10/05/2016

:00:00. > :00:00.That is the end of the day in the House of Commons. We will go live to

:00:00. > :00:00.the House of Lords. You can watch recorded coverage of all the

:00:00. > :00:09.business in the Lords after the daily politics later tonight. We are

:00:10. > :00:15.recognising what the Government has done and he talked about various

:00:16. > :00:18.changes, going bankrupt and the declining footfall on our high

:00:19. > :00:24.streets. In fact, footfall is increasing. Some high streets have

:00:25. > :00:29.responded very well to the changing patterns of the high Street. The

:00:30. > :00:34.ones that have responded well are seeing very good results. In my own

:00:35. > :00:42.town of Altrincham, the market has almost completely revitalised the

:00:43. > :00:46.town centre. The question dealing specifically with the issue of

:00:47. > :00:52.turnover tax of online trading, what is the Government's response to that

:00:53. > :00:56.suggestion? I think I have outlined the gamut response to the

:00:57. > :01:00.suggestion, that high streets have found numerous ways of responding to

:01:01. > :01:05.the different patterns on the high Street. -- government. And many

:01:06. > :01:15.chains on the high street are benefiting from things like clip and

:01:16. > :01:19.collect. Does the Minister agree local councils have done a great

:01:20. > :01:24.deal to help revive local high street in that they are the centre

:01:25. > :01:28.of communities and very important, particularly for poorer communities?

:01:29. > :01:31.Could the Minister also say if the Government has considered giving

:01:32. > :01:36.local councils, particularly combined authorities, more powers in

:01:37. > :01:41.re-evaluation of and setting the business rate, as suggested in the

:01:42. > :01:50.London Finance commission and the Citigroup commission? -- city growth

:01:51. > :01:56.commission? The councils will be able to retain a 100% of their

:01:57. > :02:04.business rates by 2020. And in fact combined authorities with Mayers

:02:05. > :02:08.will be able to raise or reduce his rates in their combined authority

:02:09. > :02:14.area. I concur with what the noble lady says. I can think of two local

:02:15. > :02:20.authorities in Greater Manchester whether councils have been at the

:02:21. > :02:27.forefront of that revitalisation of their local high street. Does the

:02:28. > :02:32.Minister take on board the suggestion that in reducing the size

:02:33. > :02:38.of town centres, taking into account online trading, making finance

:02:39. > :02:42.available to local authorities to actually achieve that aim? The noble

:02:43. > :02:46.Lord I think makes a very good point. One of the things that

:02:47. > :02:54.councils observed is that we need more shoppers in local high street

:02:55. > :03:00.and not more shops. Hence expanding into some of the excellent food

:03:01. > :03:04.offers that markets are offering now and some of the conversions from

:03:05. > :03:08.office into residential which help revitalise the footfall in local

:03:09. > :03:18.high street. Particularly in the North of England where I am. My

:03:19. > :03:33.Lords, I have been a nonexecutive director... Order. We have not heard

:03:34. > :03:37.from the crossbenchers and I suggest we go to my noble friend. I have

:03:38. > :03:40.been a nonexecutive director for eight and a half years. When I

:03:41. > :03:47.started Internet sales were ?50 million. Today they have a turnover

:03:48. > :03:51.of ?1 billion. Surely the answer is to have the high Street take

:03:52. > :03:55.advantage of the Internet age. What is the Government doing to help

:03:56. > :03:58.retailers take advantage of the Internet, whether it is payment,

:03:59. > :04:06.winning customers and dealing with suppliers and the supply chain? The

:04:07. > :04:10.noble Lloyd is absolutely right. The digital age -- noble lord is

:04:11. > :04:15.absolutely right. I have mentioned click and collect. There is also the

:04:16. > :04:22.point for the local high street businesses, they have got to compete

:04:23. > :04:24.in the digital age. We have announced a digital pilot programme

:04:25. > :04:29.across Gloucestershire working with partners in the private sector,

:04:30. > :04:36.including Argos, IBM and Cisco. This was in close collaboration with the

:04:37. > :04:38.business retail unit. Does the Minister think there is any

:04:39. > :04:42.connection between the lack of customers in the high Street and the

:04:43. > :04:47.to radical and punitive parking arrangements imposed in our streets,

:04:48. > :04:54.which make it impossible to go to the high Street and spend money? My

:04:55. > :04:59.noble friend is absolutely right. The government has recognised that

:05:00. > :05:04.some of the punitive practices on the high streets have prevented, or

:05:05. > :05:07.in fact discourage people from going shopping in their local high

:05:08. > :05:16.streets. We have done something about it. Online trading, is it not

:05:17. > :05:19.true online trading is going to grow, notwithstanding what might

:05:20. > :05:23.happen in the high streets? And online trading is welcomed by many

:05:24. > :05:27.people, but the result of the deficit would online trading, not

:05:28. > :05:34.the least, the growth of the amount of traffic, the white vans are

:05:35. > :05:37.everywhere now and they are creating congestion and creating poisonous

:05:38. > :05:41.areas in the communities. What is the Government going to do about

:05:42. > :05:45.that to at least make them papal the pollution they are creating? Whether

:05:46. > :05:50.the car is going with its owner to the shop, or whether the van from

:05:51. > :05:55.the distribution centre is going to the home, I'm afraid shopping does

:05:56. > :06:00.in one way or another create use of carbon in the atmosphere. The noble

:06:01. > :06:06.Lord is right. Online is increasing vastly. The high streets are ignored

:06:07. > :06:11.in that and they are responding to it. They are creating different

:06:12. > :06:15.offers, for example, leisure and markets in the high Street, these

:06:16. > :06:26.are the high street that are doing well.

:06:27. > :06:31.The government recognises that mass immigration can increase population

:06:32. > :06:35.pressures. That is why we're seeking to reduce net migration to a

:06:36. > :06:39.sustainable level from the hundreds of thousands to the tens of

:06:40. > :06:41.thousands. The government is committed to a significant programme

:06:42. > :06:47.of investment in our public services taken together these steps and

:06:48. > :06:52.future measures will ensure that there is adequate provision. May I

:06:53. > :07:01.thank the Minister for his somewhat sanguine reply. Will he also agree

:07:02. > :07:06.that the million also refugees that Angela Merkel has accepted will soon

:07:07. > :07:11.have the right to come here? The Turks will be the next? Adding to

:07:12. > :07:15.the overload of our hospitals, schools, houses, greatly to the

:07:16. > :07:23.detriment of our existing population? Is he also surprised

:07:24. > :07:29.that the effect of uncontrolled immigration from the EU and the

:07:30. > :07:35.stability of our nation and on the welfare of working people appears

:07:36. > :07:43.not to be of concern in very few exceptions to the Labour Party? --

:07:44. > :07:47.with very few exceptions. My Lords, the government is completely

:07:48. > :07:51.reforming the immigration system, cutting abuse and focusing on

:07:52. > :07:55.attracting the brightest and best. Since 2010, reforms have cut abuse

:07:56. > :07:59.and the student and family these assistants and raise standards in

:08:00. > :08:06.the work roots. In addition our recent negotiations in Europe have

:08:07. > :08:10.brought to fruition the provision for new settlement agreements and EU

:08:11. > :08:17.migrants. With the requirement for a seven year emergency brake being in

:08:18. > :08:20.place. He has told us how wonderful the government 's investment in

:08:21. > :08:26.public services is, to meet all the concerns the noble Lord said but

:08:27. > :08:30.could he explain why that is a shortage of primary school places

:08:31. > :08:33.for example in London, why our health service in so many areas is

:08:34. > :08:40.in crisis, why there is a problem with social care becoming unviable?

:08:41. > :08:45.Why is that happening if the governance policies towards the

:08:46. > :08:48.public services have been so benign? It takes time to recover from the

:08:49. > :08:54.experience that we had up until 2010. The major steps had been

:08:55. > :08:59.taken, the judgment is committed to invest 7 billion in school places by

:09:00. > :09:03.2021. To increase NHS funding in England by 10 billion in real terms

:09:04. > :09:06.by 2020, to invest 20 billion housing in the next five years

:09:07. > :09:14.including 8 billion in affordable housing. That's all very well but

:09:15. > :09:21.clearly as the noble Lord has said it's not sufficient. Can you tell is

:09:22. > :09:25.why the government is not building more new hospitals, schools and

:09:26. > :09:27.housing using the additional income the government is receiving from

:09:28. > :09:36.foreign workers who are paying significant sums in income tax and

:09:37. > :09:40.national insurance? A considerable sum is being expended in these areas

:09:41. > :09:48.and we expect to deliver 600,000 new school places by 2021.

:09:49. > :09:56.Can you tell me whether he has had any success in establishing a

:09:57. > :10:01.bipartisan policy towards reducing immigration to tens of thousands? Or

:10:02. > :10:08.is the opposition dedicated to an open door to let more and more and

:10:09. > :10:16.more migrants in? With no idea how we shall pay not just of the schools

:10:17. > :10:22.and hospitals but the roads, the waterworks, power stations and

:10:23. > :10:24.everything else? Whose side does he think the opposition on? The British

:10:25. > :10:38.people or the foreigners? I believe that all manners of this

:10:39. > :10:44.house would recognise the importance of a controlled migration system

:10:45. > :10:48.that brings us the best and is the best in this country. Only by means

:10:49. > :10:53.of a controlled migration system can we have an effective workable

:10:54. > :11:00.society that is integrated and settled. Today we have had the

:11:01. > :11:03.opportunity to hear from the authentic voice of the Conservative

:11:04. > :11:08.Party, from behind the noble lord the Minister, but the last Labour

:11:09. > :11:12.government did put into place a migration impact fund. Local

:11:13. > :11:16.authorities and health trusts could apply for some share of this funding

:11:17. > :11:20.to support efforts at reducing the impact of migration and public

:11:21. > :11:24.services. There wasn't a panacea to solve all problems but it did help

:11:25. > :11:26.raise new funding to support infrastructure. However the fund was

:11:27. > :11:30.scrapped by the Coalition Government within a few months and little was

:11:31. > :11:34.then done to ensure that support was still given where it was needed.

:11:35. > :11:37.We've also said that EU funding should be made available to areas

:11:38. > :11:43.impacted by rapid migration. It'll help with public services such as

:11:44. > :11:48.schools in GP services. Is this a step that is being will be supported

:11:49. > :11:52.by the government? This government had to wrestle with the inheritance

:11:53. > :11:59.of 2010 so far as migration is concerned. We found ourselves with

:12:00. > :12:02.more than 900 bogus colleges arranging for the admission of fake

:12:03. > :12:05.students into this country in the numbers of the hundreds of

:12:06. > :12:12.thousands. 920 of those fake colleges have been closed since

:12:13. > :12:27.2010. That itself has relieved pressure on our services.

:12:28. > :12:37.It is the turn of the crossbenchers but someone who hasn't yet asked the

:12:38. > :12:42.question. My Lords, as an Iranian born citizen, I have to say that not

:12:43. > :12:46.all the buzz are a drain on the economy. Also I would like to remind

:12:47. > :12:51.the house that the national health would not run if it weren't for

:12:52. > :12:58.people from abroad with high qualifications who are willing to

:12:59. > :13:02.work in the national health and help this economy. It is important to

:13:03. > :13:09.recognise the contribution that they make the cars the caring services

:13:10. > :13:13.and the NHS would not function without their contribution. That

:13:14. > :13:16.important contribution is of course recognised. The government believes

:13:17. > :13:19.that in the long-term it is necessary to train our own nurses in

:13:20. > :13:27.this country and consequently the Department of Health has put in

:13:28. > :13:31.place a clear plan to reduce the number of overseas nurses each year

:13:32. > :13:42.until 2019 when we expect that sufficient nurses to meet demand.

:13:43. > :13:48.I beg leave to ask the questions on the my name on the order paper.

:13:49. > :13:54.We expect all sports bodies to adhere to the highest standards of

:13:55. > :13:59.government and to fully cooperate in taking appropriate action against

:14:00. > :14:02.those who damage the integrity of sport as a result, the government is

:14:03. > :14:07.introducing a new governance code for sport in the UK later this year.

:14:08. > :14:12.The code will be mandatory for all sports governing bodies in receipt

:14:13. > :14:20.of public spending and noncompliance with the code will mean these bodies

:14:21. > :14:26.will lose out on that funding. I thank the Minister for that reply.

:14:27. > :14:30.Could however she give me an opinion about what happens when some of

:14:31. > :14:36.these bodies reached the end of their authority and have the report

:14:37. > :14:40.and to somebody else to achieve any action against somebody who has

:14:41. > :14:46.broken the spirit of the code? For instance, a doping scandal that

:14:47. > :14:49.suddenly ends out without authority. Will we undertake a review so that

:14:50. > :14:54.action is taken across the board and doesn't end after artificial

:14:55. > :14:58.boundaries there for historical reasons? The Lord is quite right

:14:59. > :15:07.about the need for things to be joined up. That is why we've setup a

:15:08. > :15:13.group Jersey called the gigs group, the government integrity group for

:15:14. > :15:15.sport, drawing from across Whitehall departments and the key agencies

:15:16. > :15:20.like the gambling commission and anti-doping and we will be putting

:15:21. > :15:22.the governance code out to consultation so that the sort of

:15:23. > :15:31.issues that he has identified are properly thought through and dealt

:15:32. > :15:35.with. We have this week the anti-corruption Summit organised by

:15:36. > :15:41.the Prime Minister. Will the Minister urged the Prime Minister to

:15:42. > :15:45.put the subject on the agenda bearing in mind the news reports

:15:46. > :15:50.we've had of government involvement in that such corruption and will she

:15:51. > :15:57.support the aim of funding a body that is independent of governing

:15:58. > :16:05.sports governing bodies? I can confirm that corruption in sport

:16:06. > :16:08.will be on the summit agenda this week. It's very important that

:16:09. > :16:15.international discussion should take place on this vital subject. As I

:16:16. > :16:21.explained, UK sport and UK sport England are responsible for this

:16:22. > :16:25.whole area and draw on government money which has the properly

:16:26. > :16:30.accounted for and I'm not convinced that the direction he's going for is

:16:31. > :16:33.the right one although having said we are looking at the whole area

:16:34. > :16:40.including the question of criminal sanctions. Is my noble friend aware

:16:41. > :16:44.that at the entrance to the stadium at Mount Olympus in ageing Greece

:16:45. > :16:47.they erected a Roman statues of the great god Zeus to remind those

:16:48. > :16:53.entering what the purpose of the exercise was? The statues were

:16:54. > :16:58.actually paid for by fines levied on cheats. Do you think we can adapt

:16:59. > :17:04.that idea and perhaps correct an avenue of statues of just ordinary

:17:05. > :17:10.working men and women outside the entrance to the commission in

:17:11. > :17:13.Brussels to remind them what the purpose of the exercise really is?

:17:14. > :17:16.Given that its Brussels, with all that money sloshing around, they

:17:17. > :17:23.should have too much trouble in finding the money for it but if

:17:24. > :17:26.there's I would be happy to chip in. Our country and the whole of

:17:27. > :17:37.European suppliers Asian has left a huge amount from the Greeks and from

:17:38. > :17:42.the union and from the Romans. That has learnt a huge amount. I'm sure

:17:43. > :17:51.Brussels has lots to learn. We turn to sport. Could the government say

:17:52. > :17:53.how we as a government intervene in the affairs of these various

:17:54. > :17:59.international sports federations where there is a could mend this

:18:00. > :18:02.problem in autocratic countries, governments to fix what goes on and

:18:03. > :18:09.in non-organ autocratic countries governance are more at arms length,

:18:10. > :18:11.how is government working with British and other representatives

:18:12. > :18:16.and such bodies just make sure that they don't go down the road that

:18:17. > :18:24.sadly one or two have done in recent years? In Britain, we care a huge

:18:25. > :18:28.amount about corruption in sport and cleaning things up and that is in

:18:29. > :18:31.the mouths of all the people who represent is around the world. That

:18:32. > :18:35.is one of the reasons the Prime Minister has put this important

:18:36. > :18:40.issue on his agenda this week and we work I think it's fair to say they

:18:41. > :18:46.are night through our bodies to try and clean up sport. There's always

:18:47. > :18:49.more to do and obviously the vote to suspend Russian athletes are more

:18:50. > :18:56.competition being unanimous was a very good move. Could not all those

:18:57. > :19:04.in sport draw inspiration from the victors games this week? They could

:19:05. > :19:10.indeed talk great inspiration from the games and from the Olympics and

:19:11. > :19:17.the Paralympics and the fact that Prince Harry is involved next is all

:19:18. > :19:23.delighted. With my noble friend take the opportunity when we send a team

:19:24. > :19:26.to Rio to take the opportunity rather than looking at the negative

:19:27. > :19:31.elements of sport to look at the positive side of sport and find time

:19:32. > :19:38.either before the team goes to Rio or after to laud those who make such

:19:39. > :19:45.a positive contribution rather than a negative contribution to society?

:19:46. > :19:50.I think my noble friend makes a very good point. We can also lead the way

:19:51. > :19:54.on the issue of corruption which is today's subject for debate. By

:19:55. > :20:00.making sure that all our athletes are tested before they go and that

:20:01. > :20:06.we have no problems or a reputational issues when we are in

:20:07. > :20:13.Brazil. The Bishop of St Albans. I beg leave to ask the question on the

:20:14. > :20:17.order paper. The Minister for immigration will shortly be writing

:20:18. > :20:21.to local authorities to set out the new funding rates for unaccompanied

:20:22. > :20:24.asylum seeking children. We are consulting with local authorities

:20:25. > :20:28.across the United Kingdom to understand how many children they

:20:29. > :20:32.can support and willing gauge charities with relevant expertise as

:20:33. > :20:38.a part of that process. -- engaged charities. In all our debates and

:20:39. > :20:44.statistics is vital we remember that the needs of the Child are paramount

:20:45. > :20:47.but every point. A number of colleagues have signed a letter

:20:48. > :20:50.published in the Times today calling on Her Majesty's Government to

:20:51. > :20:55.ensure that the unaccompanied children living in the Calais camps

:20:56. > :21:00.who have family here in the UK are reunited with them in time for the

:21:01. > :21:05.new school term in September and furthermore calling upon the

:21:06. > :21:11.government to act on the 300 unaccompanied children in Greece and

:21:12. > :21:17.Italy to deal with that in the same time frame. In the light of this

:21:18. > :21:21.profound humanitarian need, indeed crisis, with the laud the minister

:21:22. > :21:23.assured your Lordships house of the government will act on these matters

:21:24. > :21:31.I immediately? My Lords, the Government is already

:21:32. > :21:35.acting upon these matters and has made provision in Calais for experts

:21:36. > :21:39.to be present in order to help with the registration of unaccompanied

:21:40. > :21:44.children who might have wrecked relatives in the UK and have a route

:21:45. > :21:49.to the UK by way of the Dublin regulation. -- the wrecked

:21:50. > :21:57.relatives. We will assist -- direct relatives. We are at the forefront

:21:58. > :22:04.of attempts to secure as much as we can by way of relief to these

:22:05. > :22:09.unaccompanied children. My Lords, in the last few days there has been a

:22:10. > :22:14.BBC television programme showing seeks supporting the homeless in

:22:15. > :22:25.London. This evening I will be meeting people to take that work

:22:26. > :22:34.further forward. -- sikhs. May I assure the Minister that all of the

:22:35. > :22:38.sikhs in the country will be not only willing to provide the free

:22:39. > :22:47.food but every support and assistance to these children. What

:22:48. > :22:55.he says, the men's the Government's effort is -- complements the

:22:56. > :22:58.Government 's efforts. We have had an unequivocal statement that these

:22:59. > :23:02.children coming into this country will have no pressure, or

:23:03. > :23:11.requirement placed on them at the age of 18 to leave these shores. I

:23:12. > :23:14.can give no such assurance. The position of these children when they

:23:15. > :23:17.reached the age of 18 will be assessed and the right to remain

:23:18. > :23:21.will be determined by reference to the country from which they arrived

:23:22. > :23:29.and reference to whether or not it is fair, reasonable and safe for

:23:30. > :23:32.them to return. Is the Government in communication with the Government of

:23:33. > :23:38.Canada, which is working with civil society? It has private sponsorship

:23:39. > :23:42.of refugees programmes, where sponsors can provide financial and

:23:43. > :23:47.emotional support for a period, usually one year. As the joint

:23:48. > :23:53.assistant programme is partnering with organisations to settle

:23:54. > :23:59.refugees with special needs. I am not aware of direct contact with the

:24:00. > :24:05.Canadian authorities but I will write to the label Navy -- noble

:24:06. > :24:12.lady upon the matter. Bearing in mind the example of the community of

:24:13. > :24:17.which we have just heard, is the Government planning an exceptional

:24:18. > :24:25.education for the Muslims among these children? Teaching them for

:24:26. > :24:31.example not to follow the tenets of abrogation and become leaders of

:24:32. > :24:36.integration in our society? These children, we hope, will be fostered

:24:37. > :24:41.along with British children. They will be educated alongside British

:24:42. > :24:49.children and we believe that they will acquire the same outlook and

:24:50. > :24:54.values. The question of the prelate. Will the Minister confirm that

:24:55. > :25:00.citizen UK, cited in the letter referred to by the reverend has said

:25:01. > :25:06.there are 157 children in Calais, in the jungle, in terrible conditions

:25:07. > :25:11.of squalor, who do have a legal claim to come to the United Kingdom

:25:12. > :25:14.because they have relatives here. Will the noble Lord confirm he will

:25:15. > :25:18.speak to his officials to see that all possible things will be done to

:25:19. > :25:22.extradite those claims and see if they have an understanding to come

:25:23. > :25:30.to the United skin and then start the academic year in September in

:25:31. > :25:33.our schools. -- United Kingdom. The French authorities are taking steps

:25:34. > :25:38.to improve conditions in Calais, as your Lordships will be aware. With

:25:39. > :25:42.regard to the number of 157, I cannot comment but I can say the

:25:43. > :25:45.garment has made provision in Calais to make sure those unaccompanied

:25:46. > :25:49.children who do have the wrecked relatives in the UK do follow the

:25:50. > :25:57.appropriate part. -- direct relatives. And then they proceed by

:25:58. > :26:02.the way of the Dublin regulation. It is no good getting these children

:26:03. > :26:07.here two days before term stance and pitching them into strange schools.

:26:08. > :26:11.They must have time to settle into a family, Tory home, before they

:26:12. > :26:19.undertake that Berry stressful process. -- or a home. -- very

:26:20. > :26:24.stressful. We must regard the capability of local authorities to

:26:25. > :26:27.receive these children. Until Foster places are available for them and

:26:28. > :26:30.there are suitable schools available for them, it would not the

:26:31. > :26:38.appropriate to simply bring them here. I accept what the Lord is

:26:39. > :26:42.saying. It was suggested in the House of Commons yesterday it could

:26:43. > :26:46.be seven months before any chart is accepted here. How many more

:26:47. > :26:52.children will go missing in seven months? How many more will suffer in

:26:53. > :26:58.seven months? It is not the first time that we have said we need a

:26:59. > :27:03.degree of urgency on this question. I believe everybody is aware of the

:27:04. > :27:06.urgency. The government said we expected the first children would

:27:07. > :27:10.arrive before the end of the year and not as was widely reported that

:27:11. > :27:16.it would take until the end of the year before they arrived. Surely we

:27:17. > :27:21.remember this proposal from Save the Children was last September? There

:27:22. > :27:25.seems to be nothing to be said by the Government in order to make sure

:27:26. > :27:30.these children are welcome to hear by people who have real hearts and

:27:31. > :27:34.warm hearts, willing to welcome them. Is the Government is not

:27:35. > :27:39.totally out of step with the thinking of caring people in the

:27:40. > :27:44.United Kingdom? I do not accept that. This government has been at

:27:45. > :27:49.the forefront of efforts to deal with the refugee problem, not only

:27:50. > :27:51.in Syria but also in Europe. We are taking further steps to deal with

:27:52. > :27:56.the question of unaccompanied children. But he will remember those

:27:57. > :28:00.children now in Europe are in a relatively safe havens. It cannot be

:28:01. > :28:05.suggested France is anything other than a safe country. We are taking

:28:06. > :28:08.steps were children with a connection with the United Kingdom,

:28:09. > :28:12.we will make sure that connection can be established properly and

:28:13. > :28:19.these children brought to the United Kingdom, where they have direct

:28:20. > :28:25.family links. Thousands of children have been sexually abused. They not

:28:26. > :28:30.safe in Europe. We are talking about Europe. Where are they going and

:28:31. > :28:35.what is happening to them? There needs to be much greater urgency

:28:36. > :28:38.than there is currently now. We are all aware of the terrible reports

:28:39. > :28:42.which have emanated from Europe about the condition of these

:28:43. > :28:46.children and the fact that their whereabouts in many cases cannot now

:28:47. > :28:50.be ascertained. It is a matter of concern. I reiterate that this

:28:51. > :28:55.government is at the forefront of efforts to deal with these issues.

:28:56. > :29:03.Third reading of the members fund Bill. Lord Naseby. I beg to move

:29:04. > :29:10.this Bill be read a third time. The question is that this bill be read a

:29:11. > :29:17.third time. Content? Contrary not content. The content is habit. I beg

:29:18. > :29:22.to move this building now pass. The question is this building now

:29:23. > :29:32.passed. As many of that opinion will say content. Not content? Content

:29:33. > :29:38.habit. -- have it will stop -- have it. A further limit has been made

:29:39. > :29:42.with which with a desire the agreement of the Lord. They don't

:29:43. > :29:46.insist on another memo to which the Lortab disagreed and they agree with

:29:47. > :29:50.MM and is made by the Lords to which a member state desire with the

:29:51. > :29:54.agreement of the Lords. They agreed to the remaining a minute made by

:29:55. > :30:01.the Lords to which the Commons have disagreed.

:30:02. > :30:12.I beg to move the amendment be considered forthwith. The question

:30:13. > :30:24.is motion a B agreed to. -- a is agreed to. I beg to move K one,

:30:25. > :30:30.leaving out from house to end and do disagree with the House of Commons

:30:31. > :31:02.in 84 C and insist on its amendment, 84.

:31:03. > :31:14.With the lead of the clerks, my lords... I beg to move this House do

:31:15. > :31:19.not insist on the at 84 and agree with the House of Commons in the

:31:20. > :31:23.amendment 84 C and disagree with the amendment A1 in the name of Lord

:31:24. > :31:29.Ramsbottom which seeks to reinstate amendment 80 four. I will also speak

:31:30. > :31:35.in the name of baroness hand with which will amend 84 C and reduce the

:31:36. > :31:47.time limit for automatic bail referrals from four months to two

:31:48. > :31:51.mums. -- monthss. There can be no doubt that the spirited debate in

:31:52. > :31:57.this House has added considerably to the quality of legislation. This

:31:58. > :32:00.house has done its job and more. This is indisputably a better Bill

:32:01. > :32:05.for it and does more to protect the interests of the most vulnerable. We

:32:06. > :32:13.must make sure we deliver what the British public voted for last year

:32:14. > :32:17.and pass this into law. The immigration Bill delivers important

:32:18. > :32:19.reforms to the laws. It is right we make sure that there is proper

:32:20. > :32:25.consideration and debate on the content. The achievement of the

:32:26. > :32:29.House, including ensuring the detail of the important reforms in the

:32:30. > :32:32.labour market and illegal working provide an effective mechanism to

:32:33. > :32:37.clamp down on those exploiting vulnerable migrants. It has

:32:38. > :32:41.delivered improvement to the provisions of criminal offences and

:32:42. > :32:46.made sure the duty to safeguard the welfare of children is underpinning

:32:47. > :32:50.all provisions in the Bill. It has pressed the Government with

:32:51. > :32:53.amendments to do more to have refugee children and the Commons

:32:54. > :33:05.yesterday accepted that amendment. On detention, the governor

:33:06. > :33:11.recognises the strength of feeling on this issue and the need is to

:33:12. > :33:16.make it the shortest period possible. And in particular the

:33:17. > :33:19.proper provision is in place to make sure the vulnerable are only

:33:20. > :33:25.detained when necessary and for the shortest possible period. On time

:33:26. > :33:31.limits in detention, we do not agreed time limits are appropriate,

:33:32. > :33:35.-- when we do not agree time it's our appropriate, we have listen to

:33:36. > :33:39.concerns that some people may be unaware of their ability to apply

:33:40. > :33:46.for bail and are not able to make an application. We have proposed an

:33:47. > :33:49.amendment which makes sure that unless the detainee has already had

:33:50. > :33:56.a bail hearing, there will be one after four months and every four

:33:57. > :34:03.months thereafter. This is an important safeguard and this House

:34:04. > :34:07.deserves credit for it. Amendment 84 places an upper limit on detention

:34:08. > :34:13.for all those not being deported to a maximum 28 days in total. It may

:34:14. > :34:17.only be extended by the tribunal on the basis of exceptional

:34:18. > :34:21.circumstances. It might be hopeful to remind the noble Lords we will

:34:22. > :34:26.only see to detain and in force the removal of those migrants with no

:34:27. > :34:30.basis to remain in the United Kingdom, who are not willing to

:34:31. > :34:34.depart of their own volition and if they are noncompliant. As I have

:34:35. > :34:39.said before, the arbitrary time limit is frankly unworkable,

:34:40. > :34:43.providing non-compliant migrants an easy target to aim for to secure

:34:44. > :34:50.their release from detention and frustrate their removal. It would

:34:51. > :34:54.lead to asylum claims being made, judicial review is without merit

:34:55. > :34:59.being lodged and refusal to cooperate with the document process.

:35:00. > :35:03.The aggregate limit of 28 days would cause difficulty if we needed to

:35:04. > :35:07.read attain a person and a travel document is delayed or if a person

:35:08. > :35:14.disrupts removal and needs to be taken back into detention until new

:35:15. > :35:17.arrangements are put in place. It may help the understanding of this

:35:18. > :35:27.House if I illustrate this with some real examples. A Visa was curtailed

:35:28. > :35:31.when one person fails to in role at university. He was in Canada when

:35:32. > :35:36.giving notice to a marriage of a British citizen, found to be a sham,

:35:37. > :35:40.and he was detained. When he was supposed to be removed he is a human

:35:41. > :35:47.rights claim and he was removed after 30 days in detention. Another

:35:48. > :35:51.was encountered by police and subsequently detained after his visa

:35:52. > :35:55.had expired. An emergency travel document was applied for. When he

:35:56. > :36:01.lodged a judicial review he was released on bail. When the judicial

:36:02. > :36:04.review was resolved he was detained again four Oval. He disrupted the

:36:05. > :36:10.first attempt to remove him and removal had to be rescheduled for a

:36:11. > :36:19.charter flight. -- for removal. It totalled 130 days. Neither example

:36:20. > :36:21.is likely to qualify as exceptional circumstances, which would allow the

:36:22. > :36:29.Secretary of State to apply for extended detention.

:36:30. > :36:39.This would be a significant increase in the tribunal 's workload.

:36:40. > :36:43.Perverting their work to lead leading to delays elsewhere in the

:36:44. > :36:45.immigration system. It would also increase complexity and require a

:36:46. > :36:50.new infrastructure to provide a process for the tribunal to be able

:36:51. > :36:52.to review extended period of detention about requiring the

:36:53. > :37:00.Secretary of State to make an application. In our previous debate,

:37:01. > :37:04.the Lord Browne helpfully quoted from the recent decision of the

:37:05. > :37:08.Supreme Court which supported a flexible and fact sensitive approach

:37:09. > :37:13.the duration of detention. It was also noteworthy that the noble Lord

:37:14. > :37:21.Ramsbottom clarified in response to comments from the Lord Browne and

:37:22. > :37:25.Lord panic that I never said that immigration detention would be

:37:26. > :37:31.limited to 28 days, what I said was that nobody would be submitted to

:37:32. > :37:33.administrative detention, detention bites civil servants, without

:37:34. > :37:38.judicial oversight that the tension within the time possible. The noble

:37:39. > :37:44.lord bullies at 28 days is reasonable. -- believes that 28 days

:37:45. > :37:48.is reasonable. We disagree. The government continues to believe that

:37:49. > :37:51.we can best provide the required level of oversight over detention by

:37:52. > :37:57.automatically referring cases to the tribunal at a set point which we had

:37:58. > :38:01.initially set at six months from either the date of detention or the

:38:02. > :38:05.date of the tribunal 's last consideration of release on bail

:38:06. > :38:10.with referrals at further six monthly inflatables cut dilated from

:38:11. > :38:15.the point of the last hearing. I am raked over the encouragement this

:38:16. > :38:19.received from the Lord Browne who expressed his satisfaction that the

:38:20. > :38:24.safeguard this provides in circumstances where detainees do not

:38:25. > :38:26.themselves apply for bail properly addresses the problem of detainees

:38:27. > :38:31.having to take the initiative in seeking release from detention. The

:38:32. > :38:35.duty on this secondary state to refer a detainees case to the

:38:36. > :38:38.tribunal for the bell consideration removes the onus from the

:38:39. > :38:45.individual. They'll guidance issued by the president of the first to

:38:46. > :38:48.year tribunal provides the judges will focus on several matters when

:38:49. > :38:54.considering bail including the reasons for the tension, the length

:38:55. > :38:58.of the tension so far, and it's likely future duration. As well as

:38:59. > :39:00.the effect of detention and the individual and the likelihood of the

:39:01. > :39:05.individual complying with bail conditions. This guidance explicitly

:39:06. > :39:10.states that the tribunal will need to be shown and I quote substantial

:39:11. > :39:16.grounds for believing that detention should be maintained. The noble Lord

:39:17. > :39:19.also thought fully supported the governments position of a bail

:39:20. > :39:25.hearing every six months was to use this term adequate. However, we have

:39:26. > :39:28.taken on board the concerns expressed by a number of colleagues

:39:29. > :39:34.here and in the other place. That six-month is still too long without

:39:35. > :39:37.judicial oversight it is claimed. The government has therefore tabled

:39:38. > :39:41.a motion in the other place proposing again a duty to arrange

:39:42. > :39:43.consideration bail before the tribunal but this time reducing the

:39:44. > :39:55.timing of the referral from 64 months. -- six to four months. The

:39:56. > :40:00.reforms which the government is putting in place in response to the

:40:01. > :40:04.report including the adults at risk policy will strengthen the existing

:40:05. > :40:08.resumption against the tension of those who are particularly

:40:09. > :40:12.vulnerable. This alongside the overall package of reforms to how

:40:13. > :40:17.immigration detention is managed including the enhanced gatekeeper

:40:18. > :40:20.role and the new system of quarterly case management reviews means we

:40:21. > :40:26.fully expect to see fewer people being detained and for shorter time

:40:27. > :40:29.periods. Nevertheless, these small proportion of people who are

:40:30. > :40:33.detained for longer periods the government amendment ensures that

:40:34. > :40:38.past judicial oversight may happen even earlier if a person apostle

:40:39. > :40:41.bail themselves, for those who do not do so and do not opt out of the

:40:42. > :40:45.process they will be guaranteed judicial oversight after at least

:40:46. > :40:51.four months in detention and at future for monthly intervals from

:40:52. > :40:54.their last tribunal consideration. However, we now need to press on

:40:55. > :40:59.with delivering the important measures in this bill. The other

:41:00. > :41:02.chamber has considered amendment 84 on two occasions now and has

:41:03. > :41:08.rejected it. Yesterday without even pressing it to a vote. We should not

:41:09. > :41:12.continue to insist on this measure. The government understands the

:41:13. > :41:16.sentiment by limiting time in detention at the practicalities

:41:17. > :41:19.involved means that amendment 84 is not realistic workable for the

:41:20. > :41:25.reasons I have set up at length in previous debates. This is not just

:41:26. > :41:30.of the government, Lord Browne both experienced lawyers in this field

:41:31. > :41:33.supported the position. The other rightly pressed the government to

:41:34. > :41:40.examine what more can be done to limit time spent in detention. The

:41:41. > :41:43.government has listened. It is made significant concessions and

:41:44. > :41:48.explained why it can go no further. The comment has twice agreed that

:41:49. > :41:54.the government. I urge my laws now except that decision. Baroness

:41:55. > :41:59.Hemingway amendment 84 D accepts the principle behind the at 84 and

:42:00. > :42:06.automatic Bell referrals but proposes to reduce the timing from

:42:07. > :42:10.42 months. The government has automated initial position from six

:42:11. > :42:13.to four months except in is a case for more frequent judicial

:42:14. > :42:18.oversight. With respect to the noble lady, I'm afraid we think any

:42:19. > :42:22.further reduction is unworkable. In a last debate I noted that Labour

:42:23. > :42:27.had repealed legislation for routine bail hearings at 836 days because

:42:28. > :42:33.they were intractable. Likewise, with the frequency of referrals is

:42:34. > :42:36.two months this was still impose a significant extra burden on the

:42:37. > :42:39.tribunal and the Home Office diverted valuable resources away

:42:40. > :42:44.from the consideration of asylum and human rights appeals, the management

:42:45. > :42:47.of the removal centres and delivery of the removals programme at a time

:42:48. > :42:55.when the effort should be focused on supporting faster and more cohesive

:42:56. > :42:58.immigration and asylum processes. You have raised legitimate concern

:42:59. > :43:03.to the government has listened and has made significant amendments to

:43:04. > :43:08.this bill. The time I submit has come to implement it. I beg to move.

:43:09. > :43:15.The question is that motion AV agreed to, amendment a one. I beg to

:43:16. > :43:23.move amendment a one as an amendment to motion a from house to end and

:43:24. > :43:29.insert jute disagree with their at age four see and do insist on its

:43:30. > :43:33.amendment 80 four. I'm very grateful to the noble Lord the Minister for

:43:34. > :43:38.the care in which he has set out the government 's case. I've often

:43:39. > :43:41.thought that the worst experience in life is to be associated with

:43:42. > :43:47.something that you know to be fundamentally wrong but feel unable

:43:48. > :43:52.to prevent. I'm experiencing that today because to our collective

:43:53. > :43:59.shame this house could be about to section something that as a nation

:44:00. > :44:04.we are roundly condemned and indeed fought against when practised by

:44:05. > :44:07.others over the years, namely the arbitrary detention of innocent

:44:08. > :44:12.people by administrative diktats rather than the due process of the

:44:13. > :44:17.rule of law. During the passage of this dreadful bill, over 400

:44:18. > :44:22.government amendments suggesting that it hadn't been thought through

:44:23. > :44:26.before it was introduced, the house has twice devoted to uphold the

:44:27. > :44:32.recommendation of a committee of the all-party group on refugees and

:44:33. > :44:37.migration of which I am the noble Baroness is my privilege to be

:44:38. > :44:42.members, namely that administrative detention ordered by Home Office

:44:43. > :44:45.civil servants should be limited to 28 days after which the Home

:44:46. > :44:51.Secretary should be required by law to seek the approval of the first

:44:52. > :44:53.chair of tribunal for any extension. Last night, the Minister and the

:44:54. > :45:00.other place spectacularly missed that point when alleging that to

:45:01. > :45:05.specify a maximum time for immigration detention would be

:45:06. > :45:09.arbitrary was not take account of individual circumstances and would

:45:10. > :45:13.have a negative effect on the governments ability to in force

:45:14. > :45:18.immigration controls and maintain public safety by encouraging

:45:19. > :45:24.individuals to seek to frustrate the removals process until this time

:45:25. > :45:29.limit was reached. My Lords, over the past 19 years I have had

:45:30. > :45:33.frequent calls to express my concern about the appallingly low standard

:45:34. > :45:39.of casework and procedural oversight in our endless Gratian system. This

:45:40. > :45:43.began when as Chief Inspector of Prisons I found over 20 people from

:45:44. > :45:48.Bradford who had been in this country for over 20 years many of

:45:49. > :45:51.them married with businesses of their own thread been arrested and

:45:52. > :45:57.transported to Birmingham prison where not surprisingly because they

:45:58. > :46:02.hadn't been charged with any offence they went on hunger strike against

:46:03. > :46:05.the wholly inappropriate prison regime. Their right to remain in

:46:06. > :46:14.this country had not been processed by the Home Office which is true

:46:15. > :46:18.today of over 631,000 others. Whose officials saw them as easy pickings

:46:19. > :46:23.for meeting performance indicators. I immediately complained to the

:46:24. > :46:26.Minister responsible being asked to take on the inspection of all

:46:27. > :46:33.immigration detention centres for my pains. This included inspecting

:46:34. > :46:36.Campsfield house after a riot when I found that immigration centre rules

:46:37. > :46:41.were also wholly inappropriate being based on prison rather than

:46:42. > :46:46.detention rules. My Inspector is I set about revising them, inviting

:46:47. > :46:50.Home Office officials to work with as. The outcome baby immigration

:46:51. > :46:56.detention rules often quoted in this bill. Since retiring as Chief

:46:57. > :47:00.Inspector, I have been a member of the Independent Asylum commission,

:47:01. > :47:04.have chaired an inquiry into the unlawful killing of an Angolan Baiji

:47:05. > :47:10.for S guard securing an enforced removal, have delivered a dossier of

:47:11. > :47:14.deaths and injuries inflicted on others being returned and forwarded

:47:15. > :47:19.reports on the inefficiency of the complaints system to the Home

:47:20. > :47:21.Secretary and have lost count of the number of critical reports by

:47:22. > :47:27.inspectors of immigration and prisons that I've read. In other

:47:28. > :47:31.words, my 19 year experience of the immigration system entirely endorses

:47:32. > :47:38.the view of its then titular head the noble Lord Reed who when Home

:47:39. > :47:41.Secretary described it as not being fit for purpose. Indeed, it is these

:47:42. > :47:46.experiences that have encouraged me to believe that only root and branch

:47:47. > :47:50.surgery will enable it to have any hope of coping with today's

:47:51. > :47:55.requirements let alone tomorrow's which will be exact debated not just

:47:56. > :48:00.by civil wars in the Middle East but by other population movements and

:48:01. > :48:03.the effects of climate change. I must admit that I was somewhat

:48:04. > :48:10.surprised last week when my noble and loaded friends law Brown and law

:48:11. > :48:14.panning focused on the periphery of theoretical access to the bail

:48:15. > :48:19.system rather than the fundamental obscenity of the administrative

:48:20. > :48:24.detention. There are intervention reminded me that over the years

:48:25. > :48:29.successive ministers have preferred to listen to fudge presented to them

:48:30. > :48:32.by their officials rather than facts immediately apparent to anyone who

:48:33. > :48:39.like me has had cause to examine them in detail. As has been reported

:48:40. > :48:44.time and again, conditions in our immigration removal centres are not

:48:45. > :48:49.good for a whole variety of reasons, not least lack of Home Office

:48:50. > :48:54.oversight. Four months is far too long for anyone to be condemned to

:48:55. > :48:58.remain in such conditions, certainly when it seems to be primary for the

:48:59. > :49:03.convenience of incompetent officials and is not sanctioned by a court of

:49:04. > :49:07.law. I don't pretend that casework is easy, indeed one former head of

:49:08. > :49:13.the UK border agency decreed that only graduates were to do it, but

:49:14. > :49:17.its presence standard judging by the number of successful appeals against

:49:18. > :49:23.it is appalling. I'm not surprised that first the noble Lord Bates and

:49:24. > :49:27.then the noble and learned it Lord Dean should have announced new

:49:28. > :49:30.arrangements though I must admit that having heard similar promises

:49:31. > :49:36.many times in the last 19 years I will only believe them when I see

:49:37. > :49:42.them. I now feel squeezed, not only is time running out before

:49:43. > :49:45.Parliament ends but I fear that on the evidence of the amendment not

:49:46. > :49:50.being pressed to a vote on the other place last night should the house

:49:51. > :49:54.support my appeal to put pride in the reputation of our great nation

:49:55. > :49:58.before party political considerations and vote for what in

:49:59. > :50:04.their hearts they know to be right, namely that interested detention of

:50:05. > :50:10.anyone anywhere is fundamentally wrong, it may not succeed. I'm

:50:11. > :50:14.conscious that it easier for an independent crossbencher to speak

:50:15. > :50:18.like that but I'm conscious to the constitutional position of this

:50:19. > :50:23.house which I do not want to put at risk. My lords, the immigration

:50:24. > :50:28.system in this country is so dysfunctional that even the Home

:50:29. > :50:33.Office favourite reporter Steven Shaw has criticised it in detail. As

:50:34. > :50:39.an optimist, I hope that the Home Secretary will read what he said and

:50:40. > :50:43.has been said during our debates in this house before she wilfully

:50:44. > :50:48.damages our global reputation for being a civilised nation by going

:50:49. > :50:52.ahead with her alternative to limiting detention to 28 days. It is

:50:53. > :50:59.with a heavy heart that I beg to move.

:51:00. > :51:10.The original question was that the motion B agreed to, leaving out from

:51:11. > :51:16.house on amendment 80 four. The question is the amendment A1 is

:51:17. > :51:24.agreed to. If it is agreed to, I cannot call amendment A2 by reason

:51:25. > :51:27.of pre-emption. Many of your Lordships will have negotiated a

:51:28. > :51:32.variety of agreements and arrangements and been involved in

:51:33. > :51:38.the towing and throwing of proposals and counterproposals. And will have

:51:39. > :51:45.experience the feeling of, enough, let's move on. I do not equate that

:51:46. > :51:49.with this issue. I am of course realistic enough to understand where

:51:50. > :51:56.the Government has got to. But in my view it is not far enough. And from

:51:57. > :52:01.my privileged position, compared with the asylum seekers, the subject

:52:02. > :52:07.of these amendments today, I cannot leave it here. I do not feel, in the

:52:08. > :52:14.words of the learned Lord, that I have done my job. I would like to

:52:15. > :52:19.make it clear that I support the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbottom. To

:52:20. > :52:23.deprive an individual of liberty for the purposes of immigration control

:52:24. > :52:28.should be an absolute last resort. It should be comparatively rare and

:52:29. > :52:36.for the shortest possible time. At the last stage but one I suppose of

:52:37. > :52:41.this Bill, the Government introduced an amendment for automatic judicial

:52:42. > :52:46.oversight. Then we heard references to detainees still being able to

:52:47. > :52:53.apply for bail at any time, to access legal advice and so on. That

:52:54. > :52:56.painted a picture which is of course technically correct but it did not

:52:57. > :53:03.accord with the reality is described to me over the years. The learned

:53:04. > :53:09.introduced the six months automatic hearing as a proportionate response

:53:10. > :53:15.and said earlier referral might result in work for the tribunal and

:53:16. > :53:19.Home Office at a time when an individual being removed from the

:53:20. > :53:25.country was planned and eminent. I was pleased last night the minister

:53:26. > :53:32.in the Commons moved reduction from six months. I quote again, after

:53:33. > :53:35.careful consideration is to four months to reflect the fact the

:53:36. > :53:43.majority are detained for less than four months. At the end of last

:53:44. > :53:55.December, the latest figures we had, 2607 people were detained. Of these,

:53:56. > :54:01.530, roughly 20%, had been detained for less than four months but longer

:54:02. > :54:06.than two. These are the numbers might amendment is about but they

:54:07. > :54:13.are 530 individuals, not just faceless numbers. The impact of

:54:14. > :54:17.immigration detention, which is not a sanction, not punishment for

:54:18. > :54:22.wrongdoing, is considerable. Reference has rightly been made to

:54:23. > :54:32.the particular impact on mental health. I look forward to Stephen

:54:33. > :54:36.Shore's further work. I hope it will alleviate conditions. There will

:54:37. > :54:41.always be a significant impact. I do not know if I can speculate on the

:54:42. > :54:46.Government's reason for moving from the proportionate six months down to

:54:47. > :54:52.four. But it can move I suggest it can move further. In the mix of

:54:53. > :54:58.assessing what is proportionate, the impact of administrative detention

:54:59. > :55:05.must be a significant factor. Let us reduce it as much as possible. That

:55:06. > :55:08.is why I propose two mums. I would like to take this opportunity to say

:55:09. > :55:16.that in all of this, I do not want to lose sight of the objective of

:55:17. > :55:23.improving the whole returns process. Alternatives to detention, with case

:55:24. > :55:26.managers who are not decision-makers, are more humane,

:55:27. > :55:35.less costly and more efficient and there is a lot of experience of that

:55:36. > :55:39.in other countries. My Lords, that, and improve return system, would

:55:40. > :55:43.reduce the burden on tribunal 's and the home Office. It might be trite,

:55:44. > :55:49.but efficiency is much of the answer. I hope your Lordships will

:55:50. > :55:55.be sympathetic to my proposal to reduce still further, take us

:55:56. > :56:00.further on the journey the Government has led us on, regarding

:56:01. > :56:07.the period when there must be an automatic judicial oversight of each

:56:08. > :56:12.individual position. In the House of Commons last night, the Minister

:56:13. > :56:16.confirmed the Government had accepted that there should be a

:56:17. > :56:20.judicial oversight over administrative immigration

:56:21. > :56:24.detention. And that is why they had previously tabled a motion, the

:56:25. > :56:29.effect of which would be individuals would automatically be referred to

:56:30. > :56:33.the tribunal for a bail hearing six months after the detention began, or

:56:34. > :56:37.if the tribunal had already considered whether to release the

:56:38. > :56:43.person in the first six months, months after that consideration.

:56:44. > :56:47.That was not accepted in this House, which again carried a motion

:56:48. > :56:51.providing for a 28 day period of administrative immigration

:56:52. > :56:54.detention, after which the Secretary of State could apply to extend

:56:55. > :57:00.detention in exceptional circumstances. The House of Commons

:57:01. > :57:03.again rejected this amendment from this House and has instead passed a

:57:04. > :57:10.government amendment reducing the timing of the automatic rail

:57:11. > :57:13.referral from six down to four months as apparently the majority of

:57:14. > :57:19.persons are detained in less than four months. Can the Government

:57:20. > :57:24.confirm that bail hearing after four months will be automatic and will

:57:25. > :57:32.not be dependent on the individual in a detention having to initiate

:57:33. > :57:35.the application? This is an issue on which this House has already sent it

:57:36. > :57:40.back to the Commons on two occasions. Consideration has to be

:57:41. > :57:46.given to the role of the unelected house in the legislative process as

:57:47. > :57:51.a revising chamber, inviting the House of Commons to think again. In

:57:52. > :57:55.this situation, the elected House of Commons and the Government have made

:57:56. > :58:02.some movement, albeit not enough to meet the views of this House, on the

:58:03. > :58:08.length of administrative immigration detention without automatic judicial

:58:09. > :58:14.oversight. Lord Ramsbottom made a powerful speech. May I just say a

:58:15. > :58:19.word in response? I am sorry the noble Lord thinks Lord Browne, the

:58:20. > :58:27.noble and learned Lord and I were focused on the periphery, as he put

:58:28. > :58:34.it. And supporting a fudged state of affairs last week. Your Lordships

:58:35. > :58:41.needs to focus on Lord Ramsbottom's amendment. What it does provide is

:58:42. > :58:45.after 28 days, there would be no possibility of detention of a person

:58:46. > :58:51.for immigration reasons, other than in exceptional circumstances. And I

:58:52. > :58:57.found last week that was not something I could support. I still

:58:58. > :59:02.cannot support it. The reasons for that is that a person can only be

:59:03. > :59:06.detained for the purpose of removal and can only be detained for a

:59:07. > :59:12.reasonable period of time for that purpose. There is nothing

:59:13. > :59:19.exceptional about it taking longer than 28 days to remove a person who

:59:20. > :59:25.has been detained for immigration reasons. There has to be discussion

:59:26. > :59:31.with the country to which the individual is going to be removed.

:59:32. > :59:35.And often persons being removed do not cooperate with the removal.

:59:36. > :59:40.There is nothing exceptional about it taking longer than 28 days. Of

:59:41. > :59:45.course, the individual concerned is also entitled at any time to require

:59:46. > :59:51.a judicial assessment of whether it is appropriate for them to continue

:59:52. > :59:58.to be detained for immigration purposes. I am pleased the

:59:59. > :00:04.Government has moved to a four months hearing. I think that is the

:00:05. > :00:13.right result. I also support motion letter a. I will make some brief

:00:14. > :00:17.points. First has already been made plain, the Government has already

:00:18. > :00:23.removed from the earlier proposal of six months down to four. Yesterday,

:00:24. > :00:36.those who had read the debate in the other place, there was hardly a

:00:37. > :00:43.voice against that proposal. Lord Ramsbottom has few greater admirers

:00:44. > :00:49.than I am in this chamber. His amendment goes, as I have suggested,

:00:50. > :00:55.too far. One defect on which I mentioned at report, but did not

:00:56. > :01:01.think it necessary but I rather regret it in the last round, is that

:01:02. > :01:10.it is internally inconsistent. On its face it refers sub-clause one up

:01:11. > :01:15.to the detention under any of the relevant powers, these are defined

:01:16. > :01:21.in sub-clause six, and they include, amongst other powers, two which are

:01:22. > :01:30.dealing with the tension pending deportation. -- detention. And you

:01:31. > :01:34.look at the sub-clause for the proposal, 84, it does not apply in

:01:35. > :01:40.cases where the Secretary of State is determined that there should be

:01:41. > :01:48.deportation. That is just an internal inconsistency in end. Four

:01:49. > :01:53.months, I suggest, properly protects against what could seriously be

:01:54. > :02:00.called arbitrary detention. It is a safe guard over and above the

:02:01. > :02:04.intrinsic ability of those who are detained to seek bail. It is a

:02:05. > :02:09.safeguard which I acknowledged to be appropriate and necessary in the

:02:10. > :02:17.case not least of those with mental problems. The proposal in Lord

:02:18. > :02:26.Ramsbottom's men and four exceptional circumstances justifying

:02:27. > :02:30.detention beyond 28 days, he gave illustrations and again by Lord

:02:31. > :02:37.panic today, it is just unworkable. It is a shorter period proposed by

:02:38. > :02:44.the noble Baroness, who I greatly admire, frankly the impact on

:02:45. > :02:52.tribunal is, they are already very busy and overworked and they really

:02:53. > :02:57.must not be overworked. As a member of the all-party enquiry I would

:02:58. > :03:03.like to voice my support for A1 and A2. The House of Commons only had

:03:04. > :03:07.one how yesterday. Quite understandably they spent most of

:03:08. > :03:10.that our teasing out the implications of the amendment. I do

:03:11. > :03:16.not think we should read too much into that not much was said about

:03:17. > :03:27.these amendments. -- into the fact that not much. I am obliged after

:03:28. > :03:31.the current abuses with this debate. We have spoken about the detention

:03:32. > :03:34.and the revising of the detention rules but I must take issue with

:03:35. > :03:40.with the suggestion that an access to bail is nearly theoretical and

:03:41. > :03:50.that there is an absence of judicial oversight. -- nearly. -- only

:03:51. > :03:52.theoretical. A tribunal must be persuaded that their rather

:03:53. > :03:59.substantial grounds for believing detention should be retained. It is

:04:00. > :04:02.not a theoretical right. It is an obligation on the part of the Home

:04:03. > :04:08.Office to persuade tribunal detention should the Britain. As far

:04:09. > :04:13.as the period of detention, -- should be retained. After a period

:04:14. > :04:18.of detention is extended into four months, which is very unusual, they

:04:19. > :04:23.will be an somatic bail hearing. In these circumstances I renew my

:04:24. > :04:30.motion to the House. -- automatic bail hearing. I'm grateful to all

:04:31. > :04:40.those who have spoken. Not least to my noble friend 's, Lord Browne and

:04:41. > :04:45.Lord Panic. It is rare for me to find myself in a disagreement and I

:04:46. > :04:54.bow to their superior legal knowledge in this case. But my

:04:55. > :05:01.Lords, I feel we have probably gone as far as we are going to be able to

:05:02. > :05:08.go. I am pleased that in the passage of this will we have been able to

:05:09. > :05:14.raise so many issues which I sincerely hope the Home Secretary

:05:15. > :05:18.and her officials will focus upon. Not least when they concentrate on

:05:19. > :05:25.the report they commissioned from Stephen Shaw. And the report which

:05:26. > :05:29.they have subsequently commissioned from him and the report that they

:05:30. > :05:35.get on the mental health arrangements which were commissioned

:05:36. > :05:39.by NHS England. I am afraid the writing is on the wall as far as my

:05:40. > :05:46.further hope of getting any further with this amendment in the passage

:05:47. > :05:52.of this Bill is concerned. And with a heavy heart, I beg leave to

:05:53. > :05:57.withdraw the motion. Is it your pleasure that amendment A1 is

:05:58. > :06:05.withdrawn? It is by leave withdrawn. A2, Baroness? Not move. The question

:06:06. > :06:08.is that motion baby agreed to. As many as are of the opinion say

:06:09. > :06:25."content." To the contrary, "not content". Content as it.

:06:26. > :06:37.I beg to move that the house to agree with the comment in their

:06:38. > :06:39.amendments 85 D to 805I. The government has continued to listen

:06:40. > :06:43.carefully to the concerns expressed in both houses on the issue of the

:06:44. > :06:48.taming pregnant women. Last night the other place agreed a member to

:06:49. > :06:52.Jamaica clear that pregnant women will be detained for the purposes of

:06:53. > :06:57.removal only if they are to be shortly removed from the United

:06:58. > :07:00.Kingdom or if there are exceptional circumstances which justify the

:07:01. > :07:05.detention and which place an additional duty on those making

:07:06. > :07:10.detention decisions in respect of pregnant women to have due regard to

:07:11. > :07:13.their welfare. The additional measures we are putting in place

:07:14. > :07:19.alongside the 72 hour time limit on the detention pregnant women will

:07:20. > :07:23.act as extra statutory safeguards which will complement the government

:07:24. > :07:27.'s wider package of in the early area of detention of honourable

:07:28. > :07:34.people. This includes the new adults at risk policy which is given a

:07:35. > :07:37.statutory basis in this bill. It includes a new crosscutting

:07:38. > :07:41.gatekeeper function to help provide consistency in decision-making

:07:42. > :07:44.across the business. It includes new safeguarding teams which will

:07:45. > :07:48.provide an extra level of scrutiny of the cases that detained

:07:49. > :07:53.vulnerable people. And as we previously announced we also intend

:07:54. > :07:56.to ask Steven Shaw to carry out a short review in order to assess

:07:57. > :08:02.progress against the key actions from his previous report. I hope the

:08:03. > :08:06.noble Lords will accept the suite of measures is a clear and positive

:08:07. > :08:09.demonstration of the government is absolute commitment and desire to

:08:10. > :08:15.ensure that pregnant women are detained only when it is absolutely

:08:16. > :08:19.necessary and as a last resort. With their health and welfare being a

:08:20. > :08:23.foremost consideration, whenever a decision is made in respect of their

:08:24. > :08:28.detention. These are solid measures which will have a practical impact

:08:29. > :08:32.but which will also give life to the governments desire to end the

:08:33. > :08:35.routine detention pregnant women as were set out in the written

:08:36. > :08:41.ministerial statement on the 18th of April. The 72 hour time limit

:08:42. > :08:45.announced in that statement was a clear exposition of the government

:08:46. > :08:48.intends moving to a position of which in no circumstances will

:08:49. > :08:55.pregnant woman be knowingly detained for longer than a week. That is a

:08:56. > :08:57.major shift from a position in which theoretically at least and

:08:58. > :09:02.occasionally in practice detention could persist for a longer period.

:09:03. > :09:06.This will be backed up with the new duty, the clear statement pregnant

:09:07. > :09:11.women will be detained only for the purposes of quick removal or in

:09:12. > :09:14.exceptional circumstances. I reiterate that even when there are

:09:15. > :09:19.exceptional circumstances detention will still be for only the limited

:09:20. > :09:25.period set out in the bill. It will also be backed up with other

:09:26. > :09:28.measures as I've described. All of this represents a new level of

:09:29. > :09:32.safeguarding for pregnant women which was not going as far as

:09:33. > :09:36.providing absolute exclusion from detention insures that it will occur

:09:37. > :09:42.sparingly and only when it is absolutely necessary. Turning

:09:43. > :09:50.specifically to amendment 85 J, table by the noble lady, the adults

:09:51. > :09:53.at risk policy will effectively be replacing chapter 5510 of the Home

:09:54. > :09:57.Office enforcement and instructions and guidance which is where the

:09:58. > :10:01.existing policy is set out. They will represent a different and

:10:02. > :10:04.better way of assessing circumstances that apply in any

:10:05. > :10:09.given case of Abe honourable person including cases of pregnant women.

:10:10. > :10:12.The amendments table in the other place automatically plays pregnant

:10:13. > :10:16.women and a separate footing making it clear that particular

:10:17. > :10:21.consideration least be taken in those cases. The 72 hour time limit

:10:22. > :10:27.by virtue of its brevity will insure that detention is used as a last

:10:28. > :10:30.resort. On that basis, I am of the view that the current formulation of

:10:31. > :10:33.the bill combined with the other measures we are putting in place

:10:34. > :10:39.provides a high level of safeguard for pregnant women. I beg to move

:10:40. > :10:45.the motion be is accepted by this house. The question is that motion

:10:46. > :10:52.BB agreed to amendment the one baroness Lister. I beg to move

:10:53. > :10:56.amendments P1 as an amendment to motion be and insert anti-proposed

:10:57. > :11:03.amendment 85 J as an amendment to amendment 80 5p. I wish I could

:11:04. > :11:09.warmly welcomed the government amendments 85 D2 I given that they

:11:10. > :11:15.go a small way towards meeting the concerns lodged in the house on the

:11:16. > :11:19.26 of April but it is only a very small way and as I will come on to

:11:20. > :11:25.explain the word very have some significance. I should firstly thank

:11:26. > :11:29.the Lord for his attempt to reach a compromise that will satisfy both

:11:30. > :11:35.sides last week, alas apparently it was not possible. It was the very

:11:36. > :11:39.last attempt I therefore tabled this very modest amendment which would

:11:40. > :11:43.mean that the circumstances justifying detention have to be very

:11:44. > :11:50.exceptional rather than simply exceptional. This does no more than

:11:51. > :11:55.mirror current Home Office enforcement instructions and

:11:56. > :11:59.guidance which refer to very exceptional circumstances and we

:12:00. > :12:03.have just learned that those guidance to be replaced. Indeed the

:12:04. > :12:08.Immigration Minister in the Commons last night assured MPs that the

:12:09. > :12:15.guidance also make it clear that they detention powers should be used

:12:16. > :12:20.in very exceptional circumstances underlining our expectations and

:12:21. > :12:24.regard the use this power. Surely if the government wants to underline

:12:25. > :12:30.those expectations they should do so in the bill itself. Otherwise it

:12:31. > :12:38.could be sending out entirely the wrong message. My fear is that as

:12:39. > :12:42.welcome as the new time limit is unless the legislation states very

:12:43. > :12:48.exceptional some might interpret the softening of language as a signal

:12:49. > :12:52.that it doesn't have to be quite so exceptional now that it subject to a

:12:53. > :12:57.time limit and I would remind noble Lords that in practice were public

:12:58. > :13:02.talking about 72 hours plus because the clock starts ticking not that

:13:03. > :13:06.the actual point of the Secretary Secretary of State is satisfied that

:13:07. > :13:10.the woman is pregnant if that is later which it probably will be.

:13:11. > :13:15.Given that too many pregnant women are already detained in far from

:13:16. > :13:20.exceptional circumstances in contravention of the guidance was

:13:21. > :13:25.made clear by Shaw and the all-party inquiry into detention this would be

:13:26. > :13:31.highly regrettable. Experience shows we can't rely on the guidance alone

:13:32. > :13:37.to underline expectations regarding degree of conditionality. I turn to

:13:38. > :13:41.some questions raised by the government amendments. With regard

:13:42. > :13:48.to amendment 85 the, I will repeat that in the Commons, to quote we

:13:49. > :13:53.need to ask about the small word or in amendments be to the Lords at 85

:13:54. > :13:55.C. Why does it make the distinction between the sector of state is

:13:56. > :14:00.satisfied that the woman will shortly be removed from the United

:14:01. > :14:03.Kingdom or there are exceptional circumstances which justify the

:14:04. > :14:07.detention? Surely pregnant women should be detained on the hour if

:14:08. > :14:13.there are exceptional circumstances and they can be removed shortly. We

:14:14. > :14:16.distinguishing between the two? Game detention is to remove people that

:14:17. > :14:19.attention should be a last resort given this news on the two hour

:14:20. > :14:24.limit and attention when will detention not be exceptional and

:14:25. > :14:26.removal forthcoming? It is important the government clarify that. He

:14:27. > :14:31.expressed the fear that the measure leaves the door open for the

:14:32. > :14:36.excessive detention of pregnant women. That is my fear to, my laws.

:14:37. > :14:41.Given it wasn't possible for the Immigration Minister to answer him

:14:42. > :14:48.yesterday I trust the Minister will be able to provide an answer now.

:14:49. > :14:52.Second, for the record, could the noble lord the Minister clarify the

:14:53. > :14:56.purpose of the qualifying phrase in the second sub-clause of amendment

:14:57. > :15:02.85 E apart from this section, fears have been expressed by those more

:15:03. > :15:05.expert than myself that it would appear to be saying that the

:15:06. > :15:09.Secretary of State doesn't have to have regard to the woman's welfare.

:15:10. > :15:14.I'm sure that cover the case. I can't do why anyone should be

:15:15. > :15:17.allowed to authorise detention without having regard to the woman's

:15:18. > :15:22.welfare and of course I welcome the fact that that clause having regard

:15:23. > :15:27.to the women's welfare is now in the bill. I hope that he can provide

:15:28. > :15:30.reassurance. I turn out to the key sections of amendment 85 see that

:15:31. > :15:35.the government has rejected out of hand. These aim to incorporate key

:15:36. > :15:40.elements of the family returns process which successfully uses

:15:41. > :15:45.engagement, try to resolve cases about the use of detention.

:15:46. > :15:51.Ministers have repeatedly explained that in the words of the Immigration

:15:52. > :15:56.Minister we are using precisely that model and approach to pregnant

:15:57. > :16:02.women. Yet there rejection of this part of amendment 85 see out of hand

:16:03. > :16:06.suggest an mindset that is not choose to the family returns process

:16:07. > :16:13.in which it's not assumed that removal requires prior detention. I

:16:14. > :16:16.asked the noble and learned it Lord if the government are using

:16:17. > :16:24.precisely that model and approach why have they refused to countenance

:16:25. > :16:29.writing key elements of it into the legislation? Will he commit now to

:16:30. > :16:33.drawing up guidance that will ensure that the treatment of pregnant women

:16:34. > :16:38.does indeed follow the family returns process model? Otherwise we

:16:39. > :16:43.have no way of ensuring that this model will be followed. Hopefully

:16:44. > :16:46.this will then reduce the need for the tension but where it does still

:16:47. > :16:52.take place clear guidelines following the model will at the very

:16:53. > :16:55.least ensure notice is given so as to minimise the stress involved in

:16:56. > :17:00.the process of being taken into detention which can have a damaging

:17:01. > :17:04.effect on the mental and physical health of pregnant women. My lords

:17:05. > :17:09.it simply not good enough to talk about modelling the approach and the

:17:10. > :17:16.family returns process without giving parliaments any idea of how

:17:17. > :17:19.it plans to operationalise this. On the 26 of April the noble and

:17:20. > :17:24.learned it Lord stated that as a matter-of-fact and practice all

:17:25. > :17:28.persons who are subject to removal are given notice of liability for

:17:29. > :17:32.removal and vulnerable women including pregnant women receive a

:17:33. > :17:37.further notice by removal direction. That sounded reassuring but the

:17:38. > :17:40.notice of liability for removal can be three months in advance of

:17:41. > :17:48.removal and the further notice is sent after detention. There is no

:17:49. > :17:51.notice sent of removal into detention as opposed to removal out

:17:52. > :17:55.of the country and I fear that we been talking at cross purposes on

:17:56. > :18:01.this. Will the Minister now commit to a full review of the process of

:18:02. > :18:04.removal into detention including how the woman's medical and welfare

:18:05. > :18:10.needs are taken into account during that process? When we last

:18:11. > :18:14.discussing this I cited some dreadful examples of how pregnant

:18:15. > :18:19.women were in effect treated like animals during the journey into

:18:20. > :18:24.detention. Serious implications for potentially physical and mental

:18:25. > :18:27.health. On the 20th of April the Minister seem to suggest that some

:18:28. > :18:30.of our concerns were in effect resolved because only one pregnant

:18:31. > :18:36.woman is currently held in detention. For those of us including

:18:37. > :18:39.Steven Shaw and the all-party Parliamentary inquiry who believe

:18:40. > :18:42.that pregnant women should not be detained on principle, one pregnant

:18:43. > :18:48.woman in detention is one too many. Leaving that aside, the number of

:18:49. > :18:52.urgent women in detention have always fluctuated and we don't know

:18:53. > :18:56.the total number who are being detained so far this year. I find it

:18:57. > :19:04.worrying that the Home Office is refusing to comply with FOIA request

:19:05. > :19:07.submitted by women for refugee women for the publication of this at this

:19:08. > :19:14.takes on the numbers detained, the length of detention and... On the

:19:15. > :19:19.Commons debate on the 25th of April the Immigration Minister said he

:19:20. > :19:24.reflect on how best to create greater transparency. I then the

:19:25. > :19:28.jest it that one way would be commit to now making the statistics on the

:19:29. > :19:31.detention of pregnant women available for public scrutiny on a

:19:32. > :19:36.regular basis as called for by bodies such as women for refugee

:19:37. > :19:40.women and the royal College of midwives. The noble Lord did not

:19:41. > :19:46.respond on that point and I'll be grateful if he could do so now. I

:19:47. > :19:53.know there's a reluctance to extend the process too far but when your

:19:54. > :19:58.Lordships house passed amendment 85 C despite the technical and other

:19:59. > :20:01.objections raised by the noble and learned it Lord the minister I took

:20:02. > :20:06.that as acceptance of the need to write into the bill safeguards

:20:07. > :20:13.necessary to ensure the protection of the welfare of pregnant women

:20:14. > :20:15.would -- whatever our view of their principal of detention. I don't

:20:16. > :20:21.believe those safeguards are strong enough. This is a much more modest,

:20:22. > :20:26.even minimalist amendment. I hope that the government will be able to

:20:27. > :20:31.accept it as it simply does what the Immigration Minister says is their

:20:32. > :20:40.intention but with the force of primary legislative hacking. I beg

:20:41. > :20:45.to move. -- backing. The original question was that it BA agreed to.

:20:46. > :20:49.Since then amendment B1 has been moved as set out on the revised

:20:50. > :20:55.list. The question therefore is that amendment B1 the agreed to.

:20:56. > :21:05.I would like to express my support for the noble Baroness. There are

:21:06. > :21:13.rules about transporting animals. In the House of Commons, as the noble

:21:14. > :21:22.Baroness said, the Minister referred to the guidance providing for very

:21:23. > :21:29.exceptional circumstances. To meet the expectations, as she has

:21:30. > :21:33.mentioned, they have relied on it. Guidance can of course be changed

:21:34. > :21:43.much more easily than primary legislation. Or more easily not

:21:44. > :21:51.followed. I share the noble lady's concerns. The legislation must not

:21:52. > :22:01.weaken the process. I was also puzzled to read that in the

:22:02. > :22:04.Government amendment that the person who authorises the detention, I will

:22:05. > :22:12.come back to that, must have regard to the woman's welfare. Not as was

:22:13. > :22:21.said at the column last night, June regard for her welfare. As we have

:22:22. > :22:27.heard, the current guidance, the equivalent guidance, if you like, is

:22:28. > :22:31.not effective enough. I do not myself see that there will be any

:22:32. > :22:36.impact from putting pregnant women into a separate category in the

:22:37. > :22:50.guidance. I agree with the point made by David Rose and the noble

:22:51. > :22:59.lady about a hand B and I had two points of concern about

:23:00. > :23:03.interpretation. -- David Burrows. We referred to the phrase, apart from

:23:04. > :23:09.this section. I read this as applying to the person with power to

:23:10. > :23:14.authorise. But I do not know what that means either. A person apart

:23:15. > :23:23.from this section. I hope the Minister can help. The other

:23:24. > :23:29.question is the term" shortly" in paragraph a of 85 E. The Secretary

:23:30. > :23:35.of State needs to be satisfied the woman will be removed from the

:23:36. > :23:42.United Kingdom. My Lords, in this House, we are accustomed to the term

:23:43. > :23:46."Shortly". It is something of an Alice in Wonderland term. It needs

:23:47. > :23:53.what it is meant to mean on the occasion when it is mentioned. -- it

:23:54. > :23:59.means what it is meant. Can we have greater precision on the term in the

:24:00. > :24:02.amendment? I wonder if I could detain the House for a couple of

:24:03. > :24:07.minutes. I am most concerned about this issue. And I am afraid the

:24:08. > :24:12.Government has completely overlooked a very important point. You're not

:24:13. > :24:17.just detaining a pregnant woman. You are detaining the foetus inside. And

:24:18. > :24:25.the effect is something science is increasingly concerned about. The

:24:26. > :24:29.recent science tells us the foetus at certain stages in pregnancy is

:24:30. > :24:33.very vulnerable to the environment of the mother. It is an area of

:24:34. > :24:36.research in which I have been involved at Imperial College. I

:24:37. > :24:41.would like to quote briefly research at Imperial College and also the

:24:42. > :24:45.University of Singapore which I will be visiting later this week and

:24:46. > :24:51.McGill University in Canada among other places. It turns out in

:24:52. > :24:56.particular that at certain stages in pregnancy if a woman's stress

:24:57. > :25:01.hormones are raised, the effect on the foetus may be profound. Michael

:25:02. > :25:08.Meaney, working after the ice storm in on Taree oh years ago showed

:25:09. > :25:12.subsequently on tests on infants at the age of five after effectively

:25:13. > :25:18.being interned in their houses because of the darkness and lack of

:25:19. > :25:26.electors do for a period of time, he found significant cognitive

:25:27. > :25:35.impairment. -- in on Taree oh. Massive stepdad in Canada. It might

:25:36. > :25:40.-- in Canada. It might become more aggressive. Unfortunately the signs

:25:41. > :25:49.at this stage is not clear. -- science. The increasing evidence in

:25:50. > :25:53.human work is really very much that stressing out a woman at certain

:25:54. > :25:59.stages in pregnancy, for example, when the Peters can be identified in

:26:00. > :26:04.the uterus, usually at around 22-26 weeks, that is a particularly

:26:05. > :26:09.vulnerable time. That is when we may have the most severe effects. I

:26:10. > :26:14.think the Government needs to recognise it may be responsible for

:26:15. > :26:20.an effect on that child and possibly even on the grandchildren of the

:26:21. > :26:25.mother. Until that is firmly worked out, I take the Government to

:26:26. > :26:30.reconsider this need, if it must be done at all, it must be done under

:26:31. > :26:34.the most serious circumstances. We cannot go back on women who have

:26:35. > :26:39.been detained in prison in other places in the past. But in the

:26:40. > :26:46.future we must make sure we make law which is humane and assessable to

:26:47. > :26:49.the possibility of an amendment so we caused minimal damage to future

:26:50. > :27:00.doom generation -- future generations. I support the amendment

:27:01. > :27:05.and I have supported her on numerous occasions when we have debated these

:27:06. > :27:08.issues. I am pleased to follow Lord Winston who has returned to an

:27:09. > :27:15.aspect we did discuss at earlier stages. Members may recall the

:27:16. > :27:20.remarks of the noble Baroness in the earlier debates where she focused

:27:21. > :27:23.upon the effects of the unborn child as being detained in stressful

:27:24. > :27:29.circumstances and I referred to work by the late eminent psychiatrist,

:27:30. > :27:34.Professor Mccole, who has described the effects. The effects later in

:27:35. > :27:39.life of children in the womb affected by traumatic events which

:27:40. > :27:45.they had experienced. On the other side of that of course, the

:27:46. > :27:49.world-famous violinist said that he believed that he had learned his

:27:50. > :27:56.love of music in the time that he was in his mother's womb. The

:27:57. > :28:00.Imperial evidence may need to be extended and more work needs to be

:28:01. > :28:06.done. But probably common-sense and row knowledge of human development

:28:07. > :28:12.does take us in that direction. It is not just about concerns for the

:28:13. > :28:14.unborn child. The Baroness rightly reminded us about the

:28:15. > :28:17.recommendations of Stephen Shaw which were at the heart of the

:28:18. > :28:23.debate when we looked at it earlier in proceedings. He recommended there

:28:24. > :28:27.should be an absolute ban. It is a long way short of his

:28:28. > :28:31.recommendations. The noble Baroness Lister, I think in her phrase, very

:28:32. > :28:35.exceptional, she is reminding the governed it cannot be right for us

:28:36. > :28:44.to have rendered women in detention in this way. -- government. I read

:28:45. > :28:47.the remarks of the Conservative member, David worries, the member of

:28:48. > :28:52.Parliament for Enfield Southgate. He spoke so well in the other plays

:28:53. > :28:57.yesterday. I hope when the learned and Lord replies he will respond to

:28:58. > :29:01.the concerns he raised and will respond to the Barack 's at the

:29:02. > :29:10.Royal College of Midwives referred to earlier by the Baroness, --

:29:11. > :29:16.respond to the remarks at Royal College of Midwives. What kind of

:29:17. > :29:20.accommodation is going to be made available when a pregnant woman is

:29:21. > :29:27.being held? Will he say anything about that? Will he talk about how

:29:28. > :29:32.needs will be met? Can he please assure us that pregnant women will

:29:33. > :29:36.not, as has happened in the past, be picked up in dawn raids and put in

:29:37. > :29:40.the back of the van is and taken miles away into accommodation, with

:29:41. > :29:44.appalling consequences for women in these circumstances. Accounts of

:29:45. > :29:52.nausea, vomiting, people being incredibly distressed by these

:29:53. > :29:56.experiences. This should be in very exceptional circumstances, has the

:29:57. > :29:59.noble Baroness has said. I would like to underline finally the point

:30:00. > :30:09.made by the noble Baroness and way and Lady Lister, referring to 85 E

:30:10. > :30:13.and subsection B. This odd phrase has been included at this late stage

:30:14. > :30:18.where we say a person who, apart from this section, as the power to

:30:19. > :30:24.authorise detention and must regard the woman's welfare. The words,

:30:25. > :30:28.apart from this section, are at best ambiguous and I cannot see what

:30:29. > :30:35.point they have. Campbell murmured Lord in light on us when he replies?

:30:36. > :30:45.-- can be learned Lord enlightened us? I hope the Minister will not

:30:46. > :30:52.only respond to the questions which have been raised in this short

:30:53. > :30:57.debate today in this House, but be doubly determined to do so, because

:30:58. > :31:01.I find it extraordinary that when the amendments were discussed in the

:31:02. > :31:06.House of Commons last night, although apparently they have a not

:31:07. > :31:11.surprising procedure, that a government minister opens the

:31:12. > :31:17.debate, there was no reply by a government minister at the end of

:31:18. > :31:21.the debate. Although the judgment questions raised in that debate

:31:22. > :31:27.after the minister had finished speaking were not answered at all. I

:31:28. > :31:31.know very little about House of Commons procedures. That is quite

:31:32. > :31:36.obvious. But it is certainly remarkable to have a debate where

:31:37. > :31:39.questions are asked of the Government and no government

:31:40. > :31:44.minister replies at the end. I hope that is a defect in the noble and

:31:45. > :31:49.learned Lord will be able to rectify when he comes to reply to this

:31:50. > :31:54.debate and the points that have been raised. We have accepted the

:31:55. > :31:59.Government have moved on this issue into a position of not allowing

:32:00. > :32:04.detention of pregnant women beyond 72 hours or up to one week with the

:32:05. > :32:10.Secretary of State's approval. This has wanted the garment to go further

:32:11. > :32:15.with additional safeguards reflected in the amendment sent to the House

:32:16. > :32:20.of Commons. -- government. They said they had tabled amendments making it

:32:21. > :32:25.clear pregnant women would be retained for the purpose of removal

:32:26. > :32:28.only if they are shortly to be moved from the UK or if there were

:32:29. > :32:34.exceptional circumstances justifying detention. The minister went on to

:32:35. > :32:40.say that the guidance would also make it clear that the power to

:32:41. > :32:46.detain must only be used in very exceptional circumstances. Why does

:32:47. > :32:52.the Government amendment passed last night in the House of Commons refer

:32:53. > :32:57.to exceptional circumstances and not very exceptional circumstances,

:32:58. > :33:02.which is and continues to be used in the guidance? What in the view of

:33:03. > :33:07.the Government in this context is the difference between exceptional

:33:08. > :33:14.circumstances and very exceptional circumstances? It is the Government

:33:15. > :33:19.that has decided not to use the same wording in the Bill as there is and

:33:20. > :33:26.will continue to be used in the guidelines. And through her

:33:27. > :33:29.amendment, my noble friend Baroness Lister is seeking a credible and

:33:30. > :33:38.reassuring answer to that question and I hope the Government can

:33:39. > :33:43.provide it. My Lords, can I begin by answering the question which was

:33:44. > :33:48.opposed by the noble Lord? The provision does refer to exceptional

:33:49. > :33:53.circumstances. The guidance as it exists today talks of only very

:33:54. > :33:59.exceptional circumstances applying for the detention of pregnant women.

:34:00. > :34:03.That will continue to be the policy applied in the context of this

:34:04. > :34:08.provision. I reiterate, as was said in the other place last night, it is

:34:09. > :34:11.only in very exceptional circumstances that it will be

:34:12. > :34:16.considered appropriate for this provision on the detention to be

:34:17. > :34:24.employed. Can I move on to deal with... I am sorry to into Rob.

:34:25. > :34:29.There was a specific question. -- interrupted. White is it not very

:34:30. > :34:39.exceptional circumstances put into the Dell? -- the Bill? It was not

:34:40. > :34:42.considered that words such as most, much, or buried, would add to the

:34:43. > :34:53.proper construction of the provision. -- or vary. -- very. In

:34:54. > :34:59.the other plays it has been said the policy will apply in the contest of

:35:00. > :35:08.very exceptional circumstances. -- context. It is a matter of English

:35:09. > :35:15.language. There is the word, exceptional. It is perfectly clear.

:35:16. > :35:22.What is the difference, in your mind, between exceptional and very

:35:23. > :35:25.exceptional? I think the noble Lord makes the point for me. It is

:35:26. > :35:30.questionable whether there is any distinction to be drawn between

:35:31. > :35:35.exceptional, very exceptional, almost exceptional. That lies behind

:35:36. > :35:40.the manner in which this has been drafted. In order to dispel doubts

:35:41. > :35:45.in the mind of others, it has been said in guidance, but as a matter of

:35:46. > :35:48.policy, the term very exceptional may be applied when approaching the

:35:49. > :35:53.application of this provision to the detention of pregnant women. I would

:35:54. > :35:58.like to pursue this issue with the leave of the House. There must be a

:35:59. > :36:04.difference, otherwise it would not be necessary to use the distinct

:36:05. > :36:11.phrases. Is the Government not in danger of falling foul of it own

:36:12. > :36:16.legislation by applying policy, guidance, which is different from

:36:17. > :36:19.the legislation? I do not accept that. The purpose of policy guidance

:36:20. > :36:22.is to emphasise the test applied. That is what it is happening -- what

:36:23. > :36:35.is happening here. The reference to the welfare of a

:36:36. > :36:40.pregnant woman. In the sub-clause that was referred to. I just want to

:36:41. > :36:45.emphasise that this provision is there is an additional safeguard.

:36:46. > :36:49.I'm not going to claim that the trust midship of this particular

:36:50. > :36:55.clause is distinguished by its elegance but its effect ultimately

:36:56. > :37:01.is clear. In circumstances where it is thought that a pregnant woman may

:37:02. > :37:05.fall to be detained, the party who may be exercising the right to

:37:06. > :37:12.detain will also have the have the regard that pregnant women before a

:37:13. > :37:16.final scissors made so for example in circumstances where the pregnant

:37:17. > :37:21.woman has arrived at a remove the port and there is nowhere in the

:37:22. > :37:25.passivity that could properly be utilised to detain her when she's in

:37:26. > :37:28.a state of pregnancy that'll be a factor which must be taken into

:37:29. > :37:32.account and indeed the determining factor in deciding whether or not to

:37:33. > :37:37.detain her. You might have somebody who is in a state of pregnancy

:37:38. > :37:43.arriving say at Heathrow who can and should be detained because of

:37:44. > :37:46.circumstances are exceptional and whether where there are facilities

:37:47. > :37:49.to detain her giving her state of pregnancy, and the other hand you

:37:50. > :37:53.might have somebody arriving at a remote port in circumstances where

:37:54. > :37:57.it is felt there were circumstances that are justified attention but

:37:58. > :38:02.where there was no suitable place for her detention and therefore have

:38:03. > :38:06.no regard for help welfare did tension would not take place. I hope

:38:07. > :38:13.that assists in expended purpose of the provision. It is an additional

:38:14. > :38:19.safeguard. Can I turn to the question of and or which was raised

:38:20. > :38:24.in the context of whether or not detention should take place. Of

:38:25. > :38:27.course the intended effect of these provisions so far as pregnant women

:38:28. > :38:33.are concerned is that they will like all detainees only be detained for

:38:34. > :38:35.the purposes of removal. Because there will be a time limit on the

:38:36. > :38:40.detention of pregnant women all cases of the of the detention of

:38:41. > :38:45.pregnant women will be necessary short some of these cases will have

:38:46. > :38:49.exceptional circumstances attached are by definition not many. For

:38:50. > :38:54.example, cases of the border are quite likely not have exceptional

:38:55. > :38:57.features. The causes drafted therefore allows the detention of

:38:58. > :39:02.pregnant women only when they can be removed quickly or when they can be

:39:03. > :39:06.removed and exceptional circumstances pertaining to. It is

:39:07. > :39:09.merely to allow for the two circumstances namely that they can

:39:10. > :39:15.be quickly removed or that they can be quickly removed and exceptional

:39:16. > :39:22.circumstances pertaining. I hope that goes to explain the way in

:39:23. > :39:27.which that particular provision is drafted, the noble Baroness Lister

:39:28. > :39:29.asked about the question of the further review but with respect we

:39:30. > :39:34.have already had the review from Steven Shaw and he is going to be

:39:35. > :39:37.instructed to carry out a further short review about the

:39:38. > :39:44.implementation of these provisions. No additional or alternative view is

:39:45. > :39:49.contemplated. Indeed, with respect to guidance, the policy guidance we

:39:50. > :39:53.have is of course addressed already and no additional guidance is

:39:54. > :39:59.contemplated. The noble Baroness also referred to in FI FOIA request

:40:00. > :40:02.and I cannot reply directly with respect to that request or the

:40:03. > :40:05.mothers matter of the relevant statistics but there is a process

:40:06. > :40:08.that can be followed through to a conclusion in order to determine

:40:09. > :40:19.that the FOIA request is responded to in shoe time and inappropriate

:40:20. > :40:23.terms. -- Jew time. -- Jew time and appropriate terms.

:40:24. > :40:31.The question of the treatment of pregnant women and the effect of

:40:32. > :40:37.stress on them. Who can doubt how stressful it will be Fred person who

:40:38. > :40:40.travels unlawfully to the United Kingdom in a state of pregnancy and

:40:41. > :40:44.then a tense unlawfully to secure entry to the United Kingdom session

:40:45. > :40:49.mark that alone is a source of stress. The question is how we deal

:40:50. > :40:51.sympathetically and effectively with such persons particularly when we

:40:52. > :40:56.find that they are either vulnerable or pregnant and what we have

:40:57. > :40:58.developed here is a rational and reasonable approach to that very

:40:59. > :41:10.difficult question. Finally, could I address the

:41:11. > :41:18.question of facilities in the context of planned departure. Our

:41:19. > :41:21.continuing view is that immigration removal centres remain the most

:41:22. > :41:26.appropriate place to detain pregnant women. The Isles would provide a

:41:27. > :41:30.high level of care for pregnant women, it has national health this

:41:31. > :41:33.midwives available, general practitioners and nurses can be

:41:34. > :41:37.accessed seven days a week. There are strong links with the local

:41:38. > :41:40.maternity services and there is support provided by pregnancy

:41:41. > :41:46.liaison officer. In addition, there is now a new care staff by new firm

:41:47. > :41:52.female member of staff to tend to women who are pregnant. Very few

:41:53. > :41:56.pregnant women are detained in the circumstances but suitable and

:41:57. > :42:00.sufficient facilities are available and as I observed earlier where they

:42:01. > :42:05.are not for some reason available the welfare of the pregnant woman

:42:06. > :42:12.will be paramount. In these circumstances, I beg to move this

:42:13. > :42:15.house. I'm grateful to him but you will recall he has been asked by

:42:16. > :42:20.three others about those words that appear in the final section in the

:42:21. > :42:23.penultimate line of the amendment apart from this section and I

:42:24. > :42:29.wondered if he could tell is why they have been included and what

:42:30. > :42:32.they add to this. I did say that the relevant provision was not

:42:33. > :42:38.distinguished by its elegance but if you read the causes a whole it is

:42:39. > :42:43.intended to refer back to the person with the detention in terms of the

:42:44. > :42:47.bill. The way in which it is drafted at that point is the tainted by the

:42:48. > :42:56.way in which that is described in an earlier clause of the bill. Forgive

:42:57. > :43:03.me for intervening once more. I don't feel at all confident about

:43:04. > :43:08.the question of incarceration. The difference between arriving on these

:43:09. > :43:12.shores illegally and then being incarcerated is very different from

:43:13. > :43:16.arriving on the shores with hope and what the evidence of the model shows

:43:17. > :43:20.in Canada is that the incarceration in their own houses even that causes

:43:21. > :43:26.distress to these women which resulted in the changes to the

:43:27. > :43:29.foetus which was subsequently inherited. I beg the Lord to

:43:30. > :43:43.consider that point when he finally at sums up. I had rather summed up

:43:44. > :43:46.but if I can say this of course there are elements in the journey of

:43:47. > :43:51.such a person that would cause stress, detention may be a factor in

:43:52. > :43:56.that, but in the round we have to come to a reasoned conclusion as to

:43:57. > :44:04.how we deal with unlawful entry into the United Kingdom. Can I make the

:44:05. > :44:07.noble Lord on offer. He is obviously as uncomfortable as I am with the

:44:08. > :44:12.drafting of this section, can we find a way of getting it to mean

:44:13. > :44:16.what whether we don't like it or not he is telling us we ought to

:44:17. > :44:19.understand it to mean early in the next session. Lets packet onto

:44:20. > :44:27.something that will come to us fairly shortly. -- tack it on. It

:44:28. > :44:30.means what I say, it doesn't say what I mean. Maybe her lying but

:44:31. > :44:33.that is one that which take into consideration. -- maybe her lying in

:44:34. > :44:48.the. Thank you to all the noble Lords. It

:44:49. > :44:56.has reinforced the sense that this house is very concerned about this

:44:57. > :45:03.issue and is not convinced that the welfare of pregnant women and the

:45:04. > :45:11.foetus inside them is being protected by the concessions that

:45:12. > :45:15.the government has made. I'm grateful to the noble and learned it

:45:16. > :45:18.law the Minister for addressing all the questions that were asked. I

:45:19. > :45:22.have to say that I don't think it was a question of elegance, it's a

:45:23. > :45:28.question of content ability and I have to say I didn't understand a

:45:29. > :45:33.word of one of his answers. -- comprehensible must. I will try and

:45:34. > :45:38.understand it when I read it in Hansard. It does have residents of

:45:39. > :45:43.that Humpty Dumpty and words saying what I say they mean and the

:45:44. > :45:48.question is who is to be master and that is all and unfortunately it is

:45:49. > :45:53.the government that is a master and who has the power to decide these

:45:54. > :45:58.issues. Thee and I did understand from the Bernard Lord were very

:45:59. > :46:07.disappointing. I still have not heard a good reason as to why the

:46:08. > :46:09.word very was not... If it's good enough for the guidance and it means

:46:10. > :46:14.something in the guidance I still have not heard a proper reason as to

:46:15. > :46:17.why it's not good enough to be in the legislation and I'm still

:46:18. > :46:22.worried that someone looking at both of them will think oh, well, the

:46:23. > :46:27.legislation, the government has gone backwards to that extent. I'm very

:46:28. > :46:33.concerned... I wasn't asking for a whole new review, I was asking for a

:46:34. > :46:39.very focused review of the process by which a woman is taken from her

:46:40. > :46:42.home into detention and as I understand it is already been a

:46:43. > :46:47.commitment to look at the question of transport and I'm asking that

:46:48. > :46:53.that is broadened to the whole process. It's not a big thing, I'm

:46:54. > :46:59.very concerned that there is no... I'm still not heard any explanation

:47:00. > :47:03.as to how this is going to be modelled on the family returns

:47:04. > :47:07.process. The noble and learned it law the Minister has said there will

:47:08. > :47:14.be no further guidance and that's so it is an empty claim unless someone

:47:15. > :47:20.can show is otherwise. I hope that the noble Lord will take this away,

:47:21. > :47:23.I hope that Immigration Minister will take this away that the Home

:47:24. > :47:29.Secretary will take it away, will read what has been said in this

:47:30. > :47:35.house and also the points made by my noble friend Lord Ross that the

:47:36. > :47:42.really strange Commons procedure that don't allow the Minister to

:47:43. > :47:45.respond to perfectly good questions put so that we at least have a

:47:46. > :47:50.chance to do that in this house so I hope that the people in the other

:47:51. > :47:56.place will all read what has been said in this house and will go away

:47:57. > :48:00.and think about it and think how we can within the constraints of the

:48:01. > :48:04.legislation as tears make this a more process than it is at present

:48:05. > :48:11.because as we've heard there is a lot at stake here and my noble

:48:12. > :48:16.friend Lord Winston talked about could be responsible for a affect on

:48:17. > :48:23.the child. That is a very serious thing so I do hope that this will be

:48:24. > :48:27.looked at further even if it can't be in the context of actual

:48:28. > :48:31.legislation. That said, like the noble Lord Ramsbottom I recognise

:48:32. > :48:37.when we're coming to the end of the road and so like him with a very

:48:38. > :48:44.heavy heart indeed I beg leave to withdraw amendment B1. Is it your

:48:45. > :48:47.Lordships pleasure that amendment B1 be withdrawn? The amendment is by

:48:48. > :48:52.leaf withdrawn. The question is that motion be be agreed to. As many

:48:53. > :48:57.years that will save content. The content habit.

:48:58. > :49:02.I shall not repeat as a statement the answer to an urgent question

:49:03. > :49:07.given today by my right honourable friend the Minister for immigration

:49:08. > :49:13.and child refugee resettlement from Europe. The statement is as follows.

:49:14. > :49:18.Mr Speaker, as I said last night, the government is at the forefront

:49:19. > :49:23.of assisting and protecting vulnerable children wherever they

:49:24. > :49:28.are and as the house is aware last week the Prime Minister said that we

:49:29. > :49:30.will work with local authorities and plans to resettle unaccompanied

:49:31. > :49:35.children from France, Greece and Italy. We have said we expect the

:49:36. > :49:40.first children to arrive before the end of the year. We have not said

:49:41. > :49:45.that it will take until the end of the year for them to arrive. As a

:49:46. > :49:52.clear to the house, are working hard to see isolated children reunited

:49:53. > :49:58.with family and children at risk of exploitation and abuse, to the UK as

:49:59. > :50:02.quickly as we can. We have to be satisfied that they will be able to

:50:03. > :50:07.receive appropriate care and support when they arrive. The revised

:50:08. > :50:12.amendment to the immigration bill obliges us to consult with local

:50:13. > :50:17.authorities, we must ensure we fulfil our obligations to children

:50:18. > :50:20.who are already in the UK as well as ensuring we have the right support

:50:21. > :50:27.for those who may be brought to the UK from Europe. The provisions in

:50:28. > :50:32.the bill by their nature mean we have to consult others before

:50:33. > :50:37.finalising our plans but that is not imply that we will delay getting on

:50:38. > :50:43.with this. We will be contacting council leaders in the coming days.

:50:44. > :50:46.I have already spoken to the local government Association on this

:50:47. > :50:50.matter. We've all always been clear that we will do nothing that

:50:51. > :50:54.inadvertently create a situation in which families see an advantage in

:50:55. > :50:59.sending children ahead, putting their lives at risk, by attempting

:51:00. > :51:06.perilous journeys to Europe. That is why only those present in the EU

:51:07. > :51:10.before the 20th of March will be eligible for resettlement and even

:51:11. > :51:15.then only when it is in their best interests to come to the UK. This

:51:16. > :51:18.will avoid creating a perverse incentive for families to entrust

:51:19. > :51:27.their children to people traffickers. We've already started

:51:28. > :51:31.consulting relevant NGOs, Unicef and other member states and how best we

:51:32. > :51:38.implement this legislation. Last Friday I met the Greek government in

:51:39. > :51:41.Athens to discuss how best we can make progress quickly. Were already

:51:42. > :51:46.working to identify those who we can help.

:51:47. > :51:53.We have an ongoing plan with France to improve joint response to

:51:54. > :51:57.children in Calais, accepting more than 30 transfer request since they

:51:58. > :52:02.break, with more than 20 already arrived. We will be working with

:52:03. > :52:05.France in the coming days and weeks to increase the identification of

:52:06. > :52:11.children in France who have family here so we can bring them over. In

:52:12. > :52:14.addition, the UK has played a full part in supporting European

:52:15. > :52:20.neighbours to provide support to those who have arrived. We have

:52:21. > :52:24.provided nearly ?46 million of funding for the European wide

:52:25. > :52:30.response to halt the most honourable, including children and

:52:31. > :52:35.infants. -- help. The ?10 million fund in addition announced on

:52:36. > :52:39.January the 28th will support Save the Children and International

:52:40. > :52:43.Rescue Commtitee 's to work with authorities to care and assist

:52:44. > :52:50.unaccompanied, or separated children. Of course this is on top

:52:51. > :52:55.of the Syrian resettlement programme and the Rhys Evans scheme designed

:52:56. > :53:03.to resettle up to 3000 children from the Middle East and North Africa. --

:53:04. > :53:07.resettlement scheme. We are committed to making a full

:53:08. > :53:12.contribution to the refugee crisis. We are already acting to implement

:53:13. > :53:19.the amendment. We have started discussions with local government.

:53:20. > :53:23.We have begun work with European partners and NGOs to support

:53:24. > :53:28.effective implementation. We will bring refugee children to the UK as

:53:29. > :53:33.quick as it is safe to do so. I am proud the commitment of this

:53:34. > :53:37.country, this government, to help those in need in and outside of

:53:38. > :53:45.Europe stands comparison with any other country in the world. That

:53:46. > :53:48.concludes the statement. I thank the noble Lord for repeating the answer

:53:49. > :53:59.to an urgent question earlier in the Commons today. We welcome the steps

:54:00. > :54:02.the Government are taking. In the Commons yesterday the Government

:54:03. > :54:09.confirmed they were accepting the amendment passed in this House, in

:54:10. > :54:16.the name of my noble friend, Lord Duns. They said they would bring

:54:17. > :54:22.forward more detailed proposals and there would be a meeting scheduled

:54:23. > :54:25.for later this week. It appears ten Downing St has told the Daily

:54:26. > :54:31.Telegraph the first children will be arriving by the end of the year,

:54:32. > :54:35.which is a different tenor of response to that given in the

:54:36. > :54:40.Commons, which was all about urgency and getting on with it as quickly as

:54:41. > :54:45.possible. Can the Government tell us what the estimated timetable is for

:54:46. > :54:50.implementing my noble friend's amendment, which they have accepted?

:54:51. > :54:54.Can he say if it will be an objective to take in at least the

:54:55. > :54:58.first 300 children before the start of the school year in September? It

:54:59. > :55:05.will not assist the position of children if they had to join well

:55:06. > :55:08.into the start of the school year. Finally, 157 children have been

:55:09. > :55:13.identified by citizens UK as being in Calais and having family

:55:14. > :55:18.collections here. -- connections here. I appreciate the Minister

:55:19. > :55:23.could not comment on the figure of 157. But will the Government give an

:55:24. > :55:29.assurance to make sure those children in Calais with valid claims

:55:30. > :55:36.for reunification are reunited as a matter of urgency with families here

:55:37. > :55:44.under the Dublin arrangement? My lords, I am most grateful to Lord

:55:45. > :55:50.Rosser. The Daily Telegraph picked up the number ten statement and

:55:51. > :55:56.misconstrued it. What number ten said was we would be proceeding with

:55:57. > :56:01.this programme as quickly as possible and by the end of the year,

:56:02. > :56:06.we will have seen children arriving in this country. That does not mean

:56:07. > :56:14.it will be the 31st of December before any child arrives. The

:56:15. > :56:21.estimated timetable is one which is difficult for me to define. Because

:56:22. > :56:26.of the need, as the amendment specifies, to consult local

:56:27. > :56:32.authorities before we are in a position to say how many can be

:56:33. > :56:36.accommodated. All I can assure the noble Lord is that we need to take

:56:37. > :56:41.the necessary time but not unnecessary time to do that. We are

:56:42. > :56:45.already engaging with the French authorities to make sure the

:56:46. > :56:49.vulnerable children which I know he would like us to prioritise our

:56:50. > :56:55.identified as quickly as possible. We will do the same in Greece and

:56:56. > :57:00.Italy. I cannot, as he will surmise, be specific about whether we will

:57:01. > :57:03.take in 300 children before the start of the school year. The nature

:57:04. > :57:08.of the announcement needs we must take the necessary time to consult

:57:09. > :57:12.others before we bring in final proposals on in the mentation. All I

:57:13. > :57:23.can say is that we will not -- implementation. We will implement it

:57:24. > :57:29.in spirit and we will do so as wholeheartedly and speedily as we

:57:30. > :57:31.can. Naturally, as I have emphasised, those children in Calais

:57:32. > :57:38.are likely to be the first candidates. Save the Children, after

:57:39. > :57:43.extensive research and consultation, concluded the UK taking 3000

:57:44. > :57:49.unaccompanied asylum seekers children from within Europe would be

:57:50. > :57:53.a fair and proportionate number. I accept what the minister says. We

:57:54. > :58:00.have to have consultation with local authorities. But we have also

:58:01. > :58:04.already heard the fact that charities and other mechanisms can

:58:05. > :58:10.be used in order to help find homes for these children. Can the Minister

:58:11. > :58:16.tell the House how many of these children it does actually intend to

:58:17. > :58:24.take? The smallest number it can get away with, or the UK's fair share? I

:58:25. > :58:28.hope that I have indicated that we are pursuing this amendment in its

:58:29. > :58:33.proper spirit. We have always been clear that we share the objective of

:58:34. > :58:37.identifying and protecting vulnerable refugee children wherever

:58:38. > :58:42.they are. Our efforts have been designed to do just that. We have

:58:43. > :58:49.heard many times the measures the Government are taking in the Middle

:58:50. > :58:53.East, in particular. We were very clear setting an arbitrary target,

:58:54. > :59:00.particularly as high as 3000, was the wrong approach. It is necessary,

:59:01. > :59:05.we cannot wade in and select some children we think would be better

:59:06. > :59:08.off in the UK. Especially when some local authorities are already caring

:59:09. > :59:12.for very high numbers of unaccompanied asylum seeking

:59:13. > :59:16.children, stretching services in some cases to breaking point. Which

:59:17. > :59:21.is why we believe this approach is the right one. We must consult with

:59:22. > :59:26.local authorities before we can determine the number we can

:59:27. > :59:34.accommodate. We must observe the best interest principle as well. My

:59:35. > :59:39.Lords, can I just say that I very much appreciate the way in which the

:59:40. > :59:42.Home Secretary and immigration minister and Home Office officials

:59:43. > :59:49.have put me in the picture in this process. It was gratifying, not in a

:59:50. > :59:51.triumphalist sense, to see the name of the Home Secretary on the

:59:52. > :59:56.amendment in the Commons yesterday evening. I think the minister put

:59:57. > :00:00.his finger on the right phrase, if the Government does intend to accept

:00:01. > :00:05.not only the letter but the spirit of the amendment, all I would say is

:00:06. > :00:10.that given we now have officials working with French authorities,

:00:11. > :00:15.that it would be possible to speed up the process of identifying

:00:16. > :00:21.children in Calais who have relatives in Britain and help them

:00:22. > :00:25.to get there in time for school term in September. That would surely be

:00:26. > :00:29.the right thing to do. The Minister cannot make a promise but I hope he

:00:30. > :00:33.will accept the spirit of what I am saying and that the Government will

:00:34. > :00:38.do its best accordingly. I can give him that assurance. It would clearly

:00:39. > :00:42.be desirable to make sure those children who are most vulnerable and

:00:43. > :00:46.in need of help and support can arrive in this country in time for

:00:47. > :00:50.the school year, but he will understand that at this stage in the

:00:51. > :00:55.exercise I cannot give firm undertakings. I can only say we will

:00:56. > :01:01.use our best endeavours in this direction. My Lords, does the

:01:02. > :01:08.Minister accept that this is a national responsibility, to do what

:01:09. > :01:13.we reasonably can to help those children who are single and

:01:14. > :01:20.unaccompanied and already in Europe? Can he give an assurance that the

:01:21. > :01:28.costs will not fall on individual local authorities and will be

:01:29. > :01:32.accepted as a national burden? Secondly, the issue of children who

:01:33. > :01:40.come into this country and eventually reach the age of 18 was

:01:41. > :01:45.raised earlier at question Time. But we did not get a clear and very

:01:46. > :01:55.acceptable answer from the Government. After we have invested

:01:56. > :01:59.so much resources and care and education in these particular

:02:00. > :02:04.children, surely they should be allowed to stay here and not have

:02:05. > :02:11.the kind of sword of Damocles hanging over their head that they

:02:12. > :02:15.might then be returned? The question of costs, as the noble Lord will

:02:16. > :02:19.know, the local authorities who care for unaccompanied asylum seeking

:02:20. > :02:24.children, there is no reason why the plantation should place unique

:02:25. > :02:29.challenges on local authorities. -- implementation. Funding arrangements

:02:30. > :02:33.will be discussed with the local authorities and the Home Office will

:02:34. > :02:40.be engaging with local authorities in that sense as it goes forward

:02:41. > :02:45.with the main question of how many children can be accommodated. But I

:02:46. > :02:50.would say that any additional flow of unaccompanied children must be

:02:51. > :02:56.aligned with existing schemes. Regarding making a pre-emptive

:02:57. > :03:00.undertaking, giving a pre-emptive undertaking of what will happen to

:03:01. > :03:04.children when they reach the age of 18, I think the only thing I can say

:03:05. > :03:09.is that each case for asylum must be considered on individual merit. When

:03:10. > :03:14.somebody demonstrates a genuine fear of persecution, protection will be

:03:15. > :03:17.granted. But when somebody is found not to be in need of our protection,

:03:18. > :03:25.in those circumstances we would expect them to leave the UK

:03:26. > :03:30.voluntarily. Will he confirm that he is having close discussions with the

:03:31. > :03:33.Welsh government on these matters? Many responsibilities lie here and

:03:34. > :03:37.we in Wales are anxious to play our part in this programme. Given his

:03:38. > :03:42.emphasis on cooperating with the French authorities, is he confident

:03:43. > :03:49.that in the unfortunate event of Brexit that that corporation will

:03:50. > :03:55.continue? The answer is yes and yes. We are in touch with the devolved

:03:56. > :04:00.administration. Not only the Welsh authority but also Scotland and

:04:01. > :04:05.Northern Ireland as well. I can of course give the noble Lord the

:04:06. > :04:09.undertaking about our dialogue with the French which will continue,

:04:10. > :04:13.whatever happens. Message from the Commons they disagree to pay

:04:14. > :04:19.amendment which the Commons have made in the planning Bill, to which

:04:20. > :04:23.they have a reason. They disagree with other amendments made in view

:04:24. > :04:29.of an amendment to which the Commons disagreed, to which they have

:04:30. > :04:33.assigned a region -- reason. They insist in an airman to to which the

:04:34. > :04:37.Commons disagreed and disagree to an and to which the House of lords

:04:38. > :04:40.disagreed for which there a reason. They insist on their disagreement

:04:41. > :04:43.with the Lords in certain other amendment but they made other

:04:44. > :04:47.amendments to which they decide the agreement of the House of Lords and

:04:48. > :04:50.they agreed without an Emmons to the remaining amendment made by the

:04:51. > :04:58.House of Lords in lieu of an Emmons to which the House of Commons at

:04:59. > :05:03.disagreed. -- a motion. I beg to move the Emmons be considered

:05:04. > :05:10.forthwith. -- at them and speak considered. The question is they be

:05:11. > :05:14.considered forthwith. As many as are of the opinion say "content." To the

:05:15. > :05:22.contrary, "not content". Content does have it. My Lords, I beg to

:05:23. > :05:27.move motion hay that this House does not insist on ten B, to which the

:05:28. > :05:32.House of Commons at disagreed for the reasons ten C. I would like to

:05:33. > :05:37.be clear once more that it undermines the manifesto commitment

:05:38. > :05:43.to build 200,000 starter homes by 2020. The requirement. The homes

:05:44. > :05:47.becomes something -- the requirement for starter homes becomes entirely

:05:48. > :05:52.different and not what was in the manifesto. It commits delivery at

:05:53. > :05:57.least three times. Let me quote directly to show commitment could

:05:58. > :06:01.not be more clear. As of the party of home ownership we want to go

:06:02. > :06:07.further and faster. This will set out our plan. The objective is to

:06:08. > :06:14.build affordable homes including 200,000 starter homes, sold at a 20%

:06:15. > :06:15.discount and will be built exclusively for first-time buyers

:06:16. > :06:23.under age of 40. The electorate will expect us to the

:06:24. > :06:27.liver that commitment and we will do so. We have listened to the house

:06:28. > :06:31.and a number of aspects of this policy including allowing for a

:06:32. > :06:34.taper and repayment mechanism where the property is resold. The

:06:35. > :06:39.government cannot compromise on starter homes requirement. It is

:06:40. > :06:44.fundamental to delivering 200,000 starter homes within this

:06:45. > :06:48.Parliament. Over 85,000 young people have now registered on our starter

:06:49. > :06:51.homes register of interest. We want these young people from across the

:06:52. > :06:56.country to have a chance of home ownership. The starter home model

:06:57. > :07:00.will give them a chance, it will provide an opportunity for them to

:07:01. > :07:04.own their own home and unlike many other home ownership products it

:07:05. > :07:11.will enable them to move onwards and upwards over time. Collected and

:07:12. > :07:15.members in the other place had been clear in their support for

:07:16. > :07:19.delivering this commitment. They recognise the importance of starter

:07:20. > :07:21.homes for the long-term health of their communities and are receiving

:07:22. > :07:26.enquiries from interested constituents asking is to get on

:07:27. > :07:29.with delivering them. As the honourable member for North Cornwall

:07:30. > :07:33.said in the other place, we in this country have a right to own our own

:07:34. > :07:37.home and this government delivering that through this bill. I am also in

:07:38. > :07:43.agreement with the member for South Rebel when she said we need to get

:07:44. > :07:46.more houses built and quickly. Developers and builders want

:07:47. > :07:50.certainty and speed. We will give them certainty through the

:07:51. > :07:56.straightforward national set starter homes requirement. We remain

:07:57. > :07:59.committed to delivering shared ownership and other forms of

:08:00. > :08:03.affordable homeownership products to help those who aspire to

:08:04. > :08:08.homeownership but cannot afford the discounted purchase, they form part

:08:09. > :08:13.of a diverse and thriving housing market. Our prospectus invite

:08:14. > :08:21.Housing associations and other providers to bid for ?4.1 billion

:08:22. > :08:25.worth of funding to deliver 135,000 shared home ownership homes and 200

:08:26. > :08:31.million to deliver 10,000 rent to buy homes. Local authorities will

:08:32. > :08:35.also still be able to deliver these products alongside the starter home

:08:36. > :08:41.requirement. It where it would be viable. We estimate that 50 to

:08:42. > :08:44.70,000 affordable homes can still come forward alongside our starter

:08:45. > :08:51.home requirement during this Parliament. This bill is focusing on

:08:52. > :08:55.starter homes to ensure the scale of delivery that we need. We strongly

:08:56. > :09:00.believe that a nationally set requirement. The homes is essential

:09:01. > :09:04.to meet our manifesto commitment and we are consulting on the details for

:09:05. > :09:08.its operation. The requirements will be put in place through affirmative

:09:09. > :09:13.regulations so that Parliament will have a future opportunity to

:09:14. > :09:17.scrutinise the details. We intend to deliver our manifesto commitment and

:09:18. > :09:21.I must therefore invite the house not to insist on amendments ten B.

:09:22. > :09:25.That amendment would fundamentally change the government manifesto

:09:26. > :09:29.intention as proposed in the bill and it is therefore our view that

:09:30. > :09:35.the Salisbury Convention is engaged. We have a clear manifesto mandate

:09:36. > :09:40.deliver the policy and I invite the house to support motion a and reject

:09:41. > :09:45.motion a one if it is moved. I beg to move. The question is that motion

:09:46. > :09:54.a be agreed to. Amendment a one, Lord Kerslake. I beg to move

:09:55. > :10:00.amendment a one as on amendments to motion a. Leave out from house to

:10:01. > :10:05.end and insert do insist on its amendments ten B as an amendment to

:10:06. > :10:10.amendments ten hey. , first declare my interest as chair of the body and

:10:11. > :10:19.president of the local government Association. I stand before you as a

:10:20. > :10:23.reluctant amend. As the bill has moved forward towards its final

:10:24. > :10:30.stages, I have been very open to conversation and compromise. This

:10:31. > :10:34.has been possible on a wide range of difficult issues and indeed was

:10:35. > :10:38.close to being achieved on the second amendment that I will be

:10:39. > :10:44.moving later today. However on this part of the bill, housing, there

:10:45. > :10:49.remain to vitally important issues where I feel strongly that the

:10:50. > :10:55.debate is to continue. The first of these concerns and the of amendment

:10:56. > :11:04.a one is the so-called starter homes requirement. Under this, local

:11:05. > :11:07.authorities will not be able to give approval to individual planning

:11:08. > :11:10.applications unless they have included the specified number of

:11:11. > :11:19.starter homes. This figure is currently set to be 20% or one in

:11:20. > :11:23.five of the houses approved. The issues with this have been

:11:24. > :11:31.previously rehearsed. There are three major concerns. Firstly, it

:11:32. > :11:35.imposes a single top down requirement regardless of local

:11:36. > :11:44.circumstances. Secondly, it does so with a product that is still in

:11:45. > :11:49.design. It is not tried and tested. Thirdly, the percentage proposed

:11:50. > :11:55.will squeeze out other kinds of affordable housing. They are

:11:56. > :11:59.desperately needed. My amendment is not intended to be or is it a

:12:00. > :12:05.wrecking amendments to the manifesto. It seeks only to give

:12:06. > :12:13.greater local flexibility where they need can be demonstrated and allow

:12:14. > :12:15.other types of all the low cost home ownership products to be counted

:12:16. > :12:21.within the starter homes requirement. It will be for

:12:22. > :12:31.individual local authorities to take a view on this within their overall

:12:32. > :12:36.duty to promote starter homes. There need be no delay in getting starter

:12:37. > :12:41.homes going. Indeed, I think local planning decisions would be quicker

:12:42. > :12:46.as a result of this flexibility. The low-cost home ownership delivered

:12:47. > :12:54.could quite reasonably count against the government 's 200,000 target.

:12:55. > :12:58.They can as new low-cost home ownership products be targeted at

:12:59. > :13:03.the same group of people, young first-time buyers, that the

:13:04. > :13:08.government is seeking to help. From the point of view of the buyer, what

:13:09. > :13:16.matters is the opportunity to own their own home. Before we locked

:13:17. > :13:22.ourselves into a rigid, inflexible, national solution that risks setting

:13:23. > :13:28.local authorities up to fail, I would ask ministers and this house

:13:29. > :13:36.even at this very late stage to consider a more local list market

:13:37. > :13:40.responsive approach. I beg to move. The original question was that

:13:41. > :13:46.motion a be agreed to. Since when amendment a one has been moved to

:13:47. > :13:52.leave out from house to the end and insert to insist on its amendment

:13:53. > :13:59.ten B as an amendment to amendments ten a. The question therefore is

:14:00. > :14:02.that amendment A-1 B agreed to. Having sat through most the

:14:03. > :14:04.proceedings on this bill I recognised it as the most

:14:05. > :14:09.controversial one in the last year and I understand the strong feeling

:14:10. > :14:12.that have been aroused but I would like to make three brief reasons why

:14:13. > :14:17.I think at this stage which allow the bill to go forward. The

:14:18. > :14:22.government of order made very substantial concessions on this

:14:23. > :14:26.bill. Principally in response to our dinners put forward by crossbenchers

:14:27. > :14:30.and opposition members in this house, amendments and high-value

:14:31. > :14:34.assets, exceptions to secure tenancies, pay to stay, starter

:14:35. > :14:39.homes, rural exceptions sites where a case has been made that doesn't

:14:40. > :14:43.conflict with the manifesto my noble friend is listened to the arguments

:14:44. > :14:48.and made the necessary changes. No one can accuse the government of

:14:49. > :14:51.inflexible at the. Secondly, we found the vote in another place last

:14:52. > :14:56.night between 80 and a hundred but not one single does dissenting voice

:14:57. > :15:00.on the government benches, roughly two thirds of in which MPs rejected

:15:01. > :15:04.the amendments from this house and I think which think carefully before

:15:05. > :15:09.we seek to second-guess them. Finally, the further amendment A-1

:15:10. > :15:12.seems to me to be against the spirit of the joint committee on

:15:13. > :15:16.conventions, I quote if the Commons have disagreed to the Lords

:15:17. > :15:20.amendments on the grounds of financial privilege it is contrary

:15:21. > :15:24.to Convention for the Lords to send back something which clearly invite

:15:25. > :15:29.the same response and ability you amendment A-1 does is with that. On

:15:30. > :15:35.reflection it does seem to me that this house has performed its

:15:36. > :15:39.traditional role of scrutinising, amending, revising, and asking the

:15:40. > :15:42.other place to think again but we are moving into more controversial

:15:43. > :15:48.territory, challenging the other players. If one looks at the debate

:15:49. > :15:53.yesterday, the minister expressed surprise that your Lordships house

:15:54. > :15:57.have chosen again to oppose one of our most important manifesto

:15:58. > :16:00.commitments. He went on to describe one of the other amendments as a

:16:01. > :16:05.wrecking amendment. I urge the noble Lord who has proposed the moment

:16:06. > :16:08.they want to reflect on changes which have already been made, avoid

:16:09. > :16:14.the risk of pressing this further and also think of the tenants of

:16:15. > :16:23.Peabody who want the statute book to include this. Then they can exercise

:16:24. > :16:26.their right to buy. I would like briefly to give strong support to

:16:27. > :16:34.what my noble friend Lord Young has said. This house has performed an

:16:35. > :16:38.extremely valuable role in a number of bills during this session which

:16:39. > :16:45.comes to an end this week. I think this house has every reason to take

:16:46. > :16:50.quiet pride and satisfaction in Pfizer as the train union Bill, I

:16:51. > :16:55.concentrated my own endeavours but I have sat in on a lot of debates at

:16:56. > :17:00.various stages of this bill, have listened to arguments persuasively

:17:01. > :17:08.put and two answers sympathetically given. There is no doubt the

:17:09. > :17:15.government has moved. Of course it hasn't moved as far as the noble

:17:16. > :17:20.Lord Kerslake would like but in this life we very rarely get everything

:17:21. > :17:25.we like. The noble Lord has had a very distinguished career in the

:17:26. > :17:33.civil service finishing at its pinnacle. He was deservedly ennobled

:17:34. > :17:36.and sent to contribute from his expertise and wisdom to your

:17:37. > :17:42.Lordships house and that he has certainly done, no one would begin

:17:43. > :17:51.to accuse him of not being an active member of your Lordships house. But

:17:52. > :17:58.I would beg and entreat him to recognise as with his distinguished

:17:59. > :18:01.civil service background to must that there are constitutional

:18:02. > :18:08.propriety is in our system and we are in danger of transgressing. We

:18:09. > :18:14.very rightly in this house pass various amendments and last week the

:18:15. > :18:21.government was defeated five times, that may not be unprecedented but

:18:22. > :18:29.there are very few precedents where Fred second time five amendments are

:18:30. > :18:35.passed. On the bill is sent back to the House of Commons. The other

:18:36. > :18:40.place has deliberated and whether we agree with its deliberations and I'm

:18:41. > :18:45.bound to say I don't think this this is the most perfect bill, far from

:18:46. > :18:50.it, but whether we agree with the deliberations or not they have

:18:51. > :18:57.passed by substantial and significant majorities. The

:18:58. > :19:05.amendments which are now before I was and we are seeking or the noble

:19:06. > :19:16.Lord is seeking yet again to press. Of course he has every right to do

:19:17. > :19:24.so but I would suggest the him very gently he doesn't have every

:19:25. > :19:30.constitutional right to do so. The elected house as we say so often in

:19:31. > :19:37.this house is the superior house when it comes to political power. We

:19:38. > :19:43.should all recognise that. I believe most of us in all parts of the house

:19:44. > :19:49.do recognise it. My Lords, I think we have been active on this bill,

:19:50. > :19:56.the noble Lord has certainly been most active on this bill but I would

:19:57. > :20:00.urge him not to press this today because the constitutional

:20:01. > :20:09.repercussions would be great and we don't want, I certainly don't want

:20:10. > :20:13.to tempt any Prime Minister to send another long list of peers to your

:20:14. > :20:19.Lordships house merely to pick up the numbers. That is not what we

:20:20. > :20:23.should be about. We should not be in the business of provocation, we

:20:24. > :20:27.should be in the business of scrutinising and examination, we

:20:28. > :20:34.have fulfilled our tasks in that respect and I believe the time has

:20:35. > :20:39.now come for us to draw stumps and I hope that the noble Lord Kerslake

:20:40. > :20:47.will find that there is some merit in my arguments and that he will

:20:48. > :20:50.feel able to desist. I wasn't going to intervene and I don't know what

:20:51. > :20:57.you noble lord Lord Kerslake will do with this amendments provide wanted

:20:58. > :21:02.to follow up on the wise words of the Lord and just say that this will

:21:03. > :21:05.is not a wise bill and the problem for as for those of us who've been

:21:06. > :21:10.this house many years and have been here many times as I have to say in

:21:11. > :21:16.process terms leaving attired the content in process terms of the

:21:17. > :21:21.worst bill I have seen in 25 years. It is a skeleton bill in which we do

:21:22. > :21:25.not know what the detail will be, they will be carried by a rigid

:21:26. > :21:28.collations but we do not know and the minister does not know I do not

:21:29. > :21:32.blame him at all but the minister does not know what will be in the

:21:33. > :21:37.regulations because they will depend on consultation exercises. We do not

:21:38. > :21:41.know what those consultation exercises will say because they were

:21:42. > :21:47.only started two thirds of the way through the Parliamentary process.

:21:48. > :21:55.The result is that this House has been trying all around this House to

:21:56. > :22:01.scrutinise properly and fairly as we should a Bill in which there is huge

:22:02. > :22:03.gap that we don't know the costs, statistics, land requirements, the

:22:04. > :22:07.burdens on local authorities, we know none of this and yet we are

:22:08. > :22:12.expected to be told that because we have scrutinised it at the Commons

:22:13. > :22:16.in a very truncated debate last night, overturned the amendments,

:22:17. > :22:24.they barely touched that the issues to be discussed. It leaves some of

:22:25. > :22:30.us who do respect the conventions in a very difficult position. This is a

:22:31. > :22:34.half baked, have scrutinised, quarter digestible Bill and we are

:22:35. > :22:38.being asked in the name of constitutional propriety to allow

:22:39. > :22:41.the Commons to have a final say on something frankly that is not fit

:22:42. > :22:44.for purpose and should not have been introduced this year, should have

:22:45. > :22:48.been deferred until next year until all the detail was in place so we

:22:49. > :22:53.could scrutinise and amend the Bill is should be done by this House, and

:22:54. > :22:57.then and in that context we would respect the will of the Commons. But

:22:58. > :23:03.the Commons is sending through on a conveyor belt and a half baked build

:23:04. > :23:09.that they have scrutinised. It puts many of us who really value the role

:23:10. > :23:15.of this House in a very difficult position and I'm sure I speak for

:23:16. > :23:18.many people in this House in including on the Commons benches who

:23:19. > :23:21.share my concern is that the Lords is in a difficult position to

:23:22. > :23:29.scrutinise the build is not fit for purpose. I endorse her remarks about

:23:30. > :23:35.the issues raised and perfectly properly raised by the noble lord.

:23:36. > :23:42.But one might have thought from the Minister's remarks that the

:23:43. > :23:47.amendment was going to utterly sabotage the Government proposals

:23:48. > :23:51.for starter homes. There is no evidence to support that is a

:23:52. > :23:54.potential outcome if his amendment were approved. It compliments, it

:23:55. > :24:02.doesn't replace the principle that the Government seeks to advance. He

:24:03. > :24:10.seemed to be here invited to adopt the Government position on starter

:24:11. > :24:12.homes, unless we're going to get some starter appears. We have

:24:13. > :24:17.already had a few of those in the last few years and it is not really

:24:18. > :24:24.a matter that ought to wait too heavy with us. All of us round the

:24:25. > :24:29.House in government -- endorse the Government ideas to promote

:24:30. > :24:32.ownership. Not necessarily exclude the younger people. This is a week

:24:33. > :24:39.after all in which we are now talking about mortgages for people

:24:40. > :24:43.up to 85 years of age. There are people who have been on the housing

:24:44. > :24:50.ladder as it worked for decades. Above the age of 40 four which this

:24:51. > :24:57.Bill will do very little indeed. A more relaxed approach, than the kind

:24:58. > :25:01.is being advocated would be of assistance to them without damaging

:25:02. > :25:08.the prospects of those 40 and under performed as part of the Bill seeks

:25:09. > :25:15.to provide some hope and indeed some action. With that I agree. I do

:25:16. > :25:19.sympathise with the noble Lords amendment and I am glad that the

:25:20. > :25:23.Government does not appear to be willing to make any move towards

:25:24. > :25:28.something which would make a modest difference to the provision of

:25:29. > :25:32.housing for more people in a rather different way, but not one in which

:25:33. > :25:35.in my judgment would damage the Government's intentions and would

:25:36. > :25:45.not contravene the manifesto commitment. My Lords, may I thank

:25:46. > :25:52.all of those who have spoken so clearly on this group. As I said in

:25:53. > :25:57.my opening speech, and I have made completely clear through the passage

:25:58. > :26:00.of this Bill in this House, a nationally set starter homes

:26:01. > :26:04.requirement is essential to delivering over 200,000 starter

:26:05. > :26:09.homes commitment. The amendment would mean that the requirement for

:26:10. > :26:14.starter homes would become something entirely different, and this is not

:26:15. > :26:19.what we promised to deliver in our manifesto. The Minister for Housing

:26:20. > :26:23.and planning said last night, on the floor of the House in the other

:26:24. > :26:29.place that we need to get on with helping those people to fulfil those

:26:30. > :26:35.teams and get on to home ownership ladder. Some 86% of our population

:26:36. > :26:44.want to be given a chance to do so. I am in complete agreement with him

:26:45. > :26:47.and the noble friend Lord Young Ferrari are treating the point that

:26:48. > :26:51.he said last night that it is beyond astonishing that the upper house

:26:52. > :26:54.should try to amend a measure which has received such a clear message of

:26:55. > :27:00.support from the selected chamber and in respect of which we had an

:27:01. > :27:05.election manifesto mandate to help young people. Elected honourable

:27:06. > :27:10.members have been clear in their overwhelming support for delivering

:27:11. > :27:17.our starter homes commitment. Amendment ten B was rejected as my

:27:18. > :27:23.noble friend Lord Young of Cookham has said with a majority of 83. I

:27:24. > :27:27.think this House has done its duty. It has scrutinised and the

:27:28. > :27:34.Government has revised as far as it possibly can, it is time to stop.

:27:35. > :27:40.Time to recognise and respect the will of the electorate and the

:27:41. > :27:44.primacy of a manifesto mandate. Lady Hollis made a point about

:27:45. > :27:48.legislation being rushed through, Commons and scrutinising it

:27:49. > :27:53.properly. I have to say at this point that I understand from the

:27:54. > :27:57.Commons that timings were agreed, including by the Labour whips. I

:27:58. > :28:03.have already made clear to the House that amendment ten B fundamentally

:28:04. > :28:07.changes the Government manifesto intention proposed in the Bill and

:28:08. > :28:10.that we consider the Salisbury Convention to be engaged. I would

:28:11. > :28:14.like once again to reassure the House that the Government is

:28:15. > :28:18.completely committed to ensuring a range of housing ten years to come

:28:19. > :28:23.forward. These include shared ownership and other affordable home

:28:24. > :28:28.ownership products. But we are legislating for starter homes alone

:28:29. > :28:32.is a new product, designed to address a specific gap in the

:28:33. > :28:37.market. We have a clear manifesto mandate to do that. I would also

:28:38. > :28:41.like to reassure the House of the Government is consulting on setting

:28:42. > :28:45.the percentage requirement. These proposals include exemptions where a

:28:46. > :28:50.starter home requirement will not be expected. I would be happy to meet

:28:51. > :28:54.noble Lords to discuss this further before the resulting regulations are

:28:55. > :28:59.brought back to this House. The noble lord Kerslake made a point

:29:00. > :29:04.that the percentage requirement was set at 20%, that is currently a

:29:05. > :29:08.consultation proposal and is not yet fixed but we are consulting with the

:29:09. > :29:15.sector on this and other aspects of the starter home regulations. He

:29:16. > :29:20.also talked about current proposals being rigid and inflexible. We are

:29:21. > :29:24.consulting on how the starter homes requirement will apply and this

:29:25. > :29:28.includes setting out exceptions on the basis of viability and the types

:29:29. > :29:37.of housing being built, such as housing for older people. Lord

:29:38. > :29:42.Beauchamp suggested this is not a breaking amendment. We promised the

:29:43. > :29:48.electorate we would deliver 200,000 starter homes by 2020. This is our

:29:49. > :29:53.election mandate and this amendment will undermine delivering that. I

:29:54. > :29:56.have listened carefully to the bait -- to the debate and I hope that our

:29:57. > :30:01.commitment for starter homes mean there is no need to divide the House

:30:02. > :30:12.and with these reassurances in mind I invite the noble lord to withdraw

:30:13. > :30:18.his amendment. I am grateful for the contributions to this debate on

:30:19. > :30:21.starter homes. I entirely understand and respect the constitutional

:30:22. > :30:27.issues that are at stake here. This House is clearly a revising and

:30:28. > :30:31.improving house and ultimately the other place will prevail. That is

:30:32. > :30:38.the Democratic propriety and as it should be. I also recognise the

:30:39. > :30:45.issues around home the conventions work. I would say in relation to the

:30:46. > :30:50.2006 report that Lord Young referred to, this was of course not taken up

:30:51. > :30:54.within the companion and my amendment fits within the rules I

:30:55. > :31:00.set out in that companion. I absolutely respect the views were

:31:01. > :31:04.put forward by the noble lord, Lord Cormack, he and I worked very

:31:05. > :31:08.productively I think on the Trade Union Bill and so very substantial

:31:09. > :31:17.improvements. The challenge you face on an issue such as this is making a

:31:18. > :31:22.judgment about how it is proposed, an impact and how it will deliver

:31:23. > :31:25.what we desperately need in this country, more homes, or whether it

:31:26. > :31:29.will deliver what the Government seeks to achieve, 200,000 starter

:31:30. > :31:34.homes. I personally have severe doubts whether it will deliver what

:31:35. > :31:39.is intended and I believe it is notwithstanding what the minister

:31:40. > :31:44.has said. It is in many ways eight rigid proposition. I also recognise

:31:45. > :31:46.that it is a manifesto commitment and that ministers have expressed

:31:47. > :31:54.their concern the amendment will undermine. The assurances around the

:31:55. > :31:59.consultation and the flexibility that will be built into that, I am

:32:00. > :32:09.aware of this, and I will reluctantly withdraw my amendment.

:32:10. > :32:14.The amendment is by leave withdrawn. The question is that motion a BA

:32:15. > :32:24.agreed to. As many of those, say content. The contents have it. I beg

:32:25. > :32:28.to move motion be that the cells do not insist on the amendment to which

:32:29. > :32:33.the Commons have disagreed with their reasons. We now turn to

:32:34. > :32:39.another manifesto commitment which is high-value, vacant local

:32:40. > :32:44.authority housing. Let me start by reminding the lordships house what

:32:45. > :32:47.the manifesto said. We will fund the replacement of properties sold under

:32:48. > :32:51.the extended right to abide by requiring local authorities to

:32:52. > :32:54.manage their housing assets more efficiently with the most expensive

:32:55. > :33:01.properties sold off and replaced as they fall vacant. The Bill delivers

:33:02. > :33:05.a manifesto commitment. It will increase housing supply through the

:33:06. > :33:08.delivery of affordable homes and extend homeownership by funding the

:33:09. > :33:13.discounts for the ground-breaking voluntary right to buy agreement.

:33:14. > :33:18.But let me be clear, the manifesto says that the homes sold will be

:33:19. > :33:22.replaced with new homes. It does not say that there will be like for like

:33:23. > :33:27.replacements. We want to make sure that the new homes serve the needs

:33:28. > :33:32.of communities today. We do not see a reason to commit ourselves to be

:33:33. > :33:36.producing exactly the same type of home when communities have changed

:33:37. > :33:40.and the need for housing may be different. We want to retain

:33:41. > :33:43.flexibility in the legislation is that the Government working with

:33:44. > :33:48.local places can facilitate the development of the type of homes

:33:49. > :33:52.that we need today. Noble lord 's have used their scrutiny role to

:33:53. > :33:57.great effect. The House has helped to improve the Bill in many ways. By

:33:58. > :34:01.proposing that the Bill is amended in a way that would prevent us from

:34:02. > :34:06.delivering a manifesto contentment is not something that we can accept.

:34:07. > :34:11.As a Minister for Housing and planning explained to the Commons

:34:12. > :34:15.yesterday, the Government could not accept Lords amendment 47 B and 47 C

:34:16. > :34:19.because they would significantly reduce the funding available for the

:34:20. > :34:22.voluntary right to buy. The other place has been clear that it does

:34:23. > :34:29.not agree with the fundamental changes that have been proposed to

:34:30. > :34:35.the agreement process. Twice they have emphatically rejected

:34:36. > :34:44.amendments from your lordship, by 288 votes- 272 last Tuesday and then

:34:45. > :34:48.yesterday 291-203. This does show their strength of feeling. In

:34:49. > :34:52.addition to this the House of Commons have a second time offered a

:34:53. > :34:58.financial privilege reason for rejecting the amendment on this

:34:59. > :35:02.issue. I respect and would defend the right of this House to propose

:35:03. > :35:07.an amendment in Luke the Commons who have rejected our original amendment

:35:08. > :35:11.on grounds of financial privilege. I should remind the Lords that the

:35:12. > :35:16.joint Committee on conventions reported in 2006 at the Commons

:35:17. > :35:20.office agreed to Lords amendments on the grounds of financial privilege,

:35:21. > :35:23.it is contrary to convention by the Lords to ??Transmit amendments in

:35:24. > :35:32.Luke which clearly invite the same response. We have already sent back

:35:33. > :35:36.one set of amendments which invited the same response of financial

:35:37. > :35:43.privilege. 47 B and 47 C which we sent to the Commons last Wednesday.

:35:44. > :35:50.Motion be won in the name of Lord cause before the House today invites

:35:51. > :35:55.the House to amendment 47 E in lieu. At first glance that amendment once

:35:56. > :35:57.again has a major implications for how voluntary right to buy

:35:58. > :36:02.commitment will be funded and therefore could invite the same

:36:03. > :36:05.response. I hope the House will be mindful that convention as we debate

:36:06. > :36:11.and decide on the motions before us today. The Bill has always enabled

:36:12. > :36:15.the Secretary of State to enter agreements with local authorities.

:36:16. > :36:19.We have made amendments was clarify our intentions around replacements

:36:20. > :36:23.and these were insured that where a local authority has entered into

:36:24. > :36:27.agreement, at least two new affordable homes will be provided

:36:28. > :36:31.for each home expected to be sold in London and a similar approach will

:36:32. > :36:35.now work outside of London also, with local authorities that choose

:36:36. > :36:38.to enter an agreement required to provide at least one new affordable

:36:39. > :36:46.homes for each one expected to be sold. Let me be clear that the term

:36:47. > :36:50.affordable includes a range of different types of housing, meaning

:36:51. > :36:53.holds that will be made available for people whose needs are not

:36:54. > :37:00.adequately served by the commercial housing market, from new homes for

:37:01. > :37:04.submarket rent, to homeownership products such as shared ownership

:37:05. > :37:08.and starter homes. Receipts will be used to support the delivery of our

:37:09. > :37:13.manifesto commitment to support the delivery of rate to buy discounts to

:37:14. > :37:17.housing association tenants and the delivery of additional homes. We

:37:18. > :37:21.will of course compensate local authorities for the transaction

:37:22. > :37:25.costs and the debt associated with the housing. After that, we have

:37:26. > :37:29.been clear receipts will be used to fund both right to buy discounts for

:37:30. > :37:33.housing association debt to the back tenet and the delivery of new

:37:34. > :37:39.affordable housing. We are not intending to use them for any other

:37:40. > :37:44.purpose. By Boris, I beg to move. This is that Mushin BB agreed to, MM

:37:45. > :37:53.and to be one, Lord Kerslake. I beg to move amendment be one to an

:37:54. > :38:02.amendment to Mushin be and insert and to promote amendment 47 E in

:38:03. > :38:08.lieu. Molloy 's, this amendment seeks to do two things. Firstly, it

:38:09. > :38:13.seeks to boot beyond doubt that sufficient funding will be available

:38:14. > :38:17.to local authorities to deliver at least one new affordable home for

:38:18. > :38:24.each higher value property sold. In London, this would be at least 241.

:38:25. > :38:29.Secondly, it gives a local authority the opportunity, where it can

:38:30. > :38:34.demonstrate a need, for social rented housing in the area to make

:38:35. > :38:41.the case to the Secretary of State to consider. My Lords, there are a

:38:42. > :38:47.few parts of this bill that have caused such concern at local level

:38:48. > :38:51.and, indeed, where the impacts are so serious. Even today, I have

:38:52. > :38:59.received an open letter, tenants setting out their serious concerns.

:39:00. > :39:03.Even at this very late stage, we still do not have the vital detail

:39:04. > :39:11.needed to properly assess the impact. This is a point made very

:39:12. > :39:19.strongly in the recent Public Accounts Committee report. Shelter

:39:20. > :39:32.have calculated that, to deliver the estimated ?4.5 billion receipts

:39:33. > :39:35.identified by the Government, some 23,500 vacant council properties

:39:36. > :39:40.would need to be sold. This equates to nearly one third of all stock

:39:41. > :39:46.that will become vacant, nearly one third of all such stock. It follows

:39:47. > :39:53.from this that it is absolutely vital to be clear on the face of the

:39:54. > :39:57.bill how replacement homes sold will work in practice. How we will

:39:58. > :40:03.deliver this replacement in practice. A huge amount depends on

:40:04. > :40:07.getting this right. My Lords, under clause 72, the Secretary of State

:40:08. > :40:13.may enter into an agreement with a local authority to reduce the amount

:40:14. > :40:17.it has to be under the higher value sales levy. The bill now makes clear

:40:18. > :40:24.that, where such an agreement is entered into, the manifesto

:40:25. > :40:30.commitment of at least 141 replacement must be delivered. What

:40:31. > :40:36.is glaringly absent from the bill, however, at present, is that the

:40:37. > :40:42.local authority will be able to retain sufficient of the levy to pay

:40:43. > :40:49.for this replacement. So we have the ends but not the means within the

:40:50. > :40:56.bill. My first section in the amendment seeks to put this point

:40:57. > :41:02.right. Seeks to a line ends with means. It has been argued previously

:41:03. > :41:05.this is unnecessary. Ministers have given a commitment. If that is the

:41:06. > :41:11.case, it ought not to be controversial. My concern about the

:41:12. > :41:16.Minister's argument that was put in the other place was that it

:41:17. > :41:21.precisely raises the issue of whether the funding will be

:41:22. > :41:24.adequate, because it suggests that, to agree with this and name it, or

:41:25. > :41:28.something close to it, with Coppermine is the delivery of the

:41:29. > :41:32.right to buy policy. My Lords, we need to be clear one way or the

:41:33. > :41:39.other whether the funds will be there to deliver the policy that is

:41:40. > :41:45.within the bill. Given this huge uncertainty about how the sums will

:41:46. > :41:49.actually add up, it seems to me a very reasonable precaution for this

:41:50. > :41:53.house to take to seek to get clarity on the face of the bill that the

:41:54. > :41:57.funding will be there. What else would be the purpose of reaching an

:41:58. > :42:05.agreement if it doesn't have the underpinning funding to support it?

:42:06. > :42:10.The second part of my amendment significantly revised from the

:42:11. > :42:16.previous form we had a debate on, simply seeks to give the opportunity

:42:17. > :42:22.to a local authority to make its case on grounds of need to replace a

:42:23. > :42:28.social rented home with another social rented home. It does not

:42:29. > :42:32.require a local authority to make a case, if it decides that it already

:42:33. > :42:40.has sufficient social rented housing. If it wishes to go for a

:42:41. > :42:45.different mix of affordable housing, it can do so. Nothing in my

:42:46. > :42:51.amendment prevents the flexibility to which the Minister referred. It

:42:52. > :42:55.simply provides an opportunity. Equally, it does not require the

:42:56. > :43:01.Secretary of State to agree with those representations. It only asks

:43:02. > :43:08.that the Secretary of State consider the case on its merits. It therefore

:43:09. > :43:15.fits completely with the Government's intention to do this

:43:16. > :43:19.book local deals. The discretion is therefore the local authority to

:43:20. > :43:23.make its case -- bespoke. The power is therefore the Secretary of State

:43:24. > :43:27.to say no if he is not persuaded by the case. It is hard to see how you

:43:28. > :43:33.could be more flexible and responsive than that. My Lords, I

:43:34. > :43:36.understand the reluctance that some of this house will have about

:43:37. > :43:42.pressing this issue. I have bought long and hard about these issues. I

:43:43. > :43:47.would not put this forward unless I thought it was of such vital

:43:48. > :43:55.importance. Unless we get this replacement policy right now,

:43:56. > :43:58.funding and discretion, we will inevitably see fewer genuinely

:43:59. > :44:04.affordable homes available. The consequences of that would be rising

:44:05. > :44:11.numbers of low-income families living in temporary accommodation.

:44:12. > :44:16.There are now some 54,000 homeless families with children currently

:44:17. > :44:23.living in temporary accommodation. That number is rising. Unless we get

:44:24. > :44:29.this right, it will carry on rising. We will have missed a major, major

:44:30. > :44:34.opportunity. I asked the House to support this amendment and, my

:44:35. > :44:44.Lords, I beg to move. The original question was that motion B B agreed

:44:45. > :44:50.to. It has been moved to insert amendment 47 E in lieu. The question

:44:51. > :44:54.is that amendment B1 B agreed to. Before the noble lord sits down,

:44:55. > :45:02.perhaps I can ask in having sat down, could he explain to the House,

:45:03. > :45:10.given that his previous amendment was subject to a claim by the other

:45:11. > :45:14.place, that it was financially privileged, why this amendment does

:45:15. > :45:17.not actually meet the same obstacle and why, therefore, it would be

:45:18. > :45:23.inappropriate for him to press the matter? My Lords, as I indicated in

:45:24. > :45:29.my speech, I have taken on port the comments that were made in the

:45:30. > :45:32.previous debate and amended my amendment significantly. In

:45:33. > :45:38.particular, this is the crucial point, it doesn't seek to impose a

:45:39. > :45:42.requirement on the Secretary of State as regards social rented

:45:43. > :45:47.housing. It is clear, beyond doubt, and perhaps the previous amendment

:45:48. > :45:49.was not as clear as that, this is the matter the Secretary of State is

:45:50. > :45:54.asked to consider but doesn't necessarily have to agree. It is a

:45:55. > :45:57.choice for the Secretary of State and, as such, would not have

:45:58. > :46:06.financial publications. The second point I would make is the first leg

:46:07. > :46:15.of my amendment simply says that if you reach an amendment it has to be

:46:16. > :46:19.funded. -- an agreement. I would like to speak in support of the

:46:20. > :46:25.noble lord Lord Keswick's amendment. I am the vice president of a local

:46:26. > :46:28.Government Association. I want to support two principles. First the

:46:29. > :46:31.council should be able to keep sufficient funds to replace each

:46:32. > :46:37.hole may have to sell and secondly, negotiations between local

:46:38. > :46:40.Government and central Government must allow councils to take into

:46:41. > :46:45.account the housing needs in their area -- home. If there is demand for

:46:46. > :46:50.social homes for rent, the council should be enabled by the Government

:46:51. > :46:55.to replace those higher value homes sold with another home for rent.

:46:56. > :47:02.This is what Lord Leslie's amendment seeks to do and it seems to me, my

:47:03. > :47:06.Lords, to be entirely reasonable. However, indeed the Minister Elliott

:47:07. > :47:11.reminded us what was said in the other place, where the Minister

:47:12. > :47:18.yesterday said these proposals would significantly reduce the funding

:47:19. > :47:23.available for the voluntary right to buy. That statement lies in column

:47:24. > :47:29.461 in Hansard from the other place last night. This suggests the reason

:47:30. > :47:33.the Government is refusing to accept, which on the face of it is a

:47:34. > :47:39.very reasonable amendment, the reason is an admission that the

:47:40. > :47:42.priority for the money released by the forced sale of higher value

:47:43. > :47:48.council homes is not replacement council homes for rent. This

:47:49. > :47:54.amendment remains vitally important because of that. We now have

:47:55. > :47:58.one-for-one replacement on the face of the bill, although not like for

:47:59. > :48:05.like. And diagnose the Government's limited movement on a form. -- I

:48:06. > :48:10.acknowledge. The certainty of their funding will be available for that

:48:11. > :48:16.one-for-one replacement is now needed, as the noble Lord has

:48:17. > :48:19.pointed out. I would like to ask the Minister whether she would be able

:48:20. > :48:26.to make a clear statement that the funding will indeed be available for

:48:27. > :48:32.the replacement home? And that where that replacement home is a social

:48:33. > :48:37.home for rent, it will be funded from the sum realised by the sale of

:48:38. > :48:43.a higher value council home before the residue goes to the Government

:48:44. > :48:51.to fund the voluntary right to buy? My Lords, when we last debated this

:48:52. > :48:57.matter a few days ago, Lord Porter quoted the Conservative Party

:48:58. > :49:02.manifesto and the press release which accompanied that manifesto.

:49:03. > :49:10.That press release said that sold council homes would be replaced in

:49:11. > :49:15.the same area with normal, affordable housing. I asked the

:49:16. > :49:20.Minister in that debate if a definition could be supplied of what

:49:21. > :49:27.a normal and affordable home was. The press release actually went on,

:49:28. > :49:30.after funding, replacement affordable housing on a one-for-one

:49:31. > :49:36.basis, the surplus proceeds will be used to fund the extension of right

:49:37. > :49:41.to buy. In other words, a commitment by the Conservative Party in the

:49:42. > :49:51.press release, accompanying its manifesto, that a replacement home

:49:52. > :49:58.would come first. There is a clear implication in the wording of that

:49:59. > :50:02.statement, after funding replacement affordable housing, that it is

:50:03. > :50:08.actually of the same type. That is what a lot of people believed to be

:50:09. > :50:14.the case and it becomes clearer that this is not the Government's

:50:15. > :50:18.intention. That instead, it is a voluntary right to buy that has to

:50:19. > :50:23.be funded first and that the available resource to supply a

:50:24. > :50:29.replacement council home will, in practice, be extremely limited. My

:50:30. > :50:35.Lords, Lord Kerslake give one or two figures. The rising number of

:50:36. > :50:38.homelessness. A large number of people now living in temporary

:50:39. > :50:42.accommodation, a figure that seems to be rising. We have more than 1

:50:43. > :50:53.million people on council waiting lists. It is anticipated that, under

:50:54. > :51:00.the existing right to buy, by 2020 66,000 council homes are going to be

:51:01. > :51:04.sold to tenants. The fact the Government has introduced a 1% rent

:51:05. > :51:09.reduction each year for the next four years in the rent of social

:51:10. > :51:17.housing will reduce the number of replacements that can be built.

:51:18. > :51:23.Because the revenue stream matters in pain the bills. Finally, the

:51:24. > :51:29.forced sale of higher value council homes is going to reduce the number

:51:30. > :51:35.of social rented homes available and thus this amendment is accepted. In

:51:36. > :51:38.my view, what Lord Kerslake has now proposed is an entirely reasonable

:51:39. > :51:48.proposal. I hope the Minister will feel able

:51:49. > :51:54.to accept this amendment and they need that it should be on the face

:51:55. > :51:59.of the Bill, because in so doing the Government would remove the doubt

:52:00. > :52:07.that is all too transparent around this debate. Can I respond to

:52:08. > :52:12.lordship Lee's comment and thank him for mentioning me because there is a

:52:13. > :52:16.competition who will get in next and because you put my name in the frame

:52:17. > :52:22.my noble friend had given way to me, so thank you. I respectfully ask the

:52:23. > :52:28.word Kerslake to withdraw his amendment. He knows yesterday

:52:29. > :52:34.refused to work on it because she has already given us the assurance

:52:35. > :52:38.that Noble Lord is required that we will be able to replace those

:52:39. > :52:43.council homes sold and the Prime Minister expects us to do that if we

:52:44. > :52:48.need to do that in our own areas. I should say again I have spoken about

:52:49. > :52:51.a register of interests. One of those being the chairman of the

:52:52. > :52:54.local government Association although I'm sure a few members on

:52:55. > :52:58.the opposite benches will pull B be quite smiley at the moment because

:52:59. > :53:00.it looks like I won't be saying that too many times in the future. The

:53:01. > :53:10.dog sex will be passing happy days. -- chase it looks like

:53:11. > :53:15.we will be passing. He is suggesting we will take on board, it will

:53:16. > :53:19.damage the council ability to replace their housing stock. It

:53:20. > :53:23.gives, at the moment, with the manifesto commitment, the Secretary

:53:24. > :53:29.of State will be compelled to allow us to do something and under the

:53:30. > :53:34.amendment he will be invited to allow us to do something so that

:53:35. > :53:37.will weaken our position. I have complete and utter respect for the

:53:38. > :53:42.current Secretary of State but who knows what future Secretary of State

:53:43. > :53:46.may do. Even worse from a council by selective, when a Secretary of State

:53:47. > :53:49.works out what type of units will be replaced and we did on bodies, one

:53:50. > :53:54.of those things will be value for money. We all know that when council

:53:55. > :53:59.builds a house it can do it for less real money then and our SL can build

:54:00. > :54:03.a house. But we also know when the Treasury do the thing they do the

:54:04. > :54:06.smoke and mirrors around public sector borrowing requirements, all

:54:07. > :54:11.of a sudden a council house becomes more expensive. One of the adverb

:54:12. > :54:13.unintended consequences of this amendment if it gets through would

:54:14. > :54:21.allow the future Secretary of State to a resource from a local council

:54:22. > :54:26.and give it to an RSL. I would hope that every single elected member on

:54:27. > :54:30.the opposite side would resist this. I would like to thank the Noble Lord

:54:31. > :54:35.Kerslake with the gracious way in which he withdrew the previous

:54:36. > :54:44.amendment. You must have been a formidable... Is a formidable Sir

:54:45. > :54:49.Humphrey, he would know when the time came to say yes, Minister. I

:54:50. > :54:59.would say to him that he has moved this amendment with quiet passion

:55:00. > :55:09.and with the most persuasive speech. But we have reached that stage where

:55:10. > :55:14.we really should not be guessing the elected house and put all his wisdom

:55:15. > :55:21.and experience I hope that he will once again recognise that. I also

:55:22. > :55:24.hope that my noble friend, the minister, who has really done the

:55:25. > :55:31.equivalent of running several marathons over the last few weeks,

:55:32. > :55:36.and she deserves the thanks for her unflappable demeanour, but I hope

:55:37. > :55:41.that she will recognise that there is worry that she has shared in all

:55:42. > :55:46.parts of the House about what I would call the Henry VIII aspects of

:55:47. > :55:52.this Bill. They were referred to in a very short but persuasive

:55:53. > :55:57.contribution by the noble Baroness Hollis. What I would like to think

:55:58. > :56:02.is that my noble friend could gather a few people around her including

:56:03. > :56:06.the Noble Lord Kerslake and others to discuss the contents of some of

:56:07. > :56:12.the regulations that will undoubtedly need to be tabled and

:56:13. > :56:16.will be suspect -- subject to the resolution. If people like Lord

:56:17. > :56:22.Kerslake can have an input that would only be helpful and could only

:56:23. > :56:30.be for the benefit of all of us. But, my lords, I know that my noble

:56:31. > :56:38.friend is not in the position, as was slightly mischievously suggested

:56:39. > :56:41.to accept this amendment tonight, of course she isn't. This amendment

:56:42. > :56:48.either goes back to the Commons yet again or we accept that

:56:49. > :56:53.constitutionally we don't really have an authority to do it. All

:56:54. > :56:59.these things we would like to get better. There are things we would

:57:00. > :57:06.like to test the ultimate. My car, I am told, could go at 120 mph, but

:57:07. > :57:11.would they do that? I would not only be a criminal but an idiot to

:57:12. > :57:15.attempt. I believe we have taken this as far as we can in your

:57:16. > :57:20.lordship's house. It is good that the arguments are being rehearsed

:57:21. > :57:24.again. It would be good if there was a proper input from the Noble Lord

:57:25. > :57:30.Kerslake and others when they regulations come to be devised, but

:57:31. > :57:40.enough is enough, my lords, and I hope we will not divide on this. I

:57:41. > :57:42.perhaps can I declare an interest as leader of local authority and

:57:43. > :57:47.someone who has been sitting quite a number of hours on the proceedings

:57:48. > :57:53.of this Bill. Anyone who has read Hanzard will know that my enthusiasm

:57:54. > :58:00.for aspects of it was perhaps a little way short of ecstasy. But it

:58:01. > :58:02.does also contain some fundamental and very important thing is that

:58:03. > :58:06.this government promised in its manifesto in which people in this

:58:07. > :58:14.country want like starter homes and right to buy and like many other

:58:15. > :58:19.things. But this House needs to do is find a balance to take part in a

:58:20. > :58:23.dialogue, Parliamentary dialogue, with the other House and then reach

:58:24. > :58:28.an accommodation. In that accommodation I do speak as someone

:58:29. > :58:34.who was elected albeit as leader of a local authority, there is no doubt

:58:35. > :58:38.that the authority of election is something which is substantial and

:58:39. > :58:46.different. And it does lie in the authority of the other chamber and

:58:47. > :58:51.it doesn't lie in our chamber. The House of Commons in the course of

:58:52. > :58:55.the last century has not succeeded as a parliamentary chamber capable

:58:56. > :58:59.of legislating as well as it should. That is a problem for the other

:59:00. > :59:04.place and a problem with the other place alone can resolve. It is

:59:05. > :59:07.because it has failed in that respect that your lordship's house

:59:08. > :59:17.of great distinction has developed this role is an advising and

:59:18. > :59:19.revising chamber of which I think is shown to exemplary quality and

:59:20. > :59:27.patients in the course of this legislation. But I do ask the Noble

:59:28. > :59:34.Lord Kerslake not to press this matter further. This House cannot

:59:35. > :59:41.construe, is not constitutional and is not capable of having the view

:59:42. > :59:45.that the other place takes of its own financial privilege. That is a

:59:46. > :59:50.matter entirely by the House of Commons. It is not for us to debate

:59:51. > :59:55.whether they won't think this, we can get away with something else,

:59:56. > :59:59.this is a matter of the other place. And twice the other place on this

:00:00. > :00:10.has said to this chamber that the Commons disagrees because of the

:00:11. > :00:16.asserting financial privilege. Lord Kerslake is perfectly within his

:00:17. > :00:19.rights and no one on this side of the Government should say that a

:00:20. > :00:26.member of your lordship's house is not able to propose an amendment in

:00:27. > :00:29.lieu on the other place has courted and asserted its privilege. But

:00:30. > :00:34.there does come a point when you have to say, batting back against

:00:35. > :00:41.the will of the elected house on that is not a full course to follow

:00:42. > :00:48.either as a collective, is a house or as an individual. I would give

:00:49. > :00:53.some gentle advice, if I were seeking to persuade and get

:00:54. > :00:56.admission to the Council of the Government, I wouldn't necessarily

:00:57. > :01:01.keep shoving back the same thing time and time again. There are

:01:02. > :01:10.perhaps better ways to proceed. So, I do beg the Noble Lord and would

:01:11. > :01:14.appreciate it as a leader of local authority some of the points that he

:01:15. > :01:17.has made and I obviously wish in some respects that the Government

:01:18. > :01:22.had been able to listen on other things but we are where we are. It

:01:23. > :01:25.is a much improved Bill. That has been acknowledged in the other place

:01:26. > :01:30.by ministers who have welcomed amendments that have been made and I

:01:31. > :01:37.really think that now the time has come to accept the will of the

:01:38. > :01:45.elected house on this question. The Noble Lord, Lord Kerslake, has had a

:01:46. > :01:54.good run from the Today studio before he even became to this House

:01:55. > :02:00.and it is now time for him to head with the greatest of respect to the

:02:01. > :02:05.pavilion on this matter. I won't detain the House very long at all

:02:06. > :02:13.but it is only a passing comment by Lord Hunt that caused me to race to

:02:14. > :02:17.my feet to ask the Minister a basic questions about the issue of

:02:18. > :02:21.financial privilege. The Minister has made very clear to your

:02:22. > :02:28.lordship's house and even clearer today that when an affordable how

:02:29. > :02:33.are value home is sold off, a local authority will be able to, should

:02:34. > :02:39.they negotiate with the Secretary of State, to replace it with another

:02:40. > :02:46.property, a 1-1 replacement, 2-1 in London. The Minister made it very

:02:47. > :02:49.clear today that when that takes place, the transaction costs and

:02:50. > :02:55.cost of building the new property will be made available from the sale

:02:56. > :02:58.figures for the sale of the higher value affordable home. I hope the

:02:59. > :03:06.Minister will confirm that that is very definitely the case and indeed

:03:07. > :03:11.it covers the first part of the Noble Lord, Lord Kerslake's

:03:12. > :03:17.amendment. If the Minister has agreed that the funding for a new

:03:18. > :03:22.property to replace, not like-for-like, but 1-1, will be

:03:23. > :03:29.funded, I am at a loss to understand why the discussion over what the

:03:30. > :03:33.tenure of that property will be, makes any difference to the amount

:03:34. > :03:37.of money that will then be left available to pay for the other

:03:38. > :03:45.aspects of government policy. In the other place, the Minister Mr Brandon

:03:46. > :03:48.Lewis said of these proposals that they would significantly reduce the

:03:49. > :03:54.funding available with the voluntary right to buy, again preventing this

:03:55. > :04:01.government from fulfilling their manifesto commitment. Let me be very

:04:02. > :04:05.clear, this is a wrecking amendment. The Minister has repeated those very

:04:06. > :04:08.words today, but I am at a total loss to understand where the loss of

:04:09. > :04:14.money comes from, because she has acknowledged that the building of a

:04:15. > :04:18.new property will be funded. What the tenure is doesn't alter the

:04:19. > :04:24.building costs, so I do hope the Minister can give a very clear text

:04:25. > :04:30.nation. The statement made in the other place and repeated by her

:04:31. > :04:35.today. -- clear explanation. I don't wish to address any issues of policy

:04:36. > :04:43.with respect to the Bill with the merits or otherwise of the proposals

:04:44. > :04:47.either contained in the Bill. I am not elected like my noble friend

:04:48. > :04:55.Lord true and I am not standing for election either, so perhaps my words

:04:56. > :05:01.to Lord Kerslake would be a little less diplomatic than others have

:05:02. > :05:07.put. I don't know how much time members of this has spent talking to

:05:08. > :05:11.people in the other place, but we go about the work and I love this House

:05:12. > :05:16.and I think it does a fantastic job, but there is increasing irritation

:05:17. > :05:19.at the other end of the corridor about the activities of this House

:05:20. > :05:26.and we should take account of that. There are proposals to reduce our

:05:27. > :05:31.powers to which I am very strongly opposed. I believe there are major

:05:32. > :05:35.issues concerning the use of secondary legislation and the

:05:36. > :05:42.provision of Henry VIII clauses. No doubt that is a matter which we will

:05:43. > :05:48.address in the next Parliament. I have always very strongly supported

:05:49. > :05:54.the idea that the crossbenchers should have an important presence

:05:55. > :05:58.and role in this House and traditionally the crossbenchers have

:05:59. > :06:03.been composed of people with great expertise of which the Noble Lord

:06:04. > :06:07.Kerslake is a notable example, but they have always known where to draw

:06:08. > :06:12.the line and respected the conventions of this House. I think

:06:13. > :06:17.we are in danger of crossing that line and I don't seek to argue

:06:18. > :06:22.whether Lord Kerslake's views are correct for the Minister's views are

:06:23. > :06:24.correct, what matters is that the other place has rejected this matter

:06:25. > :06:36.and claimed financial privilege. As my noble friend Lord True has

:06:37. > :06:40.pointed out, it is a matter for the elected house. We have always

:06:41. > :06:43.respected the view that we do not put forward motions in lieu with a

:06:44. > :06:49.had been rejected on the grounds of financial privilege in the past.

:06:50. > :06:52.This is what we are in danger of doing this afternoon. So I hope the

:06:53. > :06:59.noble Lord Lord Kerslake will show the same degree of sensitivity to

:07:00. > :07:05.his position on the crossbenchers as he did on the previous amendment. He

:07:06. > :07:07.did, and I supported him in some respects, although I regret the way

:07:08. > :07:14.in which the Government finally came to the right conclusion on some

:07:15. > :07:20.aspects, I have got a two-year, on some aspects of the trade union Bill

:07:21. > :07:24.-- I have a line here. He is in danger of taking like a member of

:07:25. > :07:31.the opposition, not a crossbench member, if the proceeds... If he

:07:32. > :07:36.proceeds to push this amendment against the conventions which are

:07:37. > :07:39.applied. The opposition may disagree. We know the liberal

:07:40. > :07:43.position. They have made it clear from the start that having lost

:07:44. > :07:46.their democratic position on the other play, they wish to raise their

:07:47. > :07:51.standard here. I say to members of the House to think carefully. This

:07:52. > :07:57.house has a great and important role which will be undermined if we

:07:58. > :08:01.behave in a way which causes extreme irritation to the other place who,

:08:02. > :08:06.after all, have been elected to do a job on manifesto commitments, with

:08:07. > :08:11.which we are concerned today. I give way. I am grateful to my noble

:08:12. > :08:17.friend. I just wanted to say that I think the argument is stronger than

:08:18. > :08:20.you put in relation to financial arrangements, financial privilege

:08:21. > :08:29.being claimed as the reason. Because that has happened twice. The second

:08:30. > :08:33.time, last Wednesday, lured kid -- Lord Kerslake believed the amendment

:08:34. > :08:40.would not provoke financial privilege but it did. I think in

:08:41. > :08:47.that sense, the House has adversely sent -- inadvertently sent an image

:08:48. > :08:50.in the back once in contradiction of the badger privilege argument and to

:08:51. > :08:56.do that twice seems a serious breach of convention. My noble friend is

:08:57. > :09:01.absolutely right, as he knows I always thought my punches, but he is

:09:02. > :09:05.right to invite me to make my case strongly. When I intervened earlier

:09:06. > :09:10.and asked Lord Kerslake if he would deal with the issue of financial

:09:11. > :09:12.privilege he said that, in his opinion, his amendment didn't breach

:09:13. > :09:17.that but that is what he said the last time. The House of Commons took

:09:18. > :09:23.a different view. I hope very much, having made his argument, and my

:09:24. > :09:26.noble friend the Minister who has shown enormous patience throughout

:09:27. > :09:30.the passage of this bill, along with the rest of us who have been here to

:09:31. > :09:36.support her with the division lobbies, I hope the noble Lord will

:09:37. > :09:41.accept as my noble friend Lord Cormack said, he has taken this

:09:42. > :09:43.matter as far as he can and it is a matter for the elected Government

:09:44. > :09:50.and for the House of Commons to take things forward. My Lords, last night

:09:51. > :09:53.the Commons spent all of 52 minutes debating the amendment is passed by

:09:54. > :09:58.your logic's house. In the course of the debate, Brandon Lewis asserted

:09:59. > :10:03.that this house had, I called, jewels and once again to oppose one

:10:04. > :10:08.of the Government's most important manifesto commitments, namely the

:10:09. > :10:12.commitment to ensure more homes are built, homes we need and that young

:10:13. > :10:15.people are crying out for. To borrow a phrase from a somewhat more famous

:10:16. > :10:24.Conservative, Winston Churchill, that is a gemological in exactitude.

:10:25. > :10:27.It is perhaps less personal in the opinion of a Conservative

:10:28. > :10:32.backbencher that the manifesto commitment was struck down and

:10:33. > :10:36.circumscribed by those unelected in the House of Lords. I declare my

:10:37. > :10:39.interest, and perhaps other of your Lordships do as well. The

:10:40. > :10:47.Conservative manifesto commitment was to build 275,000 affordable

:10:48. > :10:54.homes by 2020. All off, my words not theirs, 10,000 homes to rent at

:10:55. > :10:58.below market rents. Nothing in the amendment moved by the noble Lord

:10:59. > :11:02.Kerslake conflict with the manifesto commitment to build more homes. Part

:11:03. > :11:08.of the problem lies in the repeated use of the adjective affordable. And

:11:09. > :11:12.the field of the bill and ministers to define the term other than in

:11:13. > :11:19.relation to starter homes, where the examples of affordability reach up

:11:20. > :11:23.to ?450,000 for starter homes, those are recognised as unrealistic. The

:11:24. > :11:26.particular difficulty is the evident and extreme reluctance of the

:11:27. > :11:30.Government to acknowledge the need for affordable housing which

:11:31. > :11:37.essentially means social housing for rent. Beyond identifying the massive

:11:38. > :11:44.programme of 2000 houses a year at below market rents. That is for the

:11:45. > :11:47.next five years. My Lords, the Government reports to address this

:11:48. > :11:52.issue by the provisions of the bill which allowed but do not require the

:11:53. > :11:56.Secretary of State to enter into agreements with councils to reduce

:11:57. > :12:01.the amounts they would have to pay to the Secretary of State,

:12:02. > :12:04.principally to fund the right to buy of housing association tenants was

:12:05. > :12:12.not theirs to requirement to do so beyond the need in London, under an

:12:13. > :12:17.agreement, for two to one replacement and one-for-one

:12:18. > :12:21.elsewhere. There is nowhere that says like-for-like tenure, only that

:12:22. > :12:26.replacement should be affordable. As we have had at some length over the

:12:27. > :12:30.course of this passage of this bill, the Government is unable to produce

:12:31. > :12:34.figures defining the meaning of high-value or the number of

:12:35. > :12:38.properties affected, locally or nationally, or the likely rate of

:12:39. > :12:44.vacancies, or the costs of administering the scheme, or the

:12:45. > :12:47.amounts they will judge to require councils to pay upfront annually,

:12:48. > :12:54.says the bill envisages such payment will be required whether or not

:12:55. > :13:03.sales are affected. To misquote Karl Marx, -- Groucho Marx, not,, a child

:13:04. > :13:06.of five good -- could understand this policy, bring me a child of

:13:07. > :13:13.five. Perhaps in these days, a Government adviser. It is that there

:13:14. > :13:16.are 60 million pieces of paper relevant to this issue and they are

:13:17. > :13:20.unable to make any assessments. In which case, the answer is not to

:13:21. > :13:26.legislate before any real assessment of the impact is made and not to

:13:27. > :13:29.rely on an amendable secondary registration to ram through

:13:30. > :13:34.controversial and untested policy six-pack legislation. Which brings

:13:35. > :13:38.me to the claim that financial privilege prevented us from ending

:13:39. > :13:41.the bill. The Government has accepted some amendments with

:13:42. > :13:45.possible financial consequences but the point is financial privilege is

:13:46. > :13:49.not some god giving formula by which this house is prevented from

:13:50. > :13:53.amending legislation. We are not in the Moses room with tablets in

:13:54. > :13:58.legislative stone. Governments can chose not to invoke or apply the

:13:59. > :14:05.national privilege and we are entitled to invite them to do so. In

:14:06. > :14:09.any case, as Lord Kerslake suggested, his amendment is do not

:14:10. > :14:13.reach financial privilege. The amendment moved by the noble Lord is

:14:14. > :14:19.a modest one. It seeks that, think I kill it in the financial adjustments

:14:20. > :14:22.to be made on the forced sale of high-value properties -- calculating

:14:23. > :14:28.-- council should be able to provide sufficient money for those two for

:14:29. > :14:36.one replacement in London and one-for-one elsewhere. The Secretary

:14:37. > :14:39.of State should... To admit that replacement for social housing for

:14:40. > :14:46.rent with a can demonstrate need. It is not carte blanche, it is a matter

:14:47. > :14:49.for the Minister to agree. It is the least they could reasonably be asked

:14:50. > :14:53.for. It is consistent with the manifesto pledge to build more homes

:14:54. > :14:59.and deserves the support of the House and indeed of the comments. In

:15:00. > :15:02.no way does it override a manifesto commitment and, if the noble Lord

:15:03. > :15:09.advise the host asked the Commons to think again, the opposition will

:15:10. > :15:14.support it. My Lords, could I thank all noble Lords who have spoken so

:15:15. > :15:20.eloquently on this particular moment. And particularly to my noble

:15:21. > :15:25.friends who are such constitutional experts, more so than I am but

:15:26. > :15:34.Forsyth, Lord True, and Lord Cormack. Lord, asked initially about

:15:35. > :15:39.the regulars is working with noble Lords. I hope that whatever noble

:15:40. > :15:43.Lords think about this bill they will agree that I have taken the

:15:44. > :15:49.time, whenever needed, to engage with noble Lords from across the

:15:50. > :15:54.House to discuss any aspect of legislation or regulation is the

:15:55. > :16:01.might so wish. I fully intend to continue in that role. Amendment 47

:16:02. > :16:08.E proposed by Lord Kerslake in lieu of amendment 47 is not acceptable by

:16:09. > :16:11.the Government. It would require that, where the Secretary of State

:16:12. > :16:16.enters into an agreement, sufficient funding must be required to fund the

:16:17. > :16:22.cost of the new home. I hope the noble Lords will not misinterpret me

:16:23. > :16:25.when I say that the Government wants more housing to be built. I hope the

:16:26. > :16:32.noble Lord will recognise that the arguments of this house has

:16:33. > :16:36.recognised in this relation to last group, apply just as strongly now.

:16:37. > :16:41.My Lords, we have listened and I have reassured this has strongly on

:16:42. > :16:47.how flexible agreements will be. It is now time to stop undermining our

:16:48. > :16:53.ability to proceed and let us deliver our manifesto commitments.

:16:54. > :16:58.We support the involvement of local authorities in delivering new homes.

:16:59. > :17:02.We value the creative partnership that across the sector to increase

:17:03. > :17:05.housing supply but additional homes should not be funded simply through

:17:06. > :17:09.retained payments from the sale of high-value vacant housing. And we

:17:10. > :17:15.have discussed that at length throughout the course of this bill.

:17:16. > :17:18.They should be opportunities for local authorities to contribute

:17:19. > :17:22.their land or assets or funding and to work in partnership with other

:17:23. > :17:27.providers in their area to build homes. My Lords, we also want to

:17:28. > :17:29.ensure that value for money is secured and ensure the homes are

:17:30. > :17:37.delivered as cost effectively as possible. In placing expectations on

:17:38. > :17:42.receives, this would prevent the Government from bottling its

:17:43. > :17:46.manifesto commitment because it would significantly reduce the

:17:47. > :17:51.funding available for the voluntary right to buy -- receipts. Since the

:17:52. > :17:54.demo last year, 29,000 Association Delyn Mac housing association

:17:55. > :17:57.tenants had been asked to keep up-to-date with the right to buy

:17:58. > :18:02.scheme the arrow website and it is not right we should the deny those

:18:03. > :18:13.tenants their dream of home ownership. Lord Beauchamp talked

:18:14. > :18:23.about the numbers. Let us reflect back to the Conservative lead

:18:24. > :18:27.coalition being the first Government to end with more affordable homes

:18:28. > :18:34.and we started with. Labour oversaw the loss of 240,000. This is about

:18:35. > :18:40.our manifesto commitment to extend the right to buy. Lord Beauchamp and

:18:41. > :18:45.talked about financial treatment that the Government looks to be low,

:18:46. > :18:50.that is not true. It is a matter for the Commons Speaker on advice of the

:18:51. > :18:55.Commons clerks. It is not a political decision. I don't know a

:18:56. > :19:00.lot about the constitution but I do know that, my Lords. The noble Lord

:19:01. > :19:08.Lord Kerslake talked about increased homelessness. A key part of this

:19:09. > :19:13.policy is to release the value locked up and vacant higher value

:19:14. > :19:16.assets in order to build more homes. We are committed to supporting the

:19:17. > :19:23.most vulnerable in our society to have a decent place to live. Since

:19:24. > :19:30.2010, we have invested over ?500 million to help local authorities

:19:31. > :19:32.prevent nearly 1 million people, nearly 1 million households, from

:19:33. > :19:36.becoming homeless. Time spent in temporary accommodation in sure is

:19:37. > :19:41.no family is without a roof over their heads. We have made common

:19:42. > :19:43.sense changes to the law to allow local authorities to offer

:19:44. > :19:48.accommodation in good quality private sector accommodation and

:19:49. > :19:52.households leaving debris accommodation now spent on average

:19:53. > :19:58.less time in to break on the chin than they did in 2010. Lord

:19:59. > :20:05.Cipollini asked why we were not agreeing to Lord Kerslake's and them

:20:06. > :20:10.and to enable homes to be built on a like-for-like basis. Our manifesto

:20:11. > :20:14.made it clear we wanted to increase home ownership and drive up the

:20:15. > :20:17.supply of new ones. The receipts from the sale of high-value assets

:20:18. > :20:23.will enable us to deliver both of these commitments. The receipt will

:20:24. > :20:27.be used to give up to 1.3 million housing association tenants the

:20:28. > :20:29.right to the same level of right to buy discounts that has been enjoyed

:20:30. > :20:36.by local authority tenants for decades. But, this is equally

:20:37. > :20:40.important, it will provide receipts that local authorities that enter

:20:41. > :20:43.into agreement with us will use to provide affordable homes. Where they

:20:44. > :20:47.choose not to, and some will choose not to, the money will be returned

:20:48. > :20:51.to Government to provide additional homes. As I have previously

:20:52. > :20:56.explained, the discount from right to buy will contribute to the

:20:57. > :21:00.funding the housing association will use to provide an additional home

:21:01. > :21:07.for the one that has been sold, and additional two homes in London. Lord

:21:08. > :21:12.Shipley also suggested the policy will result in fewer social rented

:21:13. > :21:19.homes. My Lords, I will say this again, we have a national housing

:21:20. > :21:21.crisis. We need more homes across different ten years and across the

:21:22. > :21:27.country. At the heart of this policy is the building of more homes funded

:21:28. > :21:35.by part of the receipts from the sale of high-value council housing.

:21:36. > :21:39.The Secretary of State and local authority can enter an agreement

:21:40. > :21:43.with the local authority to retained part of its receipts to the deep

:21:44. > :21:46.lead the delivery of more homes that meet housing need. In the case of

:21:47. > :21:52.London where we know there is an acute housing crisis, this must

:21:53. > :21:55.result in the delivery of at least two more affordable homes for each

:21:56. > :22:02.value a vacant dwellings that is taken into account under the

:22:03. > :22:06.determination. My Lords, I urge your Lordships' House to respect the will

:22:07. > :22:10.of the other place recognising that this is a manifesto commitment and

:22:11. > :22:14.that is the Commons have offered a financial privilege reason for

:22:15. > :22:18.rejecting our amendments, we should be wary of proposing an alternative

:22:19. > :22:23.which would invite the same response. I therefore urge Noble

:22:24. > :22:34.Lord is to accept the Commons reason and not support amendment 47 it. May

:22:35. > :22:37.I thank my Noble Lord is for their contributions during this debate and

:22:38. > :22:44.I have listened most intently to all of them. One of the things I have

:22:45. > :22:49.discovered is a crossbenchers is that too put it bluntly you are on

:22:50. > :22:54.your own. You have to make your own judgments based on the argument and

:22:55. > :23:01.listen to them very carefully. Let me explain my underpinning dilemma.

:23:02. > :23:06.We have two manifesto commitments. Once the Noble Lord Shipley spoke

:23:07. > :23:10.about which is the commitment to fund the placement of a property

:23:11. > :23:14.sold, the other with the Minister alluded to, the manifesto commitment

:23:15. > :23:21.to fund the extension of right to buy. As we all sit here now, we do

:23:22. > :23:26.not know whether those two commitments stand together. We do

:23:27. > :23:29.not know that. Quite extraordinarily, in the whole

:23:30. > :23:34.passage of this Bill we have still not been able to answer that

:23:35. > :23:40.question. This leaves us with a real dilemma and I should say before this

:23:41. > :23:45.I was an accountant. I wouldn't complain me as an accountant now but

:23:46. > :23:51.that is what my pastels. -- employee. I like to see the numbers

:23:52. > :23:57.adding up. We are faced with a real dilemma in this situation about a

:23:58. > :24:01.proposal that simply doesn't enable two contradictory things do happen.

:24:02. > :24:08.The judgment we had to make is where do we place positioning of the

:24:09. > :24:12.amendment in relation to that? A very strong views and remains my

:24:13. > :24:16.very strong view is that what I have put forward here simply seeks to say

:24:17. > :24:23.that if you reach an agreement on one of her one replacement, not

:24:24. > :24:27.like-for-like, it is not an unreasonable thing to say that the

:24:28. > :24:30.funding should be there. I am perfectly comfortable with a range

:24:31. > :24:35.of funding being brought in to do more, but at eight for a level it

:24:36. > :24:42.should do what it says on the tin, -- court level. The second part

:24:43. > :24:46.simply says the consideration to social rented housing. It is hard to

:24:47. > :24:51.see how anyone could see that as objectionable in any part of this

:24:52. > :24:57.House with the other place. So, having agonised and listen through

:24:58. > :25:00.this debate very, very carefully, I have very reluctantly concluded that

:25:01. > :25:06.I would to test the opinion of the House on this issue. The question is

:25:07. > :25:13.that amendment B-1 B agreed to. As many of that opinion will save

:25:14. > :25:15."content". The country" not content". I think the" not content"s

:25:16. > :28:34.a lift. Clearly bar. -- have it. My lords. The question is that

:28:35. > :28:40.amendment B1 B agreed to, as many are of that opinion will say

:28:41. > :34:02."content". The contrary "not content".

:34:03. > :34:12.My Lords. The question is that the question B1 B agreed to. -- B agreed

:34:13. > :40:19.to. My Lords, they have voted.

:40:20. > :40:25."Contents" 256, "not contents" 245. Therefore the "contents" had it. --

:40:26. > :40:43.have it. Mushin C, Baroness Williams? My

:40:44. > :40:47.Lords, I beg to move motion see that this house do not insist on this

:40:48. > :40:53.disagreement with the comment on and them and 907A, in lieu of Lords and

:40:54. > :40:58.97, and do not insist on Emmett of 97p in lieu of the Lords amendment

:40:59. > :41:03.to which the Commons have disagreed for a reason 97 C. My Lords, the

:41:04. > :41:06.Government places community that heart of the planning system. We

:41:07. > :41:11.have gone further than ever before in giving communities the power to

:41:12. > :41:15.develop neighbourhood plans that set the planning policies for their

:41:16. > :41:19.area. The strength of feeling on the issue of a neighbourhood right to

:41:20. > :41:25.appeal in this house was made very clear. However, with over 150

:41:26. > :41:29.adopted neighbourhood plans in England's and over 7000 more at

:41:30. > :41:32.various stages of completion, the introduction of a right of appeal

:41:33. > :41:37.could have far-reaching consequences. As I have reiterated

:41:38. > :41:41.in these debates, we believe a third party right of appeal would add

:41:42. > :41:46.complexity to the planning system and slow down housing delivery. We

:41:47. > :41:49.trust communities to shape future development through neighbourhood

:41:50. > :41:53.plans, we trust local planning authorities to take decisions for

:41:54. > :41:57.sustainable development and to listen to their communities. We

:41:58. > :42:01.cannot maintain a balance planning system if every decision to approve

:42:02. > :42:07.a sustainable development is open for a lengthy and costly appeal. The

:42:08. > :42:11.other place, the elected house, did not accept the Lords on Emmett

:42:12. > :42:14.neighbourhood appeal, they have rejected it twice about even a

:42:15. > :42:19.vault. That is not the time to be pushing any further, my Lords. --

:42:20. > :42:24.Karen MacGregor. I hope I can reassure you that you have been

:42:25. > :42:31.heard. The Minister has been given an undertaking that he will look

:42:32. > :42:34.into this matter further. I am disappointed the lordships house did

:42:35. > :42:40.not previously support the Government's on Emmett in lieu,

:42:41. > :42:44.which would have giving a clear expiration of why the authority can

:42:45. > :42:48.justify recommending a decision that would conflict with the

:42:49. > :42:51.neighbourhood plan. However, we have the opportunity to return to this

:42:52. > :42:56.matter again now. The Government's amendment in lieu would require

:42:57. > :43:00.local planning authorities to set out, in any reports to a planning

:43:01. > :43:02.committee, that recommends granting planning permission, how any

:43:03. > :43:07.neighbourhood plan has been considered. They will also be

:43:08. > :43:08.required to identify in the report any conflict between the

:43:09. > :43:14.recommendation and the neighbourhood plan. This will ensure the planning

:43:15. > :43:18.committee cannot fail to appreciate how the development accords with the

:43:19. > :43:25.neighbourhood plan and provides communities with the opportunity to

:43:26. > :43:30.raise any further concerns to speak directly with their local

:43:31. > :43:34.councillors or a tent and request to speak at the planning committee. It

:43:35. > :43:40.also draws attention to the issues of conflict in the case of the

:43:41. > :43:46.community wishes to request a call in by the Secretary of State. Let me

:43:47. > :43:52.be clear, communities can request that these be requested for Colin

:43:53. > :43:55.before a decision is issued. This added level of transparency will

:43:56. > :43:58.ensure that local planning authorities will be clear how they

:43:59. > :44:04.have balanced the neighbourhood plan against other concerns they are

:44:05. > :44:07.required to take into account. This amendment is a proportionate and

:44:08. > :44:09.appropriate response to ensuring neighbourhood plans are given the

:44:10. > :44:17.respect and consideration that they deserve. My Lords, I beg to move.

:44:18. > :44:27.The question is motion CB agreed we, and M one. With like to move on

:44:28. > :44:29.M one as an amendment motion see and to instead that it insists on

:44:30. > :44:38.the disagreement with the Commons and the amendment 907A, do not

:44:39. > :44:44.settle 97p, and oppose 97 BMW of 907A. The Lords, I well, the

:44:45. > :44:48.comments last wake the black night by the Minister in the other place

:44:49. > :44:53.where you said that he intends to work with colleagues to ensure that

:44:54. > :44:57.neighbourhood plans enjoyed the privacy we intend them to have in

:44:58. > :45:02.planning the law. I wholeheartedly endorse and welcomer commitment.

:45:03. > :45:09.However, I have prepared what I believe to be a significant

:45:10. > :45:15.compromise on the proposal that was agreed by this house at our last

:45:16. > :45:21.debate as a means to do just that. Our previous amendment included a

:45:22. > :45:28.right of appeal, a limited right of appeal, but a light to the Mac right

:45:29. > :45:30.of appeal nevertheless. I understand the governments that as a third

:45:31. > :45:35.party right of appeal, which they did not wish to agree to. Therefore

:45:36. > :45:41.the MMM before you lordships today does not push a third party right of

:45:42. > :45:45.appeal. -- the amendment. It proposes the rates to be heard. The

:45:46. > :45:49.proposals make it clear that local authorities should have special

:45:50. > :45:52.regard to the policies in neighbourhood plans. It proposes

:45:53. > :45:58.planning authorities must consult with neighbourhood plans and take

:45:59. > :46:04.account of their views before decisions are taken. And, crucially,

:46:05. > :46:15.it provides for a call and decision. I heard what the noble Baroness said

:46:16. > :46:18.about Colin the Mac. -- call-ins. If the neighbourhood planning group

:46:19. > :46:23.wish to take out a call-in before a local authority makes a decision.

:46:24. > :46:27.Crucially, they do not have that right once local authorities have

:46:28. > :46:32.refused an application which is contrary to that within a

:46:33. > :46:37.neighbourhood plan. That, to me, is a major barrier to encouraging more

:46:38. > :46:43.local groups to get involved in neighbourhood planning. That is what

:46:44. > :46:47.this house and this current has said on many occasions, that we want to

:46:48. > :46:50.achieve -- this Government -- because we know the neighbourhood

:46:51. > :46:54.plans to deliver more homes. This bill needs to do all it can to

:46:55. > :46:57.ensure local people invest the time and the effort in putting together a

:46:58. > :47:04.neighbourhood plans so that we get the housing we need. Through

:47:05. > :47:07.consensus. Giving this extra weight to the neighbourhood plans by

:47:08. > :47:14.allowing for this right to be heard, not the right of appeal, will mean

:47:15. > :47:18.their plans will not be ignored or easily overturned. That seems a key

:47:19. > :47:21.to encouraging more neighbourhood plans to come into being, which is

:47:22. > :47:25.what the Government and all the noble peers have made it quite clear

:47:26. > :47:32.we want to achieve. This is a compromise amendment and therefore,

:47:33. > :47:37.on that basis, I beg to move. The original question was motion CB

:47:38. > :47:41.agreed to. In them and see one has been moved to set out on the revised

:47:42. > :47:51.martial list. The question is that amendment is the one they agreed to.

:47:52. > :47:56.My Lords, can I refer to my declarations of interest and it

:47:57. > :47:59.clear I am a locally elected councillor in the London Borough of

:48:00. > :48:04.Lewisham. We have discussed the right of appeal on an abrupt

:48:05. > :48:12.occasions and I was convinced of the limited right of appeal. I was

:48:13. > :48:16.convinced it was the right approach. But despite that and numerous

:48:17. > :48:19.discussions, the Government have not been persuaded it is the way

:48:20. > :48:26.forward. That is disappointing. The Government amendment does make some

:48:27. > :48:34.moves in the right direction. As the noble lady told the House from the

:48:35. > :48:38.4th of May, they set out in what you would expect any good buying

:48:39. > :48:42.authority officer would be doing anyway. I am under no illusion that

:48:43. > :48:46.what is before us from the Government is not particularly

:48:47. > :48:53.significant concession. That is disappointing and we should be going

:48:54. > :48:58.further. I generally think, I often reflect back on the localism act. It

:48:59. > :49:10.appears to me the Government benches are less keen on local -- localism.

:49:11. > :49:17.If they don't like it, we want to do as you say. It is a bit of a haughty

:49:18. > :49:22.corgi, localism, I feel from the Government benches. That is

:49:23. > :49:25.disappointing. I think the local Italy might noble lady has given the

:49:26. > :49:33.possibility move your have a good news for the Minister. My Lords, I

:49:34. > :49:37.think the noble lady for her amendment and the way she had worked

:49:38. > :49:43.with me throughout the course of this bill. Perhaps she might think

:49:44. > :49:50.not a very great effect but we have had extensive debates regarding the

:49:51. > :49:54.neighbourhood right to appeal and I am pleased we are able to return to

:49:55. > :49:57.this in a constructive manner. We agree on the importance of

:49:58. > :50:01.neighbourhood plans and we wish to see the planning system working

:50:02. > :50:05.without unnecessary costs and delays. We wish to see the planning

:50:06. > :50:09.system deliver sustainable development and the homes our

:50:10. > :50:14.communities need. I very much welcome the direction of travel of

:50:15. > :50:19.the amendment focused on the call-in process, now is not that time to

:50:20. > :50:23.pursue the matter. This issue was not part of the original bill and

:50:24. > :50:28.the other place have made clear of the approval of the Government's

:50:29. > :50:32.amendment in lieu. The Minister for planning and housing has made it

:50:33. > :50:35.very clear he is willing to work with colleagues to return to this

:50:36. > :50:40.issue in due course and I would hope that this is as encouraging to noble

:50:41. > :50:45.Lord as it was to certain members of the other place, particularly to

:50:46. > :50:49.organisations such as CPRE, who have lobbied on this matter. My Lords,

:50:50. > :50:54.although the Government cannot support this amendment, I do

:50:55. > :50:57.understand the advantage of an approach that is based on the

:50:58. > :51:02.existing ayes system and the constructive manner -- call-in

:51:03. > :51:08.system and deconstructed manner in which it was laid. I hope this

:51:09. > :51:14.provides reassurance to the noble lady for her to withdraw her

:51:15. > :51:19.amendment. Can I thank the Minister for those remarks? I am obviously

:51:20. > :51:22.disappointed that, at this late stage, after she knows so many

:51:23. > :51:25.compromises that have been brought forward from this side on this

:51:26. > :51:31.issue, that the Government do not feel able to accept something that

:51:32. > :51:34.will, as I say, deliver what I think the Government wants to achieve.

:51:35. > :51:38.More homes because will bring about more neighbourhood planning. I thank

:51:39. > :51:45.the noble Lord Kennedy for his comments and share his reflections

:51:46. > :51:49.that localism sometimes doesn't always mean what we would wish it to

:51:50. > :51:55.mean on the Government benches. On these benches, we trust local

:51:56. > :51:58.people, we want them to get engaged in the process and we think that is

:51:59. > :52:03.the way to do it with more homes and stable communities of the future.

:52:04. > :52:09.I accept there is more than one way to achieve what we want to achieve

:52:10. > :52:13.and then withdrawing this amendment I would say aye hope you Minister's

:52:14. > :52:19.comment yesterday about working with colleagues applied to not only

:52:20. > :52:22.colleagues in the other place but also colleagues in this House that

:52:23. > :52:26.you're strongly that local communities need to be involved and

:52:27. > :52:37.that would help us to deliver the sustainable homes that we need.

:52:38. > :52:50.The amendment is withdrawn. The question is that motion C B agreed

:52:51. > :53:00.to, as many as agreed say "content". The majority -- the country say "not

:53:01. > :53:10.content". I beg to move that they agree with their Commons in the

:53:11. > :53:15.amendment and 108 C in lieu. The review of minimum energy performance

:53:16. > :53:19.standards in England. It should be noted there was very strong support

:53:20. > :53:25.in the other place with this new amendment with a vote of 292 in

:53:26. > :53:32.favour of rejection compared to 205 against. We share a common goal of

:53:33. > :53:37.wanting new homes to be energy efficient and further arguments to

:53:38. > :53:41.have low energy bills. That is why in the last parliament we introduced

:53:42. > :53:48.tough but fair minimum standards that require home-builders to

:53:49. > :53:58.deliver highly efficient -- high-energy homes. We have said

:53:59. > :54:02.throughout the various debates that putting a minimum energy performance

:54:03. > :54:07.for new homes in legislation without the benefit of any evidence that it

:54:08. > :54:11.will work or consultation has the potential to push some small

:54:12. > :54:17.builders out of the industry and make developing much more needed

:54:18. > :54:20.homes in areas on viable. The home builders Federation, the voice of

:54:21. > :54:25.the industry, completely agree with us about these concerns and they

:54:26. > :54:32.said of amendment 108 that such a standard would the complexity of

:54:33. > :54:37.costs for all size of home-builders but it small home-builders hard.

:54:38. > :54:40.They draw attention to the specific challenges that are entailed in

:54:41. > :54:46.delivering performance standards such as the carbon compliance

:54:47. > :54:50.standard successfully at scale and the consequent risks to housing

:54:51. > :54:54.supply of not getting the answers right. But we recognise that the

:54:55. > :54:58.costs of energy efficiency measures and the industry's understanding of

:54:59. > :55:04.them can improve over time. That is why we are proposing to place a

:55:05. > :55:08.statutory duty on this government to undertake a review of energy

:55:09. > :55:12.standards for new homes. It will seek evidence on the costs of energy

:55:13. > :55:16.measures and the impact on housing supply and the benefits in terms of

:55:17. > :55:23.fuel bills and carbon savings. It will identify what is cost-effective

:55:24. > :55:27.and feasible. The HBF also fully endorse such a review and say that

:55:28. > :55:32.given a wide range of technical and other challenges involved in this

:55:33. > :55:37.field, the risks to businesses and housing delivery and further changes

:55:38. > :55:42.to regularity -- regulatory requirements, such a review would

:55:43. > :55:46.provide the opportunity for all relevant issues and considerations

:55:47. > :55:49.to be properly weighed into determining the way the head. It is

:55:50. > :55:53.essential that such issues are fully addressed. Prescribing an energy

:55:54. > :55:59.performance standard without up-to-date evidence and analysis

:56:00. > :56:04.risks slowing down or halting much-needed new homes and driving

:56:05. > :56:09.small home-builders away from the industry. We shouldn't take such a

:56:10. > :56:21.risk with homes and businesses and I beg to move. The question is that

:56:22. > :56:25.motion D B agreed to. Amendment D1. To leave out from an hundred and

:56:26. > :56:32.eight to the end, to disagree with the Commons in their amendment 108 C

:56:33. > :56:37.and proposed amendment one await the in lieu. We return to the issue that

:56:38. > :56:44.building the homes we need spotted sharing that we meet fully the

:56:45. > :56:48.emission of greenhouse gas reduction targets and lowering fuel bills. I

:56:49. > :56:53.am disappointed to see that the Government and other place did not

:56:54. > :56:58.feel able to accept the amendment that we proposed and that in lieu

:56:59. > :57:05.the Government are proposing a view. I would remind nobles that the zero

:57:06. > :57:10.carbon homes standards were agreed during the time of the coalition

:57:11. > :57:15.with industrywide support, so again we ask why is there a need for a

:57:16. > :57:23.review. As Lord Krebs so powerfully said last week, how many more homes

:57:24. > :57:26.are going to have to be built before this review and the implementation

:57:27. > :57:32.date if any action comes forward from that review takes place? Given

:57:33. > :57:38.that we are looking to build a million new homes, how many more of

:57:39. > :57:40.those homes are going to have to be retrofitted at great cost to

:57:41. > :57:45.individual homeowners because we have put on this requirement for a

:57:46. > :57:51.review when we know what we need to do now. There is no guarantee of

:57:52. > :57:56.action at the end proposed by the Government for this review. Indeed

:57:57. > :58:02.the Government are anyway obliged to review the building regulations by

:58:03. > :58:07.June of next year as a condition of the 2010 energy performance of

:58:08. > :58:12.buildings directive. Finally on the particular point, given that it was

:58:13. > :58:16.the Government and the Chancellor who scrapped the zero carbon homes

:58:17. > :58:20.last year, and the Government throughout the process of this

:58:21. > :58:26.debate have refused to engage on anything other than the viability

:58:27. > :58:32.issues around the house-building industry and gained a minister to

:58:33. > :58:36.quote only from the house-building industry, this evening, I think it

:58:37. > :58:41.gives this House little confidence that the review will look equally at

:58:42. > :58:44.they need alongside viability for house-builders to ensure that we

:58:45. > :58:50.meet our greenhouse gas emission targets and that we lower the energy

:58:51. > :58:56.bills are people so that we contribute to meeting our fuel

:58:57. > :59:00.poverty targets. Now, given that a third of Lord Grade has gas

:59:01. > :59:06.emissions come in this country come from buildings and two thirds come

:59:07. > :59:10.from homes, my intention is to beat -- too important to lead to a review

:59:11. > :59:14.but I accept at this late stage there is a need for compromise and

:59:15. > :59:20.that is again what I have done today. The amendment before you is a

:59:21. > :59:26.compromise. Of that stage we were proposing this carbon standards of

:59:27. > :59:35.60% for a detached properties, 56% of attached properties and 44% for

:59:36. > :59:41.floods. This comprises, it would set it on the basis of comparison with

:59:42. > :59:46.the building regulations in 2016. The level which the Government

:59:47. > :59:48.recommended during its time in coalition as the on-site zero carbon

:59:49. > :59:54.standards which would take effect from this year. It is double

:59:55. > :59:59.standards that are growing numbers of local authorities were setting is

:00:00. > :00:01.a condition of given planning permission up until they were

:00:02. > :00:07.scrapped by the Secretary of State Eric Pickles last year. I wish to

:00:08. > :00:13.point out to the House that between 27 and 2014, 17,000 homes in England

:00:14. > :00:20.and Wales had been built to the standard. -- 2007. In Scotland they

:00:21. > :00:25.have introduced the standard last October and the volume of houses to

:00:26. > :00:28.the standard are growing. I would content therefore that the standard

:00:29. > :00:35.is proven to be both effective and achievable. As I told the Minister,

:00:36. > :00:39.I trawled through the Conservative manifesto this morning to study

:00:40. > :00:45.exactly what their commitments were in regard to this area. In the

:00:46. > :00:49.Conservative manifesto they made it quite clear that they made a content

:00:50. > :00:54.and to the legally binding climate change commitments and made a

:00:55. > :01:00.commitment to tackling fuel poverty. They made no commitment about

:01:01. > :01:04.rolling back on building standards. Whereas they made a very clear

:01:05. > :01:13.commitment, some of us may not like it, to offer no public subsidy to

:01:14. > :01:15.wind farms. It was in their manifesto and therefore this House

:01:16. > :01:18.can understand that but they made no commitments on the issue of going

:01:19. > :01:22.back on building standards yet they made a commitment to deliver on the

:01:23. > :01:26.greenhouse gas targets and to tackle fuel poverty. Throughout this debate

:01:27. > :01:31.we have challenged endlessly from all sides of this House with the

:01:32. > :01:34.Government to make it quite clear they are intending to meet their

:01:35. > :01:39.greenhouse gas targets, if they are not prepared to accept an amendment,

:01:40. > :01:44.-- accepts this amendment, how are they going to meet these targets?

:01:45. > :01:48.This gives us the opportunity to provide us with the sustainable home

:01:49. > :01:55.we need. This will put us back on track on the red trajectory to get

:01:56. > :02:00.more zero carbon homes. This will help deliver our greenhouse gas

:02:01. > :02:05.targets and will help ensure that fuel bills are lower and at the same

:02:06. > :02:11.time deliver what we need. I beg to move. The original question was that

:02:12. > :02:16.motion deed was agreed to, since then D1 has been moved. The question

:02:17. > :02:26.therefore is that amendment D1 B agreed to. I wish to speak in

:02:27. > :02:29.support of the amendment and I'm very sorry the Government hasn't

:02:30. > :02:37.accepted the compromise that has been brought forward from the

:02:38. > :02:40.previous discussion on this. The Government's reason for rejecting

:02:41. > :02:44.the amendment and I quote by that would increase burdens on

:02:45. > :02:51.house-builders and threaten delivery of large number of new homes. But as

:02:52. > :02:57.she already pointed out, how then this be true if 79,000 homes have

:02:58. > :03:03.already been built to this standard? The Scottish Government has adopted

:03:04. > :03:06.this standard, it is lower than the standard adopted in London and it is

:03:07. > :03:09.already being adopted by an increasing number of local

:03:10. > :03:13.authorities in their local plans. All that evidence seems to pie in

:03:14. > :03:20.the face of the Government's objection and is filed at that this

:03:21. > :03:23.is a burden that the House building industry won't be able to cope with

:03:24. > :03:27.and that it would threaten the delivery of new homes. The evidence

:03:28. > :03:38.does not stack up -- does not stack up on that. We have offered instead

:03:39. > :03:41.a review. As Lady Parmenter said, the problem with a review, we have

:03:42. > :03:48.got the evidence anyway but if we do agree a review, we don't have a

:03:49. > :03:52.clear date for completing the review were a clear set of actions that

:03:53. > :04:02.will arise and it does not add to what is required under the energy

:04:03. > :04:05.performance directive. I hope that in response the Noble Baroness will

:04:06. > :04:09.give us some tighter commitments on the nature of this review that the

:04:10. > :04:13.Government is proposing. When will it be completed? Who will take part

:04:14. > :04:17.in it? What actions will flow and how does it go beyond what is

:04:18. > :04:24.required in the 2010 energy performance buildings directive?

:04:25. > :04:29.Finally, I want to reiterate -- I do not wish to reiterate the arguments

:04:30. > :04:33.before but we have not heard any arguments that says this is not the

:04:34. > :04:37.right thing to do. We know that it is the right thing to do to cut our

:04:38. > :04:42.greenhouse gas emissions and should help to resolve the issues of fuel

:04:43. > :04:45.poverty. All the arguments against it are obstacles that say it will be

:04:46. > :04:50.too difficult, the industry won't like it, it is all going to need

:04:51. > :04:54.more analysis, paralysis by analysis as we often hear. We know it is the

:04:55. > :04:58.right thing to do. We know if we don't do it now we will have to come

:04:59. > :05:01.back to those houses that are being built and retrofit them with

:05:02. > :05:09.improved carbon standards in the future. I feel that the Noble

:05:10. > :05:14.Baroness should give us as much hope is possible in her response that the

:05:15. > :05:17.Government is really committed to cutting our greenhouse gas emissions

:05:18. > :05:21.through buildings as well as other sources, but in this case through

:05:22. > :05:30.buildings, and that she will go further than simply offering yet

:05:31. > :05:35.another review. I bow to the zeal of the Noble Lord on these matters. I

:05:36. > :05:40.would only say to him that this is a Bill about housing and planning and