argyrotsipi/train-dataset huggingface dataset:
Welfare Reform and Work Bill — House of Lords, 2016-03-07
Topic: Mixed Topics
Jane Susan Campbell (Crossbench, Unknown): My Lords, I echo my noble friend Lady Grey-Thompson’s deep regret at the Government’s rejection of my noble friend Lord Low’s amendments—amendments that were carried in this House with a considerable majority, twice. In my view, our arguments were pretty indisputable, especially with regard to the absence of evidence that cutting severely disabled people’s employment support allowance would incentivise them to work. I think that, deep down, we all know that it is attitudinal and environmental discrimination that prevents this group from accessing employment. This will be borne out very soon in the evidence of the forthcoming Select Committee report on the Equality Act and disability, which is to be launched at the end of this month Last week, when I listened to the Government’s arguments in the other place in the debate on the Lords amendments, I have to say that words failed me, particularly when Members were told to separate the "issue" from the more important principle of Commons primacy. I find it very difficult when the niceties of parliamentary protocol trump the lives of disabled people. However, we are where we are, and I have to salvage what I can to protect those who will undoubtedly struggle significantly to make ends meet as a result of such a severe cut to their weekly income The Minister has generously—and I mean that—acknowledged the deep anxiety that I and expert disability organisations feel about this policy. He has made great efforts to assure me and them that they will be fully involved in the preparation of the White Paper. He also underlined his commitment to detailing in the annual report on full employment progress towards halving the disability employment gap. He said, "No ifs, no buts. We will do it". In good faith, I therefore withdrew my amendment on additional reporting on disability The Minister is asking us to have faith again today, but I hope and pray that we do not look back on this day as the moment when we pushed some of the most severely disabled people in Britain over the edge. I will try not to let that happen and I will do what I can to become involved in the White Paper and the reporting, but, this time, please will the Minister involve disabled people centrally throughout that process?
Welfare Reform and Work Bill — House of Lords, 2016-03-07
Topic: Civil Rights
Ruth Deech (Crossbench, Unknown): My Lords, I rise to speak in support of my noble friend Lord Low. Until about a year ago, I was by no means an expert in this field, and I am still not, but I have had the privilege for nearly a year of chairing the House of Lords Select Committee on the Equality Act 2010 and Disability. This afternoon, we have listened to a litany of shameful government actions that will undermine the struggles of disabled people. Disabled people are not "them over there"; any one of us could become disabled tomorrow by an accident or an illness. This applies to all of us; it is not something to be put in a corner. I find it quite shameful that we are removing Motability cars and that we are not carrying out an impact assessment My conclusion is that there is nobody in the Commons to champion the rights of disabled people in a holistic manner, and that it falls to this House, which has, fortunately, a good share of disabled people and those who are experts, to do so. I want this House to put on record its dismay, disagreement and disappointment with the way that disabled people are being treated—the very people who are trying to get back to work and trying to be independent. And it could be you, tomorrow.
Refugees and Migrants: Royal Navy and NATO Interception in Mediterranean — House of Lords, 2016-03-07
Topic: Mixed Topics
Graham Stirrup (Crossbench, Unknown): My Lords, what degree of co-ordination will be maintained between the NATO mission and the EU’s anti-people-smuggling mission in the Mediterranean, Operation Sophia? While the two have separate areas of operation they will both require access to strategic capabilities such as surveillance, reconnaissance and helicopters, which the noble Earl has mentioned, and which are in short supply. It would seem essential that a high degree of co-operation is maintained between these two operations if those scarce resources are to be used as effectively and efficiently as possible.
Immigration Bill — House of Lords, 2016-04-12
Topic: Immigration
Julia Neuberger (Crossbench, Unknown): My Lords, I, too, strongly support this amendment. I will speak briefly because much of what I wanted to say has already been said, and said very eloquently This is enormously important. As many noble Lords know, we run a drop-in for asylum-seeker families at my synagogue. In talking to some of the women, many of them pregnant, who visit with their small children, one thing that comes out time and time again is how they worry that the situation in which they are living—they are not detained—is so insecure that some of that insecurity may be transmitted to their unborn children. Of course, we know a great deal now about the transmission of anxiety and trauma to unborn children. If we extrapolate from that and from those women talking about it to women detained for what seem to be not very good reasons, it is really important that we have an absolute exclusion on pregnant women being detained. I hope that people will look at the evidence given by the Royal College of Midwives. That made it absolutely clear that unborn children may well be traumatised by the experience. I do not believe that we in this House would wish to take responsibility for that.
Immigration Bill — House of Lords, 2016-04-12
Topic: Immigration
Andrew Fleming (Crossbench, Unknown): My Lords, the principle of the immigration skills charge is not in dispute. It is absolutely vital that the skills of our own workforce should be improved if we are to achieve the major reduction in immigration which the public so anxiously wish to see. The main issue is one of timing as to when it should come into effect. The Migration Advisory Committee, to whose work I pay a warm tribute, gave three reasons for its strong support for this scheme. First, to raise the cost of immigrant labour so as to reduce the numbers; secondly, to contribute to the extra cost involved for public services; and, thirdly, to compensate for what it described as the, "rather modest efforts to upskill UK workers", by those firms employing Indian IT workers. All those matters need tackling as soon as possible I certainly accept that there may be some loose ends in respect of some of the public services, but we need to get on with this. The Government have announced that they will bring the measure into force in April 2017. That seems a reasonable way to get this moving in a vital area.
Immigration Bill — House of Lords, 2016-04-12
Topic: Immigration
Raymond Jolliffe (Crossbench, Unknown): My Lords, we are led to believe that Third Reading is for the removal of doubt and uncertainties. I believe that there is still a lot of uncertainty over the Dublin III regulation and over discretionary entry outside the Immigration Rules. These uncertainties affect both those who could use the provisions to reunite their families and those who have to administer the provisions or to present compassionate cases to the Secretary of State. The result is that few people get admitted. Under Dublin III, even the Government do not know how many people reach this country—or if they know, they will not say. Under discretionary entry, on the other hand, an average of 35 persons were admitted in each of the last five years. Only last week, the Children’s Commissioner for England wrote to the French Government about unaccompanied children now at Calais who may be—
Housing and Planning Bill — House of Lords, 2016-04-13
Topic: Housing
John Seymour (Crossbench, Unknown): My Lords, I support Amendment 51 and declare my interest as a rural landowner and landlord. Many members of the rural housing group expressed concerns over some aspects of the Bill and, like myself, seek reassurances on the replacement policy for right to buy First, there does not appear to be any current requirement for houses that are sold to be replaced locally. I hear what the noble Lord, Lord Young, said but it is still vital for small communities to retain affordable housing for key rural workers, who are often in the low-paid sector. They need to service their jobs on the basis that they can pop in and out. If you look after animals, it is not a nine-to-five job but a matter of going back when the need is there. It is little help to provide these houses miles away on the edge of a larger settlement or market town. Yet it is quite possible that housing associations, if they sell, are tempted to build their replacements on the edge of such towns. As we heard, building in the countryside is more expensive and also more constrained. The same remarks apply to trying to replace in AONBs and national parks Secondly, I feel strongly that there should be a requirement to replace locally, on a one-to-one basis, especially in rural areas. No one wants a reduction in the total amount of affordable housing. We heard—with a different statistic but it comes to the same thing—that there is only 8% of such stock in small, local communities. This is what we have defined in Amendment 52. We cannot afford any further losses. History shows that similar policies failed in this respect and it is hard not to suspect that there will be the same result from this attempt as the Bill is currently drafted Thirdly, there is the question of whether replacement should be of the same tenure. Although this was largely resolved in our debate on Tuesday, when the Government accepted the exclusion of starter homes from small rural sites, other types of tenure can be involved. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response to the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, on this point Finally, and crucially, we must consider the likely future state of rural social housing without this amendment. It appears to me that there will be a threat to the social and economic cohesion of the countryside. This amendment would help to prevent the disappearance of any assisted housing from such communities. Therefore, I strongly support it.
Housing and Planning Bill — House of Lords, 2016-04-13
Topic: Other
Robert Kerslake (Crossbench, Unknown): My Lords, I will speak very briefly on this issue because it is almost impossible to follow that advocacy. I learned more in that particular bit about the process of dealing with these issues than I have over a long period During the Bill’s passage, there has been a great deal of concern about the things we do not know and cannot see at this point in its progress. We will come on to the question of secondary legislation, as the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, said, but here and now we have an opportunity to get this issue right between regulation and determination. Any technical issues that might flow from that were amply addressed by the noble Lord. I commend the amendment to the House as a practical and sensible way to address a continuing strand of debate throughout the whole passage of the Bill.
Housing and Planning Bill — House of Lords, 2016-04-13
Topic: Mixed Topics
Robert Rogers (Crossbench, Unknown): My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the Minister. With her customary diplomacy and courtesy, she has given us about a quarter of a loaf. It may tend towards a third of a loaf, but not more than that. In effect, she has accepted the second element of Amendment 132. However, the issue of the determination being in regulations subject to parliamentary approval is serious. I was much fortified by the remark of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, who has immense experience and knowledge, about the possibility of protecting what was done from judicial review in a way that would happen if there were parliamentary approval. I hope the Minister will acquit me of any churlishness, but the remaining elements of Amendments 53 and 132 are important enough for us to test the opinion of the House on Amendment 53.
Housing and Planning Bill — House of Lords, 2016-04-13
Topic: Housing
Richard Best (Crossbench, Unknown): My Lords, I rise to support, briefly, the double-headed Amendment 64A and to comment on the late news delivered by the Minister, of which more may follow, to the effect that the Government have broadly accepted the amendment in the name of the noble Lords, Lord Kerslake and Lord Kennedy, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell The key underlying theme of the Bill has been the desire to build more homes and to see a reversal in the decline of owner-occupation, to be accomplished, principally, by building starter homes sold at discounted prices and by enabling housing association tenants to exercise a new right to buy under this part of the Bill. The key underlying objection to both these measures has been that the very substantial cost involved—some £8.6 billion for discounts for those buying starter homes and probably a rather higher sum over the next five years for the discounts to housing association tenants who buy—is all to come through taking away resources from social housing for poorer households, including by selling the most valuable council houses. This cunning plan to spend billions promoting home ownership without the Government needing to find any new money sadly has unfortunate consequences: ultimately, someone has to bear the cost and that someone is the family in overcrowded accommodation, the elderly person, the household in desperate circumstances who would have got an affordable home to rent but will not now do However, damage limitation is possible. This amendment seeks to ensure that where vacant council houses must be sold, before the proceeds are dispatched to central government to pay for discounts elsewhere, funds from the sold homes are used to replace those lost on a one-for-one basis—one new home for every old one sold. The amendment adds that, where appropriate, the replacement should be like for like—a rented family home replaced by a rented family home, not a one-bed starter home. The Minister, thanks to the Secretary of State approaching this issue in a very open and helpful manner, has I think been able, first, to accept that one-for-one replacement should be in the Bill and, secondly, to go a long way to accepting that like-for-like replacement can be agreed wherever the local authority makes a convincing case for it. We need to see the actual wording of the Government’s alternative amendment but I hope that, if not tonight then at Third Reading, we will all be sufficiently satisfied with this. If so, I am grateful to the Minister and to Greg Clark, the Secretary of State, for listening to your Lordships and—I think and I hope—for acting accordingly.
Housing and Planning Bill — House of Lords, 2016-04-13
Topic: Housing
Ewen Cameron (Crossbench, Unknown): My Lords, once again, I am very pleased to report that I am aware that, after discussions, as the Minister has already hinted, the Government are minded to accept the case for the amendment, with a view to bringing forward their own at Third Reading, which I hope will go most of the way to catering for the problem that we are trying to resolve—we being me and the noble Lords, Lord Best and Lord Beecham, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, for whose support for the amendment I am very grateful First, let me spell out the problem as I see it. There are two issues. The first is that we are desperately short of affordable housing in rural areas. As has already been said, our rural England affordable housing stock consists of about 8% of overall housing, compared with 19% in urban areas. Our villages need far more affordable housing, not less, if they are to remain as vital, vibrant communities, with all the self-supporting social fabric that many of us have already described in debate on the Bill. We absolutely do not need to be selling one set of rural affordable homes from the public sector to pay for the replacement of mostly urban affordable homes belonging to the charitable sector.
Housing and Planning Bill — House of Lords, 2016-04-13
Topic: Public Lands
Ewen Cameron (Crossbench, Unknown): I thank all Members of the House who have supported the amendment. I again thank the Minister and, indeed, her Secretary of State for the compromise position that they have offered. I look forward to discussing the details of the government amendment that will be provided at Third Reading. It is quite clear that the process in national parks, AONBs, the Norfolk Broads and other special areas is quite a simple matter to deal with. Housing in communities of fewer than 3,000 people where it is impossible to replace sold housing due to planning regulations, either as spelled out in the National Planning Policy Framework or where they have been interpreted by a local plan, will be the key to whether the government amendment will be acceptable. I look forward to the discussion and, in the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Scotland Bill — House of Lords, 2016-01-19
Topic: Mixed Topics
James Hope (Crossbench, Unknown): Just as a footnote to the point that noble Lords have made about Fort Kinnaird, one can see from the Crown Estate commissioners website the structure of the venture that has been described. The Crown Estate commissioners themselves have, "a 50 per cent interest in an English Limited Partnership which owns Fort Kinnaird Retail Park in Edinburgh". The venture is a partnership. The ownership and presumably the management of Fort Kinnaird are in the hands of the partnership and I take it that the commissioners draw a revenue out of that arrangement That takes one to the essence of the role of the commissioners, as described on their own website, which is one of management of the resources in order, as they put it, "to deliver the best value over the long term" Of course, the interest for the UK Government at present is in the revenue. The commissioners make it clear that their function is to pay all the "annual revenue profit" to the Government. I would have thought it absolutely crucial to maintain that position, that in so far as the assets are concerned, they are managed in the broad interest of maintaining the assets for the best value. Of course, the revenue would then be transmitted to the Scottish Government, as would be consistent with the present position. That distinction between capital and revenue management and payment is absolutely crucial to the point that various other noble Lords have been making.
Scotland Bill — House of Lords, 2016-01-19
Topic: Mixed Topics
James Hope (Crossbench, Unknown): When the Minister replies on Clause 43, could he give us some other examples of cross-border authorities? As I understand Clause 43, it does not abolish the British Transport Police or alter its functions in relation to Scotland; they will be devolved, if Clause 42 is passed. But it would help the Committee if we had some examples of other cross-border authorities, so we can grasp what kind of things we are dealing with. From points that other noble Lords have made, it may be that we are not really comparing like with like in talking about the kind of cross-border authority referred to in the Scotland Act—or the Orders in Council passed under it, presumably under Section 88(5). They are relatively simple creatures, which do not have implications of the nature described by other noble Lords. But some examples of other cross-border authorities would help us to grasp the implications of this very significant clause. I hope I am not asking the Minister to do something for which he is not prepared, but if he could write to us and give us examples at a later stage, that would be very helpful.
Scotland Bill — House of Lords, 2016-01-19
Topic: Mixed Topics
Charles Hay (Crossbench, Unknown): It would be interesting and very lengthy. I thank the noble Lord for yet another item in the list. I am sure that if one sat down one could prepare a demerger list of horrible problems that would tax people for a very long time Earlier, we spoke about the Crown Estate and the fact that it appears that where the Smith agreement has got it wrong there is some wriggle room for making some small changes in the Bill. We came across a couple of them in the transposition from the Smith agreement to the provisions of the Bill that deal with the Crown Estate. I suggest to the Minister that this is another area where there could be some wriggle room. Alternatively, we could go for some sort of fudge with a dual reporting line so there would be a unitary, single British Transport Police with agreed rights of reporting, scrutiny et cetera that went to Scottish Ministers in respect of Scottish staff as well as to UK Ministers at the same time.
Scotland Bill — House of Lords, 2016-01-19
Topic: Other
Charles Hay (Crossbench, Unknown): I am very grateful for that as well. In my commercial career, that option has sorted out a number other problems and is a very useful technique. I would be very interested to hear the Minister’s views on what I have just said and on everything that everyone has said in what has been a very interesting debate on this vital area.
Scotland Bill — House of Lords, 2016-01-19
Topic: Other
Michael Berkeley (Crossbench, Unknown): Just before the Minister answers that question, and at the risk of throwing another Berkeley into the hat and confusing life still further, I have listened to the debate this evening and am confused by the point that the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, wishes to clarify: how this will affect members of the United Kingdom. I do not really feel that I have got an answer to that. It seems to me that it will affect them, and I wonder what the Minister feels about that. Although I understand it, the answer he gave does not quite elucidate the problem we have here.
Immigration Bill — House of Lords, 2016-01-20
Topic: Other
Ann Butler-Sloss (Crossbench, Unknown): My Lords, I support what might be seen as the rather technical points raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. I am looking particularly at Amendments 81, 82, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89 and 90. Where it is the practice in earlier legislation to use the word "necessary", it seems inappropriate to use the word "appropriate". One should keep to similar phraseology in legislation unless there is some very strong view to change it. "Appropriate", as the noble Baroness says, gives a very wide degree of discretion—far greater than necessary—and I cannot at the moment see why it is necessary to have it wider than that. The other points—refusing continuation of a licence and so on—are similar. They are perhaps technical but, when they are worked on the ground, they have considerable force, and I am rather concerned to be broadening out what it does not seem necessary so to broaden.