argyrotsipi/train-dataset huggingface dataset:
Town and Country Planning (Fees for Applications, Deemed Applications, Requests and Site Visits) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2020 — House of Lords, 2020-07-29
Topic: Housing
Anthony Robert Greaves (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): My Lords, all these proposals are fraught with controversy, and the way in which the Government are bringing them in simply by announcement, with no proper consultation and within two months, is an absolute disgrace. I fear it will come back and bite them where it hurts These regulations are just about the fees and, at least in the case of upward extensions to flats, which in many parts of the country, such as my own, where I declare my interest as a councillor, will not be used very much, although they may be in big cities. Nevertheless, it is welcome that local authorities can make a charge, although whether it will cover the costs is a matter of opinion. But the idea that people can, without having to get planning permission, convert properties in town centres into housing, is fundamentally wrong. It flies in the face of local planning in many cases, and the assumption is that all town centres are collapsing. Well, not all town centres are collapsing, and this will mean that people will allow properties to become empty in town centres that are not collapsing, such as in Colne, for example, where I live. Where we have empty properties, we are making huge efforts to bring them back as shops. This will fly in the face of that Upper extension of ordinary houses, which is not in this particular order but was referred to by the Minister, because it is part and parcel of the thing, is okay for big detached houses separated from the community, but for ordinary semis and terraces, it is alarming that this can take place without proper planning permission or residents having the right to complain and protest and put their views forward in the normal way in the planning system. It is driving a coach and horses through local planning, and it is a disgrace. I hope that the Government will have some serious second thoughts about it.
Town and Country Planning (Fees for Applications, Deemed Applications, Requests and Site Visits) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2020 — House of Lords, 2020-07-29
Topic: Housing
Catherine Bakewell (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow. I completely agree with his remarks. I thank the Minister for his introduction to the statutory instrument. After 12 years on a district council, I am familiar with permitted development rights and planning fees. However, I am somewhat concerned at the proposals before us. I have no problem with the 20% increase in fees across the board for all types of development, from small extensions, alterations and renewable energy, now set at £96, to fees for planning officer checks, which are up from £250,00 to £300,000 for a development of more than 2,000 homes. I am concerned that this development could take place without full planning permission Living, as I do, in a rural area, I am aware that planning, however modest, can generate a huge amount of public interest, which is rarely supportive. For this to take place without the need for planning permission is highly inflammatory to say the least. Permitted development rights have tended to be small in the past. The Government, looking to address the extreme shortage of homes required, brought in legislation that allowed offices to be converted into homes without the required planning permission to be obtained, as the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, referred to. This led to some very unfortunate circumstances, whereby landowners gave the businesses occupying their buildings notice to quit, so that they could cash in with cheap conversions to flats, without the need to bother with planning The instrument, among other categories, puts shops, restaurants, nurseries, gyms and light industrial use into the same use category. This means that one type of activity can be changed for another without any need for additional planning, so a women’s clothing shop on the high street can be changed into a restaurant with no recourse to local council input. A child’s nursery, operating safely in an area, could suddenly find that the gym next door has become light industrial use, with the consequent noise and heavy pollution associated with it This will not be popular. It is only through the transparent process of planning and regulation meetings that the public can make their concerns heard. It is only through this process that elected councillors can make recommendations and insert conditions that ensure the safety of those affected. This is not the way to regenerate the economy. Councils take their role in developing local plans for their areas very seriously. Can the Minister say what feedback he has received from councils that now find their local plans overridden by the Government?
Town and Country Planning (Fees for Applications, Deemed Applications, Requests and Site Visits) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2020 — House of Lords, 2020-07-29
Topic: Housing
Jennifer Elizabeth Randerson (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): My Lords, the amendments to the permitted development order with which these fees are connected have the potential to change the look and nature of whole communities. I understand the Government’s desire to ensure that new homes are built, but these changes go way beyond earlier efforts to ease the processes for change of use. For the first time this will allow the construction of new dwellings without a requirement for full planning permission. The Government are thus reducing the powers of local authorities to protect their communities and to shape local services to fit local needs Like many noble Lords, I was a councillor for many years and a long-term member of the planning committee. Planning issues divide opinion like nothing else a councillor deals with. Let us not underestimate how controversial this will be, and councillors and local planners will have to deal with the fallout. It will certainly lead to complex decisions which local authorities will have to consider as part of prior approval. Therefore, in contrast to other noble Lords, I believe this is a surprisingly low proposed scale of fees, with £340 per dwelling as a starter. Given that the value of the flats being built will be in the hundreds of thousands, it seems an unrealistically low figure to enable local authorities to carry out a difficult and highly technical set of checks Let us just think for a moment about what that will entail. It is much more difficult than just building a new block of flats. You are building on top of existing units, disrupting the lives of residents. The local authority has to ensure that the stability of existing structures is taken into account and updated where necessary, presumably via the building regulations, as well as load-bearing walls, design criteria, updating sewerage systems and electricity supply, and lots more. It is a spider’s web of problems. There will be ownership issues galore, and the local authority will have to cope with the impact of an enlarged population on local bus, education and allied services without having any control I read the consultation and was surprised to find that in one paragraph the Government propose a new deemed consent for building above existing dwellings, potentially to five storeys, and in the very next paragraph they propose removing the deemed consent to advertise in phone boxes. Where is the logic and strategic vision there Finally, I note that there were 326 responses to the proposal to build above existing structures and more than half did not think that permitted development rights were a suitable approach, so why are the Government ignoring the people?
Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (Leicester) Regulations 2020 — House of Lords, 2020-07-29
Topic: Mixed Topics
Dominic Hubbard (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): My Lords, this document is arriving a little after it was hot news, so we are asking the Government what they have actually learned from it. As many noble Lords have asked, do we have a set of circumstances in which the local authority—it has to be the local authority—should be concerned because it is vulnerable? That is coming across. Was what happened in Leicester replicated in other parts of the country? The answer is yes. To what extent, and when should people be worried? What has actually worked well there It is quite clear that there have been problems where English has not been the first language. There are lots of ways of living with that if you use technology: has that been done? Are there ways of communicating what should happen to that population? If there is a social organisation where people’s housing makes them slightly more vulnerable, what do they need to do to minimise that risk? Is that being communicated? Unless we actually hear that something is being done on a consistent basis, we are left with the feeling that we will be back very quickly asking similar questions. Surely the delay in seeing these regulations means that we should have some answers now about what works and what is to be avoided.
Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (No. 2) (England) (Amendment) (No. 4) Regulations 2020 — House of Lords, 2020-10-06
Topic: Mixed Topics
Elizabeth Barker (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): My Lords, on 21 September, the Joint Committee on Human Rights said: "Assessments of the proportionality of measures must be up-to-date, based on the latest scientific evidence, and formulated as a result of a precautionary approach to minimising overall loss to life. Importantly, the Government must be transparent in justifying its decision-making, including in explaining how it has balanced competing interests and the evidence on which the balancing decision has been made." Twice, now, I have asked the Minister: What is the evidence base for this rule of six? I have had unsatisfactory answers On 14 September, the noble Lord said that the phenomenon they had noticed was that large groups of people, sometimes in pubs and other places, would seemingly say that they were from two households. It was "proving to be extremely flexible in the minds of many people. Therefore, putting an integer into the formula makes it much clearer."—[Official Report, 14/9/20; col. 1002.] We now have regulations under which it is possible for a person to meet and socialise with 35 people from six households in the course of a week. The public has figured out that that, in public health terms, is an absurdity. It will not work. I am surprised that, during freshers’ week, more students have not got into trouble inadvertently due to the lack of clarity Between March and September, Dominic Cummings has, without competitive tendering, paid people and bodies such as Hanbury Strategy £946,000 to "research public attitudes and behaviours in relation to" the pandemic. That information is paid for by taxpayers’ money. It is not the property of the Government or the Conservative Party, so I ask the Minister: when will that and similar reports be published so that Members of Parliament can scrutinise the basis on which decisions such as these are being made? We are six months in, and the Prime Minister does not know what we are doing, local authorities do not know what we are doing and the general public are bamboozled by the lack of clarity and consistency. It is time for us to get real about this and stop putting people in danger.
Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill — House of Lords, 2020-10-06
Topic: Immigration
Julie Smith (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): My Lords, I support the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett. The concept of no recourse to public funds is one that causes significant difficulties to a small number of people, but for those individuals it can be very significant. Quite how many people fall under this provision is perhaps a little bit unclear. I cite a paper on no recourse to public funds written by Professor Catherine Barnard, a colleague at Cambridge University—and I declare it as an interest that she is a colleague. She quotes Stephen Timms at the Liaison Committee in May raising with the Prime Minister the issue of destitution as a result of no recourse to public funds. The Prime Minister is reported to have said: "You have raised a very, very important point if a condition of their leave to remain is that they should have no recourse to public funds. I will find out how many there are in that position and we will see what we can do to help." Does the Minister know whether the Prime Minister has yet been able to answer that question of how many people fall into this category? Will he tell us what plans the Prime Minister has to help individuals who have no recourse to public funds? I suspect that his briefing does not include answers to those questions, so I confine myself to reiterating the concerns raised by the noble Baronesses, Lady Bennett and Lady Lister of Burtersett. That is really to say that, while ideally the provision for no recourse to public funds should be looked at in its entirety, in the confines of this Bill we understand that it can only be the case for EU nationals. However, in the context of the Covid crisis, it has become clear that individuals can face very significant difficulties that are not covered by the normal provisions for seeking benefits precisely because they fall under this condition of no recourse to public funds. Will the Government think again on this issue? It relates not to people who are coming to seek benefits, who simply say that the United Kingdom is a country where they think they are going to be able to benefit from the system. It rather relates to individuals who are already here, exercising their rights as EU nationals. It is a finite number of people, and surely they deserve our help and a degree of generosity.
Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill — House of Lords, 2020-10-06
Topic: Immigration
Sally Rachel Hamwee (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): My Lords, in replying to this and the other amendment on no recourse to public funds in Committee, the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, said, according to Hansard, that Home Office analysts were looking at the data to determine what figures could be "reduced". I would like to think that that might have been about reducing the numbers of people with no recourse, but I suspect that it was a misprint for "produced". The noble Baroness is nodding Almost all the speakers have lit on the issue of lack of data. It occurs to me that a lack of data indicates something of a shortfall in interest among the policy makers on the impact of the policy that they are making. Like much that relates to the immigration system, this amendment is about humanity and common sense: common sense because of the important public health argument about ensuring that people are not prone to disease that can be prevented and that children are fed well enough to be educated and to grow into good citizens, and humanity for obvious reasons Hard cases are not to be excluded when we think about policy; they have to be considered to bring attention to bad law. I do not think that the taxpayer is a single cohesive figure. Taxpayers have a wide range of views and there are quite a lot among us who would like to see our taxes spent differently and better. If that means more tax being raised, that is a price that we understand we have to pay.
Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill — House of Lords, 2020-10-06
Topic: Immigration
Sally Rachel Hamwee (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): My Lords, I am grateful to those who have taken part in this debate. My noble friend Lady Ludford asked whether this was a chessboard, but I think it is more like snakes and ladders: up you go, you think you are settled and then you slither downwards into what she called the "crocodile-infested" waters of CSI When the Minister referred to "lawful residence" under the British Nationality Act I wrote a question to myself about whether this meant treaty rights—which you would need to have had CSI to exercise—to which I think the answer is yes. She then mentioned discretion. One always has a concern about discretion because the law should provide, not leave things to caseworkers, but the situation that we have posed is not unusual I do not intend a pun here, but the issue is not settled. I am glad that we have had this exchange. I do not pretend to know whether I am comforted. I think I am not, as noble Lords will understand from my last remarks, but much better that I leave the experts to use what the Minister has shared with us when they are considering the regulations. I thank her and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill — House of Lords, 2020-10-06
Topic: Civil Rights
Sally Rachel Hamwee (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): My Lords, on the first day of Report, on an equivalent amendment to Clause 4, the Minister gave an assurance that the Government have absolutely no intention of acting incompatibly with the citizens’ rights provisions in the withdrawal agreement. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Flight, has said, that is not the point. He set out very carefully the social security provisions which are the issue here. The concern is that the use of regulations, or secondary legislation, to modify the primary legislation that is the basis of the various benefits could wittingly or unwittingly modify them—"modify" is a polite legislative word for "cause a lot of people a lot of problems". If this amendment were part of the Bill, it would protect against this Last week, the noble Lord referred to the establishment under the 2020 Act of the Independent Monitoring Authority, and I was grateful for that. I share a rather wry smile with noble Lords because provided for in the authority’s powers is that it may make applications for judicial review—we all know the Government’s expressed position on activists and lawyers using applications for judicial review and generally not liking frequent resort being made to them. There is of course a review of the use of judicial review going on at the moment. So I thank the noble Lord for that moment of amusement in this complicated area. I support the amendment.
Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill — House of Lords, 2020-10-06
Topic: Immigration
Sally Rachel Hamwee (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): My Lords, the explanation of the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, of how unsatisfactory the Bill is, particularly Schedule 1, was a model of clarity, unlike the schedule. He has also left us, from the earlier stage, with a vision of straining to read the Emperor Caligula’s laws, and that will stay with me, possibly longer than Schedule 1 The comments of the Constitution Committee on the complexity of immigration law being a serious threat to the ability of lawyers and judges to apply it consistently were, in a way, reassuring to those of us who struggle with it, but otherwise not reassuring at all, as the noble Lord and my noble friend made clear in their speeches. I am very sorry to disappoint my noble friend by not wandering off into comments on case law. I support the amendment.
Sentencing White Paper — House of Lords, 2020-09-21
Topic: Other
Susan Garden (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): My Lords, we now come to the 20 minutes allocated for Back-Bench questions. I ask that questions and answers be brief, so that I can call the maximum number of speakers. I first call the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf. Do we have the noble Lord? I do not think we do. I next call the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, who is not in the Chamber. Do we have him on Zoom? No, we do not seem to have the noble Lord. So I now call the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, who is with us—good.
Covid-19 Update — House of Lords, 2020-09-21
Topic: Domestic Commerce
Dominic Hubbard (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): My Lords, will the Minister give us some idea of the advice the Government are giving to institutions such as amateur sports clubs about how they are supposed to function in the changing environment? There has been some activity, and they will presumably have to pull down in certain places. Also, is there any government strategy for making sure that these clubs and groups can still survive if we have to go through another six months of this isolation?
Covid-19 Update — House of Lords, 2020-09-14
Topic: Mixed Topics
Matthew Owen John Taylor (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): Since the Minister wants to keep things simple, could he explain to families that are separated what the rules now are? In my case, I am a single father of three young boys who live with me every other week. They live in a household of six on the other weeks, and it includes another child who also lives in another household part of the time. Which of us are allowed to get together when?
Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill — House of Lords, 2020-09-14
Topic: Immigration
Sarah Ludford (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): My Lords, the campaign for a time limit on detention has deservedly gathered pace over the past 10 years. As the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, mentioned, two parliamentary committees reporting in 2019—the Joint Committee on Human Rights and the Home Affairs Committee—urged a 28-day limit. The Joint Committee on Human Rights made two important points. The first was that indefinite detention—the noble Baroness dealt with that term— "causes distress and anxiety and can trigger mental illness and exacerbate mental health conditions where they already exist." Secondly, it pointed out that "the lack of a time limit on immigration detention reduces the incentive for the Home Office to progress cases promptly which would reduce both the impact on detainees, and detention costs." It therefore called for a 28-day limit The Home Affairs Committee pointed out that some people are being held for more than three years, which is intolerable. It said: "Failure to provide justification for continued detention will only compound detainees’ frustration and may lead to self-harm and violence in immigration removal centres." It welcomed the Home Secretary’s commitment at the time that he—that must have been Mr Javid—would "consider ending indefinite immigration detention in response to Stephen Shaw’s follow up report." It went on to say that "a maximum immigration detention time limit is long overdue … lengthy immigration detention is unnecessary, inhumane and causes harm." I understand that the Government’s policy guidance says that there should be no detention without a realistic prospect of removal, but this appears to be routinely breached.