argyrotsipi/train-dataset huggingface dataset:
Housing and Planning Bill — House of Commons, 2016-05-03
Topic: Housing
Clive James Charles Betts (Labour, Centre-left): I would argue this: let us tackle the scarcity. Let us start a building programme of 100,000 social homes a year. That is the only way that we will hit the target of the quarter of a million homes this country will need. We have never built a quarter of a million homes without a massive social house building programme, and it is unlikely we will do so in future I will make one more point about the mix of communities. In other communities where there is, at the very beginning, a limited number of social rented properties, the right to buy that has already happened, together with the proposed extension of the right to buy, will mean that those are exactly the same communities that have the higher-value council homes. Not only will the right to buy remove social housing in those areas, but the sale of vacant higher-value council properties will remove social housing as well. It is likely that, in future, some communities will have no social housing to rent whatsoever, irrespective of people’s needs. That is the other conclusion, and it is very worrying indeed. In some communities, there will be no home available for those on low earnings or short-term tenancies who have a real housing need but who cannot afford to buy. That is another product of the Bill and I am against it. I hope that Members will support the Lords amendments to at least mitigate its worst impacts.
Housing and Planning Bill — House of Commons, 2016-05-03
Topic: Housing
Karen Patricia Buck (Labour, Centre-left): I make no apologies for returning to the issue of London, because that is where housing need is sharpest and where the affordability crisis is most severe I find myself in the rare position, for one night only, of being in some harmony with Westminster City Council—a rare thing indeed. Its policy and scrutiny committee’s report on the Bill is deeply fascinating. It makes it clear—in moderate tones, but its content is unmistakable—what it thinks about the Bill and how it will impact on housing supply. Following on from a point made by my hon. Friend the Chair of the Communities and Local Government Committee, it says: "The Bill is largely a framework", which I think is a euphemism for, "We have no idea how most of it is going to work." That point of view was spelled out more sharply by the Public Accounts Committee—whose Chair is not in her place at the moment—which absolutely stripped away the pretence of the calculations on which high-value sales have been predicated. Westminster City Council itself, however, is clear that the Bill will have a severe impact on housing and that it will also have wider implications, which I will address in a moment We do not know what the redefinition of sales from "high value" to "higher value" will mean for local areas. When Shelter did its initial calculation, it found that Westminster was likely to have to sell off 76.3% of its council properties as they became vacant. That would mean a sale rate of 246 a year. We do not know—as we keep saying about this Bill—what the new calculation will mean. The Minister has offered no calculations. The council’s latest estimate, however, is that it will need to sell 200 high-value voids a year in order to fund the right-to-buy housing association properties and that that will be worth £100 million year Here is the rub: not only will that reduce the stock and have massive implications for meeting housing needs, but it will simply displace costs into other areas of public expenditure. Westminster City Council has said that that will result in additional costs of £1.5 million a year for temporary accommodation for homeless families. The local taxpayer already has to fund temporary accommodation to the tune of £4 million a year above what the Government pay. An extra £1.5 million will be needed to meet some of the costs of homelessness that will result from the fact that the council will not be able to place people with housing need in its council or housing association stock because it will have been sold off in order to fund the right to buy.
Housing and Planning Bill — House of Commons, 2016-05-03
Topic: Housing
Karen Patricia Buck (Labour, Centre-left): No, I do not welcome that at all. As we heard in the superb speech from the Front Bench by my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham (Dr Blackman-Woods), we do not know what tenure those homes will have or where they will go. We have no guarantees whatsoever that they will be local. Therefore, they will simply not provide an equivalent level of accommodation or meet need. I cannot remember who said this, but that could result in rental properties for low-income households in inner London being sold to subsidise homes for sale somewhere else, thereby meeting a totally different kind of need Westminster City Council also points out—this has not been brought up this evening—that, in order to deliver the two-for-one requirement, the increase in housing delivery would have to be dramatically increased from its current rate, but there is no indication of how that will be achieved. The council has a long list of asks as to how the high-value sales programme will be organised and how inner-London authorities, including itself, would be protected. The Minister has given no answers whatsoever The council has also provided further context and it is interesting, given some of our discussions about pay to stay. Government Members describe anybody with a household income of £40,000 as rich, and the council has pointed out that the Government are imposing a higher pay-to-stay requirement on such households while at the same time cutting rents. They are cutting rents for everybody, including working households. People are being asked to pay a higher rent if they have a household income of £40,000, but they get a 1% cut in their rent at the same time. I simply do not understand the logic of that In my local authority, the implications are a loss to the housing revenue account of £32 million over the next four years and £237 million over the next 30 years, which will mean, as the local authority says, major cuts to the quality of existing properties or plans for new affordable house building. Yet again, the Government are giving with one hand and taking away with the other—indeed, they are taking away with a third hand, in this case—the capacity to provide additional homes. All that can be fairly summarised as meaning that the council that gave us homes for votes in the 1980s—the biggest scandal in modern local government history—is saying, "Even we do not like this." The council does not like the Government’s proposed starter homes policy either. The consultant who advised the council on the Housing and Planning Bill pointed out that a starter home capped at £450,000 in inner London, where the average open market property is going for £2 million, lavishes a gain on a particular small cohort of first-time buyers. Westminster Council states that "the potential tax-free capital gain, after eight years of occupation…is very considerable (depending on the number of bedrooms) and wholly to the benefit of a first-time buyer".
Housing and Planning Bill — House of Commons, 2016-05-03
Topic: Housing
Catherine Elizabeth West (Labour, Centre-left): What does the hon. Gentleman think of the suggestion recently made by one of my constituents that the right to buy should also apply to private sector tenancies? Should there be a public subsidy so that somebody has the right to purchase a private tenancy?
Housing and Planning Bill — House of Commons, 2016-05-03
Topic: Housing
Clive James Charles Betts (Labour, Centre-left): Is the hon. Gentleman therefore saying that pay to stay is intended to drive people out of social rented accommodation when they earn more than £40,000? Will they actually be priced out? He seems to be implying that if they live in social housing, there will not be enough social housing for other people, and that we therefore need to get them out of such properties so that poorer people can have them.
Housing and Planning Bill — House of Commons, 2016-05-03
Topic: Immigration
Roberta Carol Blackman-Woods (Labour, Centre-left): The hon. Gentleman has had much to say about pay to stay, but has he looked at the Government’s own consultation on the policy, which showed that 75% of people disagreed with the thresholds that the Government are setting? In fact, a huge majority disagreed with the voluntary policy that is already in place with a threshold of £60,000. I am not sure where the hon. Gentleman gets the idea that this policy is readily accepted by everyone; it simply is not, and not at the current thresholds.
Housing and Planning Bill — House of Commons, 2016-05-03
Topic: Housing
Dawn Petula Butler (Labour, Centre-left): We have just heard about the land held by TfL, and Labour Members are seeking guarantees that houses built on TfL land will be properly affordable for people living in London. There is only one person who has guaranteed that that will be the case: my right hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Sadiq Khan). If the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) wants to ensure that affordable houses are built on TfL land, I recommend that he votes for my right hon. Friend on Thursday.
Housing and Planning Bill — House of Commons, 2016-05-03
Topic: Other
Natascha Engel (Labour, Centre-left): Order. I am not going to impose a time limit, but there are still 10 Members who wish to speak in the debate and we have less than an hour to go. If people stick to about five minutes or so, everyone will be able to get in.
Housing and Planning Bill — House of Commons, 2016-05-03
Topic: Housing
Karen Patricia Buck (Labour, Centre-left): Does my right hon. Friend also recognise that there is a phenomenon known as "right to buy to let", which has seen, for example, ex-council flats on the Amberley estate in my constituency, which would have been rented for £140 a week under the council, now being rented for £690 a week? In some cases, they are used to place homeless families in temporary accommodation. Is that not a phenomenal waste of resources?
Housing and Planning Bill — House of Commons, 2016-05-03
Topic: Housing
David Lindon Lammy (Labour, Centre-left): It is a phenomenal waste of resources. Usually, although we play party politics and there are dividing lines, there are issues on which there is some agreement. But here we have a Bill that offers a discount to those who can be earning up to £77,000, and there is already a discount for right to buy. The housing benefit bill is bound to go up. How is that a sensible Conservative policy? That is what I would like the Minister to explain. On what analysis is that fiscally sensible? It does not feel fiscally sensible to me to introduce a set of policies that will not only run a coach and horses through our housing policy, but actually cost the taxpayer more in the long run That is all in addition to the issues of social exclusion and, I believe, social cohesion that will inevitably follow in parts of London. It has been said before that what we are seeing in London—this Bill will make this worse—is a move towards what we see in Paris, with an inner sanctum that is very well off, surrounded by an outer banlieue where people who are very poor move when they are increasingly pushed out. We should commit to having a balanced situation. Of course we want to help people on to the housing ladder, but surely we do not want to drive the very poorest into some of the most squalid housing in the city and then ask taxpayers to subsidise it.
Housing and Planning Bill — House of Commons, 2016-05-03
Topic: Other
Lindsay Harvey Hoyle (Labour, Centre-left): I must now put the Questions necessary to dispose of the remaining Lords amendments in the group. First, under the Standing Order, I must put the Question on the Lords amendments that relate exclusively to England Lords amendments 2 to 8, 11 to 36, 38 to 46, 48 to 53, 56, 59, 60, 88 to 96, 197 to 199 and 215 to 239 agreed to, with Commons financial privilege waived in respect of Lords amendments 38 to 46, 48 to 53, 56 and 91.
Housing and Planning Bill — House of Commons, 2016-05-03
Topic: Other
Lindsay Harvey Hoyle (Labour, Centre-left): I must now put the Question on the remaining Lords amendments that have not been certified Lords amendments 61 to 87, 182, 183, 185 to 188, 190, 191, 195, 196 and 200 to 214 agreed to, with Commons financial privilege waived in respect of Lords amendment 185.
Housing and Planning Bill — House of Commons, 2016-05-03
Topic: Other
Lindsay Harvey Hoyle (Labour, Centre-left): With this it will be convenient to consider the following: Government amendment (a) in lieu of Lords amendment 97 Lords amendment 100. Lords amendment 108, and Government motion to disagree Lords amendment 109, and Government motion to disagree Lords amendment 110, and Government motion to disagree Lords amendment 98, 99 and 101 to 107 Lords amendment 111, and Government amendment (a) thereto Lords amendments 112 to 181, 189, 192 to 194 and 240 to 282.
Housing and Planning Bill — House of Commons, 2016-05-03
Topic: Housing
Roberta Carol Blackman-Woods (Labour, Centre-left): The first thing I want to say about the planning section of the Bill is that it is a pity that it has not had more resonance in the public realm, because it is bringing about far-reaching changes to the planning system that many local communities should be concerned about. Two issues that I will highlight are the extensive use of permission in principle on brownfield sites and the contracting out of planning services to private providers. Both risk drastically reducing the say that local communities have over what is built in their area and are a further nail in the coffin of the Government’s localist credentials.
Housing and Planning Bill — House of Commons, 2016-05-03
Topic: Housing
Clive James Charles Betts (Labour, Centre-left): I want to say a little about the "alternative provider" clauses and the relevant Lords amendment, which I understand that the Government will be accepting I continue to be concerned about what I consider to be a most peculiar form of privatisation. Normally, in cases of privatisation, the council is able to choose the companies or organisations that will provide the service and put that service out to tender. In this case—very peculiarly—the applicant will decide who will conduct the process on behalf of the council and eventually, presumably, supply information and advice to the planning committee. In other words, the council which is ultimately responsible for making the decision—and that, I think, is what the Lords amendments further clarify—will have no role in deciding which organisation will be involved in the process of working with the applicant to decide, eventually, what the recommendation on the application is to be There seems to be an idea that suddenly, at the end of the day, a recommendation comes out of thin air. It does not; it results from a very detailed process involving a major application, in which a planning officer and an applicant work through all the details of the scheme. The Bill, however, proposes that that should be done by an alternative provider appointed by the applicant. I think that that is a very strange process, and one that is difficult to justify There is also a potential conflict of interests. The alternative provider in one council who advises the planning authority about a scheme could also be a consultant operating directly on behalf of someone in another authority making a very similar application in relation to a very similar scheme, and being paid for doing so. We should be very aware of that possible conflict of interests The Lords amendments clearly state that the council—the planning authority—is ultimately responsible for making the decision, and nothing that the alternative provider does should bind the council. I want to know whether, in the context of the pilots, the Minister intends the alternative provider to do all the work and make the recommendation to the planning committee, or whether the alternative provider will make information available to council officers who will independently make a recommendation to the planning committee. I think that that is incredibly important. Will a councillor who receives an application and a recommendation receive the recommendation from a council officer who is independent, on the basis of advice from the alternative provider, or receive it directly from the alternative provider who is appointed by the applicant? That is a fundamental point, which has not been clarified even by the Lords amendments.
Housing and Planning Bill — House of Commons, 2016-05-03
Topic: Housing
Helen Elizabeth Hayes (Labour, Centre-left): I welcome the Lords amendments that introduce exemptions from permission in principle and clarify the qualifying documents under which permission in principle can be granted. I also welcome the amendments that will allow permission in principle to be overturned on the basis of new information, such as archaeological remains being discovered on a site. I argued for this in the Public Bill Committee I am concerned, however, that too many aspects of technical details consent are being left to be set out in regulations. Technical details could include the height or density of a development, open space provisions, design, layout and many other considerations. I maintain, as I did in Committee, that while those details can be informed by technical studies, their substance can often make a fundamental difference to how communities feel about a planning proposal. They are therefore often far closer to matters of principle than the description "technical details" implies. I had hoped that, by this stage, we might have seen some of that detail being set out in the Bill I am also concerned by the ability that will be introduced in this legislation to appoint third parties to assess planning applications. This will remove democratic accountability from the assessment of the applications. I welcome the fact that the Government have clarified that councils will be the final decision makers, but important judgments are made during the assessment process, which involves a substantial amount of work. Councils would effectively have to repeat that process to enable proper scrutiny or to unravel that work. A far better solution would be to allow councils to recover the full cost of the development management process from planning application fees, so that they could be properly resourced to carry out this democratic role with full democratic scrutiny and accountability Fundamentally, the planning aspects of the Housing and Planning Bill miss the opportunity to set out a positive vision for planning, to engage and involve communities in solving the housing crisis, to strengthen our plan-led system, which is highly valued and highly regarded across the world, and to give communities and homebuilders the certainty they need as we face an unprecedented need to build new homes in this country.
First World War Commemoration — House of Commons, 2016-06-09
Topic: Mixed Topics
Questions: What steps his Department is taking to ensure the greatest possible engagement by children and young people in the commemoration of the first world war.
Daniel Owen Jarvis (Labour, Centre-left): It is important that young people engage with the commemorations, but it is also important that we in the House do so too. Does the Minister share my concern that, just a few weeks ahead of the centenary of the Battle of the Somme, we do not have a planned moment to debate the matter in the House? My concern is shared widely across the House. If he agrees, will he use his good offices to raise the issue with the Leader of the House so that Members might have that moment here to reflect on this important moment in our history?
Tourism — House of Commons, 2016-06-09
Topic: Domestic Commerce
Catherine Jane Smith (Labour, Centre-left): The Secretary of State may be aware of the many great tourist attractions in north Lancashire along the Fylde coast, including the historic Lancaster castle with stunning views over Morecambe bay and the area of outstanding natural beauty, the forest of Bowland? Does the right hon. Gentleman feel that the tens of thousands of jobs that are supported by tourism in my area are helped or hindered by the potential threat of fracking wells appearing in north Lancashire?
Tourism — House of Commons, 2016-06-09
Topic: Mixed Topics
Barry John Sheerman (Labour, Centre-left): Will the Minister—for whom I have great respect—use his common sense, ground his boss and bring him to Yorkshire, so that he can talk to real people in the tourism business who are dreadfully worried about the impact of our leaving the European Union on jobs, investment and so much else? Yorkshire is a prime tourism destination, and we do not want to harm that.
Broadband — House of Commons, 2016-06-09
Topic: Mixed Topics
Albert Owen (Labour, Centre-left): What discussions are the Minister and his officials having with Welsh Government Ministers and officials about the universal service obligation to ensure that we can have joined-up thinking when the Bills, which I support, come through? To cement this relationship between the Welsh Government and the UK Government, may I repeat my offer of Ynys Môn as the location for a pilot scheme?
Football: Television Rights — House of Commons, 2016-06-09
Topic: Mixed Topics
Questions: If he will take steps to ensure that football supporters from all nations of the UK have non-paying access to watch their national team play on TV.
Clive Stanley Efford (Labour, Centre-left): I am sure that the whole House will want to wish the teams of England, Wales, Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland all the best in the European championships. Football shows us that we have more in common with our European neighbours than divides us, as I am sure the Secretary of State will agree. That was demonstrated by the singing of the Marseillaise at Wembley in defiant response to the attacks in Paris. In that spirit, will he join me in urging fans to enjoy the tournament peacefully, whether they are travelling to France or watching in the company of their friends at home or in public places, and to assist the police and security services in trying to ensure that we have a safe and secure tournament?
Palace of Westminster Artwork — House of Commons, 2016-06-09
Topic: Civil Rights
Questions: What assessment the Commission has made of the effect on hon. Members and visitors of the level of diversity represented in artwork displayed in the Palace of Westminster.
Chinyelu Susan Onwurah (Labour, Centre-left): In the six years that I have had the privilege of serving in this House, I have often felt that the dead white men in tights who people the walls of this Palace follow me around, sometimes into the Chamber itself. As the answer to my parliamentary question showed, there are only two representations of BAME people in the whole of this Palace. In a few weeks, children from English Martyrs Primary School in Newcastle will make the journey to visit Parliament. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that they should be overawed and impressed by the Palace, but feel that they are part of its present as well as its future?
English Votes for English Laws — House of Commons, 2016-06-09
Topic: Mixed Topics
David George Hanson (Labour, Centre-left): Some aspects of the Wales Bill currently before the House are solely Wales matters on which every Member of this House can vote, and yet if similar provision were put in place in England, my vote as a Welsh Member of Parliament would not count. Is that fair?
International Syria Support Group: Airdrops — House of Commons, 2016-06-09
Topic: Immigration
Keith Anthony Vaz (Labour, Centre-left): As the Minister knows, the holy month of Ramadan began on Monday. There are millions of Syrian refugees in the countries immediately adjoining Syria. Will he confirm that our humanitarian efforts are continuing, so that those people are helped where they are, rather than having to make the perilous journey to the Greek or Turkish border?