say no and stop speculation.
Housing and Planning Bill — House of Lords, 2016-04-20
Topic: Housing
Nicholas True (Conservative, Centre-right): My Lords, I am grateful to those who have spoken, including my noble friend. It is important to understand—perhaps I should say this twice, because it needs to be understood—that I am not seeking to defeat the whole order; that is a separate matter. My amendment refers to a small part of the order relating to office to residential. I am not seeking an untrammelled power; I am seeking an audience in Parliament for people who are suffering adversely from the way in which the policy operates. My amendment states that the local authority can seek to opt out only if it demonstrates, "that active businesses within its area are being expelled from office space"— businesses thrown out under this Administration— "to enable conversion to residential use"; that is to say, "When the lease terminates, go: we are turning this into a home"; or the local authority must show that there is economic damage.
Housing and Planning Bill — House of Lords, 2016-04-20
Topic: Mixed Topics
Gary Porter (Conservative, Centre-right): My Lords, I speak in favour of the spirit of what the amendment is trying to achieve, but against it because of the way it is worded. No one from a local government background would believe that it is right that we are unable to collect enough fees to cover the cost of the service, and it is not right that local taxpayers are subsidising the development industry to the tune of about £150 million a year—£450 million over the last three years. But the amendment as worded could have a quite negative impact on some areas. If a fully staffed planning team received only 10 planning applications in a year, the brunt of those costs would fall on those 10 applicants. That cannot be right. There needs to be a way for central government to get away from setting fees at an inflationary uplift. As welcome as that will be, it will be insufficient to get anywhere near cost recovery Given that the Government propose to put private sector competition into the space of a public sector monopoly, there must be a way to increase fees that works for local government, the local taxpayer and the private sector. I still do not understand why we are dealing with these amendments separately from the amendment that opens the door for the private sector to compete. At that point the Government will be sure that the fees local government charge are proportionate for the service being delivered in their area, because if local government charges too much, clearly, the private sector will take all the work. We need to find a way of getting that done but, from my end of the telescope, this amendment still does not deliver what needs to be done. I would love to able to support somebody who is clever at writing an amendment in a way that I am not Again, the word "must" has been used for local government. People should not put "must" in anything. Local government likes "may", not "must".
Housing and Planning Bill — House of Lords, 2016-04-20
Topic: Housing
Susan Williams (Conservative, Centre-right): I thank noble Lords for their comments and contributions. To respond to the noble Lord, I can confirm absolutely, for the avoidance of doubt, that planning authorities will not be able to charge one fee and private providers another. We do not intend to create two tiers within the planning system—it would be most undemocratic and unfair, generally The noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, asked about the £450 million disparity that the LGA found between costs and fees. I need to make the point that there will be differences between the efficiency and effectiveness of local authorities in delivering planning services. Some show that performance can be improved and costs reduced, and more should follow their lead. Authorities have done a phenomenal job in sharing services for many of their functions but have not moved quickly enough in doing so for planning services. I said that to the noble Baroness either earlier today or on Monday—the days have merged into one Amendment 116BA, as I said on a previous amendment, allows local authorities to go beyond cost recovery. We are absolutely clear that these services and other discretionary services should not exceed the cost of providing the service. I have been through the argument previously that what cost recovery means in practice, in terms of fee levels, varies from local authority to local authority. We want a highly efficient service, and there are real challenges up-front in doing this for some local authorities, but we want better-performing planning departments for better performance in terms of planning outcomes. I talked earlier about our proposals for tackling resource pressures in planning departments. I hope that noble Lords will not mind that I do not go through these again, and that with those words the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Housing and Planning Bill — House of Lords, 2016-04-20
Topic: Housing
Susan Williams (Conservative, Centre-right): My Lords, I thank noble Lords for contributing to the debate and raising some very valid questions about how the process will work. Dispute resolution is part of the wider measures that the Government are introducing to make the planning system simpler and encourage housebuilding. We anticipate that it would be used only for a small number of applications, as a last resort, and that its existence will encourage all parties to work constructively together and agree planning obligations earlier in the planning process. Only 7% of major and 1% of minor planning applications both include a Section 106 agreement and are decided outside the statutory time frameworks or agreed extension. The objective of dispute resolution is to avoid protracted Section 106 negotiation, not to add unnecessary steps I have listened to the debate in Committee and this evening, and recognise that several noble Lords have valid concerns about how it will all work while, I think, supporting the general principle of arbitration. A key concern of my noble friend Lord True is not only the bureaucracy but the complexity of negotiations. However, the schedule has been drafted this way to encourage the parties to agree matters between themselves wherever possible. For example, taking out the cooling-off period would detract from the objective of speeding up negotiations. This process would be used only in cases where the local planning authority would be likely to grant planning permission were it not for unresolved issues relating to Section 106 obligations The legislation is also intended to be flexible enough to respond to feedback from the Government’s technical consultation, which has recently closed In this consultation we sought views from the sector on, among other things, the cost of the process, the matters that should be taken into account in dispute resolution and the necessary qualifications of the person to resolve the disputes. These matters will be set out in regulations, as the noble Lord said, and I acknowledge the expertise of my noble friend Lord True as leader of the London Borough of Richmond upon Thames. I would therefore welcome ongoing dialogue as we develop the regulations I reiterate that dispute resolution is intended to be activated by parties to the Section 106 agreement. It therefore should be seen as a tool to aid negotiations where necessary rather than as placing an additional burden. The Government are committed to doing whatever they can to unlock stalled sites and to increase the delivery of housing. We have just concluded a wide-ranging consultation which will inform the detail of how it will be applied through regulations. I hope—although I doubt—that I have been able to provide additional reassurance, and that noble Lords will not divide the House on this.
Housing and Planning Bill — House of Lords, 2016-04-20
Topic: Other
Nicholas True (Conservative, Centre-right): My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that answer. I repeat what I said at the outset: that I have no intention of dividing the House, although I cannot speak for others or for the reasons that they might wish to do so There is a danger of legislation drafted by bureaucrats about bureaucracy for bureaucratic solutions. Sometimes Ministers have a very useful word in their vocabulary, which is "no". I hope that, as the deliberations on this very cumbersome-looking new body go forward, Ministers will whip out that word quite often. I am grateful for what my noble friend said. It is the first time that a Minister at the Dispatch Box in the course of the Bill has really set out some of the details—although my honourable friend Mr Lewis said 185 words on them—and I thank her for that. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment and I hope that, on reflection, the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, will not press the House to divide at this hour.
The Economy — House of Lords, 2016-04-28
Topic: Immigration
Michael Bruce Forsyth (Conservative, Centre-right): My noble friend referred to the Treasury document and its estimate of the effect of leaving the European Union. It included an estimate projecting 15 years ahead that we will have 3 million more people in this country as a result of immigration. Will he tell the House what provisions are made by the Treasury to fund the health, education, housing and other costs that would arise from that?
The Economy — House of Lords, 2016-04-28
Topic: Immigration
Michael Bruce Forsyth (Conservative, Centre-right): My noble friend has not answered my question. The Treasury document assumes that there will be 3 million people here as a result of our inability to control immigration. That has huge implications for spending. The document made no reference to that and I can see nothing in any of the Treasury’s plans that indicates how the costs of the schools, hospitals and other infrastructure that will arise will be met in those circumstances. Surely the Minister has an answer. It was his document.
Investigatory Powers Bill — House of Lords, 2016-07-13
Topic: Mixed Topics
Richard Keen (Conservative, Centre-right): Originally, the period was five working days and, after due consideration, it has been reduced to three. That is considered to be an appropriate period in the context of these provisions. But the Government have reviewed the measure and, as I said, that amendment has already been made.
Investigatory Powers Bill — House of Lords, 2016-07-13
Topic: Other
Richard Keen (Conservative, Centre-right): I should correct a reference I made. I referred in the context of the working days to Amendments 16 and 19, which must have puzzled the noble Baroness. That was my internal numbering and I was, of course, referring to Amendments 43 and 61. I apologise for that.
Investigatory Powers Bill — House of Lords, 2016-07-13
Topic: Immigration
Frederick Richard Penn Curzon (Conservative, Centre-right): My Lords, Clause 48 maintains the position set out in RIPA that interception is lawful in certain circumstances in psychiatric hospitals. The clause sets out that interception is lawful if it takes place in any hospital premises where high-security psychiatric services are provided and is conducted in pursuance of, and in accordance with, any relevant direction given to the body providing those services at those premises While the clause provides that the interception is lawful, it is the relevant direction under the National Health Service Act 2006, the National Health Service (Wales) Act 2006, the National Health Service (Scotland) Act 1978, or the Mental Health (Care and Treatment) (Scotland) Act 2003, that sets out how and when the interception may be conducted—that is not a function of this Bill Clause 49 provides that certain interception carried out in relation to immigration detention facilities is lawful. The Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 contains powers for the Secretary of State to make rules for the management of immigration detention facilities, and Clause 49 provides that interception carried out in accordance with those rules will be lawful. At present, rules have been made only in respect of immigration removal centres—the Detention Centre Rules 2001. The interception of communications in relation to immigration removal centres, in line with the statutory rules, is purely for the purposes of maintaining the security of those centres or the safety of other persons, including detainees. It is right that officers should be able, for example, to intercept attempts to send controlled drugs or other contraband material into particularly sensitive and secure environments Contrary to speculative claims, this power can never be used to determine the outcome of any person’s asylum claim. Again, the precise circumstances in which interception may take place in immigration detention facilities are not a matter for the Bill. To be clear, the purpose of this clause is not to determine rules relating to the management of immigration detention facilities. The purpose of the clause is simply to make clear that conduct authorised and regulated under existing legislation—specifically, the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999—would be lawful Rules made under the 1999 Act about the regulation and management of detention facilities are subject to negative resolution, as specified in the Act and as agreed by Parliament. Such rules in relation to interception would be based on the clearly legitimate purposes already contained in the Detention Centre Rules 2001. The interception of communications in relation to immigration removal centres, in line with the statutory rules, is purely for the purposes of maintaining the security of those centres or the safety of other persons, including detainees, as I explained I hope the noble Baroness will accept that the amendments are unnecessary and that the clauses should stand part of the Bill.
Investigatory Powers Bill — House of Lords, 2016-07-13
Topic: Mixed Topics
Frederick Richard Penn Curzon (Conservative, Centre-right): It might be, but it might not be. Again, it depends on what is reasonably practicable in the particular circumstances. Those circumstances might vary from provider to provider and from situation to situation, so it is not possible for me to generalise about this, but I will take further advice and write to the noble Lord about it.
House Committee — House of Lords, 2016-07-21
Topic: Other
Natalie Evans (Conservative, Centre-right): My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords for their contributions and I shall pick up on a couple of the points raised. In relation to the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, the new Lord Speaker will be working with the old committee to consider the best way to proceed but continuity, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord, Wallace, said, will be an important consideration. As the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, said, the Services Committee chair can help with that—we will certainly look forward to working closely with her My noble friend Lord Balfe mentioned the election of Back-Bench Members. We do not operate elections for any other committees in this House but, if it is something that he wishes to pursue, I suggest that the new Senior Deputy Speaker would be the appropriate port of call, with apologies to him for handing over that grenade. I am sure that he would be delighted to have a conversation, although he is not looking so happily at me. We have got off to a good start The noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, asked about Clocks. I am afraid that I do not have a timescale but it is apparently likely to be months rather than years, which I hope will please him. As the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, said, we want to make sure that these structures work and we need to reflect—I agree that we need to have a period of reflection. There will be an opportunity at the end of the Session to consider whether there are worthwhile changes that we can make On that note, I again thank all noble Lords and I wish everyone a very relaxing Summer Recess. With that, I beg to move Motion agreed.
European Union Migration: National Insurance — House of Lords, 2016-05-12
Topic: Immigration
Thomas Ashton (Conservative, Centre-right): The noble Baroness is absolutely right. Today’s report focused on whether the International Passenger Survey was the correct measure of long-term migration. There are other data sources, such as those the noble Baroness referred to. Of course, the report stressed that work on independent data sources such as HMRC and DWP data is ongoing, and there will be further such work. However, those are complementary, and it has now been established that the best way of looking at this is the International Passenger Survey.
European Union Migration: National Insurance — House of Lords, 2016-05-12
Topic: Immigration
Thomas Ashton (Conservative, Centre-right): I agree with the noble Baroness about the use of national insurance numbers. I do not know whether people are using that information to scaremonger or not. She is absolutely right that national insurance numbers are not there to monitor migration. We want people to register for national insurance numbers so that when they come here to work, even on a short-term basis, they contribute to this country.
European Union Migration: National Insurance — House of Lords, 2016-05-12
Topic: Immigration
Thomas Ashton (Conservative, Centre-right): I agree with the noble Lord. We want national insurance numbers to remain and to be the same so that when people come back and start working, as they increasingly do nowadays, we have a consistent record of what they are doing in terms of national insurance. The noble Lord is absolutely right that some people may have two numbers. Short-term migration and long-term residency are different things, and the International Passenger Survey is the best measure of long-term residency, which is what has an impact on housing and services such as the NHS.
European Union Migration: National Insurance — House of Lords, 2016-05-12
Topic: Mixed Topics
Michael Bruce Forsyth (Conservative, Centre-right): My noble friend got through his whole Statement without telling us what the difference is between the numbers which are based on national insurance registrations, which give people entitlement to benefits and other things, and those based on the passenger survey. What has the difference been in the numbers during the past five years? Can my noble friend explain this to me, because I do not understand it? How can he argue that people working here, even if only for a short period, does not put pressure on schools, the health service, local authority services and housing? Can we take it that the Treasury will in future enable local authorities to be funded on the basis of the real, rather than the theoretical, pressures they face?